Who Solidified Themselves as Playoff Hitters for the Twins, and Who Didn't

[Bodie]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

I haven't seen anyone suggest the Ks are ok. My point is that they are teaching the same things that the best offenses in baseball teach. Hit the ball hard. The Guardians and Nationals had the lowest K% in baseball. They were all about your "make contact first" idea. They finished 27th and 21st in runs scored. They were 22nd and 23rd in OBP. 29th and 23rd in SLG. Would you rather the Twins had their offenses?

I'll keep this short: hitting the ball hard, even with 2 strikes, is the best way to score runs whether you like it or not.

The teaching and execution led to an inconsistent and bad offense.  Simple as that.  And this isn't a one year thing.  It has been a steady downhill regression. 

If you can't/don't make contact, it doesn't matter how hard you are swinging.

Maybe there needs to be an advanced metric/stat so we can hail those corkscrew strikeouts. After all, you supposedly should swing as hard as possible all the time and falling down strikeouts are kinda funny (assuming it is a White Sox "highlight").

[chpettit19]

1 minute ago, Bodie said:

The teaching and execution led to an inconsistent and bad offense.  Simple as that.  And this isn't a one year thing.  It has been a steady downhill regression. 

If you can't/don't make contact, it doesn't matter how hard you are swinging.

Maybe there needs to be an advanced metric/stat so we can hail those corkscrew strikeouts. After all, you supposedly should swing as hard as possible all the time and falling down strikeouts are kinda funny (assuming it is a White Sox "highlight").

Have you looked at any of the numbers that have been presented by multiple people in this thread or are you just making exaggerated comments for effect? There's been ample data provided. Perhaps you have some data you'd like to provide for your side of the debate?

[Bodie]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

This isn't central to your comment, but discussion about 2 strikes deserves more nuance, and probably study, than this. 

Across the majors in 2023, there were about 184 thousand plate appearances.  Of those, approximately 98 thousand reached a two strike count.  The aggregate OPS for plate appearances that were decided after two strikes? .523.  Not zero, maybe - not technically hopeless at that point - but pretty darn low. 

And that's more than half of all plate appearances.  If my quick and dirty calculation is correct, the OPS on PA that don't reach two strikes is about .976.

It's fair to say that the best way to score runs has to be not to reach two strikes if you can help it - with two strikes the contribution to run scoring is pretty small.  (The only exception seems to be if you claw your way to a full count, then as batter you are back to having a decent shot, with OPS .779.)

I don't know what this has to say about whether there is a better approach at the plate for certain hitters.  Maybe shortening up one's swing should occur at 1 strike, not at 2.

Source: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&lg=MLB&year=2023#all_count

Anyway, very much a tangent, but it's been on my mind a while.

Nice comment.  I'd hate to have seen Killabrew and Carew with the same approach, in totality.

Unfortunately, no one seems to be willing to tell players that they should be going for a more Carew-like approach.

Keep this trend going, and the .300 hitter will become as rare as the present day 20 game winner...

[Mike Sixel]

I'd guess the issue with the hitting and scoring is ability way more than approach or philosophy. The team hit and scored better with Lewis and Wallner than the guys they replaced....and I'm guessing the approach was no different for Wallner than Gallo....

[cmoss84]

Can anyone find data on % of double plays hit into across MLB with 2 strikes? Just curious...good conversation. 

[ashbury]

29 minutes ago, cmoss84 said:

Can anyone find data on % of double plays hit into across MLB with 2 strikes? Just curious...good conversation. 

From the same b-r.com page I referenced earlier:

Total:  184110 PA, 3466 GDP   Ratio=1.88%

Outcome after 2-strikes: 98402 PA, 1145 GDP   Ratio=1.16%

(Doing some subtractions now - sure hope I haven't messed up any of these manual calculations.)

Outcome after fewer than 2-strikes:  85708 PA, 2321 GDP   Ratio=2.71%

There were 41844 strikeouts this season (all on 2 strikes as mentioned earlier ), so if you want to compare it a different way then subtract those before taking the 2-strike ratio.

