View Full Version : No such thing as "productive outs"?
KENMonteSS86
04-26-04, 09:01 AM
When a team goes 0 FOR 19 with runners in scoring position, you hit no home runs and the other team scores 2 runs, yet you STILL win...to me, that is the epitomie of "small ball"...
Small ball is NOT just bunting...it's doing the little things needed to win ballgames--like hitting THREE sacrifice flies with a man on third and less than two out...
Boston is doing all the little things RIGHT in order to win ballgames--while we look like we couldn't hit our way out of a paper bag. You don't need the 3-run HR all the time in order to win--you just need to execute.
Boston "gave away" three outs, yet scored three runs off of them...to those who say there is no such thing as a "productive" out, or that you shouldn't give away outs--it just goes to show that if you do the little things right, you WILL win...
Boston had three sac flies in one game--we've had TWO this ENTIRE season thus far. Boston will sure as hell get their share of HRs--they've got a good lineup filled with guys who can hit the ball out of the park. But they also know that in order to win, you also need to do the little things right...which is something the '96--'00 Yankee teams also knew and did.
Those were teams that also got their share of HRs...after all, guys like Jeter, O'Neill, Bernie, Tino, Posada...they could all hit the ball out of the park. But they also did all the little things right, did what needed to be done in order to WIN...and that is the biggest difference I see between our teams since 2002 and the teams back then...
Anybody still want to say there is no such thing as a productive out or that you can't give away outs and still be able to win on a consistent basis?
Mikey The Great
04-26-04, 09:12 AM
Obviously, that's not true. The Red Sox had one hit with runners in scoring position during the last two games and still won both times. They hit three sacrifice flies on Saturday and two of those outs with runners in scoring position involved moving a runner from second to third.
There are productive outs in baseball. It's just that we don't see them enough in the Bronx!
Ken,
There is nothing more productive than not making an out in the first place, but you are absolutely right on the money. The "O'Neil" teams took care of the little things first and the big things happened as a result.
yankees7
04-26-04, 09:20 AM
Iv'e been preaching about small ball and lack of it for the past three weeks. Everyone just waking up to the fact you can't rely on the HR all the time??? ITS FUNDEMENTAL BASEBALL!!!!
World Champions NYY
04-26-04, 09:25 AM
And of course it would be nice to see some productive hits as well.;)
KayForPresident
04-26-04, 09:28 AM
Sheffield's AB in the 9th yesterday epitomized why this team isn't scoring runs. I know he has a violent swing in general, but when you're down 2-0 with no one on, you cut down on your swing and make contact.
Bosox Guy in Chitown
04-26-04, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by KayForPresident
Sheffield's AB in the 9th yesterday epitomized why this team isn't scoring runs. I know he has a violent swing in general, but when you're down 2-0 with no one on, you cut down on your swing and make contact.
I agree completely. As soon as I saw that rip I was pretty sure Williamson was going to get him with a K. When there's two out and no one on base, you can't hit a 2-run homer.
WiffleWOOD
04-26-04, 09:41 AM
the problem is not that there is no "small ball." small ball is not better than HR, no matter how you look at it. The problem is that they're not hitting HR either.
although slightly tangential, a study at strikethree.com (http://www.strikethree.com/99/08/14/matt.shtml) shows that a team constructed solely of sluggers (with terrible batting average, and whose only hits are homeruns) will beat a team of singles guys (.400 batting average, all singles and outs) nearly 60% of the time.
yes, it would be nice to be getting more hits. The problem, however, is not that the team can't produce a run here and there "small ball style." that is effective in the playoffs, not the regular season. The problem is that Posada is the only one hitting the long ball.
wileedog
04-26-04, 09:52 AM
I know the stat heads around here hate BA as a statistic, but right now I would say that is the number one problem.
The 96-00 didn't win with "small ball". They didn't win with "productive outs" (although they were better at it than this lineup currently is). They won with an uncanny knack for stringing together 4, 5, 6 hits in an inning, and yes, the occasional timely bomb.
These numbers tell it all
Jeter: .175
A-Rod: 257
Sheffield: .265
Matsui: .262
Giambi: .204
Bernie: .167
Wilson: .167 (Cairo plz. k. thnx)
I don't care about productive outs, small ball, HRs, OBP or anything else. When Jorge Posada is leading the team in BA with .281, and the team as a whole is hitting a whopping .217, you are going to lose ballgames. A lot of them.
You can't bunt a guy home from 2nd. Nor can you walk him home from 2nd. At some point you have to hit. Until the Yanks start hitting all this talk about small ball and HRs is pointless.
World Champions NYY
04-26-04, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by wileedog
I know the stat heads around here hate BA as a statistic, but right now I would say that is the number one problem.
The 96-00 didn't win with "small ball". They didn't win with "productive outs" (although they were better at it than this lineup currently is). They won with an uncanny knack for stringing together 4, 5, 6 hits in an inning, and yes, the occasional timely bomb.
These numbers tell it all
Jeter: .175
A-Rod: 257
Sheffield: .265
Matsui: .262
Giambi: .204
Bernie: .167
Wilson: .167 (Cairo plz. k. thnx)
I don't care about productive outs, small ball, HRs, OBP or anything else. When Jorge Posada is leading the team in BA with .281, and the team as a whole is hitting a whopping .217, you are going to lose ballgames. A lot of them.
