James Shields

[witesoxfan]

He wasn't exactly a stud in this last postseason.

 

Clayton Kershaw hasn't been good in the last two postseasons either. Are you going to tell me he hasn't pitched well recently as a result of that as well?

[Dick Allen]

Clayton Kershaw hasn't been good in the last two postseasons either. Are you going to tell me he hasn't pitched well recently as a result of that as well?

He doesn't like to pitch when he isn't getting paid.

[Eminor3rd]

He doesn't like to pitch when he isn't getting paid.

 

Lol

[shysocks]

The Cubs will lead MLB in striking out next year. They have a lot of "free swingers" on that team. IMO, teams that don't make a lot of contact, don't win consistently.

 

BTW, I also think that their bullpen is WAYYY overrated.

That's not really a matter of opinion, it's either true or it's not. You did make me curious, so I researched 2010-2014. Warning: Nerd stuff ahead.

 

 

 

There's a minor relationship between strikeouts and wins. Minor. A 7.7% r-squared means that about 7.7% of a team's record in the last five years can be explained by a team's K-rate. But it's heavily influenced by the 2013 Astros, the only team in history to crack a 25% K-rate, and a team that happened to have the worst pitching in franchise history too. If you take them away, that 7.7% becomes 5.5%.

 

There are a few other teams in that bottom right quadrant that bolster your claim, so if you wanna say "teams that really reallydon't make a lot of contact don't win consistently," I can maybe get behind that. None of the teams that led the league in K% these five years cracked 73 wins, so if the Cubs claim that honor we're gonna see what happens. But obviously you have to factor in pitching and defense.

[witesoxfan]

That's not really a matter of opinion, it's either true or it's not. You did make me curious, so I researched 2010-2014. Warning: Nerd stuff ahead.

 

 

 

There's a minor relationship between strikeouts and wins. Minor. A 7.7% r-squared means that about 7.7% of a team's record in the last five years can be explained by a team's K-rate. But it's heavily influenced by the 2013 Astros, the only team in history to crack a 25% K-rate, and a team that happened to have the worst pitching in franchise history too. If you take them away, that 7.7% becomes 5.5%.

 

There are a few other teams in that bottom right quadrant that bolster your claim, so if you wanna say "teams that really reallydon't make a lot of contact don't win consistently," I can maybe get behind that. None of the teams that led the league in K% these five years cracked 73 wins, so if the Cubs claim that honor we're gonna see what happens. But obviously you have to factor in pitching and defense.

 

The 2015 Cubs are going to be an interesting case study regarding this because they are going to strike out a lot and I don't think there's any question of it. Ultimately though, strikeouts are only a portion of offensive output, and offensive output is only half of winning games. Logistically speaking, strikeouts will have an effect, but if the offense scores a lot of runs and the pitching staff limits opposing teams, strikeouts won't matter.

[Eminor3rd]

The 2015 Cubs are going to be an interesting case study regarding this because they are going to strike out a lot and I don't think there's any question of it. Ultimately though, strikeouts are only a portion of offensive output, and offensive output is only half of winning games. Logistically speaking, strikeouts will have an effect, but if the offense scores a lot of runs and the pitching staff limits opposing teams, strikeouts won't matter.

 

This is the critical point. It's the exact same thing as the "Dayan Viciedo hits homers though" argument.

 

No one is saying that strikeouts "don't matter," it's that they don't get scored in games. They are a significant factor in the effectiveness of someone's offense, but if a guy is effective offensively DESPITE strikeouts, then they don't mean squat to who wins the game. Just like Viciedo -- homers ARE important because they help make a guy a good offensive contributor, but if he isn't a good contributor DESPITE the homeruns, he's still a negative at the plate.

 

So you don't say "team that strikeout don't win much," you say "teams with bad offenses don't win much," and possibly add that strikeouts could contribute to that bad offense. But you have to accept, also, that they may strikeout a ton but still have a good offense.

[BlackSox13]

Agreed with both wite and eminor3rd. Look at individuals such as Trout who struck out 184 times last year. That's an incredibly gauding number of k's but those do not matter much at all when looking at his .287 BA, 111 RBI, 36 HR, 39 2B and 9 3B.

 

I don't like using this phrase but its true, " its not what you hit but when you hit it".

 

A team can strike out a lot and still be capable of getting those timely hits. K's do not help those chances but they do not completely hinder them either.

[southsider2k5]

Agreed with both wite and eminor3rd. Look at individuals such as Trout who struck out 184 times last year. That's an incredibly gauding number of k's but those do not matter much at all when looking at his .287 BA, 111 RBI, 36 HR, 39 2B and 9 3B.

 

I don't like using this phrase but its true, " its not what you hit but when you hit it".

 

A team can strike out a lot and still be capable of getting those timely hits. K's do not help those chances but they do not completely hinder them either.