Non-K outcomes after 2-strikes: 56558 PA, 1145 GDP   Ratio=2.02%

Not sure which of the ratios might be the apples-to-apples comparison you are looking for, maybe the last two.  When not striking out, it's a moderately lower chance of a double play with 2 strikes than with fewer than 2 strikes. 0 chance of the DP if you do strike out.  Do you make anything of that?

 

[ashbury]

3 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

The two strike count is the only time that you can... Bum - Tah - Bum.

(Dramatic Pause)

Strike Out!!!

Anytime strikeouts are brought up, as a topic in and of itself, I find myself looking at what Washington and Cleveland did this year, since they struck out the fewest.  I looked at Atlanta's ranking in number of 2-strike situations but then didn't look beyond them.  So your question prompted me to look again.

Guess which teams had the fewest 2-strike situations in the majors?  Yep, them two again. Nats and Guardians. Can't strike out if you don't reach 2 strikes first.  The math checks out.

But fat lot of good it did them, in terms of run-scoring, since their offenses were well below average.  Apparently substituting popouts, groundouts, and flyouts for strikeouts, if that's what happened, was not a panacea.

[RpR]

13 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Anytime strikeouts are brought up, as a topic in and of itself, I find myself looking at what Washington and Cleveland did this year, since they struck out the fewest.  I looked at Atlanta's ranking in number of 2-strike situations but then didn't look beyond them.  So your question prompted me to look again.

Guess which teams had the fewest 2-strike situations in the majors?  Yep, them two again. Nats and Guardians. Can't strike out if you don't reach 2 strikes first.  The math checks out.

But fat lot of good it did them, in terms of run-scoring, since their offenses were well below average.  Apparently substituting popouts, groundouts, and flyouts for strikeouts, if that's what happened, was not a panacea.

A bat hitting a ball ALways has a chance to be a hit; a bat missing or sitting on a players shoulder , Never has a chance of being a hit.

That reality can never be changed.

[ashbury]

11 minutes ago, RpR said:

A bat hitting a ball ALways has a chance to be a hit; a bat missing or sitting on a players shoulder , Never has a chance of being a hit.

That reality can never be changed.

Not talking about chances.  These are all outcomes.

[Mike Sixel]

The center fielder for Arizona was terrible the first six games of the last series, was the moment too big for him?

[RpR]

15 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Not talking about chances.  These are all outcomes.

No chances, No outcomes.

[Bodie]

3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Have you looked at any of the numbers that have been presented by multiple people in this thread or are you just making exaggerated comments for effect? There's been ample data provided. Perhaps you have some data you'd like to provide for your side of the debate?

MLB record for strikeouts. 

 

Nothing else needs to be said!

[chpettit19]

26 minutes ago, Bodie said:

MLB record for strikeouts. 

 

Nothing else needs to be said!

And were still 10th in runs scored because they were 7th in slugging and 12th in OBP. Get on base and hit the ball hard. They were literally the worst team ever at striking out and were still a top 10 offense while Cleveland and Washington had the lowest K rates in baseball and couldn't crack the top 20 in offenses. 

The strikeouts suck. They need to fix them. Nobody is saying they're good or acceptable at that rate. But much more needs to be said than "MLB record for strikeouts." May be time to read a more recent book on hitting, and look at some new stats. Appreciate the back and forth, but we've hit the end of our road. I hope the Twins cut down the Ks moving forward, but the general approach of getting on base and hitting the ball hard is here to stay.

[chpettit19]

2 hours ago, ashbury said:

From the same b-r.com page I referenced earlier:

Total:  184110 PA, 3466 GDP   Ratio=1.88%

Outcome after 2-strikes: 98402 PA, 1145 GDP   Ratio=1.16%

(Doing some subtractions now - sure hope I haven't messed up any of these manual calculations.)

Outcome after fewer than 2-strikes:  85708 PA, 2321 GDP   Ratio=2.71%

There were 41844 strikeouts this season (all on 2 strikes as mentioned earlier ), so if you want to compare it a different way then subtract those before taking the 2-strike ratio.

Non-K outcomes after 2-strikes: 56558 PA, 1145 GDP   Ratio=2.02%

Not sure which of the ratios might be the apples-to-apples comparison you are looking for, maybe the last two.  When not striking out, it's a moderately lower chance of a double play with 2 strikes than with fewer than 2 strikes. 0 chance of the DP if you do strike out.  Do you make anything of that?

