Good story on the most exciting play of the 2015 World Series

[WeatherWonk]

Kurkjian correctly points out how important PUTTING THE BALL IN PLAY is, even if it is a ball that probably leads to an out. In this era of spiraling Ks, metrics need to stop treating the strikeout as the same as a ground out or fly out. 

 

Good things happen when you put the ball in play.

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/15007298/hosmer-mad-dash

 

[Troll Daddy]

Totally agree!

[Troll Daddy]

Good things happen more often that not when you put the ball in play.

Signed

2002 WS Champions

[Jobu]

Signed

Anecdotal Evidence

[WeatherWonk]

Anecdotal?  You mean because no one has actually set out to prove it. No one has because it is so self-evident.

 

I wonder what percentage of runs scores as a DIRECT result of a strikeout? One could say it's actually ZERO, as the WP or the PB actually accounts for the run scoring, not the K.

 

Or, maybe on an error when a runner on third is caught in a rundown after a K. 

 

The probability of these happening is probably in the 1/1000 range. Maybe greater.

 

Much greater odds on outs made by balls put in play.

[Jobu]

You said:

metrics need to stop treating the strikeout as the same as a ground out or fly out

 

Some metrics treat them similarly, some do not. It depends on what the metric is designed to illustrate.

 

And how often does a K with runners on base lead to multiple outs, as in the case of a GIDP or runner doubled-up on a line-out, or getting caught tagging up? One could say it's actually zero.

[ABC]

I heart two-pitch ABs.

[Troll Daddy]

You said:

Some metrics treat them similarly, some do not. It depends on what the metric is designed to illustrate.

And how often does a K with runners on base lead to multiple outs, as in the case of a GIDP or runner doubled-up on a line-out, or getting caught tagging up? One could say it's actually zero.

When you put the ball in play you create opportunity.

Strikeouts have no nutritional value.

[Jobu]

K

[arch stanton]

The one thing that always had me wondering....if strikeouts are good for pitchers then why isn't strikeout prevention good for offenses? I understand that seeing more pitches is good for offenses and that will naturally lead to more K's but where is the tipping point where strikeouts become a detriment to the offense? It seems to me that if not tied to an increase in walks and probably Xbase hits that move around those runners at 1st then it's becoming a negative.

[Docwaukee]

While I agree that there is some value in putting the ball in play over a strikeout, it's not that binary.  

 

Anyone who has ever played ball will tell you that hitting requires split second reaction times.  In less than an instant you have to decide to swing or not.  Your decision to swing is based on your recognition and then assumption that a ball is going to be where you think it is.  If it's not, you try to adjust.  

 

We are talking about mere fractions of a second to make a decision and potentially alter that decision.  

 

What makes some players better than others?  The ability to recognize a split second sooner and/or the ability to wait a split second longer so you just a shade more time to recognize what's coming.  Yes, PED's make you stronger, but the real advantage was the ability to wait.  That strength translated to speed.  Speed that allowed you to wait just a fraction of a second longer so you could get a better idea of what was coming before you had to make your choice.  

 

In simpler terms, it's why guys who throw harder tend to have more success.  But not always.  Because it still requires that a pitcher is able to get the batter have to wait that extra split second to decide if it's the 98mph fastball or something else.  If it's immediately obvious whether it's one or the other, then that pitcher still isn't likely to have success.  ie Ernesto Frieri.  There are a lot of other nuances like movement and deception that play into it as well.  Krod's slider looked exactly like his fastball until it got about half way (or more).  Then it was too late.  

 

So what does this have to do with putting the ball in play vs. striking out?  

 

If your main intention is to put the ball in play, you take a different approach.  You wait a little longer.  You shorten up and you sacrifice certain things.  Namely, the ability to hit the ball as hard.  So let's say that every time you get two strikes on you, you take this alternate approach.   Mike Trout his 17 of his 40 hrs with two strikes and whiffed 158 times last year.  His batted ball stats were pretty similar with two strikes relative to not.  Why?  Because he didn't change his swing.  

 

You can't look at what production would have been if a player would have just put the ball in play instead of striking out.  You have to look at what the players overall production would be if they completely changed their approach with two strikes.  More than half of Trout's plate appearances came with two strikes.  If he shortens up and just puts the ball in play then maybe he hits for a bit of a higher average in those situations, but he probably doesn't walk 40 times or hit 17hrs, 12 doubles or 2 triples.  

 

So is a strikeout worse than putting the ball in play?  sure, in a vacuum.  But those possible hard hit balls and walks are lost to weak grounders and lazy fly balls.   

[arch stanton]

As we move forward it's going to be more important that you can put the ball in play to all fields so you force the defense to play honestly so you can take advantage of a Daniel Murphy or Gia type 2Bman. The greatest thing about the end of the roid age is that it allows teams more options for building a successful roster. Home park effects are more pronounced. You are better able to find players who can contribute in a variety of ways. the whole r25 man roster becomes more important and you're less reliant on a core of bashers. To me, it makes the game much more interesting. I really wish a few teams would install AstroTurf infields and deeper power alleys.

[ELEVEN]

Good things happen more often that not when you put the ball in play until also good things happen for you.

[CaliAngel]

But, with a good throw, he would have been out.

[ABC]

While I agree that there is some value in putting the ball in play over a strikeout, it's not that binary.  

 

Anyone who has ever played ball will tell you that hitting requires split second reaction times.  In less than an instant you have to decide to swing or not.  Your decision to swing is based on your recognition and then assumption that a ball is going to be where you think it is.  If it's not, you try to adjust.  

 

We are talking about mere fractions of a second to make a decision and potentially alter that decision.  

 

What makes some players better than others?  The ability to recognize a split second sooner and/or the ability to wait a split second longer so you just a shade more time to recognize what's coming.  Yes, PED's make you stronger, but the real advantage was the ability to wait.  That strength translated to speed.  Speed that allowed you to wait just a fraction of a second longer so you could get a better idea of what was coming before you had to make your choice.  

 

In simpler terms, it's why guys who throw harder tend to have more success.  But not always.  Because it still requires that a pitcher is able to get the batter have to wait that extra split second to decide if it's the 98mph fastball or something else.  If it's immediately obvious whether it's one or the other, then that pitcher still isn't likely to have success.  ie Ernesto Frieri.  There are a lot of other nuances like movement and deception that play into it as well.  Krod's slider looked exactly like his fastball until it got about half way (or more).  Then it was too late.  

 

So what does this have to do with putting the ball in play vs. striking out?  

 

If your main intention is to put the ball in play, you take a different approach.  You wait a little longer.  You shorten up and you sacrifice certain things.  Namely, the ability to hit the ball as hard.  So let's say that every time you get two strikes on you, you take this alternate approach.   Mike Trout his 17 of his 40 hrs with two strikes and whiffed 158 times last year.  His batted ball stats were pretty similar with two strikes relative to not.  Why?  Because he didn't change his swing.  

 

You can't look at what production would have been if a player would have just put the ball in play instead of striking out.  You have to look at what the players overall production would be if they completely changed their approach with two strikes.  More than half of Trout's plate appearances came with two strikes.  If he shortens up and just puts the ball in play then maybe he hits for a bit of a higher average in those situations, but he probably doesn't walk 40 times or hit 17hrs, 12 doubles or 2 triples.  

 

So is a strikeout worse than putting the ball in play?  sure, in a vacuum.  But those possible hard hit balls and walks are lost to weak grounders and lazy fly balls.   

 

 

[nando714]

Ned Yost is awesome.