K or 4-3

[billyhallfan]

There has been a lot of discussion about which one of these is a worse out for an offensive team to make, a strikeout or a groundout. 99% of the time I think that a groundout is a better out to make here is why. Whenever you put the ball in play there is a chance to beat it out, a chance for an error, or even a chance that an umpire blows a call. When a player strikes out what good comes from that, there is no possible way to reach a base, unless the pitch is not caught, which is not that often.

 

With all of that said, I think that when there is one out with a runner on first and second, with an awful hitter up, Moeller for example, the last thing I want him to do is hit a ground ball, because it kills the inning, and if he whiffs, Clark is up to drive in those runs.

 

But the majority of the time I seem to think that if the ball is put in play, something good can happen, but if the ball is in the catcher's glove while the umpire pumps his arms, nothing good happens.

 

Thoughts?

[pitchleague]

With all of that said, I think that when there is one out with a runner on first and second, with an awful hitter up, Moeller for example, the last thing I want him to do is hit a ground ball, because it kills the inning, and if he whiffs, Clark is up to drive in those runs.

 

Wouldn't the pitcher be batting after Moeller and kill the inning (likely) anyways? Clark would not follow Moeller.

[rluzinski]

There has been a lot of discussion about which one of these is a worse out for an offensive team to make, a strikeout or a groundout. 99% of the time I think that a groundout is a better out to make here is why.

 

A groundOUT by definition results in an out. The "strikouts don't matter" camp has always compared a strikeout to a BIP out. You are confusing that by comparing a strikeout to a BIP who's result is still unknown. It's obviously better to have a chance of reaching vs. none, but that is not what has ever been argued. It's this huge misunderstanding that has caused countless unecessary arguments at brewerfan.net.

[billyhallfan]

pitch league, you're right, either I was talking about us playing at the metrodome, or just imagine that I said Sheets, although the pitcher probably could bat before Moellerhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[djoctagone]

an umpire isn't readily able to examine and remove a ball from play after a 4-3 (or any groundout) is completed . . . whereas he is readily able to examine the ball and remove it from play after a strikeout if he deems it is too scuffed, etc.

 

the physical reaction of the ball hitting the bat and then the field may create "imperfections" in the ball that are favourable to the pitcher and defense--and not to the offense.

[Kurt]

but that all changes when there is someone on first and a ground out would lead to a double play.

[Never Outhustled]

Could one of you supersmart statheads (i'm looking at you Rluzinski) calculate the odds of a ball in play, with a runner at 1st, resulting in a sacrifice, and compare it to the same situation resulting in a double play? I would guess the double play would be the slightly more common outcome.

[JohnBriggs12]

Striking out with a guy at first doesn't mean there is no chance of a double play. It's just becomes a strike em out, throw em out variety.

 

Now a grounder to second with the runner moving generally gets the runner over and if the 2nd baseman goes to cover, that grounder turns into a hit and a first and third situation. Unless a guy steals two bases in one at bat, there is no way a strikeout moves over a runner save for a wild pitch.

 

Furthermore having strikeout prone hitters puts a big damper on the running game. Generally that is not a good thing unless of course the runner is Brady Clark whom you want staying put anyway.

[rluzinski]

There are certainly advantages to BIP outs in certain situations, but the same can also be said about K's in certain situations. The end result appears to be that a strikout is only marginally worse in an average situation.

 

There are probably a half dozen independant ways to illustrate this statistically, but the most adament supporters of "putting the ball in play" haven't ever seemed particularily swayed by that type of proof. As a result, I'll spare us all the same old, same old.

 

I will say that it appears players trade the ability to make contact for power, so there are auxilliary effects to a player trying not to strike out.

[DHonks]

rluzinski is correct.

 

now here's a tough hypothetical:

 

no outs, runners on the corners.

