Dick Allen

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 05:42 PM) computers and ball trajectories. Who programs the computers?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 05:31 PM) No, actually. How is the advanced defense determined if no one actually is looking?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 05:20 PM) All of the above will eventually happen. It takes time for the game to adjust. The eye test has been proven to mean nothing. Isn't the eye test used for some of these unbiased numbers? I think your statement will even make eminor cringe.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 05:14 PM) I'll believe it when I see Alex Gordon and Jason Heyward get $100+ million free agent contracts coming off merely "decent" (775ish OPS) offensive years. It's one thing to overweight defense...or exploit seeming oversights (first it was OBP, then outfield defense....now it's bullpen construction and shifts). It's quite another to build an organizational philosophy around it. At any rate, we shall see. Heyward is a good player but can't hit lefties, and while his defense is elite, you have to womder how long it will remain elite, and if paying that kind of money for elite defense in RF makes a lot of sense.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 05:05 PM) Because he, statistically, has been bad. Not just unlucky. They are two distinctly different things. No. He is prone to unlucky innings.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 04:53 PM) Sigh. Strikeouts don't have the stigma, because it turns out they're not as bad as the uninformed players and coaches of yesteryear thought they were! Adam Dunn would not have BEEN Adam Dunn if he'd focused on cutting down the strikeouts. If he had, he probably wouldn't have walked or homered as much. So yes, that plays a role. Of course it does. But combine that with the best pitching the game has ever seen, and that'll account for the entire uptick in strikeouts. Again, it's really all about statistics. Statistically, Adam Dunn is a much more valuable player than he would've been considered in the 80s. And that's a good thing. That's called progress. Adam Dunn had 2 seasons in his career where advanced stats said he was more valuable than The 2014 version of Alexei Ramirez, mwho was supposed to be falling apart 2 years ago.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 04:58 PM) Sorry, it was a 1 WARP according to BP. He had a 3.57 FIP and a 9.1 VORP, making him our third most valuable pitcher last season. He had a .339 BABIP. He was unlucky. When John Danks gives up 6 runs in an inning, I never see anyone mention how unlucky he was.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 04:53 PM) Sigh. Strikeouts don't have the stigma, because it turns out they're not as bad as the uninformed players and coaches of yesteryear thought they were! Adam Dunn would not have BEEN Adam Dunn if he'd focused on cutting down the strikeouts. If he had, he probably wouldn't have walked or homered as much. So yes, that plays a role. Of course it does. But combine that with the best pitching the game has ever seen, and that'll account for the entire uptick in strikeouts. Again, it's really all about statistics. Statistically, Adam Dunn is a much more valuable player than he would've been considered in the 80s. And that's a good thing. That's called progress. "Their mentality is, it's an out," Orioles manager Buck Showalter says. "There's no such thing as a two-strike approach.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 04:43 PM) did you even bother to read my multiple long posts with detailed statistics showing you that pitching today is better than it was 10 years ago? If you did even an iota of research you'd see you're dead wrong about this. If it is better, it is not 7000 strikeouts better.that is about approach, strikeouts don't have the same stigma they used to have, but it will come back. BABIP is around the same as it has always been as well.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 04:32 PM) You know exactly what I mean, and choose to deflect because you can't back up your argument. /game,set,match You can't prove your Baylor statement. He played 19 years and struck out more than 76 times twice, when he was 37 or 38. If he used the same approach, his k rate wouldn't rise drastically, if at all. And using velocity as proof pitching is better than ever. Cleto, Belisario, Lindstrom. Check out the gun when they pitch.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 04:27 PM) Don Baylor would strike out 100 times or more in 2015 if he were playing today. He is 65,

