Strikeout Record Watch

[Grandstander]

jtur:
My concern is....the way things are.

Your concern is....the way things would be if they were something other than what they actually are.

One of these two approaches is focused on reality.

[WilsonC]

Modern bullpens are one of the major factors. A good third of the total innings today are thrown by relievers - typically hard throwers going at full effort for an inning or two, typically with notably higher K-rates than starters. Even if all other factors were equal, which they're not, that would have an impact.

Beyond that, I think it does largely come down to style and training. Every generation will have its truly gifted hitters - guys like Williams and Musial, Bonds and Pujols, with such incredible talent as to be able to hit for power while also maintaining good contact rates. For a lot of hitters, though, it's more of a choice in terms of how they develop their skills. Some hitters sacrifice contact rates to maximize the power their swings generate, while others trade some power to ensure they make more consistent contact. In today's game, power is more in 'style', so to speak, and teams are much more willing to accept K's as a byproduct of swinging for the fences. Plate discipline is different in today's game, in that there's less defending the plate or fouling off pitches, but rather it's more of a waiting game, with hitters willing to let a close pitched be called for a strike in order to get another chance to really unload. I'm not sure if the numbers would be available, but I'd venture to guess there are more K's on called third strikes than there were in the past.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Nan...I charge you with making a YNMYDAY style intangibles, emotional argument, and your response is more of the same.

It is evident that reason is going to fall to your sentiments for the duration of this discussion and I am just feeding your fury by continuing to present reason.

The best possible response I can make to that is to let your thread readers read the above quoted snippet and decide for themselves who presented data and who reiterated cocksure opinion.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynn

The best possible response I can make to that is to let your thread readers read the above quoted snippet and decide for themselves who presented data and who reiterated cocksure opinion.

I am content with making sense while you do not, regardless of any snout counting or popularity polls.

And since the readers were already free to do exactly what you propose, that actually isn't a response at all.

I suspect that you simply do not realize that the majority of readers do not read the majority of your posts.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Modern bullpens are one of the major factors. A good third of the total innings today are thrown by relievers - typically hard throwers going at full effort for an inning or two, typically with notably higher K-rates than starters. Even if all other factors were equal, which they're not, that would have an impact.

Without going to a Retrosheet or other statistical source, I'd suggest that the typical pitching staff today is comprised of 12-14 pitchers, at least a quarter of whom are marginal.

The hard-throwing, brief stint specialiization is generally reserved for closers, with others tabbed as long relief, set up men, etc,, with long relief guys not generally being flamethrowers. There is much specialization, with little depth.

[

Beyond that, I think it does largely come down to style and training. Every generation will have its truly gifted hitters - guys like Williams and Musial, Bonds and Pujols, with such incredible talent as to be able to hit for power while also maintaining good contact rates.

I would counter that the most essential underlying skill to batting, regardless of the individual practical application, is command of the strike zone. As I see it, this, in turn is comprised of two factors: knowing the strike zone as it applies to "self," which is a bit like walking the grounds to get familiar with every aspect of the ballpark and its playing surfaces. It may require hours spent in front of mirrors, virtual "games" of batting practice with disciplined coaches calling balls and strikes, amd an ingrained sense of what pitches typically cross the plate out of the strike zone although they appear at first pitcher release to be "strikes."

Some, the more naturally gifted hitters, will derive the most benefit from this approach; but NO young kid should ever be coached without this factor being emphatically addressed.

The other of the two factors in "commanding the strike zone," is to consider "taking" pitches as a way of defending the strike zone. It may sound weird, being a passive thing; but the batter who has been trained to "know" his strike zone will be less disposed to swinging at bad pitches. Of course that bottom line her is discipline, which can be taught only partially.

For a lot of hitters, though, it's more of a choice in terms of how they develop their skills. Some hitters sacrifice contact rates to maximize the power their swings generate, while others trade some power to ensure they make more consistent contact. In today's game, power is more in 'style', so to speak, and teams are much more willing to accept K's as a byproduct of swinging for the fences.

There is truth here, except that, in the formative years defending a strike zone should never be "optional." I would suggest that the basics come first, so that the prospect does not develop free swinging bad habits early on - habits impossible to set right as competition levels rise.

Plate discipline is different in today's game, in that there's less defending the plate or fouling off pitches, but rather it's more of a waiting game, with hitters willing to let a close pitched be called for a strike in order to get another chance to really unload. I'm not sure if the numbers would be available, but I'd venture to guess there are more K's on called third strikes than there were in the past.