You can't bunt a guy home from 2nd. Nor can you walk him home from 2nd. At some point you have to hit. Until the Yanks start hitting all this talk about small ball and HRs is pointless.
As you indicate, sometimes it really isn't all that complicated.;)
KayForPresident
04-26-04, 10:30 AM
I'm not a stat-head, but I agree with them on the uselessness of BA to judge a player's ability. I do however, like to look at BA with RISP. Hitting .200 isn't the worst thing so long as that one hit in 5 ABs comes at the right time.
So, here's Avg w/RISP....10ABs or more:
Posada .429
Shef .318
Matsui .273
Giambi .231
Jeter .176
Bernie .143
ARod .118
Originally posted by wileedog
I know the stat heads around here hate BA as a statistic, but right now I would say that is the number one problem.
The 96-00 didn't win with "small ball". They didn't win with "productive outs" (although they were better at it than this lineup currently is). They won with an uncanny knack for stringing together 4, 5, 6 hits in an inning, and yes, the occasional timely bomb.
These numbers tell it all
Jeter: .175
A-Rod: 257
Sheffield: .265
Matsui: .262
Giambi: .204
Bernie: .167
Wilson: .167 (Cairo plz. k. thnx)
I don't care about productive outs, small ball, HRs, OBP or anything else. When Jorge Posada is leading the team in BA with .281, and the team as a whole is hitting a whopping .217, you are going to lose ballgames. A lot of them.
You can't bunt a guy home from 2nd. Nor can you walk him home from 2nd. At some point you have to hit. Until the Yanks start hitting all this talk about small ball and HRs is pointless. Right on the money.
Maybe part of the problem, that a few others have alluded to, is that this line-up does have too many "superstars" in it. Players who aren't used to making the so called "dirty outs" and who are not willing to cut their swing down when they trail 2-0 with nobody on base in the 9th.
wileedog
04-26-04, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by 2JAY
Right on the money.
Maybe part of the problem, that a few others have alluded to, is that this line-up does have too many "superstars" in it. Players who aren't used to making the so called "dirty outs" and who are not willing to cut their swing down when they trail 2-0 with nobody on base in the 9th.
No, I think everyone's just anxious and feeling the pressure. Sheff is going to swing that way no matter what the count or situation is. That's how he hits, and that's how he has become such a terrific run producer in his career.
Once a couple people get on track I think it will get infectious to the whole team (other than Wilson). I don't buy the whole "HR Approach" argument and never will. Nobody looks comfortable at the plate right now, so I don't think its necessarily a swinging for the fences mentality that's doing us in.
wileedog
04-26-04, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by KayForPresident
I'm not a stat-head, but I agree with them on the uselessness of BA to judge a player's ability. I do however, like to look at BA with RISP. Hitting .200 isn't the worst thing so long as that one hit in 5 ABs comes at the right time.
So, here's Avg w/RISP....10ABs or more:
Posada .429
Shef .318
Matsui .273
Giambi .231
Jeter .176
Bernie .143
ARod .118
Not to get into stat argument, but IMO BA with RISP is just a function of BA. Eventually given a large enough sample size the two numbers will be reflective of each other.
The bottom line is if your hitting, you'll do it with men on or otherwise.
And while I wouldn't use it either as a sole judge of hitting ability, I think its foolish to throw the stat out as useless too. There are not many 320+ hitters who don't have corresponding OPS and OBP numbers. Just part of the equation IMO and it should be looked at.
KayForPresident
04-26-04, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by wileedog
No, I think everyone's just anxious and feeling the pressure. Sheff is going to swing that way no matter what the count or situation is. That's how he hits, and that's how he has become such a terrific run producer in his career.
That kind of approach may very well produce great numbers over the course of a 162 game season, but it's not going to cut it against top pitchers. Billy Beane will tell you which players have great numbers. He'll draft them, develop them, and unleash them on the rest of the AL. They'll compile great numbers from April to September and make the playoffs. But in October, when you have to actually PLAY the game, they get knocked out.
That said, the guy with arguably the most "intangibles" on this Yankee team, Derek Jeter, is leading the charge of recent futility. So...who the hell knows what's causing this funk.
Once a couple people get on track I think it will get infectious to the whole team (other than Wilson). I don't buy the whole "HR Approach" argument and never will. Nobody looks comfortable at the plate right now, so I don't think its necessarily a swinging for the fences mentality that's doing us in.
I think it has more to do with this team believing their own hype. Instead of having tough at bats, working counts, and playing the game the way they should, they're going out there thinking it will come to them. They have to go out and get it.
KayForPresident
04-26-04, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by wileedog
Not to get into stat argument, but IMO BA with RISP is just a function of BA. Eventually given a large enough sample size the two numbers will be reflective of each other.
The bottom line is if your hitting, you'll do it with men on or otherwise.
And while I wouldn't use it either as a sole judge of hitting ability, I think its foolish to throw the stat out as useless too. There are not many 320+ hitters who don't have corresponding OPS and OBP numbers. Just part of the equation IMO and it should be looked at.
