2014 Offseason Thread

[Kimmi]

I suspect agents would argue with you if they have clients that advance the runner 30 times a year but have a mediocre BA. Get Bill James on the phone. What's his assessment?

 

 

On last check, Bill James agrees with me. So do the rest of my stat geek buddies.

 

Again, the point is not to compare hitters with significantly different slash lines. The point is, with slash lines being fairly comparable, a batter who strikes out 30% of the time is not hurting his team any more than a batter who strikes out 10% of the time.

[Kimmi]

We are in a post steroid era. Power is not as plentiful. Spitball brought up Adam Dunn. Dunn is a huge specimen who was a 35+ HR guy who walked a lot. You tolerate K's from that kind of guy. It's the 20-25 HR guys who annoy me when they swing from the heels regardless of the situation.

 

 

Power is not measured by HRs alone. Despite being a 20-25 ish HR guy, Napoli's career ISO is .234, which puts him in the great to excellent range. With his OBP and OPS, you can tolerate a high strike out rate from him.

[Kimmi]

And here's what gets me Ted---and correct me if I'm wrong. Power is down nowadays. The era of 40+ home run hitters seems to be a thing of the past. You would think there would be more emphasis of going what I always called the "V" route when I was a coach. From the pitcher's box in a "V" shaped arc up the alleys in left and right center. More hitting room there and you can even wait a fraction longer on the ball to get a better look at it even though we talking about milliseconds. I think gap power is very underrated and I wish our guys take advantage of that this coming season.

 

Well Fred, not that I disagree with this post, but as far as I know, you still think HRs and RBIs are the be-all end-all of offensive stats. That is just wrong on so many levels.

[Kimmi]

So if we follow this obvious line of reasoning that a strikeout and an out caused by a batted ball amount to the same thing basically does this make a true power pitcher less significant? No more K-cards get held up. Strikeouts to innings pitched statistic is less important. Suffer my ignorance please - this is not a subject I think deeply about. But I also pay to have my taxes done as well.

 

 

The thing about high K pitchers is that if a pitcher is striking out a lot of batters, then obviously the batters are not putting the ball in play. As you mentioned before, if a batter puts the ball in play, many things can happen. A pitcher also then has to rely on his defense, which may or may not make the play. There are many possible things that can happen that do not result in an out.

 

It's all about the "out" here CP. An out is an out, so it doesn't matter much whether than out comes via the K, a ground out, or a pop up.

[Kimmi]

Sometimes the statistical debates get confused over the differences between the micro picture and the macro picture. If Mike Napoli is up with a runner at third and no outs, of course we would all rather see him hit an RBI groundout than K. That's not the point. The point is that over the course of 162 games Napoli is very productive in spite of striking out so much.

 

Mike Trout was 3rd in MLB in K's last year. Stanton was 9th.

 

And this is one of the reasons why I'm a big Bellhorn04 fan.

[cp176]

The thing about high K pitchers is that if a pitcher is striking out a lot of batters, then obviously the batters are not putting the ball in play. As you mentioned before, if a batter puts the ball in play, many things can happen. A pitcher also then has to rely on his defense, which may or may not make the play. There are many possible things that can happen that do not result in an out.

 

It's all about the "out" here CP. An out is an out, so it doesn't matter much whether than out comes via the K, a ground out, or a pop up.

 

That is very true. Personal preference as opposed to defendable data I guess. I like the big armed power pitcher with the low ERA and the high strikeout ratio. Without too much study, I hope that others do as well. With respect to hitting, I lean toward the contact side of things but in reality like a blend of both. My positions are opinions not defendable by anything other than what I like. Adam Dunn would never get a HOF vote from me although I will admit that there was a time where I thought he might look good in a Sox uniform.

[Kimmi]

That is very true. Personal preference as opposed to defendable data I guess. I like the big armed power pitcher with the low ERA and the high strikeout ratio. Without too much study, I hope that others do as well. With respect to hitting, I lean toward the contact side of things but in reality like a blend of both. My positions are opinions not defendable by anything other than what I like. Adam Dunn would never get a HOF vote from me although I will admit that there was a time where I thought he might look good in a Sox uniform.

 

 

I love power pitchers. I love watching a pitcher strike out a batter, whether it be by blowing a a fastball by him or freezing him with a knee-buckling curve ball. That said, I know enough to know that a hitter should not be judged based on a high strike out rate. Dunn is a perfect example. In fact, most of your power hitters strike out a lot.