 

Plus the whole, best defensive OF in baseball, thing.

[BlackSox13]

Plus the whole, best defensive OF in baseball, thing.

Yeah, that certainly helps. There's a number of players throughout baseball history that struck out a lot and were still very productive run producers.

 

I'm just saying that just because a team strikes out a lot does not mean they will not score enough runs to win games.

 

 

[SJB23]

Yeah, that certainly helps. There's a number of players throughout baseball history that struck out a lot and were still very productive run producers.

 

I'm just saying that just because a team strikes out a lot does not mean they will not score enough runs to win games.

I'm not "big" on the new metrics, but, isn't there something about "productive" vs "non-productive" outs? Obviously, you're better off having a guy sacrifice himself to get a batter into scoring position than him striking out. IMO, all outs are not the same.

[Eminor3rd]

I'm not "big" on the new metrics, but, isn't there something about "productive" vs "non-productive" outs? Obviously, you're better off having a guy sacrifice himself to get a batter into scoring position than him striking out. IMO, all outs are not the same.

 

Yes, but runner distribution isn't predictive. So basically you can look back at a season or game and find out which hits or outs were the "biggest" and most important, but if you're talking about building a roster for the coming season, there's no reliable way to ensure that contact will come at the right times, so you have to assume that it will be the average number of times, which is baked into the linear weights values for all of the events, which comes out in total production, which brings us back to square one. So if two guys are 100 wRC+ guys, but one strikes out more, they're still equally valuable. You can look at stats like WPA and Clutch score to see which guy had the bigger impact, but the difference between those leverage related value and the context-neutral linear weights stats does not carry over from year to year.

 

Also, it's beside the point, but a lot of the extra benefit (on average) received from contact outs versus strikeouts is negated by double plays. So the difference ends up being smaller than it intuitively seems.

[BlackSox13]

I'm not "big" on the new metrics, but, isn't there something about "productive" vs "non-productive" outs? Obviously, you're better off having a guy sacrifice himself to get a batter into scoring position than him striking out. IMO, all outs are not the same.

I'm not either which is why I do not look at new metrics, I know nothing of them. Other posters could better answer your question.

 

On the flip side of the productive out outs...

 

A strike out would be better than bouncing into a DP, would it not?

 

Productive outs are determined by the situation and different situations have different productive outs.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Plus the whole, best defensive OF in baseball, thing.

 

Not last year. His first two seasons were much better defensively.

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

Yes, but runner distribution isn't predictive. So basically you can look back at a season or game and find out which hits or outs were the "biggest" and most important, but if you're talking about building a roster for the coming season, there's no reliable way to ensure that contact will come at the right times, so you have to assume that it will be the average number of times, which is baked into the linear weights values for all of the events, which comes out in total production, which brings us back to square one. So if two guys are 100 wRC+ guys, but one strikes out more, they're still equally valuable. You can look at stats like WPA and Clutch score to see which guy had the bigger impact, but the difference between those leverage related value and the context-neutral linear weights stats does not carry over from year to year.

 

Also, it's beside the point, but a lot of the extra benefit (on average) received from contact outs versus strikeouts is negated by double plays. So the difference ends up being smaller than it intuitively seems.

I don't think it is as simple as less strikeouts equals more double plays. Or vice versa, that more strikeouts means less double plays. It depends on the type of contact, runner distribution, etc. Guys like Matt Kemp and Ian Desmond struck out a lot last year but were also near the top in GIDP. On top of that I would bet that on average the guys that make consistent contact that are near the leaders in GIDP are also reaching base on error more than the big power guys that strike out a lot. How does that factor into advanced metrics? ROE is counted as an out towards BA, OBP, OPS, etc. I know the hardcore sabermetricians don't want to hear this but common sense tells you that if all else is fairly equal the guy that puts the play more often than the other guy will be more valuable to an offense. I don't think any compilation of advanced statistics can argue this point because there are too many variables to precisely quantify it. At that point when the stats cannot tell the whole story, it doesn't hurt to use a little common sense IMO.

Edited February 7, 2015 by JUSTgottaBELIEVE

[Eminor3rd]

I don't think it is as simple as less strikeouts equals more double plays. Or vice versa, that more strikeouts means less double plays. It depends on the type of contact, runner distribution, etc. Guys like Matt Kemp and Ian Desmond struck out a lot last year but were also near the top in GIDP. On top of that I would bet that on average the guys that make consistent contact that are near the leaders in GIDP are also reaching base on error more than the big power guys that strike out a lot. How does that factor into advanced metrics? ROE is counted as an out towards BA, OBP, OPS, etc. I know the hardcore sabermetricians don't want to hear this but common sense tells you that if all else is fairly equal the guy that puts the play more often than the other guy will be more valuable to an offense. I don't think any compilation of advanced statistics can argue this point because there are too many variables to precisely quantify it. At that point when the stats cannot tell the whole story, it doesn't hurt to use a little common sense IMO.