I know what you're saying and of course, statistically speaking, a .330 hitter should have corresponding numbers with RISP. However, I think some situational stats, such as BA w/RISP, can quantify a player's mental makeup rather than his overall ability. I for one, do believe in players having "intangibles" which many stat heads will claim is not the case and probably have numbers to prove it.
wileedog
04-26-04, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by KayForPresident
That kind of approach may very well produce great numbers over the course of a 162 game season, but it's not going to cut it against top pitchers. Billy Beane will tell you which players have great numbers. He'll draft them, develop them, and unleash them on the rest of the AL. They'll compile great numbers from April to September and make the playoffs. But in October, when you have to actually PLAY the game, they get knocked out.
Given Sheff's numbers over his career, I'd just assume leave him alone. He saw a pitch he thought he could murder, and went at it. It was probably more of a reaction than conscious decision. Also don't forget Sheff is still learning the pitchers in the AL.
I think it has more to do with this team believing their own hype. Instead of having tough at bats, working counts, and playing the game the way they should, they're going out there thinking it will come to them. They have to go out and get it.
Maybe, although I think its more the pressure to live up to that hype than believing they just have to show up and they'll win.
The guys with the drive and skill to play the game at the level most of these Yankees (usually) do are by nature extremely competitive. No one wants to be the goat. No one wants to be the guy letting the team down. As a result, everyone is. That would account for a lot of the over-swinging as well.
Anyway, that's my theory, but who the hell knows. Maybe it's the "Curse of David Justice" as somebody mentioned in another thread.... ;)
wileedog
04-26-04, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by KayForPresident
I know what you're saying and of course, statistically speaking, a .330 hitter should have corresponding numbers with RISP. However, I think some situational stats, such as BA w/RISP, can quantify a player's mental makeup rather than his overall ability. I for one, do believe in players having "intangibles" which many stat heads will claim is not the case and probably have numbers to prove it.
Logically I disagree with you.
But I admit I always look at a guys BA w/RISP too for the very same reason.... :D
World Champions NYY
04-26-04, 03:35 PM
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
As wilee has stated, when you have a team BA hovering around .200 you're not going to score runs. Considerations revolving around OBP, HR, et al become fairly superfluous when you're generating that kind of "attack".
KayForPresident
04-26-04, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by World Champions NYY
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
As wilee has stated, when you have a team BA hovering around .200 you're not going to score runs. Considerations revolving around OBP, HR, et al become fairly superfluous when you're generating that kind of "attack".
Ahem...heart attack? Panic attack?
:lol:
WindRavenX
04-26-04, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by yankees7
Iv'e been preaching about small ball and lack of it for the past three weeks. Everyone just waking up to the fact you can't rely on the HR all the time??? ITS FUNDEMENTAL BASEBALL!!!!
This has been preached for the last 2 years, at least. Personally, I grew very worried towards the end of the 2002 season when no one was making "productive outs"- instead, players seemed to be swinging for the fences and ignoring the chances to move runners over, bunt, hit a sac fly, etc. etc. That worried me now. Then in 2003 more people picked up on this as the Yankees REALLY focused on being a offense heavy team...
And in the early weeks of NYY baseball in 2004, I and many others still see a team that is not playing "fundamental" baseball. It's irksome and IMO, will cost the team later down the road when several players go into slumps. Being able to manufacture runs is a highly effective way to both prevent and bring players out of slumps. That's my theory as to why in recent years when the team is cold, they're ice cold.
World Champions NYY
04-26-04, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by KayForPresident
Ahem...heart attack? Panic attack?
:lol:
:lol:
In this forum, RISP is acknowledged to be unimportant because sabermaticians realize it's been proven to equal out over a players career. If you want to talk about RISP, go to the other forum.
Ditto small ball and the utter silliness of "productive outs". Again sabermaticians are beyond that argument. For that reason it's not a subject for discussion among sabermaticians anymore and doesn't belong in this forum.
The problem the yankees have doesn't require much analysis. As has been mentioned previously in this thread, even batting average alone shows why we're not scoring runs: we're not hitting. It's that simple.
And the person who suggested Sheffield should cut down on his swing when he's ahead in the count, that's just plain wrong.
Go back to ITL if you don't like sabermatics. This is not where you belong.
WiffleWOOD
04-27-04, 11:11 AM
Mark, the point of Sabermetrics Symposium is not to start an exclusive club that only you and I and the few others versed in sabermetrics are members of. The point is to spark some healthy discussion between statheads and non, and, more importantly (IMO), to allow those who don't know about sabermetrics to come here to learn.
You have no right to tell people which forums they can post in. Please keep that nonsense somewhere else. If you want to be productive, show these posters why you (we) mostly disregard BA w/RISP and small ball.
-WW
if it's a sabermatics symposium, isn't the whole point to not have to listen to the same anti-sabermatic nonsense in ITL? If not, what exactly is the point of this forum?
When it was started, we were assured that people who did this would be dealt with. I mentioned this very thing, and was assured none of this sort of nonsense would be allowed. But here it is, and not only is it allowed, it's defended.
if you look at the top pozt in the thread, it's a blatant enictment of sabermatics. Why is someone coming here with a thread that belongs in Sportsbar (let alone ITL) given carte blanche and the person that points that fact out chided?
There are two forums already in existance for this kind of ignorant whining. This forum was supposed to be where those of us with an interest in sabermatics could escape this sort of thing, hence the forum's title.
AngelAstro
04-27-04, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by markp
if you look at the top pozt in the thread, it's a blatant enictment of sabermatics. Why is someone coming here with a thread that belongs in Sportsbar (let alone ITL) given carte blanche and the person that points that fact out chided?
