Jai Miller - 4th Outfielder?

[mikegallo]

A lot less. Thames was a much better overall minor league hitter than Miller. I can't stress enough how contact rate correlates to major league success.

Oh yea I agree completely, even if I didn't stress how much better Thames was. Wow I just looked at Miller's numbers again, his K rate is HUGE...This guy won't hit .200 in the bigs, no chance for even a Thames type career unless he completely changes his swing and approach.

[allstar1579]

A question for you Tony (not being snarky): If Jai Miller and players with his profile (high-K, low contact) players are rarely successful in the majors, why do front offices bother with them? Surely they know the correlation as well as you do. If Miller is everything if not DESTINED for failure, why waste a roster spot and just stick with Chavez?

EDIT: Just for the record, I agree that high-K guys in the minors have nightmarish difficulties staying in the majors.

Organizational philosophy. Some don't mind low contact power guys, others really do. Look at AZ 2 years ago, they didn't mind them the year before (Young, Upton, Reynolds) but decided that too many of them were killing the team, so they shifted philosophy a bit, dealt Reynolds, replaced some other guys, tried to trade Upton...then last year they were a MUCH improved team. I'd like to think that balancing out the high K guys with more solid contact guys is a lot of that. You see on this team right now Reynolds, Jones and Davis, but you also see some balance coming into play with Markakis, and signing guys like Antonelli, Johnson and so on. They are striving for balance this season for sure.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Organizational philosophy. Some don't mind low contact power guys, others really do. Look at AZ 2 years ago, they didn't mind them the year before (Young, Upton, Reynolds) but decided that too many of them were killing the team, so they shifted philosophy a bit, dealt Reynolds, replaced some other guys, tried to trade Upton...then last year they were a MUCH improved team. I'd like to think that balancing out the high K guys with more solid contact guys is a lot of that. You see on this team right now Reynolds, Jones and Davis, but you also see some balance coming into play with Markakis, and signing guys like Antonelli, Johnson and so on. They are striving for balance this season for sure.

I don't recall the numbers but I think 100 Ks over an average K rate equates to a loss of 1-2 runs. It's fairly insignificant and the moving runners over with contact argument is simply overstated. Doing it with bunts is just bad baseball. I suppose if you have a lot of these high K players assembled it starts to add to something a little more significant, but in the end it's really about what the players production is and consideration as to what can be sustained. Arizona's improvement likely correlates with the addition of more productive ballplayers than it does with K rates. In the case of Reynolds, he's primarily a flawed ball blayer for reasons other than his K rate.

[allstar1579]

I don't recall the numbers but I think 100 Ks over an average K rate equates to a loss of 1-2 runs. It's fairly insignificant and the moving runners over with contact argument is simply overstated. Doing it with bunts is just bad baseball. I suppose if you have a lot of these high K players assembled it starts to add to something a little more significant, but in the end it's really about what the players production is and consideration as to what can be sustained. Arizona's improvement likely correlates with the addition of more productive ballplayers than it does with K rates. In the case of Reynolds, he's primarily a flawed ball blayer for reasons other than his K rate.

Ehhh, this is going to get into one of those stats versus scouting issues, but one of the most overlooked things in stats is the timing of the hits. Stringing together a couple singles at the same time = a couple runs, but if those same singles are spread out, nothing. If 1/3 of your lineup is K-ing and not making any kind of contact in 33% of their AB you are going to score less runs than if you were getting more timely hitting on a consistent basis.

[Tony-OH]

Ehhh, this is going to get into one of those stats versus scouting issues, but one of the most overlooked things in stats is the timing of the hits. Stringing together a couple singles at the same time = a couple runs, but if those same singles are spread out, nothing. If 1/3 of your lineup is K-ing and not making any kind of contact in 33% of their AB you are going to score less runs than if you were getting more timely hitting on a consistent basis.

Quite simple a strikeout is never a productive out (ok, maybe if the pitches throws the ball to the backstop and the hitter reaches first). either way, we're not talking about just adding a guy who will striekout a ton to the lineup, we're talking about a guy who struck out a ton in the minor leagues and that just doesn't correlate well for success at the major league level. Regardless, I agree with the balanced lineup approach. Too many K guys are not good for any lineup. Saying a strikeout is the same as any other out is an oversimplification of the concept.