[a700hitter]

Sometimes the statistical debates get confused over the differences between the micro picture and the macro picture. If Mike Napoli is up with a runner at third and no outs, of course we would all rather see him hit an RBI groundout than K. That's not the point. The point is that over the course of 162 games Napoli is very productive in spite of striking out so much.

 

Mike Trout was 3rd in MLB in K's last year. Stanton was 9th.

 

And maybe he would be more productive if he worked on shortening up on his swing and just trying to make contact in certain situations. Acknowledging his productivity doesn't mean that he couldn't be more productive if he tried a different approach. The fact that Napoli is productive is not proof that the swing from the heels approach is superior to a situationally strategic approach. It doesn't prove that at all.

[Spudboy]

Sometimes the statistical debates get confused over the differences between the micro picture and the macro picture. If Mike Napoli is up with a runner at third and no outs, of course we would all rather see him hit an RBI groundout than K. That's not the point. The point is that over the course of 162 games Napoli is very productive in spite of striking out so much.

 

Mike Trout was 3rd in MLB in K's last year. Stanton was 9th.

 

Napoili sees a lot of pitches. Therefore it should not surprise anyone that he Ks.

[User Name]

This is one of my favorite misconceptions in baseball. I like to compare sure Hall of Famer Ichiro Suzuki and not going to make it Adam Dunn. Outside of defense in 14 seasons, Dunn was the better offensive player. The batting average advantage goes clearly to Ichiro, and Dunn struck out more than twice as often as Ichiro. But Dunn made it on base more often at a .364 to .360 rate. Dunn OPSed .854 to Ichiro's .771. If we combine RBI and runs scored, Dunn leads 2,265 to 2,020. Strikeout artist Dunn leads in every important measure...yet won't be mentioned in the same breath as Suzuki.

 

Sometimes the statistical debates get confused over the differences between the micro picture and the macro picture. If Mike Napoli is up with a runner at third and no outs, of course we would all rather see him hit an RBI groundout than K. That's not the point. The point is that over the course of 162 games Napoli is very productive in spite of striking out so much.

 

Mike Trout was 3rd in MLB in K's last year. Stanton was 9th.

 

You two complete me.

[Bellhorn04]

And maybe he would be more productive if he worked on shortening up on his swing and just trying to make contact in certain situations. Acknowledging his productivity doesn't mean that he couldn't be more productive if he tried a different approach. The fact that Napoli is productive is not proof that the swing from the heels approach is superior to a situationally strategic approach. It doesn't prove that at all.

 

I understand what you're saying, of course. But I think a guy like Napoli is a smart veteran hitter and if he tried a different approach it could mess him up. I think he knows what's good for him a lot better than we do. And I don't think he swings for the fences all the time either. I've seen him dump plenty of bloopers for singles.

[a700hitter]

Napoili sees a lot of pitches. Therefore it should not surprise anyone that he Ks.

 

Wade Boggs saw a lot of pitches too.

[User Name]

I understand what you're saying, of course. But I think a guy like Napoli is a smart veteran hitter and if he tried a different approach it could mess him up. I think he knows what's good for him a lot better than we do. And I don't think he swings for the fences all the time either. I've seen him dump plenty of bloopers for singles.

 

It's just really easy to play baseball from one's comfortable couch. Do you know how goddamn hard it is to hit? Once a guy finds an approach that works, and has taken thousand of reps refining it, it's almost impossible to change it. Specially if it works, and it works for Napoli, who is a very productive hitter.

 

Everyone's a couch expert.

[a700hitter]

I understand what you're saying, of course. But I think a guy like Napoli is a smart veteran hitter and if he tried a different approach it could mess him up. I think he knows what's good for him a lot better than we do. And I don't think he swings for the fences all the time either. I've seen him dump plenty of bloopers for singles.

 

I don't doubt that Napoli tried it, and that it didn't work for him. That doesn't mean that he isn't immune from criticism for his inability to execute in those situations. There is no validity, statistical otherwise, that a swing from the heels method is more productive in those situations.

[Bellhorn04]

For his career, with a runner on third and less than 2 outs, Napoli has hit 278/357/540 for an OPS of 897, 47 points higher than his overall OPS of 850.

[User Name]

For his career, with a runner on third and less than 2 outs, Napoli has hit 278/357/540 for an OPS of 897, 47 points higher than his overall OPS of 850.

