Weeks compared to Roberts, Hudson

[GormanHarvey]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41454137.html

 

This should make for some interesting discussion...

[endaround]

I think most people who realize that Weeks hit real well in 2007 realize those numbers. It just that few people realize Weeks hit well in 2007 and the second half of 2008.

[yount19.u]

The big kicker is his strikeouts. He's almost doubled up Roberts and Hudson. If he could just figure out a way to cut down on the K's by even 20%, imagine how much better his numbers would be after making that much more contact.

[joepepsi]

As an Orioles fan I never thought Roberts was much more than a useful average-ish pipsqueak 2B who'd had some injury issues. Through age 26 seasons, Weeks' career compares or even improves upon Roberts'. Then came 2005, the year after Tejada arrived with his "B-12" syringes. Suddenly Roberts was having an MVP caliber season. Since then he's settled down into a very good player.

 

I've noticed Hardy's offense numbers compare favorably with similarly aged Tejada.

 

While this is encouraging, it's a mistake to just assume Hardy and Weeks will have careers like Tejada and Roberts.

[Never Outhustled]

The big kicker is his strikeouts. He's almost doubled up Roberts and Hudson. If he could just figure out a way to cut down on the K's by even 20%, imagine how much better his numbers would be after making that much more contact.

True, but don't forget he got on base more than the guys he's compared to because he's willing to go deep into the count. Willingness to walk can increase the risk of strikeout. Hudson and Roberts had higher averages at the same age, but significantly lower OBAs because they were too concerned with the trivial stat that is K's.

[prophet]

i didn't look it up, so if i'm wrong i'm wrong. but don't the rbi stats look a little wacky? weeks can't possibly have 395, can he? that would be almost eighty a season unless my math is terrible.

[BrewCrewRising]

According to baseball-reference.com, Weeks has 158 lifetime RBI's. More than Roberts, but less than Hudson.

[azcheesehead]

Witrado is ridiculous. Not only the RBI, but no mention of defense at all. I would take either one of them in a HEARTBEAT over Weeks. Especially a 3x gold glove winner like Orlando Hudson. Not only is O a good player, but he is a pretty good clubhouse guy and he was very "Cameronesque" in the sense that he was always smiling and making everyone around him smile as well while with the Dbacks.

[theavrock]

Yeah its wrong. The RBI's should read 158. Not sure where they got that number from EDIT looks like someone beat me to it.

[endaround]

Of course Hudson was terrible defensively last year. That may just be due to his injury last year or his injury could have destroyed his ability. Weeks was just as valuable as Hudson last year.

[logan82]

The big kicker is his strikeouts. He's almost doubled up Roberts and Hudson. If he could just figure out a way to cut down on the K's by even 20%, imagine how much better his numbers would be after making that much more contact

 

How much would that affect his SLG though. If Weeks can keep up his career OBP, he should be fine.

[Ennder]

I don't think he was trying to say that Weeks is a better player, just that he catches too much grief. He is a better hitter than most 2B at his age, even if he isn't as good a hitter as we might have hoped. People just dwell on AVG and Ks which aren't really all that important in the big picture and ignore the good parts.

[pete]

I got the impression that Witrado was just relaying Melvin's view of Weeks.

[ILuvDaBush]

So Melvin believes Weeks has 395 RBIs? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif He must have started the Kool-Aid party early.

[Ennder]

Who cares how many RBI he has, its a mostly useless stat in the first place made even more useless as a leadoff hitter in the NL.

[Patrick425]

I don't think any amount of sabermetrics or new age stats will ever convince me that K's are not an important stat. When you have runners in scoring position, would you rather have a guy that will put the ball in play and hopefully either move the runner from 2nd to 3rd or score the runner from 3rd or would you rather have a guy up there that doesn't understand situational hitting and has a good chance of striking out and not moving the runners at all?

[Fatter than Joey]

Hudson and Roberts had higher averages at the same age, but significantly lower OBAs because they were too concerned with the trivial stat that is K's.

 

You have no idea if Hudson and Roberts OBP were lower because they were concerned about K'ing. K's are not trivial either -- I certainly agree Weeks gets too much grief for striking out, and not having a high BA -- but it certainly is worthwhile to investigate the rate he is striking out at and compare it to his history.

 

I don't think he was trying to say that Weeks is a better player, just that he catches too much grief.

 

My only problem with Melvin's message of comparing Weeks to Roberts and Hudson. Sticking with Weeks because of what Roberts or Hudson did a few years back makes no sense to me.

 

I'd rather Melvin say something that shows that they have faith in Weeks, rather than what other players did in unrelated situations.

[Never Outhustled]

I don't think any amount of sabermetrics or new age stats will ever convince me that K's are not an important stat. When you have runners in scoring position, would you rather have a guy that will put the ball in play and hopefully either move the runner from 2nd to 3rd or score the runner from 3rd or would you rather have a guy up there that doesn't understand situational hitting and has a good chance of striking out and not moving the runners at all?

How about a guy with a better chance of not making an out at all?

Its more common to have a double play with a runner on 1st than it is to advance a runner. The scenario you talk of isn't common enough to make a huge impact for a leadoff hitter. You have to realize, while Weeks is bad with RISP and Ks alot, he only Ks 50 more times than the next guy, and he doesn't hit 0 with RISP. The guys that put the ball in play softly occaisionally get that runner at 3rd thrown out at the plate.

