Cap'n Piranha

Dan Gladden: "Ball hit to the outfield, Jack Cave with the catch."

Definitely. Those 3 groundouts have been much more helpful to our offensive output than if he had struck out 3 times.

Disagree. Hit it further instead.

The bottom third of the order is collectively the forger of the One Ring?

I would like to thank Kevin Cash for putting a guy with a .607 OPS in the leadoff spot.

From what I can see on Gameday, the change is 84-85, cutter 87-90, 2-seam 92-93, and 4-seam 93-94.

The one issue here when using run expectancy to say bunting is a bad idea is that you're not weighting the likelihood of outcomes for not bunting. Let's use Jonathan Schoop as an example. Assuming that a single only advances the runners one base, below are the percentage for each scenario. 123, 0 runs in, 0 outs; 20.2% 2, 2 runs in, 0 outs; 5.6% 3, 2 runs in, 0 outs; 0.0% -, 3 runs in, 0 outs; 4.9% 12, 0 runs in, 1 out; 53.5% 3, 0 runs in, 2 outs; 5.9% 23, 0 runs in, 1 out; 10.0% Some of these are simplified, as the multiple ways different states could come about are too legion to calculate, but I feel confident that for every situation I don't give him credit for (no errors, no chance for a triple, for example), there are probably more situations I do give him credit for (DP's always ending with a runner on third, non K/DP outs never erasing a lead runner, a 25% non K/DP productive out rate). This results in the below weighted run expectancies and probabilities. 123, 0 runs in, 0 outs; .464 and .174 2, 2 runs in, 0 outs; .174 and .056 3, 2 runs in, 0 outs; 0 and 0 -, 3 runs in, 0 outs; .169 and .049 12, 0 runs in, 1 out; .473 and .217 3, 0 runs in, 2 outs; .021 and .015 23, 0 runs in, 1 out; .137 and .067 Sum those up, and the expected run outcome after Schoop's PA last night is 1.437, with a 57.8% chance of a run scoring. Given that the baseline for the runners on 1st and 2nd, not outs situation is 1.437 runs with a 61% chance of a run scoring, Schoop batting neither increases nor decreases the expected runs, although it does lower the chance of scoring a run. That being said, if you decrease his non K/DP productive out rate to 10%, the numbers dip to 1.408 and 56.2% Now with bunting--let's assume 10% of the time he gets a hit, 50% of the time he successfully moves the runners to 2nd and 3rd, 35% of the time he fails to get the bunt down, and 5% of the time he actually bunts into a DP. With those numbers, the expected runs come to 1.24, with a 57.9% chance of a run scoring. In essence, since Schoop is unlikely to actually improve the expected runs for the inning, bunting, while lowering the chances of a big inning, increases the chances of a tie game. In the 7th inning, against a team whose bullpen is 2nd in ERA, 1st in FIP, 3rd in xFIP, and 1st in HR/9, increasing the odds of taking advantage of a good opportunity is not a bad play.

Yeah, that was a typo, it was supposed to be top 100. My inclusion of his relatively low SLG was meant to demonstrate that despite not a lot of power, Arraez maintains a healthy walk rate, which you wouldn't expect for a guy that's seen nearly 80% of his MiLB hits go for singles (this year the MLB rate is 62%, IL is 62%, Southern League is 70%). Arraez thus far has displayed elite contact ability (best among all players with 40+ PA's at 95.7%, 2nd at Zone contact at 98%, and 1st at Out-of-zone contact at 90.5%). He also has the 21st lowest out of zone swing rate, 40th lowest in-zone swing rate, and 20th overall swing rate, which means he's actualyl allowing his contact skill to play. Compare that to Astudillo (4th in contact, 6th in zone contact, 7th in non-zone contact; 6th HIGHEST non-zone swing, 2nd zone swing, 2nd overall). This is why Luis Arraez has a .521 OBP and 198 wRC+, and Astudillo is at .276 and 67.