[DrungoHazewood]

Ehhh, this is going to get into one of those stats versus scouting issues, but one of the most overlooked things in stats is the timing of the hits. Stringing together a couple singles at the same time = a couple runs, but if those same singles are spread out, nothing. If 1/3 of your lineup is K-ing and not making any kind of contact in 33% of their AB you are going to score less runs than if you were getting more timely hitting on a consistent basis.

I think the effect is very small. Remember, a team that strikes out a ton is probably also a team that has a lot of power and rarely grounds into double plays. Last year the White Sox and Rangers were the only teams to strike out fewer than 1000 times. The White Sox were 13th in the league in runs, 50 behind the Orioles. The Rangers were 3rd in the league in scoring.

If anything strikeouts are slightly positively correlated to scoring, meaning (on average) a team that strikes out more scores more runs. In 2009 the O's struck out the least of an AL team, yet were 11th in the league in runs.

But don't confuse this with the impact of Ks on projecting the performance of young players. If you take two established Major League hitters it's pretty irrelevant what their K rates are. But take two AAA kids with similar numbers except contact rate, and the guy who makes contact more often has a huge leg up when projecting major league success.

[El Gordo]

Quite simple a strikeout is never a productive out (ok, maybe if the pitches throws the ball to the backstop and the hitter reaches first). either way, we're not talking about just adding a guy who will striekout a ton to the lineup, we're talking about a guy who struck out a ton in the minor leagues and that just doesn't correlate well for success at the major league level. Regardless, I agree with the balanced lineup approach. Too many K guys are not good for any lineup. Saying a strikeout is the same as any other out is an oversimplification of the concept.

Disagree. If the K is the result of a high P/PA AB, it is productive, IMO.

[Tony-OH]

Disagree. If the K is the result of a high P/PA AB, it is productive, IMO.

I guess I can buy that. I'm not against K guys in the major leagues, especially if they draw some walks because they tend to be high P/PA guys and those are good for your lineup. However, too many of them will slow an offense down in my opinion, especially if we are talking extreme strikeout guys like Reynolds and Davis.

[El Gordo]

I guess I can buy that. I'm not against K guys in the major leagues, especially if they draw some walks because they tend to be high P/PA guys and those are good for your lineup. However, too many of them will slow an offense down in my opinion, especially if we are talking extreme strikeout guys like Reynolds and Davis.

I don't disagree with this. I still don't see the problem with Miller. If he gets eaten alive, so be it. I guess it's the issue of is it worth Matt Angle to see if Miller can be productive(Thames like) in the ML? I wanted them to sign Thames this winter. But If Johnson is healthy and his old self, he is much more valuable than Miller. Big if.

[allstar1579]

I think the effect is very small. Remember, a team that strikes out a ton is probably also a team that has a lot of power and rarely grounds into double plays. Last year the White Sox and Rangers were the only teams to strike out fewer than 1000 times. The White Sox were 13th in the league in runs, 50 behind the Orioles. The Rangers were 3rd in the league in scoring.

If anything strikeouts are slightly positively correlated to scoring, meaning (on average) a team that strikes out more scores more runs. In 2009 the O's struck out the least of an AL team, yet were 11th in the league in runs.

But don't confuse this with the impact of Ks on projecting the performance of young players. If you take two established Major League hitters it's pretty irrelevant what their K rates are. But take two AAA kids with similar numbers except contact rate, and the guy who makes contact more often has a huge leg up when projecting major league success.

Well yes and no, I both agree and disagree to a point. I agree with the variables attributed to the K's, such as increased power, and more HR. This is what makes it seem through statistical analysis that a high K lineup and a more contact based lineup come out close. It's really just preference if you want to live and die by the longball or would rather a high OBP moneyball-like approach. Some managers just prefer one way or the other. I personally like a balance of both. I don't mind some high K rates from your big power hitters, BUT I don't like wasted Ks coming from outside the heart of the order.

More variables are that there are power guys that hit for high average as well. So they may K 150 times in a season, but if they are going to hit 40 HR and hit .300 I would take that any day of the week. When you have guys that are hitting .250 with 20 HR and K-ing 150 times in a season that I start to have big problems.

