How do you achieve a "consistent" offense?

[endaround]

Buster Olney had ESPN make this huge productive out tracker in the past but had to cancel it in quiet embarrassment when the leaders in productive outs were the worst scoring offenses in the league.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Productive outs is a grossly overblown myth. Yes, the occasional ground out to the 2nd baseman moves a runner to third. It far more often results in a double play, which is worse than a strikeout or popup.

[greeg35]

Some older articles; but entertaining reading.

 

Olney on "Productive Outs"

 

Hardball Times on "Productive Outs"

 

Here are the current numbers:

 

Espn Data

[TooLiveBrew]

"A double is a productive out without the out" -- rluzinski

 

 

What gets to me in this kind of discussion is that the context is almost always completely ignored. What makes a 'productive out' productive is the batter(s) who were actually productive enough to get on base. It's funny that the smallball oath of 'I shall make only productive outs' is completely dependent on that annoying Moneyball-BillyBeane-OaklandA's-NotJoeMorgan OBP stat.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Are you saying a productive out is a bad thing or people are bad at getting productive outs? So players are wrong that get up to congratulate a player who completes a successful productive out. To make it an extreme if you get a lead off double every inning but pop up every time compared to hitting groundouts to the second baseman would get you an extra run every inning so how could that not be a good thing? Of course you would like a hit but if you are trying to hit behind the runner it might go thru.

[bklynbrewcrew]

A productive out is a game winning sacrifice fly in the bottom of the ninth.

[RightFieldCoder]

Outside of a pitcher batting, there are no productive outs before the eighth inning.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Are you saying a productive out is a bad thing or people are bad at getting productive outs? So players are wrong that get up to congratulate a player who completes a successful productive out. To make it an extreme if you get a lead off double every inning but pop up every time compared to hitting groundouts to the second baseman would get you an extra run every inning so how could that not be a good thing? Of course you would like a hit but if you are trying to hit behind the runner it might go thru.

No, what the studies show is that teams that have a higher percentage of "productive outs" don't score runs at any higher a rate than what their OBP and SLG would indicate that they should. If you're up there consciously trying to hit a ground ball to the right side, you're eliminating a lot of possiblities with the approach. Any good you're likely to do with a ground out (minimal at best) is more than offset by the fact that the approach of trying to hit a ground ball is likely to cut severely into that given player's OBP and SLG.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Many good hitters take a different approach with two strikes on them unlike most of the Brewers. If you make outs 2/3 of the time like the Brewers do we are not talking about the 1/3 of the time you are getting on base. Plain and simple the more productive your outs the more runs you would score. If you don't believe it just imagine if every chance you had a chance to move the runner up you were successful you would score more.

 

In today's 2-0 loss productive outs would have tied the game at least.

 

In the first inning Lopez walked and Cameron singled putting them on first and second with no outs. Braun hit into a dp and Prince grounded out. A productive out scores at least one there. Get the guy over to third and SF.

 

In the ninth: Kendall and Gerut led off putting runners on first and second with no outs. Lopez flew out to LF and Cameron and Braun went down looking. Just like the first no runs were scored while productive outs would have scored at least one run.

 

I don't think if you have a thought pattern to get the runner over any way you can limits your productivity but could be a momentum building approach that could win a few more games.

[Ennder]

Brewers have a 32% productive out percentage on the year. The league average is 32% and only 6 teams in the NL have over 33%. I don't think productive outs are a major cause of the team losing. They are well above average scoring runners from 3rd with less than 2 outs and a little below average at advancing runners to 3rd from 2nd with no outs.

 

One interesting stat is they are dead last in the NL at gaining the platoon advantage. 59% of their PA have come without the platoon advantage compared to 45% league average. The Mets have had only 36% of their PA come without the advantage. The lack of SH and LH bats is probably what is hurting the offense more than anything else. Finally we have had the worst pinch hitting in all of the NL as well which can't help.

[logan82]

Plain and simple the more productive your outs the more runs you would score.

 

In specific situations that is correct. Overall, making productive outs is bad. Look at the pages in the links posted by a few posts back in the thread. They show there is little correlation to runs scored and productive outs.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Plain and simple the more productive your outs the more runs you would score.

 

That's just patently untrue. Multiple studies have shown there is absolutely zero correlation between productive outs and runs scored.