There are two forums already in existance for this kind of ignorant whining. This forum was supposed to be where those of us with an interest in sabermatics could escape this sort of thing, hence the forum's title.
Just to protect the innocent, this thread started out in ITL yesterday. This morning I noticed it was in SS.
WiffleWOOD
04-27-04, 01:12 PM
First of all, this thread was started in ITL, and was moved here by a mod when it started getting stat-heavy. The thought process was, I'm sure, that it could spark a debate about RISP. THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS FORUM. yes, it's great to have threads that are just sabermetricians talking shop. those are more than welcome, and I'm sure that most of them will be like that because those who dont know statistical analysis will be bored by them. but if that was all we had, it would end up being a 5 person forum.
instead, this is a forum that is open to everyone to come and learn about these measures of analysis. So rather than bash these people, why don't you put your energy into trying to convert them, or explain to them your standpoint? And if they are uninterested, well, then, they won't come back to this forum, which will solve your problem.
Either way, you can't lose. They either learn from you and start to think like a sabermetrician, or they are uninterested and go back to ITL. You do lose, however, when you start riding your high horse and refusing to engage in conversation with them.
and by the way, the term is "sabermetrics," not "sabermatics." if you are going to sit here and make fun of people who come to this forum that aren't on your level, at least know what you are talking about.
it's been called both from the very start. The sabermatics came from sabermatician which adds the end of mathematician to SABR. But lets not let something like that stop a good insult.
Having one moderator assure us that threads like this wouldn't be allowed here and another telling us that they're just fine is pretty inconsistent.
I think that since there are two forums for this sort of thing already, putting or allowing threads like this in a forum designed for those of us that liked to discuss things in a more analytical place kind of defeats the whole purpose.
Why not get on the same page and let the rest of us know if this is really going to be a place where the people who follow the ideas and concepts of SABR can come to discuss that or not. Because if it's going to be yet another place for people to start yet another thread about small ball and how stupid us SABR disciples are, then you can have it. We came here to escape that sort of thing.
silverdsl
04-27-04, 03:16 PM
Let me be crystal clear here: It is unacceptable for users to tell other users where they are allowed to post. It's up to the moderation team, specifically WiffleWOOD in this forum, to decide if there are inappropriate posts being made. As far as I can tell there are no posts in this thead that violate the community standards prior to the discussion of who should be able to post where. I understand that the folks who are into stats and SABR and would like to discuss things from that particular viewpoint - that's the purpose of this forum and the majority of threads in this forum will most likely be stats/SABR oriented exclusively. However, you can't expect that there will never be people who won't argue things from a different point of view or won't say things that you don't agree with. This is an open forum where anyone is free to post and unless Jim decides differently we won't be closing it to non-SABR/stats folks although I don't think we will be encouraging the non-SABR/stats folks to just jump in either.
If you have a problem with the way this forum is being run, please discuss it via PM with WiffleWOOD, the moderator of this particular forum or start a new thread in the Suggestion Box.
Otherwise, please keep the rest of the posts in this thread on-topic.
Thanks.
-Deborah
for the same threads that pervade the other forums to arrive here. And what are our moderators concerned about? That the people who are using this forum for the opposite of what it was supposed to have been designed for are allowed to put their 200th thread about how stat-heads are wrong. And I quote:
"Boston is doing all the little things RIGHT in order to win ballgames--while we look like we couldn't hit our way out of a paper bag. You don't need the 3-run HR all the time in order to win--you just need to execute...
...Anybody still want to say there is no such thing as a productive out or that you can't give away outs and still be able to win on a consistent basis?"
and in the other posts:
"Iv'e been preaching about small ball and lack of it for the past three weeks. Everyone just waking up to the fact you can't rely on the HR all the time??? ITS FUNDEMENTAL BASEBALL!!!!"
If that isn't calling out of those of us that think SABR is right then what is it? There's no analysis in that post, only the same tired drivel that the people who were excited about this forum have disproven several hundred times since I've been here.
The focus of this forum was supposed to be SABR-related, wasn't it? I mean it's the name of the forum, isn't it? I think you've lost more than me with this. I know a lot of posters who say they don't come here anymore because the infantile posts far outnumber any rational discussion. They applauded this forum. But since this forum is now going to be the same as ITL and sportbar, and thus more and more filled with the same threads-devoid of analysis and repetitive "small ball" (etc.)threads just like this one. Have fun.
NicktheStick36
04-28-04, 10:15 AM
To get back on topic...
When is an out productive? From listening to the Joe Morgan's of the world, it's moving a runner up a base by hitting a ball to the right side.
Now, there are measurements of how productive this out is. By using a Run Expectancy chart, you can see how many runs an average team would score, given that base/out state. It's based on actual play-by-play data, compiled from 1999-2002, to ensure a good sample. You can find it right here (http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html).
Now, the nitty gritty..
Man on first with 0 outs: 0.953 runs
Man on second with 1 out: 0.725 runs
Difference: -0.228 runs
The out is not productive
Man on second with 0 outs: 1.189 runs
Man on thrid with 1 out: 0.983
Difference: -0.206
The out would not be productive
Man on thrid with 0 outs: 1.482 runs
Bases empty, 1 out, run in: 1.297 runs
Difference: -0.185
The out would be productive, but the team is in a worse position to score more runs
1st and 2nd with 0 outs: 1.573
2nd and 3rd with 1 out: 1.467
Difference: -0.106
In this case, the out would be marginal
There is one case where an out is productive...a sacrifice fly with 1 out.