 

On fire with the stats tonight! Love to see it. Thanks for the great contributions today!

[USAFChief]

7 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

You need to have a reasonable K%, and good to great OBP, but the top 5 scoring teams were also the top 5 slugging teams with 2 strikes (according to my fangraphs splits at least). There's obviously way more that goes into things than this very simple look at things, but the idea of just choking up and putting the ball in play because good things happen even on weak contact is incredibly overblown. It's not as fun to watch, and it's not what the majority of us were taught, but it's pretty clear that the best strategy is to try to hit the ball hard all the time, even if it leads to some extra Ks. Because the number of times that weak contact actually leads to a hit is outweighed by the damage done by the times you make hard contact.

I think the change in approach that is needed for the Twins is getting to 2 strikes less often. Stop taking first pitch fastballs down the middle. Be ready to drive the ball from the second you step in the box. Julien has a great approach this way.

Edit: @ashbury, you posted my second paragraph, with far better detail, while I was typing. But I agree with that take. Not getting to 2 strikes is a wonderful strategy.

Again, I really think situations need to be taken into account. I dont think "swing hard in case you hit it" is always wrong. But its not always right, either. There are situations where avoiding a K, even at the expense of power, is absolutely worth it.

Oh, and get a couple better hitters for the middle of the lineup. 

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, USAFChief said:

Again, I really think situations need to be taken into account. I dont think "swing hard in case you hit it" is always wrong. But its not always right, either. There are situations where avoiding a K, even at the expense of power, is absolutely worth it.

Oh, and get a couple better hitters for the middle of the lineup. 

That last part is the real key.... Better players.

[Aerodeliria]

On 10/24/2023 at 11:17 PM, tony&rodney said:

There are probably some players that could be acquired via trade that would help the Twins but I'm having a hard time finding ones that are actually available. Lars Nootbar would be a nice addition but unlikely to be moved.

Free agent signings are nice but Cody Bellinger is really it besides the DH market. Do the Twins add a guy like Bellinger? Does anyone see the Twins signing an expensive DH or Teoscar Hernandez? I'm not sure that happens.

The Twins did fair in the postseason. The biggest disappointments for me were Jeffers and Wallner. I like them both though. They are still gaining experience and learning. So answering the post, I'm not adding much offense to what is already on the roster.  Yes, the roster is good enough. Juan Soto would be a nice addition, right?

I'd love to get Nootbar. He hits lefties better than righties (almost the same in fact). He also plays very sound defense.

[Aerodeliria]

I'm curious what was known about Kirilloff's injury. It seems that some folks knew he was injured. Why was he playing if that was the case? His strikeouts of course hurt the team. His play in the field killed the team....

[Riverbrian]

12 hours ago, ashbury said:

Anytime strikeouts are brought up, as a topic in and of itself, I find myself looking at what Washington and Cleveland did this year, since they struck out the fewest.  I looked at Atlanta's ranking in number of 2-strike situations but then didn't look beyond them.  So your question prompted me to look again.

Guess which teams had the fewest 2-strike situations in the majors?  Yep, them two again. Nats and Guardians. Can't strike out if you don't reach 2 strikes first.  The math checks out.

But fat lot of good it did them, in terms of run-scoring, since their offenses were well below average.  Apparently substituting popouts, groundouts, and flyouts for strikeouts, if that's what happened, was not a panacea.

Cleveland and Washington were near the bottom in walks also. They were not letting the count get to two strikes and they were not letting the count get to three balls either. Team Wide Aggressive Approach? Ben Revere syndrome? Ben never walked because pitchers didn't feel the need to pitch him carefully. 😉

If you want to take Cleveland and Washington into a new light. Check Line Drives and notice that Cleveland and Washington are 1-2 in the total number of line drives. They Don't Strikeout, They don't walk and they hit more line drives. This requires a dive into percentages because if they strikeout and walk less... they are putting more balls in play and therefore have more opportunity to win a line drive counting stat competition. 

