Luke Keaschall's Better Bat Speed Has Begotten Worse Results. Here's Why.

[ashbury]

21 minutes ago, Wedman13 said:

Clearly he/she doesn't see those 3 Hall of famers as a good comp to any second baseman, so it seemed rather odd.  

I was writing in response to someone railing against home runs and extolling table setters - "All this emphasis on hitting home runs is ridiculous."

Doesn't anyone here like Runs Scored?  Because when you look at the guys who score 100 in a season, you don't find many table setters in the list.  You find guys with home runs.  I listed some guys at the very tip top in scoring runs, because they happen to also hit a gob of homers.  Or, maybe they don't just "happen" to.

If people here took a little more time to try to digest and understand what someone else took the time to write, instead of quickly dashing off something snarky about a power hitter stuck on bad teams never winning a pennant, the conversations here might be more productive.

[Riverbrian]

10 hours ago, Wedman13 said:

No offense taken!  I just don't love the extremes either, which is my only point.  Clearly he/she doesn't see those 3 Hall of famers as a good comp to any second baseman, so it seemed rather odd.  
 

I hate to pile on Royce and MW but per the article I just think a 23yr old 2b in a 7-8 week slump is vastly different than upper 20's guys (who play positions that demand production) that struggled for a year plus.  - that was what was in the article, not the comments.

or maybe I'm just hoping beyond hope they keep the season semi-enjoyable, so am overly defensive :)

It's all good. 

Regardless of my disagreement with their off-season direction. My summer enjoyment is heavily influenced by how my Twins do.  So... a toast. Here's to a semi-enjoyable Summer! Go ARCIA!!! 😉

I can't speak for Ash but... his thoughts are worthy of consideration. I think it's a good idea that he is directing his research to runs because a run produced is the ultimate goal of every stat that just busies up the statistical landscape. Ash is sitting down with a pen and paper and tracking run production. Most on Twinsdaily are not looking where Ash looks and I appreciate that. He is looking at the numbers and wondering out loud why the table setters are not scoring more runs. I don't know... it's a good question... why are the power hitters producing more runs. ISO just might be the place to look. 

To his point... I may not a big fan of Isolated power in itself because I think the simple out or no out is really the most important stat on the planet. I just don't like ISO taking out all those singles especially when singles are so prevalent... about two singles to every 1 extra base hit as a league average.

With that said... ISO is probably a good thing to check in regards to runs. He may be on to something.

One fact has always stuck with me and this fact has influenced my thinking in regards to almost everything. The fact that the average OBP is .320. Basically it means that 1 out of 3 hitters reach base and the real good ones are still getting out 3 out of 5 times. We often look at the numbers... this one is high... this one is low but 1 out of 3 reaching base on average basically means that the game is naturally inclined toward zero runs scored in any given inning.

It will take 3 singles to score a run. You have to get those three singles before you get three outs. The outs are constantly reducing your odds as each out occurs. The odds of 3 positive events is longer than 2 positive events in the race against the outs. One extra base hit and now you are down to two events before the 3 out clock runs out. That is an incredible odds changer. 

Maybe what Ash is leading us toward. Just a theory... Maybe...Players with high ISO score more runs because an extra base hit puts you in scoring position where one more event can bring you across the plate. Where as a single may still require two more events to score and those three outs are just a buzzer waiting to go off. Because again... 1 out of 3 reach base on average. This means... on average... you ain't scoring a run without an extra base hit. 

No doubt in my mind. Slugging is much much bigger than OBP. 

[Wedman13]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

I was writing in response to someone railing against home runs and extolling table setters - "All this emphasis on hitting home runs is ridiculous."

Doesn't anyone here like Runs Scored?  Because when you look at the guys who score 100 in a season, you don't find many table setters in the list.  You find guys with home runs.  I listed some guys at the very tip top in scoring runs, because they happen to also hit a gob of homers.  Or, maybe they don't just "happen" to.

If people here took a little more time to try to digest and understand what someone else took the time to write, instead of quickly dashing off something snarky about a power hitter stuck on bad teams never winning a pennant, the conversations here might be more productive.

Snarkyness was not intended and if taken that way, apologies.  I think a few folks were taken aback by the article and insinuation LK was benched and possibly on a Lewis/Wallner path - when we were at least told it was due to injury.  
 

He may well flame out, but it seems too early.  And I don't think a Clemens, Arcia, Keidler and Gray infield inspires belief in the future - even if we win some this year.  If Luke is a 3rd Baseman, OF'r, 1st baseman I'd be more concerned.  But I'd sooner take lumps with him, then a retread or Tanner Schoebel.  If he's still struggling a year from now it's fair game, some just believe it's too early. (Again, the article, not your comments) And right or wrong, I think many simply have flashbacks of Sanó, Gallo and MW that we find guys like Martin and LK somewhat refreshing to watch.  I know I do.  But your point is not dismissed at all.... and you may be spot on.

entertaining discussion, thanks!