OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

Biggie Fries · 06-19-2002, 01:34 PM

Thanks much for doing this. If I understand correctly, you essentially played 1620 games (10 seasons x 162 games per season) between these two teams and the high strikeout team won 49% of the games. If there were truly no difference between the teams, and 1620 independent (more or less) trials, we would expect roughly two-thirds of the time for the observed percentage won by team A to be within 1.24% of 50%. So, you are absolutely right--no real evidence that striking out like fiends had an adverse effect on wins versus losses. This confirms the idea of the original poster, and also the observation of others, e.g. , I think that it was Rob Neyer who had a column earlier this year showing that it wouldn't have helped the Milwaukee Brewers last year were they to have eliminated their ungodly number of strikeouts in favor of out-making by other means.

And herein lies the solution to what is otherwise a conundrum: How can striking out not matter for hitters, but help pitchers? The answer is that it depends on what strikeouts are being compared with. If it is the difference between striking out and making an out some other way, there is no real difference. So applauding the Keith Lockharts of the world when they ground out to second base and move the runner up is just self delusion.

But if you look at strikeouts from the pitchers' standpoint, a strikeout means they got somebody out. If they didn't strike them out (and didn't walk them), then the batter put the ball in play, at which point (unless it is Keith Lockhart) something good for the hitter (a base hit, an error) might happen.

So the issue within OOTP is: How exactly does the getting strikeouts (or avoiding strikeouts) rating affect outcomes? We have just seen a demonstration that, where batters are concerned, the avoidance of strikeouts is no big deal. Which suggests that avoidng strikeouts means just making more outs by other means. And that's just fine, because it gives a result that accords with what we think we know about real baseball.

But, when it comes to the pitchers, it seems to me it would be preferable if more strikeouts meant fewer balls in play, hence fewer hits and errors, hence fewer runs (on average--there will always be variation and exceptions). Yet, with a category like Avoiding Runs, which I can only assume is a composite of giving up strikeouts, walks, doubles, etc. , it is hard to see how the pitcher's ability to get strikeouts will have an independent effect on their productivity.

06-19-2002, 01:34 PM	#10
Biggie Fries Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Bryn Mawr, PA USA Posts: 115	Thanks much for doing this. If I understand correctly, you essentially played 1620 games (10 seasons x 162 games per season) between these two teams and the high strikeout team won 49% of the games. If there were truly no difference between the teams, and 1620 independent (more or less) trials, we would expect roughly two-thirds of the time for the observed percentage won by team A to be within 1.24% of 50%. So, you are absolutely right--no real evidence that striking out like fiends had an adverse effect on wins versus losses. This confirms the idea of the original poster, and also the observation of others, e.g. , I think that it was Rob Neyer who had a column earlier this year showing that it wouldn't have helped the Milwaukee Brewers last year were they to have eliminated their ungodly number of strikeouts in favor of out-making by other means. And herein lies the solution to what is otherwise a conundrum: How can striking out not matter for hitters, but help pitchers? The answer is that it depends on what strikeouts are being compared with. If it is the difference between striking out and making an out some other way, there is no real difference. So applauding the Keith Lockharts of the world when they ground out to second base and move the runner up is just self delusion. But if you look at strikeouts from the pitchers' standpoint, a strikeout means they got somebody out. If they didn't strike them out (and didn't walk them), then the batter put the ball in play, at which point (unless it is Keith Lockhart) something good for the hitter (a base hit, an error) might happen. So the issue within OOTP is: How exactly does the getting strikeouts (or avoiding strikeouts) rating affect outcomes? We have just seen a demonstration that, where batters are concerned, the avoidance of strikeouts is no big deal. Which suggests that avoidng strikeouts means just making more outs by other means. And that's just fine, because it gives a result that accords with what we think we know about real baseball. But, when it comes to the pitchers, it seems to me it would be preferable if more strikeouts meant fewer balls in play, hence fewer hits and errors, hence fewer runs (on average--there will always be variation and exceptions). Yet, with a category like Avoiding Runs, which I can only assume is a composite of giving up strikeouts, walks, doubles, etc. , it is hard to see how the pitcher's ability to get strikeouts will have an independent effect on their productivity.