What would the numbers look like if there were no Ks?

I was wondering what the numbers would look like if there were no Ks so I worked on creating an example using real data from our last season’s HSV team.

 Although this doesn’t cover “every metric having to do with runs”, I’m pretty sure you’ll get the gist of it. Please see attachment.

 It’s really simple. I computed the percentage of BIPs using hits, ROEs, and ROFCs. Then assuming if there were no Ks every K would have been a BIP, I computed the additional number of each using the percentage of BIPs each was.

 I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m pretty sure our HC would love to have had 64 more runners last season with 47 of them being hits, even if they were only infield scratch hits.

Of course doing away with all Ks is a ridiculous thought, but cutting them down sure looks like it might be a pretty good thing.

 

Attachments

Files (1)
Original Post

Depends on whether you can cut your Ks without using a B swing.

For example in mlb 30 years ago Ks were much lower but babip also was lower so players probably were taking more emergency swings with two strikes to make contact.

Generally in pro ball there isn't a big correlation between K rate and production because power hitters tend to whiff more.

At lower levels K rate is very predictive though. Minor league prospects with high K rates bust more often than low K guys. 

That is probably why at the mlb level Ks are not negative for hitters on average: only the elite power hitters with high Ks make it to the show while better contact hitters can make the show with less power.

I don't even think that Ks and power are related, there are very low K power hitters. Contact and power are just independent skills and being elite in both is more rare.

And since the low power high K guys get weeded out you find more power hitters among them.

So yes generally lowering Ks is extremely productive but only if it doesn't decrease your contact quality and power.

Dominik85 posted:

Depends on whether you can cut your Ks without using a B swing.

For example in mlb 30 years ago Ks were much lower but babip also was lower so players probably were taking more emergency swings with two strikes to make contact.

Generally in pro ball there isn't a big correlation between K rate and production because power hitters tend to whiff more.

At lower levels K rate is very predictive though. Minor league prospects with high K rates bust more often than low K guys. 

That is probably why at the mlb level Ks are not negative for hitters on average: only the elite power hitters with high Ks make it to the show while better contact hitters can make the show with less power.

I don't even think that Ks and power are related, there are very low K power hitters. Contact and power are just independent skills and being elite in both is more rare.

And since the low power high K guys get weeded out you find more power hitters among them.

So yes generally lowering Ks is extremely productive but only if it doesn't decrease your contact quality and power.

That’s why I didn’t try to get too tricky when I extrapolated those numbers.

 Year/RPG/BABIP

2017/4.66/.299

2007/4.80/.303

1997/4.77/.301

1987/4.72/.289

 Looking at those numbers, if what you say is true, BABIP didn’t mean as much.

Consultant posted:

When we played the Korean National team. When a player struck out with runners on the base, the coaches removed the player from the game.

Next games he made hits and no strikeouts. I used the same philosophy 

when I coached in College. It worked!

Bob

I’m not big on punishment for play, but there are a few instances where while it might hurt the individual in the short term, it’s better for him and the team in the long term. As long as the boundaries are set and everyone understands them, I don’t have problems with it.

Yours is a good example, but to be honest I like to see things like that tracked to see if they’re a common occurrence or an anomaly. Please see attachment.

I really wouldn’t worry too much about a kid like the one only striking out 8.7% of the time WRO. But I’d sure watch the ones who K’d more than 40% of the time WRO.

 

Attachments

Files (1)

If there were no Ks, I would never allow my hitters to swing.

Power and Ks tend to go together.  Really has always been that way for the most part.  The top HR hitters strike out a lot.  There are exceptions like Bonds in his prime years.  One very good hitter with power that doesn't strike out much is Joey Votto.  That combination ends up with a very good OBP.

Personally I think some of these power guys that hit a lot of HRs, would be much more productive if they developed a two strike swing/approach.

PGStaff posted:

If there were no Ks, I would never allow my hitters to swing.

Power and Ks tend to go together.  Really has always been that way for the most part.  The top HR hitters strike out a lot.  There are exceptions like Bonds in his prime years.  One very good hitter with power that doesn't strike out much is Joey Votto.  That combination ends up with a very good OBP.