 

And stats trump uninformed opinions yet again!

[SoxnCycles]

For his career, with a runner on third and less than 2 outs, Napoli has hit 278/357/540 for an OPS of 897, 47 points higher than his overall OPS of 850.

 

The only at bats that count are the ones that annoy us.

[User Name]

The only at bats that count are the ones that annoy us.

 

No seriously, you should be like, permanently logged in here. You can post from your pc, tablet or smartphone. Just have all of those logged in at all times.

[a700hitter]

For his career, with a runner on third and less than 2 outs, Napoli has hit 278/357/540 for an OPS of 897, 47 points higher than his overall OPS of 850.

So, does this indicate that he is in fact changing his approach in those situations, or merely that he is "clutch"? Lol!

[Bellhorn04]

So, does this indicate that he is in fact changing his approach in those situations, or merely that he is "clutch"? Lol!

 

To me, it indicates that his approach in those situations has worked just fine over his career.

[SoxnCycles]

No seriously, you should be like, permanently logged in here. You can post from your pc, tablet or smartphone. Just have all of those logged in at all times.

 

Thanks.

I think I waste plenty of time here as it is!

[a700hitter]

To me, it indicates that his approach in those situations has worked just fine over his career.

 

And around the circle we go. If he learned to shorten up his swing and make contact it could be better.

 

How do you explain that his stats are better in that situation than his overall stats? Clutch?

[Bellhorn04]

And around the circle we go. If he learned to shorten up his swing and make contact it could be better.

 

How do you explain that his stats are better in that situation than his overall stats? Clutch?

 

a) It's pure speculation that it could be better. Mike Napoli is a veteran with an .850 OPS. I think he knows what he's doing better than we do. I think that should be obvious, really.

I can't explain it. Maybe he just takes advantage of the way he's pitched in those situations a little more.

[a700hitter]

a) It's pure speculation that it could be better. Mike Napoli is a veteran with an .850 OPS. I think he knows what he's doing better than we do. I think that should be obvious, really.

I can't explain it. Maybe he just takes advantage of the way he's pitched in those situations a little more.

 

So the stats provided establish that he knows what he is doing in those situations and couldn't improve by trying something different, but they don't establish: A. that he is doing something different in that situation or B. that he is clutch? How do you account for the difference if it is not A or B?

Edited February 28, 2015 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

I can't explain it. Maybe he just takes advantage of the way he's pitched in those situations a little more.

"takes advantage of ....those situations a little more." That sounds like "clutch". You could have said that in 1 word instead of the 14 that you used.

[cp176]

I love power pitchers. I love watching a pitcher strike out a batter, whether it be by blowing a a fastball by him or freezing him with a knee-buckling curve ball. That said, I know enough to know that a hitter should not be judged based on a high strike out rate. Dunn is a perfect example. In fact, most of your power hitters strike out a lot.

 

 

For the record, I am a Napoli fan. I already had the part about the power hitters striking out a lot figured out.. Thankfully there is a need for both. Not everyone was made to swing for the fences. I like the statistics and can see the value in them. I am not in love with them. I'm not a casual fan but I have little interest in a total immersion of statistical data. I know that you can live with that. Even though I might be uninformed, you never know when I might come up with something worthwhile. Most of what I say or predict might be refutable or even proveable by using statistics. I think that you can have an opinion and talk intelligently about the game without being in one camp or the other.

[cp176]

Oh - also, if stats should trump my opinions, I am ok with that as well.

[Bellhorn04]

"takes advantage of ....those situations a little more." That sounds like "clutch". You could have said that in 1 word instead of the 14 that you used.

 

I don't see how it's the same thing as clutch. Pitchers pitch differently in different situations, that's all I'm saying.

[a700hitter]

Oh - also, if stats should trump my opinions, I am ok with that as well.

I love your approach and philosophy about baseball.

[a700hitter]

I don't see how it's the same thing as clutch. Pitchers pitch differently in different situations, that's all I'm saying.

 

Then why aren't every hitters stats as good in that situation? Where is he in relation to the league norm in that situation? If he is far above the league norm, the explanation about pitchers pitching to the situation doesn't hold water. Clutch sounds like the only good explanation.

 

Also, you acknowledge that pitchers pitch to situations. Why shouldn't hitters adapt to different situations?

Edited February 28, 2015 by a700hitter