LD% Cleveland is 2nd at 21.3% Washington is 20th at 19.7

BTW Top to Bottom Range of LD% is 21.4% to 18.3 so there isn't a lot of LD% difference between first and last. All teams seem to have similar LD% so Cleveland leading in line drives probably has more to do with not striking out or walking despite placing 2nd in LD%. 

Moving on to GB% Cleveland was 6th at 44.0% and Washington was 3rd at 45.1%. 

Top to Bottom Range on GB% is 46.2% to 38% so this produces a little more separation between first and last and tells a little more of the story.

So this leads to Double Plays. You strikeout less, walk less and you rank high in GB%... you must hit into a lot of double plays. Nope. I wish life was that easy but it's not.  Washington is 18th and Cleveland is 21st. 

To round out the batted ball results.

Look at FB% and you find what Cleveland and Washington doesn't do with all of that contact.

Washington is 26th at 35.2% and Cleveland is 28th at 34.7

FB% Range from Top to Bottom is 41.3 to 33.6% so it has a similar spread as GB%. 

In my head... I am leaning toward the possibility that Cleveland and Washington haven't learned the art of not swinging at pitches the pitchers want them to swing at. Making contact earlier than most but poor contact more often than most.  

But... There are more things to check before rushing to judgement.

Sequencing for example. We are going to need some coffee. 😉

 

[Riverbrian]

20 hours ago, ashbury said:

I have a feeling that there is some kind of conditional probability paradox that I'm overlooking, but if I'm not, then it's really as simple as that.

It was nice that we went back into Cleveland and Washington but I feel my attempt at addressing your feeling got glossed over.

Let's set this up:

184,110 Plate Appearances total.

98,402 reached two strikes in the count.  

53% of all plate appearances reach two strikes. 

22434 runs scored

7807 scored with two strikes on the ump's clicker. 

35% of run production came with two strikes. 

You ask what is the conditional probability paradox that you might be missing?

All strikeouts occur with two strikes. there are zero strikeouts when events occur with one strike or zero strikes. Once you hit the two strike condition. You now dump 41,844 strikeouts into the equation.

The strikeout is the X factor that can account for the drop in run production once the bell tolls two strikes. 

Over 98,402 two strikes events. 41,844 result in K's for 43%

41,844 K's that Zero and One don't have. Zero strikes and One strike get to produce runs, with the sac fly and the dribbler to 1B and doesn't have to contend with 43% strikeouts occurring. 

I'm Just trying to help 

[Riverbrian]

18 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I can condense this into legendary brevity. Here it comes:

When you get your pitch... Hit that ****er!!! 

 

Next... Let's take this brevity and bring it into the light. 

If you assume (I do) that pitchers are trying to make batters hit pitches that they don't want to hit. 

And if you assume (I do) that batters are trying to make pitchers throw pitches in locations that they don't want to throw into. 

And if you assume (I do) that this interplay between the pitcher and hitter plays a big role in a positive or negative result.  

How do you increase the odds that the pitcher will make that mistake and throw one in the happy zone? 

My assumption is that the best way to achieve this is to make the pitcher throw more pitches. The more pitches thrown the better the odds that the pitcher will goof up on one or two or three of them. 

We have established that Cleveland and Washington strike out less yet hit poorer than their peers. We have established that Cleveland and Washington reach two strikes less than others and we have established that Cleveland and Washington reach three balls less than others. 

Therefore plausible assumption... Cleveland and Washington simply don't wait for the mistake and victimize themselves by giving the pitcher the advantage the pitcher wants.  

Another plausible assumption... teams that wait for the mistake by seeing more pitches will reach two strikes more and three balls more and as a result of that they will strikeout more or walk more. So K's become a natural by-product of patience while patience produces more pitcher mistakes and better results. 

Therefore... When you get your pitch... Hit that ****er!!! I suspect that the best hitters do this more often. 

And of course you drive the pitch count up and get the starting pitcher out of the game quicker... which goes back to something else I say often: Get bullpen serious because you are going to need a talented full pen if teams are going to make starting pitchers work like those guys who died building the pyramids in Egypt.  

