Papi

[Dipre]

Of course he is hitting under .100 when behind in the count' date=' his .avg is freaking .208.[/quote']

 

*Sigh*

 

The reason for the comment is that he looks lost at the plate with 2 strikes.

[TedWilliams101]

I know, and I'm just trying to convey the point that it's a moot point/observation. Anyone who is struggling at the plate is going to look lost with 2 strikes. They wouldn't be hitting .208 if they had any sort of success with 2 strikes.

[Dipre]

I know' date=' and I'm just trying to convey the point that it's a moot point/observation. Anyone who is struggling at the plate is going to look lost with 2 strikes. They wouldn't be hitting .208 if they had any sort of success with 2 strikes.[/quote']

 

That, sir, is not a valid statement.

 

You can't try to generalize.

 

Nothing is absolute, specially in baseball.

[TedWilliams101]

Really... You honestly are suggesting that a struggling hitter (large sample size) could actually perform close to or better than league average with 2 strikes, or a hot hitter would have a lower average with 2 strikes? Good luck finding that.

[SCM33]

Didnt see the game 2nite, had to work. I see he had some good results including his first homer.

 

Can anyone tell me how his swing looked? I dont care if he goes 0-5 as long as his swing is starting to look better.

[Dipre]

Really... You honestly are suggesting that a struggling hitter (large sample size) could actually perform close to or better than league average with 2 strikes' date=' or a hot hitter would have a lower average with 2 strikes? Good luck finding that.[/quote']

 

It's called BABIP, sir.

 

It fluctuates in a manner only equivalent to the mood of a woman during her period.

[example1]

Didnt see the game 2nite, had to work. I see he had some good results including his first homer.

 

Can anyone tell me how his swing looked? I dont care if he goes 0-5 as long as his swing is starting to look better.

 

He swung at the first pitch in his first two at bats I think, and one at bat he K'd looking pretty pathetic. The HR swing was a good one, a shot to CF, and the 2B was a pretty solid shot too, at Fenway. It would have been an out elsewhere most likely. Even the HR swing was sort of 'muscled' out, it wasn't a blast. Either way, it was a pretty special moment IMO, as he got a standing ovation and his team gave him the silent treatment when he got back to the bench, and then lots of hugs all around. Good stuff.

[SCM33]

Maybe getting a couple of extra base hits will relax him a little at the plate so he isnt so excited to swing at the first pitch.

 

I think what Ortiz needs to do is stop looking towards the stats in centerfield. Concede to the fact that overall, statistically this season is a lost one (by his standards) for him. Time for him to say f*** the stats....start over, starting today...move forward and put together the best possible season you can with the remaining months.

 

Just because he isnt going to hit 50 HR, be on the allstar team, and be in the running for MVP doesnt mean he cant be productive (and this is coming from someone who called him toast, but I pray Im wrong, and my heart wants me to be wrong).

[example1]

I doubt it is that simple. Hitting MLB pitching is extremely difficult. I do agree that this should be a good start for him though, as he can at least not worry about the stupid homerless streak anymore.

[TedWilliams101]

It's called BABIP, sir.

 

It fluctuates in a manner only equivalent to the mood of a woman during her period.

 

What does that have to do with 2 strike hitting? We aren't talking about him getting robbed every night, he simply couldn't dive a ball. I don't see the relevance.

 

On another note, I'm glad Papi finally got the elusive first HR of the season, but I'm still fairly skeptical. He didn't exactly kill the pitch and still looked off all night. I just chock the HR up to pure luck, statistically irrelevant. I'm still waiting for him to put together better at-bats and really start driving the ball.

[THE ARS]

Welcome back, Papi.

 

 

 

Tom

[TheKilo]

It's called BABIP, sir.

 

It fluctuates in a manner only equivalent to the mood of a woman during her period.

 

Don't think this means what you think it means.

[BoSox21]

Even the HR swing was sort of 'muscled' out' date=' it wasn't a blast.[/quote']

 

What the f***? He hit it to straight away to straight away center off the camera box. If that was muscled out, then David Ortiz is Lou Ferrigno

[Dipre]

Don't think this means what you think it means.

 

It does.

 

He misinterpreted.

 

What i meant was a player can be way below average on his two-strike hitting while in a career year or amidst a season-busting slump.

 

Luck plays a factor in everything.

 

I'll have to do some research just to prove my rocket scientist friend there, stay tuned.

[SoxxyPants]

GOOOONE!!!!

[TedWilliams101]

It does.

 

He misinterpreted.