For his minor league career, Arraez took 122 bb, compared to 129 k, in 1,585 PA's. That's a 7.7% bb rate, which is right around a top-11 rate in all of MLB. This despite a career minors SLG of .414. Arraez is a professional hitter who will be 22 the rest of this season--I'd be shocked if he's not the starting 2nd baseman next year.

I just want Ricky De La Torre and Ernie De La Trinidad on the same team so we can have some DLT's in the lineup.

Sure it can. Seldom deals with frequency, regular deals with intervals. Halley's comet appears at regular intervals, but based on the human lifespan, that regular interval is seldom. In the context of batters reaching on strikeouts, while it happens seldomly, it is also a regular occurrence; there have been 92 4-strikeout innings alone in MLB history, so there have obviously been quite a few more instances of players reaching on a strikeout. I would bet it happens anywhere from 4-6 times every season, making it a regular, but infrequent, occurrence.

You did claim that not putting the ball in play can't be positive. From your post at 9:01 AM, 4th to last sentence in your first paragraph: "Failing to put the ball in play can never result in a positive." I agree that a batter reaching on a WP/PB reaches because of the WP/PB, not the strikeout; however, that also means a batter that reaches on an error on a ball put in play reaches on the error, not the ball put in play. Insofar as reaching on a WP/PB or an error is dependent on a strikeout or ball in play, respectively, you can't dismiss either case without also dismissing the other. A stolen base is also dependent on the ball not being put in play. Therefore, if stealing a base is a positive, not putting the ball in play is imperative.

The HR scenario was not a wasted inning. Re-produce that inning every inning, of every game, and that team will have far and away the greatest offense of all time. That team will in all likelihood win something like 140 games, shattering the all-time win record. I also don't understand why you would rather have a double play than a strikeout. There are 14 states in which a double play can occur; runner at first, runner at second, runner at third, runners at first and second, runners at first and third, runners at second and third, bases loaded (either with 0 outs or 1 out). Based on run expectancy, the only times a double play is less damaging than a strikeout is if there are multiple runners on base, one of whom is at third, and that runner manages to score before the second out of the double play is recorded. The best-case scenario for a double play is on average .2 runs worse of an outcome than a strikeout, whereas the worst-case scenario is .6 runs worse of an outcome.

Except that a strikeout allows for the possibility of a wild pitch/passed ball, or for that matter, a stolen base. A ball in play means none of those things can happen. If you're going to say putting a ball in play is positive because it can result in an error, than you have to say not putting a ball in play can be positive because it can result in a WP/PB. Using your logic, a batter reaching/runner advancing due to an error, is the result of the error, not the ball put in play. Also, batters seldomly, but regularly reach base on strikeouts when the third strike gets away. Runners often advance on those as well. And while those instances are less frequent than runners advancing on balls-in-play, it is plainly false to say no good can possible come from a strikeout.

Striking out in 24 of 56 PA in June is an issue in the sense that his OPS is only .724 in June. He's not doing enough in his non-k PA's to justify his k rate. If that continues, I'll be all in favor of sending him down to clean it up. However, if he hits like he did in May, when he struck out in 18 of 50 PA's, but put up a .936 OPS, I'm perfectly happy with penciling him into the 6/7 slot every day. After all, in May, Sano was 41% better than the average hitter.

Strikeouts aren't a problem in and of themselves. Consider this thought experiment; Imagine a player who gets 600 PA's in a season, and strikes out 70% of the time (420 strikeouts, almost 200 more than the all-time record). However, in the other 180 PA's, the player hits a homerun every time. That players line would be .300/.300/1.200/1.500. That would be, by OPS, the greatest offensive season in baseball history. In fact, the slugging percentage alone would be the 21st greatest OPS season in baseball history. It would be a wOBA of .630, which is almost 100 points higher than Barry Bonds 2004 season. The problem is not the strikeouts (after all, every hitter's out rate will be somewhere in the 55% to 60% range). The problem is what happens in all the plate appearances that aren't strikeouts.

