« The Broadcast Power Trio | Main | Thinking Three Days Ahead »
May 17, 2005
Avoiding The "Inefficient" Inning
A recent Star-Ledger piece entitled "Striking out in the majors now is considered no worse than any other out" contained the following:
The Moneyball theorists consider a strikeout no worse than any other kind of out -- better, in fact, than a double-play grounder. But there are still talent evaluators who can't stand the idea of a high strikeout total.
"Ultimately, the strikeout, you get no value from it," Yankees GM Brian Cashman said. "There's no moving of the runner, no way for the defense to feel pressured. It's worthless. To me, it's the biggest offense you can commit on offense."
Cashman's belief is that a fair ball creates a chance of something good happening for the hitter -- be it an error, a ground ball that moves a runner -- while a strikeout offers no such opportunity. As for players like Dunn or Sexson, who manage to be productive in spite of their high strikeout totals, Cashman's answer is that they're not as productive as they could be.
"The guys who can hit home runs and still be productive despite being big whiffers, I still term those guys as inefficient," Cashman said. "I'll look at that and say, 'Look how much better this person can be.'"
Looking at the stats from 2002 through 2004, there were 20 men in the American League to whiff 300+ times during this period. In terms of K/AB ratio (of these 20) the leaders were:
Mike Cameron 0.290083411
Carlos Pena 0.285714286
Corey Koskie 0.248370746
Jose Valentin 0.246671338
Carlos Delgado 0.246575342
Jorge Posada 0.239417071
Jason Varitek 0.236784938
Jason Giambi 0.231052244
Eric Hinske 0.221451104
Jacque Jones 0.212856277
David Ortiz 0.210124827
Alex Rodriguez 0.206877729
Alfonso Soriano 0.205438066
Bret Boone 0.198573779
Torii Hunter 0.195547533
Memo to Joe Torre: Please do not bat Posada, Giambi, and A-Rod, back-to-back-to-back in the line-up........ever. Ask Cash for more details on why.
Posted by Steve Lombardi at May 17, 2005 02:28 PM
Comments
Cash has a point, Reggie Jackson and Mickey Mantle were awful hitters. They should have traded Mick and never signed Reggie. I guess we're all smarter now that we have Tony Womack playing left field.
Posted by: Cliff at May 17, 2005 04:49 PM
Cliff - Mantle whiffed more than 125 times in a season just once. He whiffed more than 100 times in a season 8 times in 18 seasons. He was far from the K-king that many make him out to be, etc.
Reggie, on the other-hand, whiffed a lot. Was he a very productive player all his years in NY?
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at May 17, 2005 05:01 PM
Mantle's K's were pretty extreme for his era.
Reggie's OPS+ figures for his five years in pinstripes:
150, 135, 150, 172, 119
Posted by: cliff at May 18, 2005 02:53 AM
Ah, but to Cash's point "how much better" could Reggie have been if he was able to make more contact in some seasons? Nearly 1/3 of Reggie's Yankee RBI were when he drove himself in on a HR. How many non-HR RBI did Reggie have in NY? It was less than 68%, for sure. Maybe Reggie drives in more runners if he makes more contact?
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at May 18, 2005 07:06 AM
"Mantle's K's were pretty extreme for his era."
Cliff, actually, Jim Lemon was worse than Mickey, and Eddie Mathews, Duke Snider, Gil Hodges, Gus Zernial, Larry Doby, and Wally Post
were in the ballpark of Mantle's K rate.
It's not like Mantle was Rob Deer or something.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at May 18, 2005 07:18 AM
Because the variability of balls put in play (that are not home runs) is so high, I tend to agree with Cashman...don't strike out and there's a significant probability that even a weakly hit ball could be a hit.
This is a corollary to the most interesting debate in baseball: Because of the variance of balls hit in play, should pitchers be penalized (as much as they currently are) for anything other than HRs, and walks?
Posted by: Jason O. at May 18, 2005 09:53 AM
DIPS say no, they should not.
But, others say the jury is still out on that.
But, on the flip side, DIPS say Ks are great for pitchers. So, if they're so great for pitchers, why are they not bad for batters? And, the ability to avoid them, a good thing for hitters?
The coin must have two sides. This is why I think Ks are bad for hitters.
Posted by: Steve Lombardi at May 18, 2005 10:19 AM