Runner on 3rd, 1 out: 0.983
Bases Empty, 2 out, 1 in: 1.117
Difference: 0.134
The other expectations are based on runners moving up on the fly ball and the like, and frankly, I think I've made my point.
There are very few productive outs.
WiffleWOOD
04-28-04, 10:31 AM
excellent post, nick.
AngelAstro
04-28-04, 10:39 AM
Good post NicktheStick36.
People need to realize that making outs is the worst thing you can do when hitting.
WiffleWOOD
04-28-04, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by AngelAstro
People need to realize that making outs is the worst thing you can do when hitting.
Exactly. I think the confusion with "productive outs" is that it implies that getting the out and advancing the runner is a good thing, when in reality it diminishes the scoring opportunities.
I think many people are decieved by this term, however, when watching an AB with runners on base. The worst thing that can happen is if the batter strikes out. This is the least productive thing one can do, and leaves fans screaming "at least move the runners over!" As a result, when a hitter does move the runners over, it is deemed "productive," at least in relation to the worst possible outcome (K).
As Nick, Mark and Angel have noticed, in most cases this is not actually productive.
NicktheStick36
04-28-04, 12:06 PM
I'd almost rather see a strikeout.
At least then, the hitter saw at least 3 pitches.
justin32099
04-28-04, 02:14 PM
I think it is a misnomer to say that sabermetricians don't believe in situational hitting, contact hitting, and productive outs. I consider myself a sabermetrician in that I believe baseball is a game of probabilties, where understanding the value of a walk, a stolen base, or a bunt is a more accurate way to judge the value of a hitter than subjective observation.
Situational hitting, I believe, does exist--when there is a man on third and less than two outs, it is USUALLY good to try to hit a ground ball to the right side or a fly ball deep to the outfield. Of course this doesn't apply if you're behind by five runs in the eighth inning, when you need a base hit, but in a tie game in the 12th inning (Bellhorn's situation), for example, the marginal impact of that run on the outcome of the game is much, much higher than, for example, a sac fly in the top of the first. A batter's approach should vary depending on the score and what runners are on base--I doubt any sabermetricians would argue with that.
One of the great things about baseball is that we don't understand it all yet, and we probably never will. Why is it that some teams are just better in close games than others? It defies pure statistical deviation. I don't believe in "clutch" hitting, but I do believe that some hitters are better at hitting situationally than others. Perhaps the two get mistaken.
Here's Kevin Kennedy's argument that the lack of situational hitting is hurting the Yankee:
http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2358118
...
Now think Yankees. Much of the same thing is happening to them. When you have a modern-day Murderer's Row of A-Rod, Giambi, Sheffield, Posada, Matsui, and Williams, you expect home runs, doubles, and a ton of runs. Well, it ain't happening that way and I'm sure Joe Torre knows why. Joe has always been a National League-style manager, a guy who loves to move runners, create motion on the bases, get the run home when a guy's in scoring position, and keep the offense flowing. If a home run comes, fine, but you can't sit and wait for it.
Joe had that kind of team in '98, when the Yanks finished at 114-48 and swept the Padres in the World Series. He didn't have a bunch of big boppers, though plenty of them had the strength to reach the seats. Paul O'Neill, for instance was always a tough out. He could take the ball the other way down the left-field line, hit it over the middle or into the gaps, and occasionally pull one into the seats. Most of the guys on that team — Jeter, Knoblach, Martinez, Girardi, Brosius, Curtis, Raines, Sojo, Williams — could almost always put the bat on the ball. Over this past weekend, Joe moved runners several times only to have it result in a strike-'em-out, throw-'em-out double play. You didn't see that happen often in '98.
Situational hitting depends on the score, the inning, the count and the pitcher you're facing. You've got to take what the pitcher gives you and go the other way, hit behind the runner, settle for the sacrifice fly or single in the hole if it gets a run home. This is what I had to do with my Texas team. I challenged them to begin hitting to the situation. Then we practiced execution. Go to the opposite field, get the ball in the air, shorten your swing and don't strike out. Once they did that and I was able to add motion to the offense, they suddenly found they were getting more fastballs to hit. And if there is one thing all major-league hitters love, it's a steady diet of fastballs.
I also think the Yankees have to start playing some little ball. You can play little ball and still hit the home run. Both the Marlins and the Angels did that the last two years, and they wound up wearing the rings. Situational hitting wins games, even if you have guys capable of hitting 30-40 home runs. The Dodgers are doing it more this year with great results. The other night Milton Bradley went the opposite way with two strikes and won the game. David Ortiz of the Red Sox admits that he became a better hitter when he cut down on his swing. The way he put it to me is that he's short to the ball now. Because of that, he has become a much more dangerous hitter. With a long swing, going for the fences, you simply have too many holes and a smart pitcher will find them.
(I agee with him to some extent about situational hitting, but not about the little ball. btw, Situational hitting is NOT the same thing as a productive out.)
Dave in MD
04-28-04, 09:54 PM
the Yankees weren't hitting at all, and therefore not scoring. Nothing to do with situational hitting. And by the way Kaat really pissed me off tonight with his bull**** against Moneyball. He claimed Pierre was the mvp of the series despite the fact that Pierre had impact on only one game.
