True outcomes? Really?

[mikelink45]

To start with you must know I am old.  The 45 on my name does not refer to my age - only where I start counting.  So take my speculation as an old man who just cannot buy into the three true outcomes (nonsense) and I know I am treading on sacred ground here, but this is where my speculation is today.  Sano is my poster boy for this posting and he is just one example.  I remember my playing days when some guys were so enamored with the distance that they hit that they could hardly run the bases, but distance does not get you more runs.  It is not like we have a basketball three point line.  

Sano has 1017 strikeouts in 2788 ABS.  His K rate is .365.  His BA for that same period is 238.  I have to take a breath.

Now let's play with those 1017 Ks.  If he made contact at his 238 rate he would have an additional 242 hits and maybe more HRs.  His DP rate is .019 so I would have to apply that too so 19 more DPs.  Would I trade 242 hits for 19 DPs?  I would, but I am not a sabremetrician. Using his current stats as a guide he would also have 12 more doubles. 

Now, is this realistic?  No.  I understand the errors in a true one for one projection, but at the same time, putting the ball in play can also result in errors or even unrecorded errors - misplays. And if we credit the other bats in the lineup it might mean both more runs scored - 29 and more runs batted in - 43.

Okay - you can attack my reasoning now, just don't quote THREE TRUE OUTCOMES. 

[ashbury]

Have a look at this article, which lays out some history on why such a silly name was chosen:

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the-growth-of-three-true-outcomes-from-usenet-joke-to-baseball-flashpoint/

"Three True Outcomes" was never meant as anything but satirical, and even self-deprecating, toward the analytic crowd.   The word "True" certainly is not meant in any sense of being "Good" in terms of playing skill - it just means that for purposes of analyzing the game, these are the outcomes that are up to just the batter and the pitcher to decide.  Certain players like Rob Deer carried the tendency to extremes, but that didn't make them, you know, good.  The intended humor is so dry, it's not actually, you know, funny.

Sano strikes out way too much to be a consistent asset to a team with World Series ambitions.  OTOH he homers often enough that he's not a complete black hole at the plate, and he walks enough to set the table a little bit for the next guys in the lineup.  So he's an enigma; one suspects that he believes if he changed his swing to cut down on the strikeouts, the homers might plummet, and the increase in singles wouldn't compensate.

BTW, by looking at his lifetime .238 BA, you actually sell your argument a little short on what he might do if he could cut down on the Ks - in most seasons batters across the majors hit around .300 when they put the ball in play.  (Since strikeouts outnumber homers, and walks don't count for BA, the net result is a league BA well below .300 of course.)

[Trov]

Much like Ashbury said the three true outcomes was not meant to be the stat to judge people by.  It was just meant to be another number to judge players by.  Some players have taken it to extremes.  Adam Dunn was one of the first in my memory.  Joey Gallo is a recent guy.  Personally, I find the huge strike out numbers by hitters annoying. I like to see balls in play and people running bases.  I understand there will always be guys that are sluggers that do not run and they are there to hit HR.  I just do not want a team full of them. 

Similar, I am not a huge fan of FIP for pitchers as a judgment of their pitching.  Many people have shifted to pointing to FIP as a sign of how good someone pitches.  I get why people like the stat, but it does not measure when the three true outcomes happen.  

For both hitters and pitchers, the three true outcomes can happen any at bat, but they are not equal depending on when.  For example, maybe a pitcher only strikes out 6 guys per 9, but he gets strike outs when he needs to.  Like when a runner is on 3rd and less than 2 outs, he gets the K, but when bases are empty he allows the ball to be in play.  I believe some pitchers these days go into every at bat looking for the K, using up a ton of pitches when you can try to induce weak contact early in count, and until you get to 2 strikes never really looks for swing and miss stuff.

Same with hitters.  Tervor Plouffe is one I loved to point to about how his HR did not tell his story.  In 2012 he hit 24 HR, and people were excited that maybe we had a power hitter on the rise from him.  One he followed that up with 14 HR each of next 2 years with more PA, but even when you looked at that year, he had 55 RBI.  24 HR with only 55 RBI is crazy low.  Meaning most of his HR were solo shots, and normally were when game was not in doubt, either up a lot or down a lot and he was getting lessor pitchers grooving fastballs to get through the game.  

If a player is hitting HR in meaningless at bats but striking out key situations, like runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs in close games.  That is not good.  All stats only tell part of a story and no stat should be used as the key stat to look at, but just used to see the whole picture. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

From a mercenary stand point, a run is a run and an out is an out. For the argument of weak contact becomes hits sometimes but strikeouts almost never become base runners, comes the counter that weak contact also becomes double plays but strikeouts almost never do.

i appreciate the math on swinging for the fences and agree with it from a strategy perspective of winning more games.

From a fan watching the game, I’d rather watch a crisply executed high contact pitched game. It’s more fun when there’s more balls in play. It’s one of the things that needs to happen in order to attract more fans. It’s no fun to watch a bunch of guys waive at a ball and sit down 25 times.

[old nurse]

Perhaps the truth myth is in the people who are complaining of the 3 outcomes. HR/9 is up only about 0.2 a game. About every other game there is one more HR per game. Babip has been hovering around .295 for a long long time. I would like to find the stat on weakly hit balls then versus the strikeout now. The math gurus in FO seem to think the outcome is better. Babip likely has stayed static because of shifts. There are a lot more strikeouts. The number keeps growing since expansion.. I don’t know what anyone would think a reasonable starting point for comparison is. Up about 21/2 since the turn of the century.  It is not like there is all or nothing

On Sano your logic only applies to called strikes for strike three. Prove that he gets called out too much. If he is striking out swinging, that is a different issue and if he was making contact more often he is no longer a .238 hitter