However, there is one statistic, readily available, and that is batter splits at various pitch counts. When the batter is ahead, his numbers are high; when even in the count his numbers come down to earth. Behind in the count, batters' numbers [even very good batters' numbers] start to resemble those expected of a good glove infielder or good-hitting pitcher.

Over very nearly 110 years since 1901, the MLB BA curiously floats around a "black hole" number @ .260. Ahead in the count, we see .400. Even in the count: .260. Behind in the count: .167. Therein lies the tale.

In defense of contact, the guy with two strikes who harmlessly fouls off two or three pitches has that many more opportunities to do damage than a free swinging whiffer [125 or so K's in a season]. That third strike miss: he sits down.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

jtur:
My concern is....the way things are.

Your concern is....the way things would be if they were something other than what they actually are.

One of these two approaches is focused on reality.

Ok, if youre concerned with the way things are, admit that those old guys were damned good ballplayers. When somebody tries to acknowledge that your points are well taken and tries to meet you hafl way, why do you have to keep insisting that only you are completely right and everyone else is completely wrong?

"Your concern is....the way things would be if they were something other than what they actually are." . . . . Funny, seems like you're the guy saying "If those guys played today . . . " Try to get your parameters straight.



Have it your way, Persuade the HoF go in every few decades and take down the plaques of everybody who played more than 50 years ago, because they couldn't have possibly been good enough to merit their place in the Hall, compared to modern payers.

[WilsonC]

Originally Posted by nanwynn

Without going to a Retrosheet or other statistical source, I'd suggest that the typical pitching staff today is comprised of 12-14 pitchers, at least a quarter of whom are marginal.

The hard-throwing, brief stint specialiization is generally reserved for closers, with others tabbed as long relief, set up men, etc,, with long relief guys not generally being flamethrowers. There is much specialization, with little depth.

Even beyond closers and setup men, relief pitchers tend to have significantly higher K-rates than starters, and for that matter starters tend to improve their K-rates when they shift to the bullpen. Not so much long relievers or swing men, but definitely for short relievers. It just takes a quick glance at the sorting of pitchers by their K-rates to see this - there are a lot of short-relief pitchers with K-rates near or above one K per inning, and only a handful of starters who can sustain the same rates. It just makes sense for it to be so - a pitcher who doesn't have to pace himself, can use his best stuff constantly, and who batters see at most once per game will naturally be harder to hit.

There are certainly a number of marginal pitchers on today's pitching staffs, but even those pitchers often have better than average K rates. In some cases, marginal pitchers keep their jobs longer than they should simply because they have good raw stuff leading to a fair number of K's, despite being otherwise ineffective.

[nanwynn]

Just to bring home the dramatics of the pitch count, here are some YTD 2008 figures for some pretty decent hitters, by BA/pitch count:

Player...........0-0...........2-0............2-1........1-2

Ch. Jones..... .475........ .476 ........ .333 ..... .291
J.D. Drew..... .341........ .375......... .385...... .180
Jo. Hamilton.. .429........ .400......... .278...... .218
Al. Pujols...... .419........ .410......... .384...... .204
B.J. Upton.... .383....... .359.......... .356..... .174

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Ok, if youre concerned with the way things are, admit that those old guys were damned good ballplayers. When somebody tries to acknowledge that your points are well taken and tries to meet you hafl way, why do you have to keep insisting that only you are completely right and everyone else is completely wrong?

"Your concern is....the way things would be if they were something other than what they actually are." . . . . Funny, seems like you're the guy saying "If those guys played today . . . " Try to get your parameters straight.



Have it your way, Persuade the HoF go in every few decades and take down the plaques of everybody who played more than 50 years ago, because they couldn't have possibly been good enough to merit their place in the Hall, compared to modern payers.

Oh dear, you seem to have lost your temper. Which seems to have colored the manner in which you viewed my presentation.

Of course I believe that I am right in this discussion, why would I be posting if I thought that I was wrong? Don't you always believe in what you post? Or do you sometimes post the opposite of what you believe to be right in order to be able to say "Unlike you, I don't think I'm always right?" People draw that "You always think you're right" charge like it was a gun and it would only become meaningful if we could identify those posters who do not always think that their posts are accurate and logical. I bet that even Timmer thinks that he is making great sense.

I of course advocated nothing along the lines of your above characterization of "my way", so we need to view that spasm as a product of your petulance.



had I at any point argued that there were no good ballplayers in past eras, i suppose that admitting that there were would be good. of course, this is another invention of yours, I argued no such thing. You can still be good despite there being better.