Originally posted by Dave in MD
the Yankees weren't hitting at all, and therefore not scoring. Nothing to do with situational hitting. And by the way Kaat really pissed me off tonight with his bull**** against Moneyball. He claimed Pierre was the mvp of the series despite the fact that Pierre had impact on only one game.
I think one of the reasons they weren't hitting is that too many players were trying to kill the ball, i.e., pressing.
NJASDJDH
04-28-04, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Dave in MD
the Yankees weren't hitting at all, and therefore not scoring. Nothing to do with situational hitting. And by the way Kaat really pissed me off tonight with his bull**** against Moneyball. He claimed Pierre was the mvp of the series despite the fact that Pierre had impact on only one game.
Agreed about Kaat, I almost hate playing the A's simply because the idiotic YES announcers are guaranteed to make another ignorant comment about "Moneyball" or sabermetrics.
WiffleWOOD
04-28-04, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by NJASDJDH
Agreed about Kaat, I almost hate playing the A's simply because the idiotic YES announcers are guaranteed to make another ignorant comment about "Moneyball" or sabermetrics.
i was thinking the EXACT same thing. They were doing it in nearly every broadcast anyway, but once the A's came in town, all we get is this ignorant bull**** about "moneyball."
Originally posted by WiffleWOOD
i was thinking the EXACT same thing. They were doing it in nearly every broadcast anyway, but once the A's came in town, all we get is this ignorant bull**** about "moneyball."
Although I think it makes him sound like an anti-intellectual, I can understand Kaat's anxiety. He is an older guy, who views the sabermetrics movement as a threat to everything he has known about baseball (even though his fear is unreasonable). Kay, OTOH, has no excuse for sounding so uninformed.
http://yankeefan.blogspot.com/
AngelAstro
04-29-04, 08:23 AM
Dave had it right, they weren't hitting period, thus they didn't score runs.
So, now that the Yanks have scored a couple of runs on singles and sac flies, are they a situational hitting team or are they just starting to hit? To me, it's a circular argument.
Originally posted by AngelAstro
Dave had it right, they weren't hitting period, thus they didn't score runs.
So, now that the Yanks have scored a couple of runs on singles and sac flies, are they a situational hitting team or are they just starting to hit? To me, it's a circular argument.
I don't think it's a dichotomy. I think the pressure to succeed out of the gate superseded a smart approach at the plate for some players.
AngelAstro
04-29-04, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Rich
I don't think it's a dichotomy. I think the pressure to succeed out of the gate superseded a smart approach at the plate for some players.
I'm not so sure about that. Most of the players on the Yankees are very patient hitters who work the count. The Yankees still walked, as of today they were second in the majors in walks, so I don't think their approach was all that different. They just couldn't buy a hit. I guess we have to define approach a bit better.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=olney_buster&id=1792101
RIyankee
04-29-04, 03:04 PM
I don't think that having the runner advance on an grounder is relative to skill. The ability to get on base is. The POP statistic doesn't seem like a sound way to evaluate a player. It reminds me of the GWRBI statistic of 10-15 years ago.
AngelAstro
04-29-04, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by koko
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=olney_buster&id=1792101
Well, it will be interesting to see which teams have the most runs scored at the end of the season, Detroit or Oakland. Comparing Boston or the Yanks to Detroit isn't fair because of the lack of talent in Detroit compared to the Sox or the Yanks.
What they don't mention in the article is that Detroit is simply outhitting Oakland as a team. Detroit has team averages of .285/.356/.424 while Oakland has .261/.337/.403, so it stands to reason that Detroit has scored more runs so far.
What's also interesting is that Anaheim or Florida is not in the top 6 in POP this season. Anaheim has been a strong slugging team (.446) as have the Marlins (.444). Currently Anaheim, Florida and Detroit are ranked 2, 18 and 1 in runs scored in the league. I'm willing to wager that Anaheim and Detroit won't be up that high all year.
ChewieTobbacca
04-30-04, 10:19 AM
AngelAstro:
As much as numbers say otherwise, the Angels have always had high amounts of runs over the years so its certainly sometihng to ponder. They certainly won't be the top 3 in offense in the entire league but top 5 is possible.
Detroit and Oakland may be worthy of comparison at the end of the year... but that's a matter of seeing how they perform. Right now, as a team, Detroit is just flat out hitting the ball and getting on base thus scoring 6 runs a game.
Anyways that being said... on the topic of outs.
It is always better to NOT make an out - there is no doubt about it. I think he flaw on both sides of looking at productive outs is that it is a matter of situation. No hitter goes up to the plate looking to ground out. Him grounding or flying out and getting the runner home from 3rd is a matter of the situation. The hitter's ultimate goal is to get a hit - the only reason that out can be 'productive' is because it go a person home. This is where situations and situational hitting (like a pitcher bunting if the guy is batting way below .200)
And in that I see the flaw of productive outs - those players and teams do not go out there trying to make an out - that would be stupid to cut down on the 27 outs. hese things can really be important based on the situation and shouldn't be used as a mindset to play - the mindset should always be first and foremost avoiding making an out.
WiffleWOOD
04-30-04, 10:41 AM
it's like the baseball world is reading our saber forum:
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/006584.php
AngelAstro
04-30-04, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by ChewieTobbacca
AngelAstro:
As much as numbers say otherwise, the Angels have always had high amounts of runs over the years so its certainly sometihng to ponder. They certainly won't be the top 3 in offense in the entire league but top 5 is possible.