Personally I think some of these power guys that hit a lot of HRs, would be much more productive if they developed a two strike swing/approach.

No argument from me on any of the above, but I wasn’t saying a batter couldn’t strike out. All I was doing was trying to show what could happen if rather than striking out the batter put the ball in play.

 Like you, I believe changing the approach with 2 strikes could make a hitter more productive, if only everyone could agree on a definition for productive.

Is it productive with two outs and no one on base for a power hitter to adjust and drive a single the other way? Or is it more productive for the power hitter to power a ball up the gap or over the fence while raising the risk of striking out? 

Ill take the second option. Who cares how the third out is made.

Good point, hitters always have a job to do and with two outs no baserunners... that approach is to drive the ball for HR or extra bases.  So even the 2 strike approach can change based on the situation.  It's just there are a lot of power hitters that don't change their approach no matter what the situation.,  We all see them, no baserunners bottom of the ninth and their team is down by 2 or 3 runs.  They take the big HR swing because they have no 2 strike approach and strike out. 

PGStaff posted:Good point, hitters always have a job to do and with two outs no baserunners... that approach is to drive the ball for HR or extra bases.  So even the 2 strike approach can change based on the situation.  It's just there are a lot of power hitters that don't change their approach no matter what the situation.,  We all see them, no baserunners bottom of the ninth and their team is down by 2 or 3 runs.  They take the big HR swing because they have no 2 strike approach and strike out. 

The 1st ML player I remember not changing his approach was Manny. Even as a rookie it was pretty evident his approach never changed and it drove most people insane. The trouble was, Manny was so gifted as a hitter, it didn’t matter! He was gonna bat .320, hit 30 bombs and drive in 120 no matter who he was hitting against, where he batted in the order, or what the situation was. Unfortunately there aren’t a lot of guys like that in the game, and when they try to do the same thing a hitter like Manny did, it just doesn’t work out very well.

Sadly, the best players are the ones everyone tries to emulate but few have the skills to pull it off.

JDFarmer posted:

Phillies last night.  Top of the 8th, tie game, bases loaded, 1 out.  Then two called 3rd strike strikeouts.

Seriously, just shorten up on the bat and put the ball in play.  Please!

How often would that happen if there was a clause in the contact that said a players pay per PA would be computed at the beginning of the season and he’d be docked that amount every time he took a called strike 3. The 1st thing that would happen is technology would be calling pitches not swung at in very short order to take the umpire out of the equation, and the 2nd thing would be called 3rd strikes would immediately drop off.

PGStaff posted:

Good point, hitters always have a job to do and with two outs no baserunners... that approach is to drive the ball for HR or extra bases.  So even the 2 strike approach can change based on the situation.  It's just there are a lot of power hitters that don't change their approach no matter what the situation.,  We all see them, no baserunners bottom of the ninth and their team is down by 2 or 3 runs.  They take the big HR swing because they have no 2 strike approach and strike out. 

My line for this is ... He just swung the bat like he thinks he can hit a six run homer to start the inning. 

A kid on my son's team this summer has hit into double plays twice with the bases loaded, both times without a run scoring. 

What did Earl Weaver used to say?  If you feel like you're going to hit into a double play, strikeout instead.

JCG posted:

A kid on my son's team this summer has hit into double plays twice with the bases loaded, both times without a run scoring. 

What did Earl Weaver used to say?  If you feel like you're going to hit into a double play, strikeout instead.

Is a DP worse than a K for the offense? You betcha! But since ball generally has to be hit reasonably sharply for a DP to take place, isn’t it more a matter of luck than something the batter did? A little more to the right or left or a little more slowly could easily have changed those 2 DPs into 2 ROFCs and 2 RBIs. And a little more right or left or even more slowly may well have produced a hit or an error, which is pretty much the best thing that could happen outside of an XBH.

I dug a little deeper and came up with the attached.

It’s not too difficult to see who you don’t want up in a critical situation where a K will kill a rally. Granted there’s not much you can do if it’s a starter, but you can sure pick your pinch hitters. And you can also use that information to help set the lineup.

 

 

Attachments

Files (1)

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×