It is absurd to believe that performance has improved in every sport save baseball. Of course I think I'm right when I write this, it is illogical to believe anything else, especially when the best the opposition musters is "They knew how to pitch."

If only Jim Thorpe had known how to run, he would still hold the records.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

It is absurd to believe that performance has improved in every sport save baseball. Of course I think I'm right when I write this, it is illogical to believe anything else, especially when the best the opposition musters is "They knew how to pitch."

If only Jim Thorpe had known how to run, he would still hold the records.

I only read your post, with some definite amusement since you followed your rules [as I outlined them] to a "T;" but then, in posting directly to jtur, sneaked a jab at me right at the end.

Tsk, tsk, what a cheap back door swipe. You obviously did not read what I posted, with supporting arguments, data and easily referenced research material. Your feeble best is to launch meaningless attacks with generalizations, and in typical fashion, resort to an inane metaphorical exhumation of Jim Thorpe in a failed attempt at wry humor.

P.S. For all his other sports accomplishments, Thorpe couldn't cut it at the MLB level. The competition was just that good.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynn

I only read your post, with some definite amusement since you followed your rules [as I outlined them] to a "T;" but then, in posting directly to jtur, sneaked a jab at me right at the end.

Tsk, tsk, what a cheap back door swipe. You obviously did not read what I posted, with supporting arguments, data and easily referenced research material. Your feeble best is to launch meaningless attacks with generalizations, and in typical fashion, resort to an inane metaphorical exhumation of Jim Thorpe in a failed attempt at wry humor.

P.S. For all his other sports accomplishments, Thorpe couldn't cut it at the MLB level. The competition was just that good.

Blah blah sputter splurt.

You posted data to support "they knew how to pitch?" Funny, I didn't see it. Could you reprint it please?

And while you are at it, could you also provide the data which backs all other conventional wisdom cliches about the intangibles of those immortal Golden Agers?


Sometimes you are okay, nan, and other times you come across as some broad parody of the senile uncle the rest of the family patronizes while rolling their eyes behind his back. This thread has brought out that second dynamic.

[nanwynn]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Blah blah sputter splurt.

You posted data to support "they knew how to pitch?" Funny, I didn't see it. Could you reprint it please?

No.

And while you are at it, could you also provide the data which backs all other conventional wisdom cliches about the intangibles of those immortal Golden Agers?

1. Please explain the sound semantic use of "conventional wisdom" as suitable adjective to describe "cliches." It would seem, to any rational person, a non sequitur, perhaps even an oxymoron.

2. I have not mentioned "intangibles." You have brought that expression into the discussion. [Or hasd you forgotten?]

3. I have not used "immortal" or "Golden Agers," your own constructions; so it appears you are wrestling with your own verbal imagery.

Sometimes you are okay, nan,

You got that right, GS - only more than "sometimes."

and other times you come across as some broad parody of the senile uncle the rest of the family patronizes while rolling their eyes behind his back.

I guess you missed my "cracker barrel" old-timer disclaimer, which absolutely nailed your methods of argument long before you posted solid examples of same.

Hadn't noticed family conjunctive spasms; but then, I don't have eyes in the back of my head. [Even then if I did have eyes in the back of my head, the hair would always be "in them." So, I wouldn't notice anyhow]. Therefore, I guess what one doesn't know won't hurt one.

Question: How do these petulant little tangents of yours relate to the subject under discussion? You have said NOTHING remotely related to the thread topic. [Mind wandering on you, GS?]

This thread has brought out that second dynamic.

It certainly has revealed a great deal about your debating skills, GS.

[Grandstander]

That's okay, Uncle Nan, now just calm down, it's alright. Would you like a bowl of oatmeal or some tea? Did you remember to take your medication this morning?

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Of course I believe that I am right in this discussion, why would I be posting if I thought that I was wrong? Don't you always believe in what you post? .

Unlike many other posters here, I often do post in ways that address specific points that others have presented, without the intent to imply that I agree or disagree with the larger point, or that the other person is wrong with respect to the totality of the topic. Your own chronic disability to recognize gray areas does not mean there are none.

If a person defends a position with an argument that I find faulty, pointing out that defect does not mean that I have the opposite viewpoint. Over on the CE board, I have more than once started a post with "In fairness to Bush . . ." I regret that you would interpret that as a wholehearted knee-jerk endoresment of the entire Bush administration, but I cannot be held accountable for your wishful thinking.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Your own chronic disability to recognize gray areas does not mean there are none.

.

Thats a crock and you know perfectly well that it is. I didn't expect intellectual dishonesty from you, but here it is.