[DuWayne Steurer]

In the first inning Lopez walked and Cameron singled putting them on first and second with no outs. Braun hit into a dp and Prince grounded out. A productive out scores at least one there. Get the guy over to third and SF.

 

What kind of out moves runners from 1st and 2nd? A deep fly ball? probably doesn't even move the runner from 1st. The way you move a runner from 2nd to 3rd is with a groundball. Braun got the groundball, and you're harping. And I sure as heck don't want Braun friggin' bunting in the first inning.

[RoseBowlMtg]

In the first inning Lopez walked and Cameron singled putting them on first and second with no outs. Braun hit into a dp and Prince grounded out. A productive out scores at least one there. Get the guy over to third and SF.

 

What kind of out moves runners from 1st and 2nd? A deep fly ball? probably doesn't even move the runner from 1st. The way you move a runner from 2nd to 3rd is with a groundball. Braun got the groundball, and you're harping. And I sure as heck don't want Braun friggin' bunting in the first inning.

 

Roco I said one run. Plenty of situations getting that one run in with productive outs. A fly ball to RF or deep CF gets you the guy on second to third with one out. I think then a weak ground ball brings him in or obviously any SF. Another is a weak ground ball, a bunt, a 4-6 out. What doesn't do any good is a DP or a flyout to LF.

 

I think when you are looking at those stats you are missing it. If we had more productive outs we would score more runs. If we are average at it what if every out was a productive out? Yes rhetorical but the point is if we did it 50% of the time that would mean we would score more runs. A hit is always better but just as a K is better than a dp, a productive out gives you a better opportunity to score.

[DuWayne Steurer]

 

Roco I said one run. Plenty of situations getting that one run in with productive outs. A fly ball to RF or deep CF gets you the guy on second to third with one out. I think then a weak ground ball brings him in or obviously any SF. Another is a weak ground ball, a bunt, a 4-6 out. What doesn't do any good is a DP or a flyout to LF.

 

I think when you are looking at those stats you are missing it. If we had more productive outs we would score more runs. If we are average at it what if every out was a productive out? Yes rhetorical but the point is if we did it 50% of the time that would mean we would score more runs. A hit is always better but just as a K is better than a dp, a productive out gives you a better opportunity to score.

It seems like you're almost looking at productive outs in a vaccum. If Bruan hits a deep fly ball to right or center, it's because he was taking an aggresive approach and trying to reach base, which is obviously what you want from your 3 hitter.

 

It's easy to say "If all the outs were productive out we'd score more runs". I'm sorry to sound snarky, but that's blatantly obvious. The point is, your guys are GOING to make outs that aren't productive when they're trying to reach base. And if your guys are trying to make "productive outs", it's a guarantee that you will score less runs. Every batter should be going to the plate with the mindset of getting on base, first and foremost.

 

This offense isn't going to either be "more consistent" or score more runs by making more productive outs. I'll wager that most productive outs are simply accidental by-products of each individual at bat.

 

I think the myth of productive outs is staggeringly overblown. Teams that make productive outs even 1% of their offensive focus are going to score fewer runs. I don't want guys worrying about slapping the ball to the right, or waiting for just the right pitch to drive to right. They need to be getting on base. Not worrying about the quality of their outs. Baserunners = runs. Outs = fewer runs.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Roco maybe it does sound like it is in a vaccum but let's look at Braun's AB. We know his dp was about as bad as it could get so we already judege outs. I don't take the leap you do saying you are giving yourself up by going the other way. Hitting instuctors are always harping on using the whole field so try to go to RC with a guy on second instead of turning over an outside pitch. Carlos Lee always said do whatever you can to get the run in. Brandon Phillips has stepped up his game when he takes a different approach with 2 strikes on him. Successful hitters use the entire field and take different approaches at different times during an AB. This doesn't mean you are taking the aggressiveness away from them since a hit is better than a PO. If (that's my wish in the vaccum) we used a better approach that would be much better than pop ups. That is one way to be more consistant imo.

[logan82]

Braun changing his approach at 2 strikes would make him a drastically different player. There is no way he drives the ball as hard if he changes his approach and he would have lost many HR off his stat line in 2008 if he changed his approach with 2 strikes.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Why would we possibly want a guy with a .950 OPS changing his approach?