[cmoss84]

17 hours ago, ashbury said:

From the same b-r.com page I referenced earlier:

Total:  184110 PA, 3466 GDP   Ratio=1.88%

Outcome after 2-strikes: 98402 PA, 1145 GDP   Ratio=1.16%

(Doing some subtractions now - sure hope I haven't messed up any of these manual calculations.)

Outcome after fewer than 2-strikes:  85708 PA, 2321 GDP   Ratio=2.71%

There were 41844 strikeouts this season (all on 2 strikes as mentioned earlier ), so if you want to compare it a different way then subtract those before taking the 2-strike ratio.

Non-K outcomes after 2-strikes: 56558 PA, 1145 GDP   Ratio=2.02%

Not sure which of the ratios might be the apples-to-apples comparison you are looking for, maybe the last two.  When not striking out, it's a moderately lower chance of a double play with 2 strikes than with fewer than 2 strikes. 0 chance of the DP if you do strike out.  Do you make anything of that?

 

Thanks for listing those numbers! Much appreciated!

My initial guess was 2 strike counts would lead to weaker contact, and therefor, more DPs with 2 strikes. Maybe this was the approach years ago? Maybe the approach has now shifted to "look to drive the ball with 2 strikes and if you strike out it is better than a double play." A bit surprising but it makes complete sense. My apologies if this is redundant in this conversation.  

[ashbury]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

You now dump 41,844 strikeouts into the equation.

Strikeouts are built on three bad decisions or inability to execute, not simply the one when it's registered.  So that's where the statistical bias comes from when looking at two-strike outcomes. 

As for your deep dive into WAS and CLE, I think you're right.  If you are okay with the notion that simply avoiding strikeouts isn't what makes an offense good, then we're on the same page.  A team needs good hitters like Atlanta and Houston have either picked, or trained, to hit with authority; they don't strike out because they're too busy succeeding, unlike WAS and CLE who don't strike out because they're too busy making other kinds of outs.  That's all I've been trying to say.

 

[ashbury]

16 minutes ago, cmoss84 said:

Thanks for listing those numbers! Much appreciated!

My initial guess was 2 strike counts would lead to weaker contact, and therefor, more DPs with 2 strikes. Maybe this was the approach years ago? Maybe the approach has now shifted to "look to drive the ball with 2 strikes and if you strike out it is better than a double play." A bit surprising but it makes complete sense. My apologies if this is redundant in this conversation.  

Maybe with 2 strikes the runner on first is more likely to be on the move?  I don't know.  Maybe the batter's approach is different with 2 outs, which isn't split out in these tables and of course rules out a DP?  I don't know.  Maybe the batter's approach is different when there's a runner on first than when not?  I don't know.

I don't know a lot.

[Riverbrian]

25 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Strikeouts are built on three bad decisions or inability to execute, not simply the one when it's registered.  So that's where the statistical bias comes from when looking at two-strike outcomes. 

 

I'm not sure but I think you are saying what I'm saying but... let's find out. 

According to the song it's one, two... three strikes your out at the ole' ball game. I get that... Three Bad Decisions or inability to execute. However... I am talking about... And hopefully you are as well.

What changes when two strikes is reached? The strikeout enters the picture where it didn't exist prior to two strikes.  

Just to clarify which page both of us are on. 

53% of all AB's reach the two strike count.

35% of two strike counts result in run production. 

All things being equal... over the course of time... two Strike counts should produce 53% of the runs but it doesn't as indicated by the 35%.  

Zero Strike events result in strikeouts 0% of the time.

One strike events result in strikeouts 0% of the time

Two strike events result in strikeouts 43% of the time. Only two strikes can produce a strikeout event. Therefore the dumping of 41,844 strikeouts into the 53% 35% data that doesn't/can't exist when the ball is put in play with one or no strikes.

Therefore strikeouts becomes a plausible explanation for the drop to 35% run production with two strikes despite 53% of plate reaching a conclusion with two strikes. 

Every player with two strikes in baseball averages out to a normal Joey Gallo strolling to the plate at bat.

Are we on the same page?    😉

[cmoss84]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

I don't know a lot.

Welcome to the club! Turns out when a game is (160?? 200?? years old) older than dirt, there will always be changes and new things to figure out. Have to love it! Ken Burns needs to come out with a "pre-history of baseball." Does he talk about Louis and Clark playing with the natives in the first episode? maybe he does. 