 

What i meant was a player can be way below average on his two-strike hitting while in a career year or amidst a season-busting slump.

 

Luck plays a factor in everything.

 

I'll have to do some research just to prove my rocket scientist friend there, stay tuned.

 

Where do you come up thinking that I believe 2 strike hitting should be anywhere equal to overall batting average? Rico Blast already posted the stats on the MLB .BA in 2-strike situations. They are low, really low. AND they are correlated to overall .BA.

 

BABIP is really best used with respect to pitchers. For hitters, there are just so many variables that effect BABIP that I find it's pretty useless. For instance, Albert Pujols is clearly the best hitter in baseball, yet his BAbip is much lower than his .BA. What does that mean? Not much, really. Contact guys generally have a lower BAbip than others because they don't strike out much.

 

I looked through many many players stats and BAbip I really didn't find anything useful about it. Ichiro has a high BAbip because he beats out so many balls. Manny Ramirez has a high BAbip because he strikes out 100+ times a season. Pujols has a low BAbip because he doesn't strike out often, but doesn't have great speed either.

 

The point? We were discussing Ortiz struggling in 2-strike situations. In many of those situations he was striking out. His BAbip really wouldn't reveal much at all.

 

Just to show you what I mean, Ortiz has a .316 BAbip in 2-strike situations this season... yet is only hitting .179 overall in that situation. Why? Because he is striking out so much.

 

Heck, even in respect to pitchers, I still think it isn't all that meaningful of a stat. Take Josh Beckett for example. In 2007, clearly his best year yet, he posted his best strikeout numbers, wins, 2nd most inning pitched, 2nd lowest era, 2nd fewest walks, yet he had a BAbip over .300. Why? Because he struck out almost a person an inning and gave up very few HRs.

[TheKilo]

I actually agree, BABIP is pretty flawed unless it's used in conjunction with GB%, FB%, and LD%

[castigs850]

PAPI'S BACK!!!

[Dipre]

Where do you come up thinking that I believe 2 strike hitting should be anywhere equal to overall batting average? Rico Blast already posted the stats on the MLB .BA in 2-strike situations. They are low, really low. AND they are correlated to overall .BA.

 

BABIP is really best used with respect to pitchers. For hitters, there are just so many variables that effect BABIP that I find it's pretty useless. For instance, Albert Pujols is clearly the best hitter in baseball, yet his BAbip is much lower than his .BA. What does that mean? Not much, really. Contact guys generally have a lower BAbip than others because they don't strike out much.

 

I looked through many many players stats and BAbip I really didn't find anything useful about it. Ichiro has a high BAbip because he beats out so many balls. Manny Ramirez has a high BAbip because he strikes out 100+ times a season. Pujols has a low BAbip because he doesn't strike out often, but doesn't have great speed either.

 

The point? We were discussing Ortiz struggling in 2-strike situations. In many of those situations he was striking out. His BAbip really wouldn't reveal much at all.

 

Just to show you what I mean, Ortiz has a .316 BAbip in 2-strike situations this season... yet is only hitting .179 overall in that situation. Why? Because he is striking out so much.

 

Heck, even in respect to pitchers, I still think it isn't all that meaningful of a stat. Take Josh Beckett for example. In 2007, clearly his best year yet, he posted his best strikeout numbers, wins, 2nd most inning pitched, 2nd lowest era, 2nd fewest walks, yet he had a BAbip over .300. Why? Because he struck out almost a person an inning and gave up very few HRs.

 

I actually agree' date=' BABIP is pretty flawed unless it's used in conjunction with GB%, FB%, and LD%[/quote']

 

It's flawed, but it helps you see just how much luck can affect hitters overall or in a certain situation.

 

You, sir, TedWilliams101, have spun the topic of discussion in a whole different direction.

 

Allow me to point out the facts and spare you the trouble of writing another 10-paragraph post, and spare me the trouble of reading it.

 

A) I stated Ortiz looks lost at the plate with 2 strikes, then cited his ineptitude in every 2-strike situation.

 

B ) You stated EVERY hitter who's slumping is lost at the plate with 2 strikes.

 

C) I stated otherwise, just to prove that is not always the case.

 

D) You made it about Ortiz, i never made it specifically about him, because we can agree that he is struggling because he's K'ing a ton, and he's K'ing a ton because he's sucking with 2 strikes.

 

E) Here is my point, friend, you don't necessarily have to SUCK to have bad luck in 0-2 or 1-2 situations, it can be just a matter of bad luck, and conversely, you can enjoy some sort of above-average success in both those counts and still SUCK, your use of absolutes in any situation in the game of baseball is destined for failure.