 

He went up there to get on base. He hit the ball hard on the ground. I'm sure he wasn't trying to hit into a DP. I just don't even understand the context of the argument anymore. In this siutation, you're asking for a productive out, which with men on first and 2nd, can ONLY be achieved by a deep fly ball that is caught. Either that, or we want him to get on base. Any other result in this case is a non-productive out. We're narrowing down what's acceptable here to ludicrous levels, unless the suggestion is that Braun was trying to hit into a double play.

 

What's being asked for here isn't even really in the realm of believability a this point. Braun must change his approach to either hit a deep fly ball, or get on base? You say you want him to go the other way, but I've seen Braun do that many, many times this year. You can only hit what's pitched to you. I want Braun swinging at good pitches, not just waiting for an outer corner meatball. You start changing Braun's approach for the sake of getting these 'productive outs' and suddenly you've got a slap hitter who "plays the game right", but hits about .270 with 12 homeruns a year.

[RoseBowlMtg]

I guess my argument works better with lesser hitters. But fwiw: Braun's career ave is .306/.361 while with two strikes it is .224/266. Those stats say a different approach might help his overall numbers. It all comes down to a mind concept and if you want to use the entire field. Both Braun and Fielder get praise when they go the other way as does every hitter so why not try to go with outside pitches to rf? As for Braun's 3 hopper to SS for an easy 6-4-3 do you think there might have been a better approach if they say going the other way with outside pitches is better rather than rolling over on that outside pitch? What are they talking about when they say you are a professional hitter or that he has really grown up as a hitter? It's a smarter approach and if Braun already makes outs on over 3/4 of his 2 strike AB's why not use the entire field? More hitters willing to go with outside pitches to rf would makes us better imo.

[DuWayne Steurer]

With 2 strikes, this year, the entire NL is batting .184/.257/.277.

 

There's not too many guys who are good hitters with 2 strikes.

[Baldkin]

There isn't a single hitter in baseball who hits better with two strikes over the course of his career than he does otherwise.

 

Why? Because Strike 3 is a lot different than strike 1.

 

He hit into a double play, it happens. Being a professional hitter (like, say, Jason Kendall, who leads the Brewers in GIDP) doesn't make you immune from those things. I'd rather Braun go up there and try to hit doubles and HRs than go up there trying to hit ground balls to second base.

[RoseBowlMtg]

I agree to all of this but we aren't talking about hits. Turning on the baseball game last night Granderson popped up with a runner on third with one out and Hersheiser said he had to do a better job of getting the runner in. That is all I am talking about. If the league obp is .257 I am talking about the .743. Isn't it easier to try to improve on the larger set especially when it usually means you are waiting back on the ball and putting the ball in play?

 

I don't get why hitting the ball to rf with a runner on second is thought to be sacraficing your AB. Braun is hitting .426 hitting the ball to RF this year and .374 for his career.

 

Once again my argument works better with a weaker hitter. Let's say you have Ben Sheets up with runners on 1st and 2nd with no outs aren't you thinking of a productive out? Please don't hit into a dp. A strikeout is better than a dp. I know I went to the completely opposite extreme but it gets to my point that productive outs are already desired in certain situations and a productive out is better than a non-productive one.

[DuWayne Steurer]

I know I went to the completely opposite extreme but it gets to my point that productive outs are already desired in certain situations and a productive out is better than a non-productive one.

This is just about a borderline strawman argument now. No one said a productive out is not better than a non-productive out. But getting on base is ALWAYS better than a productive out. I don't want any hitter, especially not Braun, "trying" to push a ball to right. He hits plenty of balls to right, as he has a good approach and hits it where it's pitched. If he gets a good pitch on the inner half, I WANT him swinging at it, and trying to pull it, as that's going to optimize his chance of getting on base, and not making an out. He shouldn't be up there waiting for a good "outer half" pitch to come, meanwhile allowing pitches to go that he could pull 420 feet.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Roco I am with you since I don't believe you have to "just" push the ball to right since we know pitchers pitch Braun outside a bunch and his .426 ave to right shows it is not Just pushing the ball. It is called a smart approach but I have never said to push an inside pitch you should drive. My argument is that we should have more productive outs and you agree that we should so we are on the same page I guess.