 

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.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Eminor3rd

[asindc]

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.

 

On that point: Has there been any player that has GIDP more than he has struck out in any given season?

 

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

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.

Using Mike Trout as the baseline for any argument is silly. He's the exception, not the rule. How many guys can strike out near his rate while still hitting near or over .300 with an OBP of around .400? I'm not going to spend time looking it up but my guess is you'd be hard pressed to find many. In defense of the previous poster, I DO believe the high strikeout rates of a few of the Cubs' prospects is a real concern. I think far too many posters on this forum too quickly discount this issue. Baez is going to have an awfully hard time being a productive offensive player if he's striking out 35%+ of the time even if he cranks out 30 HR. Same goes for Bryant. The question is if Bryant strikes out at an incredibly high rate is he more likely to put up numbers closer to Mike Trout or White Sox Adam Dunn? My guess is he would end up closer to the latter which would obviously be a huge disappointment for those expecting all star worthy numbers from him over the next few years.

[Chicago White Sox]

The problem with linear weights is that it treats all runs equal, when we all know that is not the case. The distribution of how those runs is scored is incredibly important. All else being equal, a narrower distribution will result in more consistent scoring and ultimately more wins. A lineup full of high strikeout players may score a ton of runs (if power is there), but their output of runs will have high levels of variation. A lot of their runs will come in blowouts and provide no marginal value. Total run production obviously matters, but consistent run production is far more important when it comes to wins and losses.

[iamshack]

Yes, but runner distribution isn't predictive. So basically you can look back at a season or game and find out which hits or outs were the "biggest" and most important, but if you're talking about building a roster for the coming season, there's no reliable way to ensure that contact will come at the right times, so you have to assume that it will be the average number of times, which is baked into the linear weights values for all of the events, which comes out in total production, which brings us back to square one. So if two guys are 100 wRC+ guys, but one strikes out more, they're still equally valuable. You can look at stats like WPA and Clutch score to see which guy had the bigger impact, but the difference between those leverage related value and the context-neutral linear weights stats does not carry over from year to year.

 

Also, it's beside the point, but a lot of the extra benefit (on average) received from contact outs versus strikeouts is negated by double plays. So the difference ends up being smaller than it intuitively seems.

So I should build a diverse lineup and let the chips fall where they may.

[Dick Allen]

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.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Dick Allen

[asindc]

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.

 

Exactly. Just hit the f***ing ball for goodness sake. You'll have a much better chance of something good happening.

Edited February 7, 2015 by asindc

[BlackSox13]

"GM Brian Cashman said on WFAN Friday that the Yankees had finished their “heavy lifting” this offseason, Brendan Kuty of NJ.com notes. Previous reporting had indicated that the Yankees might pursue in James Shields, but Cashman’s comments indicate that isn’t the case. As Kuty suggests, the idea that the Yankees won’t be a top bidder for Shields is consistent with their approach to the offseason so far — they re-signed Chase Headley and added Andrew Miller, but they’ve otherwise steered clear of top free agents after adding Jacoby Ellsbury, Masahiro Tanaka, Brian McCann and Carlos Beltran last offseason."

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/02/east...ees-flores.html

 

There goes my guess.

 

Shields market is so small. His situation reminds me a lot of Kyle Lohse. Now I'm REALLY curious just how far down Shields asking price has come.

[BlackSox13]

"Talks between the Padres and James Shields “have heated up and are gaining momentum,” according to Scott Miller of FOX Sports San Diego/Bleacher Report (Twitter link). Shields, a native of Santa Clarita, Calif. (just 150 miles from San Diego), very much likes the idea of pitching in San Diego, Miller adds."

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/02/late...es-shields.html

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

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.

Couldn't have said it better. It frustrates me to hell whenever this debate comes up with metrics guys because you really do need to look beyond what the numbers are saying since there are just too many variables at play to accurately quantify. Put the ball in play, put pressure on the defense, and you have a better chance of good things happening. It's really that simple. This GIDP argument is very short sighted since the variation in the top 10 leaders in GIDP are typically not that far above league average. Also, GIDP does not have a direct correlation to strikeouts. It is one factor but as I said before the type of contact a hitter makes is just as important as the percentage of strikeouts/AB. Otherwise, how else are guys like Chris Johnson and Matt Dominguez in the top 5 for GIDP in all of baseball last year?

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

The problem with linear weights is that it treats all runs equal, when we all know that is not the case. The distribution of how those runs is scored is incredibly important. All else being equal, a narrower distribution will result in more consistent scoring and ultimately more wins. A lineup full of high strikeout players may score a ton of runs (if power is there), but their output of runs will have high levels of variation. A lot of their runs will come in blowouts and provide no marginal value. Total run production obviously matters, but consistent run production is far more important when it comes to wins and losses.

Very good point