 

And i'm not even gonna take the time to do the research because it's common sense some guys have more luck than others in 0-2 or 1-2 counts but the case with Ortiz was not luck, it was suckitude, i stated as much, but you made it into an absolute in the following manner, as stated in point B "Every struggling hitter sucks in 2-strike counts" that is a lie, and if you continue to refute it, let me know, and i will stop the laziness and look for the stats to back me up.

[TedWilliams101]

I started talking about BAbip because you are the one who brought it up. I personally don't think it's a meaningful stat. Sure, if you take into account a plethora of different factors, then sure, it is more meaningful... but then again, the other factors are what is giving you full picture, not that BAbip stat.

 

On 2-strike hitting, I do believe that occasionally a hitter will have a little more success in 2-strike situations than other situtations, but it is rare, and still has more to do with the type of hitter. Guys who rarely strike out (or just swing and miss) will generally have more success in 2-strike hitting situations than the league average.

 

However, I still don't think that crappy hitters have success with 2-strikes. I'm sure you could find a couple of crappy hitters that had some success in one season with 2-strikes, but i'm sure it's extremely rare, and you couldn't find anyone who sustained that over their career.

 

I think my overall point is that a great hitter will have more success than average in 2-strike situations, because they are good hitters. Great hitters that don't strike out often will have even greater success. But crappy hitters simply don't have success with 2-strikes. It just doesn't happen. If you can find some statistical evidence (more than just a couple of outlier single-seasons), I'll gladly eat crow.

 

Also, I didn't know you weren't just reffering to Ortiz with that 2-strike comment... because you were just talking about Ortiz.

 

Oh and with C. , where exactly did you "prove" that struggling hitters could have success with 2-strikes (and please, don't give me examples of guys like Polanco and Eckstein. 2-strike situations mean far less (short term) with guys who only swing and miss 7% of the time).

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Welcome back, Papi.

 

 

 

Tom

lol

[Dipre]

I started talking about BAbip because you are the one who brought it up. I personally don't think it's a meaningful stat. Sure, if you take into account a plethora of different factors, then sure, it is more meaningful... but then again, the other factors are what is giving you full picture, not that BAbip stat.

 

On 2-strike hitting, I do believe that occasionally a hitter will have a little more success in 2-strike situations than other situtations, but it is rare, and still has more to do with the type of hitter. Guys who rarely strike out (or just swing and miss) will generally have more success in 2-strike hitting situations than the league average.

 

However, I still don't think that crappy hitters have success with 2-strikes. I'm sure you could find a couple of crappy hitters that had some success in one season with 2-strikes, but i'm sure it's extremely rare, and you couldn't find anyone who sustained that over their career.

 

I think my overall point is that a great hitter will have more success than average in 2-strike situations, because they are good hitters. Great hitters that don't strike out often will have even greater success. But crappy hitters simply don't have success with 2-strikes. It just doesn't happen. If you can find some statistical evidence (more than just a couple of outlier single-seasons), I'll gladly eat crow.

 

Also, I didn't know you weren't just reffering to Ortiz with that 2-strike comment... because you were just talking about Ortiz.

 

Oh and with C. , where exactly did you "prove" that struggling hitters could have success with 2-strikes (and please, don't give me examples of guys like Polanco and Eckstein. 2-strike situations mean far less (short term) with guys who only swing and miss 7% of the time).

 

Oh, brother.

 

No one has sustained success with 2 strikes.

 

Again, because you keep missing the point. (And made me read an 11-paragrah post again).

 

Sucking with 2-strikes is not 100 % related to struggling.

 

Take, for instance, Mike Lowell's "lost" 2005 season.

 

He hit:

 

.133 in 0-2 counts, the NL average was .155.

 

.234 in 1-2 counts, the NL average was .188.

 

.188 in 2-2 counts, the NL average was .222.

 

.258 in 3-2 counts, the NL average was .244

 

Mike Lowell SUCKED througout ALL of 2005, so please explain to me how every time a hitter is struggling it's ALWAYS because he's hitting way below the norm on 2-strike situations.

 

As you can see the example, that is not always the case, because nothing in baseball is absolute, or black and white, there are always exceptions to the rule, and that's why i brought up BABIP, because, in Lowell's case, he hit in the low .220's when ahead in the count, in Ortiz' case, he was way below average in every instance where he had 2 strikes, but that was due more to lack of contact than anything else, but implying that every struggling hitter in the majors is struggling to be league average while hitting with 2 strikes is an absolute you have no chance of proving.