Anaheim AL rank in runs scored:
2003 - 11th with 736, team batted .268/.330/.413, record of 77-85
2002 - 4th with 851, team batted .282/.341/.433, record of 99-63
2001 - 12th with 691, team batted .261/.327/.405, record of 75-87
2000 - 7th with 864, team batted .280/.352/.472, record of 82-80
1999 - 13th with 711, team batted .256/.319/.395, record of 70-92
1998 - 10th with 787, team batted .272/.332/.415, record of 85-77
Overall, I would have to say that over the past few years they have not been great at scoring runs. Only in 2002 and 2000 (just barely, Toronto had 861) did they score more than half the other teams in the league.
Also, the years they did score lots of runs, especially 2002, they had a very high team batting average, in 2000 they had the 5th highest team AVG and in 2002 they were tops. Combine that with a good OBP, 4th best in 2002 and 6th best in 2000, and good SLG, 6th best in 2002 and tops in 2000, and any team is going to score many runs, regardless of productive outs.
Dave in MD
04-30-04, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by AngelAstro
Anaheim AL rank in runs scored:
2003 - 11th with 736, team batted .268/.330/.413, record of 77-85
2002 - 4th with 851, team batted .282/.341/.433, record of 99-63
2001 - 12th with 691, team batted .261/.327/.405, record of 75-87
2000 - 7th with 864, team batted .280/.352/.472, record of 82-80
1999 - 13th with 711, team batted .256/.319/.395, record of 70-92
1998 - 10th with 787, team batted .272/.332/.415, record of 85-77
Overall, I would have to say that over the past few years they have not been great at scoring runs. Only in 2002 and 2000 (just barely, Toronto had 861) did they score more than half the other teams in the league.
Also, the years they did score lots of runs, especially 2002, they had a very high team batting average, in 2000 they had the 5th highest team AVG and in 2002 they were tops. Combine that with a good OBP, 4th best in 2002 and 6th best in 2000, and good SLG, 6th best in 2002 and tops in 2000, and any team is going to score many runs, regardless of productive outs.
adding Vlad to that lineup has to help a lot. You cannot discount that.
justin32099
05-04-04, 09:23 PM
I think another thing that gets in the way of understanding the Moneyball vs. Smallball argument is that it's hard to quantify.
Let's say you have two teams with the exact same line.... 260/330/440 for example, good ol' league average. Suppose one of these teams takes the Oakland approach....never steals bases, little team speed. The other takes the Florida approach...run like crazy, never bunt, take the extra base, everyone has wheels. Of course the Florida team is going to score more runs than the Oakland team, because of that small-ball approach. You can't compare the stats retroactively and say that smallball or money ball is better. The question, of course, is this: if Florida wasn't stealing, how much better could their OBP/SLG have been? The question is, does the smallball impact a team more negatively than it does positively?
I don't have the time or statistical capability, but someone should really do a fully detailed study of the value of speed on the basepaths. For example, is a .360 OBP hitter with average speed better than a .350 hitter with very good speed? .340? .330? That's the question I want to answer...quantify the value of speed. Plenty of studies have proven that bunting is a poor decision in almost all circumstances.
Larry Mahnken
05-05-04, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by jpao89
The "O'Neil" teams took care of the little things first and the big things happened as a result.
The Yankees' Postseason Productive Out Percentage over the past two seasons was .310. Their Postseason POP from 1998-2000 was .268.
The reason the '98-'00 Yankees won? Well, among other things, their OBP in those situations was .352, compared to .297 for the Yankees over the past two season. They didn't win because they made productive outs at a high rate, they won because they made outs at a low rate, period.
Dave in MD
05-05-04, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Larry Mahnken
The Yankees' Postseason Productive Out Percentage over the past two seasons was .310. Their Postseason POP from 1998-2000 was .268.
The reason the '98-'00 Yankees won? Well, among other things, their OBP in those situations was .352, compared to .297 for the Yankees over the past two season. They didn't win because they made productive outs at a high rate, they won because they made outs at a low rate, period.
exactly. Glad to see you back here Larry. Your blog is great.
Larry Mahnken
05-05-04, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Dave in MD
exactly. Glad to see you back here Larry. Your blog is great.
Thanks, Dave. I don't see you commenting as much as you used to, I was worried you had stopped reading.
Dave in MD
05-05-04, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Larry Mahnken
Thanks, Dave. I don't see you commenting as much as you used to, I was worried you had stopped reading.
I read everyday that you write. For some reason, by java platform has trouble opening your comment section.
NJASDJDH
05-05-04, 10:33 PM
Yeah, Larry is definitely the man, and my inspiration for writing my blog.
Larry is much too modest to post this himself....glufff....but here is his fine article on POP from The Hardball Times.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-truth-about-productive-outs/
Larry Mahnken
05-06-04, 09:43 AM
I'm not that modest. I was about to come here and post it myself. :D
WiffleWOOD
05-06-04, 01:28 PM
Great to see you posting around here, Larry.