The numbers are right. Every 100 Ks cost a team 1 run. Weeks doesn't K 100 times more than other 2B.

[Patrick425]

The scenario you talk of isn't common enough to make a huge impact for a leadoff hitter.

 

The numbers are right. Every 100 Ks cost a team 1 run. Weeks doesn't K 100 times more than other 2B.

I understand that Weeks is a lead off hitter. However, the argument that K's are not important are made in general about all hitters and I don't agree with that.

 

The comment about 100 K's = 1 run was probably "statistically proven" by someone who believes that baseball is played in a vacuum.

 

I can't believe there is anyone out there who watched the Brewers during the stretch run last year and can still tell me that K's are not important. When you see that a pitcher is having a hard time finding the strike zone, yet you have hitter after hitter going up to the plate and showing no discipline and hacking at the first pitch out of the pitcher's hand or you have a one run ball game in the late innings with runners on 2nd and 3rd and less than 2 outs and you have hitters hacking wildly at pitches instead of trying to slap the ball the other way there is no way you are going to convince me that K's are not important. Watching the Brewer complete lack of situational hitting skills last year drove me nuts towards the end of the year.

[TheCrew07]

I have to agree with Patrick here, 100 Ks is equal to one less run? Compared to what would be the question? Fly outs? Ground outs? All other types of outs? I could see 1 win... if a win is truly 10 runs... but 1 run? I would think whomever did that study had some faulty logic, anytime a runner is on 3rd with less than 2 out it potentially costs a run. With a runner on first I can see the argument, but with runners in scoring position the whole "K's don't matter" argument doesn't hold up to me because all situations are just not equal.

 

A hitter that would K 200 times in a season only costs his team 2 runs even though he fails to put the ball in play in 40 percent of his ABs?

[pete]

Its more common to have a double play with a runner on 1st than it is to advance a runner.

 

Is this true? Regardless, the comparison should be between K-ing and not K-ing which would include hits.

[Ennder]

I think you are misunderstanding the argument Patrick. Strike outs are bad because they are outs, but if you look at a players OBP, SLG, ISO, whatever other stat you like those things dwarf strike outs and AVG in importance. If every Brewer cut their strike out rate in half without losing any power it would help the team immensely. It would translate into higher OBP and higher SLG as they make fewer outs.

 

When people say 100 K = 1 Run they are comparing 100 K vs 100 Other outs = 1 Run, not 100 K vs 100 balls in play.

 

A .400 OBP, .400 SLG player who strikes out 20 times a year just isn't that much more valuable than a .400 OBP, .400 SLG player who strikes out 200 times. The difference is going to be miniscule. OBP and SLG already incorporate the most important part of stike outs into them, the fact that they are outs.

[TheCrew07]

Ennder, that's not really the issue though. I think pretty much everyone understands the value of a K in comparison to another out. However when we're talking situational baseball, as in a specific situation, then there is a certain set of data that's going to have to be tossed out. So where as it may correct to say that across baseball 100s K = 1 run, there are many situations where it just doesn't ring true. Just about any ball in play with a runner 3rd and less than 2 outs gives the offense a chance to score a run, where a strike out doesn't. Certainly pop ups and the rare line drive double play need to be factored in but it's not accurate to make a blanket statement about K's not mattering when it's the best possible outcome in that situation for the defense and least best for the offense.

 

There are plenty of situations where the K isn't the worst possible outcome, but in the case Patrick presented it's right up there.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think comparing teams' K/BB ratios are more important than just looking at how many times a team or player strikes out - in the NL last season, the teams with the best K/BB ratios were:

Braves/Mets - 1.65 K/BB each
Cardinals - 1.70 (probably entirely due to Pujols)
Cubs - 1.86
Dodgers/Phils - 1.90

The Braves are actually the outlier in this group, because the rest of them were playoff-caliber teams in the NL, with the Mets losing the WC to the Brewers on the season's last day and the Cardinals just overachieving to maximize their season in spite of having a crappy pitching staff.

These were the only NL teams with K/BB ratios under 2 - the Brewers were essentially tied with the Dbacks and Pirates with a ratio of 2.18. Only the Giants, Astros, and Padres had worse ratios in the NL.

In the AL, only the Royals had a lower K/BB ratio than the Brewers (2.56...absolutely atrocious with under 400 walks!). It's easily assumed that the AL ratios should be lower since they don't have the pitcher's spot in the order striking out at an absurd rate like NL teams do.

Reducing K without sacrificing power is a difficult thing to do. I think it would be far easier for the Brewers to increase their walk rate and improve their K/BB ratio - that would improve their offense significantly as well.

[Ennder]

Well yeah if you specifically look at the one situation where strike outs are at their worst it looks like they matter a lot, though in some of those situations a strike out is still better than some other outs. The point is those situations are a rarity and there are situations where a normal out is worse than a strike out. If you look at a full season of data strike outs are not a big deal compared to any other out.

 

The reason strike outs are bad is because they are outs, it has very little to do with what type of outs they are and a lot to do with outs being a bad result.

 

The Brewers approach at the plate is bad in general, I don't disagree with that. Its frustrating to see a pitcher struggle with his command and then Hart comes up and swings at the first pitch weakly grounding out. Strike outs are just a part of that bad approach. Improving the approach would increase our BB, OBP and SLG which are much more important than increasing AVG or decreasing Ks though. Which was my initial points, AVG/K are just not that important compared to other stats.