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, ashbury said:

Strikeouts are built on three bad decisions or inability to execute, not simply the one when it's registered.  So that's where the statistical bias comes from when looking at two-strike outcomes. 

As for your deep dive into WAS and CLE, I think you're right.  If you are okay with the notion that simply avoiding strikeouts isn't what makes an offense good, then we're on the same page.  A team needs good hitters like Atlanta and Houston have either picked, or trained, to hit with authority; they don't strike out because they're too busy succeeding, unlike WAS and CLE who don't strike out because they're too busy making other kinds of outs.  That's all I've been trying to say.

 

First off... I find this discussion interesting and I hope you are not tiring of it.

Yes I agree with both Chpettit19 and you. It isn't as simple as simply avoiding  strikeouts. I believe that you are pointing at the correct rabbit hole in your data driven reasoning that it isn't as simple.

Where we are possibly crossing our wires was my attempt to respond to what you typed below in order to continue this interesting discussion.  

22 hours ago, ashbury said:

Even though more than half of PA went to 2 strikes, only a little more than a third of runs were scored when that happened.  Brutal odds if you're trying to field a competitive offense.  I have a feeling that there is some kind of conditional probability paradox that I'm overlooking, but if I'm not, then it's really as simple as that.

The b-ref hitter count stats that you linked to in an earlier post are not calculating swing and misses with zero strikes or one strike or foul balls for that matter. They are calculating hit, walk or out events that occur with zero strikes or one strike and then calculating OPS and OBP and Slugging from those AB ending events. It isn't three bad decisions because you can't end the AB with a strikeout with zero or one strike. The AB lives on. It is simply the third strike that registers the numbers that you linked to. 

The strikeout gets introduced to the math only with two strikes... therefore the 43% strikeout clip that occurs with two strikes is unique to two strikes and would be a conditional probability that explains the 35% run production in the face of the 53% AB's reaching two strikes. 

Perhaps... you are muttering to yourself... Yes of course RB. But, It isn't clear to me that we are on the same page in this attempt by me to point out a possible conditional probability. 

Anyway... I hope you haven't exhausted yourself on the conversation. I'm enjoying what you are bringing to us all. And yes... I agree with you. I believe the answer lies in the very deep rabbit hole that you have brought to us. 

[ashbury]

7 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

First off... I find this discussion interesting and I hope you are not tiring of it.

Actually, yeah, I find that every question I try to look into in this discussion splits into two or more tangents, and since this started with just a bit of curiosity I think I'm not going further down this rabbit hole.

The problem is that the data is more aggregated than I realized, making it hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons.  I've pointed out a way or two that I've noticed, and I think I'm not noticing a lot of others.

For example, if I did my quick bit of math right, subtracting all the strikeouts in the two-strike resolution case ends up with a batting average around .327 if I'm remembering correctly from yesterday, which is higher than the batting average with just one strike (where no subtraction of strikeouts is needed of course), and I don't think this makes sense, so something else is going on that I haven't considered.

A biggie is that both batter and pitcher have a lot of say in what happens, and they get to change their strategies on the fly, particularly with regard to the count.  Just as the above cartoon has parents deciding not to buy this guy's bumper sticker, despite heavy market research that indicated the sky was the limit, batters choose whether or not to swing at any given pitch, and the stats don't carry whether there is a bias of, say, breaking pitches in the dirt when the count is fewer than three balls.

What started as a quick and dirty study, turns out to end there as well, less quick and still dirty, as far as I'm concerned.  A few readers have expressed their appreciation for this spade work, and I appreciate that in return, and hope it inspires maybe a cleaner approach.

[Riverbrian]

10 hours ago, ashbury said:

Actually, yeah, I find that every question I try to look into in this discussion splits into two or more tangents, and since this started with just a bit of curiosity I think I'm not going further down this rabbit hole.

The problem is that the data is more aggregated than I realized, making it hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons.  I've pointed out a way or two that I've noticed, and I think I'm not noticing a lot of others.