 

The ultimate goal in a game is to win, which is accomplished by scoring runs, and limiting your opponents' runs. Early in a game, getting a run on the board can be nice. This would likely be accomplished in the 4-6-3 DP IF the runner breaks for home. With a strikeout, there is no chance of the run scoring, however, there's the chance that the next guy will do the job. At the same time, getting only one run in this situation early in the game can be a let down.

 

However, later in the game, the DP might be preferred if the run scoring ties the game, gives the lead, or pads the lead.

[brewerjamie15]

I can't stand strikeouts, they give you virtually nothing. The only real situation I'd "not mind" a K is an at bat with like 10 or more pitches.

 

I'm always of the opinion that a BIP is best. None the less, it's always interesting to see people bring up situations they want to disect.

[mothershipconnection]

The only real situation I'd "not mind" a K is an at bat with like 10 or more pitches.

That's why there are simply too many wrinkles here for anyone to categorically label one type of out as worse than another. If one guy fouls off a bunch of pitches and K's on the tenth pitch, while another guy grounds out on the first pitch, the K is a better out there, as it drives the pitch count up.

There is no "good out" (as in "as good as a hit"), and there's no "worst possible kind of out".

[ja002h]

I can't stand strikeouts, they give you virtually nothing.

 

And sometimes they even don't give you 2 outs. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[rluzinski]

I can't stand strikeouts, they give you virtually nothing. The only real situation I'd "not mind" a K is an at bat with like 10 or more pitches.

 

I don't think there's any debate which is more entertaining. K's are as bad as they get. What's being debated here is which event hinders or help's a team's ability to score runs. Many times, what's fun to watch isn't the most efficient way to score runs.

 

All statistical evidence points to a strikeout being only marginally worse than a BIP out in an average situation. A huge percentage of AB are with no men on or 2 outs; in both situations a K = BIP out. With a runner on 1st and less than 2 out, a A BIP out is WORSE than a K. You can't move the runner over with a K but you can't hit into a DP with it either. With a runner on 2nd or 3B, a K is significantly worse for obvious reasons.

 

This isn't just supposition. There are cold hard facts that have been studied to death. I can appreciate that common sense and tradationalists tells you a K is the worst thing in the world but it's simply not supported by any facts I have ever seen.

 

I'm certainly willing to entertain any logical argument against strike outs, provided they don't simply don't again include a list of things that "could" happen when you put the ball in play. This isn't a contact vs. strikout argument, it's a BIP out vs. K argument.

[BillScottCanRake]

I'm always of the opinion that a BIP is best. None the less, it's always interesting to see people bring up situations they want to disect.

 

I always go back to JJ Hardy last spring. In addition to adjusting to the majors and recovering from shoulder surgery, he was so intent on not striking out early in the year that his BIP were 5 hoppers to short, two hoppers back to the mound, lazy fly balls to shallow LF, etc. It was great that he only struck out a couple of times in April and May, but being worried about it took all of the aggressiveness out of his swing.

 

JJ's decision to return to his minor league swing and plate approach had a lot to do with his resurgance in late May. It's really hard to worry about making contact and at the same time make authoritative contact. His more aggressive swings did lead to more Ks, at the expense of a higer BA, OBP, SLG and more ladies phone numbers.

[1992casey]

I think its certainly fair to suggest that at lower levels, the difference between a K and a BIP out would be greater than at the MLB level. Defense isn't as proficient at the Little League and high school levels, for instance. The chances of turning a double play would likely be less and the chances of committing an error would almost certainly be greater.

 

I certainly sympathize with brewerjamie15's observation. Among other things, Ks cause hurt feelings and frustration. Russ is right, though, when he says what we like to watch and what's efficient are often two different things.

 

I'll use the sac bunt example here. I love watching a BB, sac bunt, and single resulting in a run?at least until I realize that in a lot of cases it's not the best strategy.

[mothershipconnection]

he was so intent on not striking out early in the year that his BIP were 5 hoppers to short, two hoppers back to the mound, lazy fly balls to shallow LF, etc. It was great that he only struck out a couple of times in April and May, but being worried about it took all of the aggressiveness out of his swing.