Putting the ball in play also has a marginal chance of becoming negative. Double plays, lead runners being thrown out, guys getting cut down at the plate; none of which can happen on a strikeout. On the whole, I agree that strikeouts are worse than ball-in-play outs, but the difference is not quite so large as a number of posters on this site want to believe. Additionally, if strikeouts are the price you pay for higher home run rates, than you can argue strikeouts are a good thing. After all, which inning would you rather have; a lead-off single, and three straight ball-in-play outs, or a leadoff homer and three straight strikeouts?

This is inaccurate. You're assuming that his BABIP stays the same if he changes his approach; it's quite possible it would change, and change drastically. Willians Astudillo is an elite contact hitter, and owns a career .290 BABIP. Eddie Rosario is another very good contact hitter--his career BABIP is .313. It's most likely that if Sano works to cut down his strikeouts, the trade off will be making less hard contact, and probably a lower BABIP. I'm not super interested in trading strikeouts for weak contact.

He has a better OPS on the year than Rosario, Adrianza, Schoop, Gonzalez, and Astudillo. By the way, if chasing pitches is bad, then Astudillo is a far bigger issue, with his 46.6% chase rate.

Actually, since there's real, statistical evidence that supports keeping Sano, it's not being ignorant. If you don't think Sano is cutting it, then we should also be looking to move on from Rosario, Schoop, Adrianza, Gonzalez, and Astudillo. All 5 of those players have a lower OPS and wRC+ than Sano.

Interesting that you choose their last 38 AB's, despite the fact they were at completely different levels. How about this breakdown instead? Astudillo in MLB since May 12 (72 PA's), Sano since May 25 (73 PA's). Batting Average: Astudillo .224, Sano .203 OBP: Astudillo .250, Sano .301 SLG: Astudillo .299, Sano .375 OPS: Astudillo .549, Sano .676 HR's: Astudillo 1, Sano 2 wRC+: Astudillo 41, Sano 80 wOBA: Astudillo .236, Sano .294 Soft Contact Rate: Astudillo 24.6%, Sano 6.1% Hard Contact Rate: Astudillo 29.2%, Sano 54.6% Sano is 26 and is actually almost 2 years younger than Astudillo. His best days are in all likelihood in front of him, not behind him.

Agree with this. Strip out Gibson's first two starts, when he was still trying to gain weight/strength, and here's what you get; 11 starts, 3.38 FIP, 3.18 xFIP, 9.4 k/9, 1.6 bb/9, completely reasonable .287 babip and 74.4% lob. That FIP puts him at 20th in the league, just behind Greinke, while the xFIP puts him 7th, just behind Strasburg, and ahead of deGrom. Not too shabby for a 3rd starter. Even if you don't strip out those first two starts, Gibson is 11th in xFIP; Berrios is 38th and Odorizzi is 44th.

Larnach is a 22 year old in the most pitcher-friendly professional league there is. He's 4th in SLG, He's 1st in doubles, tied for 20th in homers (and it should be noted, only 3 guys have more than 8 homers; one big series and he pops up to top 10 easily). He's leading the league in average (one of only 4 guys above .300), and is third in OBP. This might be heretical, but I'm increasingly open to the idea that Larnach is on a par with Kiriloff. Kiriloff's OPS+ of 168 as a 20 year old in A+ is definitely better than Larnach's 150 as a 22 year old in the same league, but if Kiriloff will get you a much better return, I'm ok with trading Kiriloff to keep Larnach.

While we're at it, let's trade Rosario too--he has a lower OBP and SLG, as well a grading out worse on defense and barely better on the basepaths. In fact, Eddie only has .5 more WAR than Sano, despite nearly 3 times as many PA's. The only 3B that's realistically available that I would exchange Sano for is Rendon. If the Nats don't think they can/will sign him in the offseason, and Falvine is willing to put up the approximately 7 years and $140-$160M it will take to keep him here, then sure, pull the trigger. Otherwise, let Sano hit 35 homers a year.