Productive outs

[BrewCityUnit]

I know I am not the most popular guy around here today and I can live with that, but something is really bugging me.

 

The reason the Brewers are where they are now is because we don't have good consistent at bats. As a team, on average, I would guess (and I'm sure someone will look it up and throw the exact stat out there) that teams hit around .270

 

I think it is important what you do when you make an out .730 of the time. The Brewers don't move runners over and have bad at bats. Many on here think productive outs don't matter or doesn't even exist.

 

Teams like the RedSox, Cards, Braves, Twins, Angels, would have found a way to get atleast one run if not two runs last night in the 8th inning without getting a hit. Now, that wouldn't help the almighty OPS but it would help the team actually win.

 

So please tell me while OPS is more important than a productive out. I understand a home-run consists of scoring a run without making an out, and a sac-fly is obviously better than a strikeout. Why should they be weighted the same against their OPS?

 

Instead of reading boxscores and looking at stats, actually sit down, watch the game and watch the way good players and teams play the game.

[brettac1]

Teams like the RedSox, Cards, Braves, Twins, Angels, would have found a way to get atleast one run if not two runs last night in the 8th inning without getting a hit. Now, that wouldn't help the almighty OPS but it would help the team actually win.

 

OPS Rankings:

1. Boston

7. St. Louis

9. Atlanta

15. Brewers

24. Angels

25. Twins

 

I'd take the Brewer lineup over the Angels and Twins, heck the Twins are only a few games better than the Brewers this year anyway.

 

I think it is important what you do when you make an out .730 of the time.

 

Good teams don't make outs 73% of the time, and AVG doesn't tell you the percentage of times outs are made, OBP does. Great offenses like Boston only make outs 63% of the time.

[Brian the Automator]

Please read this very interesting article:

www.hardballtimes.com/mai...tive-outs/

[rluzinski]

Last year ESPN tried to promote "productive outs" as a statistic. Guess what happened? There was actually a negative coorelation between the number of productive outs a team made and the runs they scored. The more prodiuctive outs the less runs, overall.

 

LINK

 

What does that tell us? Well, although a productive out is better than a normal out, it's certainly not better than just getting a hit or walking. While there's no question that situation hitting trully is a skill that wins games for you, it is most certainly overated.

 

Give me a team with a good OBP and SLG and that team will score runs.

[brettac1]

Buster Olney chimes in, flying in the face of BrewCityUnit's perception of the Red Sox, most stat head's dream team:

 

But Boston plays the "Moneyball" style -- never bunt, don't take chances on the bases, sit back and let your hitters hack away and do the work regardless of the game situation, regardless of the identity of the opposing pitcher.

 

Man, Buster Olney is an idiot. Just thought I'd add that.

[Fike85]

I think that we can all agree that if the batter leading off an inning gets a double that at the very least he should be advanced to third by the next batter. I also think that we can all agree that a runner on third with less than two outs should score the vast majority of the time.

 

That said, I do not think that it is necessary to try and quantify productive outs. Any avid baseball watcher should be able to discover over the course of a season whether or not a team/player they follow on a regular basis is good at advancing baserunners and such.

[BrewCityUnit]

Obviously a hit or walk is better than an out. That is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is when you do make an out it helps if you move the runners over. And there are a lot of guys with a good OPS that can't do that.

 

Because there is no statistic for it your mind will never change. You can just say, "look at the stats" Yeah the Sox have a high OPS, which is always going to help, but they do the little things also which are equally important. Look at last Wednesday's game with the Cards. They beat us on two productive outs in the first inning.

 

Of course you guys are going to support that article because it is written with a bias towards guys who sit on the computer and crunch numbers all day. Although I find that interesting to some degree, I won't get carried away with it and can use my own judgement without being bias in formulating my opinions on players.

 

Watch the game tonight and I can almost guarantee you that we will win or lose this game based on productive outs. Obviously we need hits but how we make our outs is just as important.

[Brian the Automator]

[ I think that we can all agree that if the batter leading off an inning gets a double that at the very least he should be advanced to third by the next batter. ]

 

I think that might depend on the hitter... If the hitter's a pull hitter and trying to go the other way isn't his forte and he has much success with it, shouldn't that player just pull the ball and roll the dice? While it's quite possible that the hitter grounds to SS and the runner on 2B can't advance, there's a good chance that the hitter singles (or doubles, triples or homers) and drives that runner in.

[BrewCityUnit]

I agree with you Fike and that is why I have formed the opinion that Braynan does not live up to the hype many have created for him on this website.

[BrewCityUnit]

There is a good chance that the hitter singles, doubles or drives the runner in???????????/

 

Wouldn't that chance be his batting average. Last time I checked I haven't seen a batting average so high that I would say it is a good chance (i.e. 80% that he will get a hit)

[brettac1]

Yeah the Sox have a high OPS, which is always going to help, but they do the little things also which are equally important.

 

Actually, Boston was 27th in the league last year in Productive Outs. They were 1st in runs scored and OPS. You're theory holds no water whatsoever. It's simply an opinion, while the other side has actual hard data to support the argument. Consciously you may think they actually matter, while in reality they don't.

[BrewCityUnit]

I thought they didn't keep track of productive outs? How do they rank 27th?