Here's a link to Jay Jaffe's take on the subject:
http://www.futilityinfielder.com/archives/2004_05_02_futility_archive.shtml#108371973474821490
Sabermetrics
05-08-04, 12:43 AM
I was going to post something, but Nick and Larry took care of it for me eloquently. POP is worthless. Bunting, unless you are Juan Pierre and can lay one down the third base line and still reach 1st SAFELY, or are Pokey Reese and can't hit your way out of a wet paper bag, is almost always worthless.
Vile Tom
05-09-04, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Sabermetrics
I was going to post something, but Nick and Larry took care of it for me eloquently. POP is worthless. Bunting, unless you are Juan Pierre and can lay one down the third base line and still reach 1st SAFELY, or are Pokey Reese and can't hit your way out of a wet paper bag, is almost always worthless.
I'm a long time Jamesian but I wouldn't say POP is worthless because it's obviously better than an unproductive out. There are even rare circumstances where a productive out is MUCH BETTER than a walk. (eg tie game, runner on 3rd bottom 9th or extra innings with 0 or 1 outs.)
It's also likely that when it's a late inning situation with a weak hitter at the plate a sac bunt might not be such a bad idea. I'm not sure it's a bad idea to do it enough to get the defense to think about it. Have a "fake bunt" play where on the first pitch the batter squares around and puts good show on but doesn't really try to get it down then on the next pitch hit away.
That said Olney like most sportwriters who can't count past 10 with their shoes on should stay away from statistical analysis. His entire argument was a dishonest use of statistics that's typical of sportwriters. Find some numbers that support a preconceived opinion ignore any contrary evidence and present it as fact.
The problem here is there's a predictable backlash from the "traditionalists" to the smarty pants outsiders who proved that the pros didn't know the percentages. People don't like that. The SABR guys can be very arrogant and usually come to the table with a "if you don't agree with my results you're a moron" attitude.
Larry Mahnken
05-10-04, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Vile Tom
I'm a long time Jamesian but I wouldn't say POP is worthless because it's obviously better than an unproductive out.
Well, Productive Outs themselves aren't worthless, but Productive Out Percentage is.
The SABR guys can be very arrogant and usually come to the table with a "if you don't agree with my results you're a moron" attitude.
Well, you are. :D
justin32099
05-10-04, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Vile Tom
The problem here is there's a predictable backlash from the "traditionalists" to the smarty pants outsiders who proved that the pros didn't know the percentages. People don't like that. The SABR guys can be very arrogant and usually come to the table with a "if you don't agree with my results you're a moron" attitude.
I don't think that's the sabermetric approach at all. The SABR guys actually come to the table with legitimate proof that what they are saying is correct, and when all the "baseball people" can do is resort to childish name-calling (book nerds, etc.), they make themselves look extremely foolish. POP is a ridiculous backlash here--they didn't even attempt a proof that giving away outs leads to improved run scoring. Perhaps this is because there is none.
Sabermetrics
05-10-04, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Vile Tom
I'm a long time Jamesian but I wouldn't say POP is worthless because it's obviously better than an unproductive out.
I know somebody already said this, but didn't you just repeat my point? Productive outs are better then unproductive outs, sure. Productive out percentage is worthless though. I think you mean you wouldn't say productive outs are worthless, and I wouldn't either. So we agree. :)
Vile Tom
05-12-04, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by justin32099
I don't think that's the sabermetric approach at all. The SABR guys actually come to the table with legitimate proof that what they are saying is correct, and when all the "baseball people" can do is resort to childish name-calling (book nerds, etc.), they make themselves look extremely foolish.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're right about something. You have to present it in a way that will convince people. Some people can't be convinced and that probably includes most of the old time baseball people and the vast majority of the sports media.
I agree that the SABR guys are right, the data shows that they're right. So why haven't they been able to convince the majority of casual fans that they're right? Even after 20+ years fans are divided about 90-95% in the "traditional" camp to 5-10% in the SABR camp.
Larry Mahnken
05-12-04, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Vile Tom
I agree that the SABR guys are right, the data shows that they're right. So why haven't they been able to convince the majority of casual fans that they're right? Even after 20+ years fans are divided about 90-95% in the "traditional" camp to 5-10% in the SABR camp.
Don't most people believe in a deity, too?
(Ducks)
Dave in MD
05-12-04, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Vile Tom
Sometimes it doesn't matter if you're right about something. You have to present it in a way that will convince people. Some people can't be convinced and that probably includes most of the old time baseball people and the vast majority of the sports media.
I agree that the SABR guys are right, the data shows that they're right. So why haven't they been able to convince the majority of casual fans that they're right? Even after 20+ years fans are divided about 90-95% in the "traditional" camp to 5-10% in the SABR camp.
because the traditionalists reach the most people and are in control of the broadcasts. Its really that simple.
Another article on the subject from Larry Mahnken:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/productive-outs-and-the-people-who-love-them/
Irony Of It All
05-17-04, 06:49 PM
Here are some articles from Baseball Prospectus on when it makes sense to sacrifice.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2844
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2851
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2869
Originally posted by Rich
Another article on the subject from Larry Mahnken:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/productive-outs-and-the-people-who-love-them/ Here's a quote from this article:
There are times when a sacrifice bunt is not only a good play, but statistically the best play. But in order for a manager to always make the right call, he needs to both have available to him and the ability to understand vast amounts of data.
He's right on the money here. Problem is that both are NOT always available to Torre when he needs a sacrifice because the batter is not prepared. This is no different than going golfing and leaving your 8-iron home.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0