For example, if I did my quick bit of math right, subtracting all the strikeouts in the two-strike resolution case ends up with a batting average around .327 if I'm remembering correctly from yesterday, which is higher than the batting average with just one strike (where no subtraction of strikeouts is needed of course), and I don't think this makes sense, so something else is going on that I haven't considered.

A biggie is that both batter and pitcher have a lot of say in what happens, and they get to change their strategies on the fly, particularly with regard to the count.  Just as the above cartoon has parents deciding not to buy this guy's bumper sticker, despite heavy market research that indicated the sky was the limit, batters choose whether or not to swing at any given pitch, and the stats don't carry whether there is a bias of, say, breaking pitches in the dirt when the count is fewer than three balls.

What started as a quick and dirty study, turns out to end there as well, less quick and still dirty, as far as I'm concerned.  A few readers have expressed their appreciation for this spade work, and I appreciate that in return, and hope it inspires maybe a cleaner approach.

I get it... It's almost like the exploration of this rabbit hole would require a full time job.

Most of us surface dwellers don't have the inclination to go down there because it's just easier to make some comment about Rocco and his spreadsheets.

Even if some of us are inclined to take a look, we certainly don't have the time because what you find down there is going to split off in multiple directions and leave you down there for days, weeks, months. 

I just really believe that you are pointing at a rabbit hole where the answers lie. It's easy to say K's are the problem. They are... we led the league in them and that has to be a problem worthy of solving but they are clearly not the whole story as illustrated by simple comparison of actual results. The answer us surface dwellers seek (for those who are seeking) isn't going to be found by looking at Twins data exclusively. It's going to require looking at Cleveland and Washington and asking why. Along with looking at the other 27 teams to compare and contrast with.  

The Twins (All baseball teams) employ lots of analysts. I don't know what they all do but I'm willing to bet that they are not repeating the same work because that type of redundancy would be pointless.

I have no idea how many analysts they employ but if they employ (for example) 20 of them... I'm willing to bet that all 20 are not bringing Rocco and the front office 20 duplicate versions of the same left/right splits that I like to complain about in the name of development and in the name of preparation for future needs yet to be determined. 

I'd like to think that a few of those analysts employed by clubs are down in this very rabbit hole and work down there for a living.  

Maybe Twinsdaily can create a data rabbit hole forum for those inclined because the conversation that Chpettit19 started and that you took to the rabbit hole is potentially one thousand times more interesting and informative than the Rocco needs to put down the spreadsheets down commentary that exists in proportion large enough to be no longer interesting to me. 

 

[Linus]

On 10/27/2023 at 9:36 AM, Riverbrian said:

I get it... It's almost like the exploration of this rabbit hole would require a full time job.

Most of us surface dwellers don't have the inclination to go down there because it's just easier to make some comment about Rocco and his spreadsheets.

Even if some of us are inclined to take a look, we certainly don't have the time because what you find down there is going to split off in multiple directions and leave you down there for days, weeks, months. 

I just really believe that you are pointing at a rabbit hole where the answers lie. It's easy to say K's are the problem. They are... we led the league in them and that has to be a problem worthy of solving but they are clearly not the whole story as illustrated by simple comparison of actual results. The answer us surface dwellers seek (for those who are seeking) isn't going to be found by looking at Twins data exclusively. It's going to require looking at Cleveland and Washington and asking why. Along with looking at the other 27 teams to compare and contrast with.  

The Twins (All baseball teams) employ lots of analysts. I don't know what they all do but I'm willing to bet that they are not repeating the same work because that type of redundancy would be pointless.

I have no idea how many analysts they employ but if they employ (for example) 20 of them... I'm willing to bet that all 20 are not bringing Rocco and the front office 20 duplicate versions of the same left/right splits that I like to complain about in the name of development and in the name of preparation for future needs yet to be determined. 

I'd like to think that a few of those analysts employed by clubs are down in this very rabbit hole and work down there for a living.  

Maybe Twinsdaily can create a data rabbit hole forum for those inclined because the conversation that Chpettit19 started and that you took to the rabbit hole is potentially one thousand times more interesting and informative than the Rocco needs to put down the spreadsheets down commentary that exists in proportion large enough to be no longer interesting to me. 

 

That is a great idea RB. A sabrmetrics forum.