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 04:07 PM) Proof? I gave you statistical proof that pitchers are better now than they've ever been. BEYOND strikeouts. And yet, you don't think those strikeouts are a bi-product of the best pitching the game has ever seen. Instead you think it's because of....... what? Coaching? Kids who "don't care if they strike out"? Where is your statistical proof? Because I gave you statistical proof that - beyond just strikeouts - hitters are not putting up anywhere NEAR the numbers they did even 10 years ago across the board. ETA: there's a distinction by the way. HITTERS are the best they've ever been, as are pitchers. But HITTING is down compared to 10 years ago, because PITCHING is better comparatively. LOL. Watch a game from the 80s. Watch a game in 2015. Look at what batters do with 2 strikes. Google what former players have to say about striking out. Don Baylor was pissed he got to 50 during his MVP year. He has been a MLB manager and hitting coach. He said the approach is totally different. That is proof if you don't want to believe what you see.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 03:56 PM) Well. Yeah. But that same effort to throw harder is what's ALSO contributing to the rise in strikeouts. Pitchers are better and throw harder. Because of that they also get hurt more often, BUT the advances in medicine allow those same pitchers to come back into the game, when in the past, TJ would end their career. Thus, pitching now is better than its ever been ever in the entire history of major league baseball the end. If strikeouts were all about velocity, I would agree, but that is not the case. Approach is what is causing the crazy increase in strikeouts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 03:46 PM) That's very different from "Ballparks are artificially increasing the numbers on their radar guns". When you watch games on TV and Hawk gives the speed, it usually is a mph more than what is shown on the screen. I am guessing he is getting it from the gun at the stadium. The guns in the park have more than likely made at least some difference in overall increased velocity.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 03:28 PM) Do you ha e literally ANY proof about the radar gun theory? The ASMI came out with a statement last year basically blaming the rash of elbow injuries on max effort trying to light up guns. This just doesn't hpeen in major league parks obviously, but the scrutiny that occurs when a potcher's reading drop 1 or 2 miles an hour does give credence to the belief the number being out there for everyone to see most likely increases thr likelihoood of injury.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 02:02 PM) It's simple -- there are more players playing baseball across the world than ever before. The fields of training and medicine are more advanced than ever before. The game has evolved in a such a way that specialization in pitching is encouraged, thus increasing the pool of players that can be useful even further. Why wouldn't that mean the quality of hitter is better? 7000 more whiffs in 2014 than 2005. That is 35 2014 Chris Sales.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 10:36 AM) Fixed. God I love their chicken. The only probelm with Popeye's is the size of their pieces varies. Sometimes they are huge. The next time, it's like they slaughtered a newborn. But I agree, awfully tastey.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 8, 2015 -> 09:10 AM) 10 years is 10 years. Also, we were all teenagers back then If someone offered you free front row tickets to see the 2 best teams in the NBA play or the 2 best teams in the WNBA play, which would you choose? Would choosing the NBA game be sexist?

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 11:29 PM) You're once again missing the forest for the trees because you're focusing on one tangential point from my post. No matter what you want to think, you cannot tell me if a guy is good or not based on how many times he strikes out. Those strikeouts are a factor, but you can be a good player despite them. That's the whole point I'm making. And I agreed with that point. The fact of the matter is, and what I emphasized, is there are terrible players striking out tons of times and not doing much else. When everyone played in little league, the guys who struck out all the time sucked. Now those same guys are trying to tell everyone striking out is because of the pitcher, it has little to do with your skill as a hitter. Don Bayler, a former MVP who struck out 51 times his MVP year and was pissed off abiut it. Now a hitting coach, see what he has to say about thiese totals. What I don't understand is if you do the math, your DP argument doesn't hold water. You also get a hit around 30% of the time you don't strike out. I do know if Mike Trout cut his whiffs to 120, he would be even more devasting than he is now. Hitters these days give up outs without even realizing it. Just ask yourself what is the the percentage of time a player reaches base via the strikeout vs anything else. That will show you strikeouts are bad even though they usually don't turn into double plays. Bunting guys over , giving up an out is bad, yet flailing away at a 1 and 2 pitch with your strike zone expanded, with the same approach you had the first pitch of the AB is just fine. That makes no sense.Changing your approach with 2 strikes also makes a pitcher work a little harder. I guess what I don't understand is you emphasize doubke plays yet ignore babip when saying strikeouts are no big deal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 09:23 PM) I remember how Liriano looked when he came into the league in 06. He made Johan look less than spectacular. Chris Sale does that all the bloody time, and Sale isn't the best pitcher in the league. So there was 7000 more strikeouts in the major leagues last year than in 2005 because of Chris Sale. He did have 208. That would be Randy Johnson's 14th highest total.