Yet another wrinkle, which I hadn't really thought about until now. What if a player lowers his K numbers by playing to conservatively, thus also dropping his power numbers and lowering his OPS by .025? Russell Branyan could cut his K number by 75% if he wanted to. He'd hack away at the first pitch, then bunt the next two. He'd also likely have an OBP of .100 and an SLG of .150. But hey, dude would never strike out.

Once Hardy started to K a little more, he also began pounding the snot out of the ball.

[rluzinski]

Players with a lower contact ratio generally have a higher SLG. Not to pimp my own blog, but I just ran a small study on the subject:

 

LINK

 

EDIT: Had "lower SLG" before. That's incorrect.

[mothershipconnection]

Players with a lower contact ratio generally have a lower SLG.

Don't you mean "higher SLG"?

[Weirdos19]

There are so many ways to advance a runner when you make contact. K's are facist, right?

 

If you have a runner on base, what would you rather have? A guy that can't make contact, or a guy that can advance a runner? I'm not saying that guy will move him over every time, but he will move him more making contact, right?

 

 

Gimme a team of Wade Boggs' before you give me a team of Dave Kingmans.

[brettac1]

I think the general opinion of myself is that K's suck, so do groundouts. Outs altogether suck. If you have a team that doesn't make an out, say 37% of the time, it doesn't much matter what the other 63% of that consists of. A higher volume of runners on base means the outs carry less weight. I'd still rather have the guy that, even if he makes less consistent contact, has a higher chance of hitting the ball for extra bases and advancing that runner a couple bases, over the guy that specializes in "productive out-making" and generally hits a lot of groundballs.

[mothershipconnection]

Gimme a team of Wade Boggs' before you give me a team of Dave Kingmans.

To be fair, Boggs did post an .858 career OPS (130 OPS+) compared to Kingman's .780 (115 OPS+). So yeah, Boggs is a no-brainer (dude did smack a few doubles on top of all the walks and singles). But what about Kingman vs. Juan Pierre? There's a .050 OPS difference there in favor of Kingman. Kingman jacked a homer to clear the bases up to 48 times in a season while Pierre has topped out at 3.

[rluzinski]

If you have a runner on base, what would you rather have? A guy that can't make contact, or a guy that can advance a runner? I'm not saying that guy will move him over every time, but he will move him more making contact, right?

 

As I mentioned above, with a runner at 1st and less than 2 out, a BIP out is worse than a K on average in that situation. Teams have scored more runs in that situation after a K than a BIP out. NO DP chance.

 

Since those results are based on the aggregate, specific player matchups and situations certainly move the relative cost of a K and BIP out around. A guy with a high contact ratio who hit's a lot of fly balls would be better than a guy who just K's, for example. Still, the numbers clearly show that "just making contact" is not as nearly valuable as many think.

[Ennder]

All K's are not created equal so its not just an open and close case of which is better. A player like Wily Mo Pena who has high K's because he's completely outmatched is much different than a guy like Dunn who actually has good plate discipline but swings for the fences,

 

You also have to keep in mind that some of a players SLG comes directly from swinging hard which will result in more K's. If Jenkins were to cut back on his swing, K only 75 times a year but lose most of his power because of it... is that really a good thing? I don't think it is.

[BillScottCanRake]

If you have a runner on base, what would you rather have?

 

Contact might be better in some instances, but there are plenty of examples one can cite where the wrong kind of contact at the wrong time with runners on base is bad.

 

- if the runner is on first and the ball is hit at a middle infielder.

 

- if the runner is at second and the ball is hit to the left side of the infield.

 

- No runners will advance on a pop-up on the infield.

 

- No runners will advance on a shallow fly ball to the OF.

 

Simply making contact isn't good enough in a lot of cases. And altering a swing (like Hardy did last year) allowed him to make the "wrong kind" of contact on too many occasions last year.

EDIT: Edited for clarity so it hopefully doesn't look like a three year old wrote my post. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif