Striking out, Less than 2 outs

Wednesday, June 15 2005 @ 11:24 AM EDT

Contributed by: TangoTiger

Over at BTF, there was a little disagreement, at which point the author of the linked piece said: You love the DIPS, the PECOTA, the whatever. I don't. I am concerned with wins, losses, what guys hit with RISP, and the amount of times guys strike out with men on third and less than two out.

I'm excerpting those comments from the author/poster, heals9, as a way to make a point, and not to attack anyone.

I'm concerned about the same things as heals9, as well as loving DIPS, PECOTA, whatever.

Let's tackle the "strikeouts with men on third and less than 2 outs". Is there a way to quantify this, rather than leave it to our memory and anecdotes? You betcha.

If you go to my site, let's go down to the man on 3b and 0,1,2 out rows. Look for the "out" and "K" columns.

With 2 outs, the run value of an out and a K are virtually the same, according to the chart. They are in fact exactly the same, but, because of sample size issues, it comes out only as close.

With 0 outs, the run value of an out is a loss of .28 runs, but a K is a loss of .42 runs. That's a whopping .14 run difference here. That's the difference between the best hitter in the league and an average one. So, a K is a killer (to the hitter) here, and it's certainly something that you want to know about.

But, it could be worse. That K could have come with 1 out, where the run value of the out is a loss of .25 runs, while the K is .63 runs, or a difference of .38 runs! If .14 runs is a whopper, this is downright inexcusable. K-ing with 0 outs still leaves you with the runner on 3b and less than 2 outs. But a K with 1 out leaves you in a much worse position, and hence the truly incredible turn of events that a K gives you in that position (which is also why we should love relievers with high K rates and men on base).

To me, that link I show is what baseball is almost all about. It quantifies the impact of every event in various states. Including the inning, score and count would make it almost perfect.

I am concerned with wins, losses, and K's with men on 3b and less than 2 outs. I supplement that by quantifying that concern.

There's nothing wrong with doing that, and there's nothing wrong with not doing that. To each his own, and don't let one person's perspective supplant another's.

(Note, above post also made at BTF.)