[rluzinski]

Any avid baseball watcher should be able to discover over the course of a season whether or not a team/player they follow on a regular basis is good at advancing baserunners and such.

 

I couldn't disagree more. My contention has always been that over the course of 162 games and thousands of AB, it's difficult to judge the relative abilities of a team with regard to ANY tool correctly. The human mind can't process than many events without being biased toward a few notable situations. We all remember Hall winning two games in a row last year. Does that make him "clutch?" Well, we'd have to look at ALL his AB, but a person's memory just can't do that.

 

That's why we have to rely on........ STATS! Stats, if used correctly are unbiased and relaiable. We can then compare stats and see what stats lead to winning more than others. As it happens, OBP and SLG are the two single most important stats with regard to scoring runs. It's not my opinion, but rather a fact derived from statistical analysis. That's not to say there aren't other factors that determines the outcome of a game, of course there are. Over the course of a season those factors take a secondary role to OBP and SLG.

[Fike85]

I agree with Mr. The Automator that there is a situational element to it, but I stand by my point that the runner should be advanced one way or the other most of the time. Like Brian said, perhaps your best bet is to allow the hitter to swing away.

 

As for you BCU, I too cringe when Mr. 3TO comes up important situations. I feel a lot more comfortable when contact hitters such as Brady Clark and Jeff Cirillo come to the plate. The problem that I have with 3TO is that sometimes it is best to choke up on the bat and try to punch the ball somewhere, and all that he does is swing for the fences. That and he's injury-prone.

[brettac1]

I thought they didn't keep track of productive outs? How do they rank 27th?

 

Um, click rluz's link to see the team-by-team "Productive Outs" for last year.

 

But if you don't want to do that, because you hate numbers so:

 

LINK

[danzig6767]

Teams score runs by having good hitters,not in the way they make their outs.Teams like Boston and New York though are blessed to be incredibly rich so they can afford having 1-5 hitters that make more money than the Brewers payroll,they should score runs by the truckload.

 

The job for Melvin is via the draft/trade/free agency to not find guys that make productve outs,but to find hitters that can hit somewhat close to Manny/Damon/Sheffield/Arod without having to buy them like those teams can.

[BrewCityUnit]

Ashlee Simpson, I understand your point of view and have to accept the fact that we are different people.

 

I can think outside the box every once in a while and don't believe everything just because someone says so. What I am getting at is you have no clue what stat wins game. Every game is different and every game a different factor or stat might decide the game. That is where I come in and form my opinions. I don't need that stat to tell me that I don't want Braynan up with a runner on second or third when we need to get the runner over in a worst case senario.

 

One other thing that we differ on, I can remember all at bats. Not to the point where if you say what did Bill Hall do on April 30th but I can do a pretty good job of keeping a level head and not getting carried away when a player is on a hot streak or cold streak

[brettac1]

What I am getting at is you have no clue what stat wins game.

 

Sure you do, runs scored and runs allowed. The way to score the most runs is a high OBP and SLG. This is a proven fact, not something that rluz made up.

[Brian the Automator]

[ Wouldn't that chance be his batting average. Last time I checked I haven't seen a batting average so high that I would say it is a good chance (i.e. 80% that he will get a hit) ]

 

That depends on your definition of good chance. By good chance, I mean a modest batting average. I should have been more specific or used a number, I guess.

 

The point of my earlier reply was that there are some batters who aren't good at moving the runner over (i.e. a righty who can't go the other way), and in those cases, you're better trying to pull for a hit than go the other way for a hit or productive out.

 

[ Ashlee Simpson ]

 

...and his username's rluzinski. Calling him Ashlee Simpson comes across as being sort of condescending, don't you think?

[Fike85]

Rluz, while we both can agree that stats are helpful, what I am trying to say is that there are some things (i.e. productive outs) that are best not quantified and left to independent observation.

 

Whether or not a player has "Icewater in his veins" can only be determined based on observation. Derek Jeter, for instance, has icewater in his veins because he demenor never changes no matter what the in-game situation is. Same goes for Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, et cetera. If anything these players enjoy being in intense situations, and we only know that because of years of observation.

[brettac1]

How can you possibly sense those things through TV? Could it possibly be that these players are simply more talented than the players they play against? The human eye lies repeatedly, while stats simply offer a record of the past.

[BrewCityUnit]

Another reason why you can't put stats on productive outs is because every situation is different. Down by 7 in the 8th inning is a lot different than a tie game in the 8th. That is when productive outs are important and that is how winning teams win baseball games. But you guys will never understand that because you probably haven't seen an article on the internet or saw actual data that proves that. Just watch the game.

[Brian the Automator]

[ Whether or not a player has "Icewater in his veins" can only be determined based on observation. ]

 

or using: IORV (Icewater over replacement veins)

[Brian the Automator]

[ But you guys will never understand that because you probably haven't seen an article on the internet ]

 

Did you even READ the link I posted, or did you just dismiss it because you didn't like the source?

[Fike85]

Quote:

---

How can you possibly sense those things through TV?

---

 

When Brett Favre throws his arms in the air and runs around after throwing a TD Pass I sense excitement. When Ned Yost yells and an ump I sense anger. When a player takes a bat and goes off an a water cooler I sense frustration.

 

Emotions are usually quite easy to identify.