[TedWilliams101]

I still don't understand what that proves. He hit .197 with 2-strikes, maybe a bit above the NL average for that year, I don't know. However one: it is still bellow his career numbers with 2-strikes, and two: he isn't the average NL hitter, he was above average.

 

I think you aren't quite understanding exactly what I was saying. I've never said that it was normal to "sustain success" with 2 strikes. I was saying that if a player is struggling, they will also be struggling with 2 strikes. Not the other way around. I never said that "when a player struggles or doesn't have success with 2 strikes, they are having a slump." I said "If a player is struggling, they won't be having success with 2 strikes. It isn't because they are a (career) s***** 2-strike hitter, it's because they are struggling.".

 

I also never said that it is impossible for a struggling hitter to be hitting the MLB average with 2-strikes. I said that 2-strike hitting is correlated to BA. 2-strike hitting is generally about 60 points lower that BA. Obviously it still deviates a bit hitter to hitter, but you won't see things like a s***** hitter with great 2-strike abilities or vice verse.

 

I honestly don't think we are in much of a disagreement, I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

[Dipre]

I still don't understand what that proves. He hit .197 with 2-strikes, maybe a bit above the NL average for that year, I don't know. However one: it is still bellow his career numbers with 2-strikes, and two: he isn't the average NL hitter, he was above average.

 

I think you aren't quite understanding exactly what I was saying. I've never said that it was normal to "sustain success" with 2 strikes. I was saying that if a player is struggling, they will also be struggling with 2 strikes. Not the other way around. I never said that "when a player struggles or doesn't have success with 2 strikes, they are having a slump." I said "If a player is struggling, they won't be having success with 2 strikes. It isn't because they are a (career) s***** 2-strike hitter, it's because they are struggling.".

 

I also never said that it is impossible for a struggling hitter to be hitting the MLB average with 2-strikes. I said that 2-strike hitting is correlated to BA. 2-strike hitting is generally about 60 points lower that BA. Obviously it still deviates a bit hitter to hitter, but you won't see things like a s***** hitter with great 2-strike abilities or vice verse.

 

I honestly don't think we are in much of a disagreement, I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

 

That's exactly my point.

 

Mike Lowell's 2-strike hitting .227 AVG. is only .10 points lower than his season .237 average, thus disproving your theory. Not only that, you've also changed your tone to "i never said......" you DID say, that's my point, so don't change the tune, you said specifically that no hitter who is sucking is hitting "well" which in this case would be league average with 2 strikes, i proved you wrong, so man up and admit it.

 

That is all.

[TheKilo]

So in Lowell's season of suck, he happened to suck only slightly less with 2 strikes?

[Dipre]

So in Lowell's season of suck' date=' he happened to suck only slightly less with 2 strikes?[/quote']

 

That's the whole point of the argument.

 

Sucking in general is not correlated to sucking with 2 strikes.

 

It's non-consequential.

 

However, sucking with 2 strikes usually means you're tanking up the joint in general, because in over 65 % of your ABs you're gonna be hitting with 2 strikes.

[TedWilliams101]

.227 is his career 2-strike hitting, he hit .197 with 2 strikes in 2005, .38 points lower.

[TheKilo]

That's the whole point of the argument.

 

Sucking in general is not correlated to sucking with 2 strikes.

 

It's non-consequential.

 

However, sucking with 2 strikes usually means you're tanking up the joint in general, because in over 65 % of your ABs you're gonna be hitting with 2 strikes.

 

Umm, are you sure Lowell is the rule and not the exception?

[BoSox21]

I think Lowell's entire season thus far is the exception

[Dipre]

Umm' date=' are you sure Lowell is the rule and not the exception?[/quote']

 

Kilo, for the love of Jesus.

 

Lowell IS the exception, that's what i've been trying to say all along.

 

The point of the debate is that not every player who is struggling is hitting at a below average level with 2 strikes, which is what TW101 implied, whereas one of the reasons Ortiz was struggling so bad was that he looked uncomfortable, well, desperate, with 2 strikes, and as he has begun to look more comfy, he has begun to fare better.

 

The whole point of the argument was to demonstrate how absolutes in baseball never work.

 

A guy can be having a 2004-Beltre type season and be hitting .089 in 0-1 and 0-2 counts, or he can be in the middle of a legendary slump and hitting a respectable combined .233 with 2 strikes, again, absolutes in baseball are never right.