Remember that I tend to look at things from the young, developing player and not the established veteran POV, so I totally agree on the last point. I think the philosophy of letting young kids swing for the fences to try to get the sexier stats that means faster rise through the system is a widespread problem. We don't need to see 30 HR to know a guy has power. I'd much rather see a .300 avg with 15-20 HR, it shows a more complete and mature player. I just wish more of them would realize that before they develop such bad habits.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I guess I can buy that. I'm not against K guys in the major leagues, especially if they draw some walks because they tend to be high P/PA guys and those are good for your lineup. However, too many of them will slow an offense down in my opinion, especially if we are talking extreme strikeout guys like Reynolds and Davis.

Depending on the situation a strkeout is actually more valuable than a hit ball (which can translate to forceouts/and or double plays) that is an out. This is of course an aggregate and is especially true with a runner on first base.

Other factors neutralized it equates to about 1-2 runs per season less for a guy that totals 100 k's over average. Lets say 2 for the sake of argument. A team the total 500K's over average likely lose a win over the course of a season. As El Gordo mentioned, this doesn't factor the benefit of high P/PA's that high K guys typically have.

In the end it's about production and the only relevant factor is how K rates affect individual production.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Ehhh, this is going to get into one of those stats versus scouting issues, but one of the most overlooked things in stats is the timing of the hits. Stringing together a couple singles at the same time = a couple runs, but if those same singles are spread out, nothing. If 1/3 of your lineup is K-ing and not making any kind of contact in 33% of their AB you are going to score less runs than if you were getting more timely hitting on a consistent basis.

Timley hitting equates to clutch hitting which has been shown to have little validity. Clutch stats tend to gravitate towards the norm. There is no exception for guys with high K rates. The high K rates make very little difference in the big picture of things. It's simply a question of production.

[DrungoHazewood]

Timley hitting equates to clutch hitting which has been shown to have little validity. Clutch stats tend to gravitate towards the norm. There is no exception for guys with high K rates. The high K rates make very little difference in the big picture of things. It's simply a question of production.

Mark Reynolds has a better career OPS with runners in scoring position than otherwise. Rob Deer had a better OPS with RISP than with the bases empty. Cesar Izturis' numbers were almost identical with RISP or the bases empty.

Performance in the clutch almost always trends towards overall performance, and I've seen no evidence K rate has any impact on that.

[allstar1579]

Timley hitting equates to clutch hitting which has been shown to have little validity. Clutch stats tend to gravitate towards the norm. There is no exception for guys with high K rates. The high K rates make very little difference in the big picture of things. It's simply a question of production.

Say the stats, but being in and around the game I PROMISE you that managers and GMs won't agree with you there. Getting a single with runners on 2nd and 3rd is in fact much different than a single with no one on base, because they generate runs. You can't use stats to predict what a player is going to do, you just can't, so you can't say that because in general this guy is going to get a single 30% of the time, he's going to do it here too. It doesn't account for human response, higher heart rate, adrenaline, mental toughness are all things that stats can't explain but I promise they are part of the game. Hitting with bases loaded and 2 outs is much different than hitting with 1 out and no one on. A guy with high K rates you have less of a chance of a sac fly, or a FC that scores a run which are more common than GIDP. I kind of wish I knew the stats on how many runs a team scores from sac flys and fielder's choices over the course of the season, because I know it happens more than people realize.

[DrungoHazewood]

Say the stats, but being in and around the game I PROMISE you that managers and GMs won't agree with you there. Getting a single with runners on 2nd and 3rd is in fact much different than a single with no one on base, because they generate runs. You can't use stats to predict what a player is going to do, you just can't, so you can't say that because in general this guy is going to get a single 30% of the time, he's going to do it here too. It doesn't account for human response, higher heart rate, adrenaline, mental toughness are all things that stats can't explain but I promise they are part of the game. Hitting with bases loaded and 2 outs is much different than hitting with 1 out and no one on. A guy with high K rates you have less of a chance of a sac fly, or a FC that scores a run which are more common than GIDP. I kind of wish I knew the stats on how many runs a team scores from sac flys and fielder's choices over the course of the season, because I know it happens more than people realize.

That's all well and good, but there's an entire cottage industry devoted to teasing out clutch hitting from boxscores and the best they can come up with is a handful of guys like Eddie Murray who hit just a little bit better in the clutch than not.