QUOTE (LDF @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 03:38 AM) look at the bulls of the MJ era. MJ needed Scottie to stretch the defense and give the bull another scoring option. they both knew they needed a power forward to help the center to guard the big, scoring power forward of the league, so at the last go around they got Rodman. in the basketball history, there are a 1 in a era superstar. the mantle of super stardom has passed from Kobe to Lefron. i wonder, has anyone identified the next superstar in the making???? The Bulls will be facing him tonight. Hopefully someday he comes home.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 05:55 PM) I think that giving a list of 3 or 4 names is missing the fact that there are 10 or 15 guys doing that same kind of stuff right now, yeah. There were the same amount of top guys then. But by all means, ignore how the approach at the plate has changed, which probably is all about money. They don't ding you in arb for high strikeouts. If they did, strikeouts would be way down. The overall k rate has increased 50% the last 40 years. It is higher now than before the DH. 11 pitchers struck out 180 or more last year.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 05:05 PM) There's another ingredient though - how many Chris Sales were there in 2005? The number of incredible pitchers seems to have surged over the past 5 years to a level that we haven't seen before (maybe in no small part based on the effectiveness of TJS and pitchers willingness to push themselves to it?) So you are saying despite that being the era of Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson, and Johan Santana in his prime and Roger Clemens, there are so many more great pitchers that would add 7000 strikeouts a season? If you really thimpnk it is pitchers and not approaches, next time MLB Network shows a game from the 80s watch it. You will see a huge difference. In the steroid era when hitting 30 homers was no big deal, striking out wasn't as big of a deal. You have to manufacture runs now. Fanning kills that.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 7, 2015 -> 11:51 AM) Or, ya know... pitching is in a dominant era right now? Why are you putting all the onus on the hitter? Trends like this have happened for as long as baseball has existed. Not like this one. 7000 more strikeouts in 2014 than 2005. It was the era that de-emphsized contact and changing the approach with 2 strikes. Now that the ball and players aren't as juiced, it had really changed the game. I don"t think Mike Trout needs to choke up with 2 strikes, but Barry Bonds all roided up choked up. It is the one thing in sabermetrics I will never understand. Strikeout as a hitter meant very little, your strikeout rate as a pitcher drops or rises, big news. Guys who hit 4 homers strike out 140 times. jason Giambi led the AL in strikeouts with 140 in 2003. Batting average with strikeouts is .000. If you put the ball in play, on average there is a 30% chance you will get a hit.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Feb 6, 2015 -> 09:41 PM) All of that is factored into linear weights averages. All of the things you mentioned are salient points, but they can all also be counted and their impacts averaged. Further, they've run year-to-year correlations to find out which factors are consistent and which act as randomness, allowing them to assign credit to players with repeatable skills and treat players who have exhibited non-repeatable "skills" as regression candidates, both positive and negative. Anyone who doesn't understand how linear weights work in baseball statistics should refer to Tom Tango's research from the early part of the 21st century -- it forms the foundation for how sabermetrics treats offense (at the plate, not the basepaths), and I've never seen even the most ardent traditionalists even try to put together a coherent argument against it. There's a ton of stuff in sabermetrics that is shaky, but this is not one of those things. And I think if you look into it, you'll agree. It makes a ton of sense. Regarding the bolded: You're right, but no one is arguing otherwise. The whole point though is that all else ISN'T equal in the cases we're referring to. As wite and I both said: there's no doubt that strikeouts contribute negatively toward offensive output (although it's less negatively than common sense suggests because of double plays), but strikeouts are only a component of offensive output, and we can just look at offensive output as a whole. People get too caught up in one component of hitting at a time as if we can't just look at how many runs a guy produces. And you can do that with both traditional and advanced stats. I hate the RBI stat, but even if you love it, you can look at RBI and see that Mike Trout drives in a whole bunch of runs DESPITE the fact that he strikes out. The strikeouts affect that number, but why wouldn't you just judge him based on the runs he produces? The K's are baked in there. If a guy is 20% above average at the plate but strikes out a bunch, he;s still 20% above average at the plate. DP arguments about strikeouts are beyond lame. If you hit the ball there are no strike em out, throw em outs either. Strikeouts are fine if you are Mike Trout. They are not fine when you fan 140 times and have an OPS under .700, which there were several in 2014, including Flowers. I think there were 36 players that fanned over 100 times and had an OPS under .700. If you cannot hit, at least move runners around some other way. No one freaks out at run producers fanning. Its the ither guys. 100 strikeouts in a season used to be embarrassing, now 4 guys a team on average reach that level and far beyond. Strikeouts are way up, runs are down. Hit the ball.Some of those will become hits. Some will become errors. Some will be iuts that don't make a difference. Some will become walks as you foul off a tough pitch or 2. Some will be double plays but not nearly enough to offset the good that can happen if you just hit the ball.