O's would "do anything" to trade Reynolds and Gregg

[CA-ORIOLE]

Huge strike out totals show a lack of knowing how to hit. Huge batting into double play counts show you are a slow runner.

Reynold's GDP counts have averaged about 8-9 per year before last year. That's not huge. He had 11 last year with an unusually high GB rate. Vlad Guerrero (a contact hitter) had 23 GDP's last year and has typically averaged about twice as many as Reynolds has.

[Frobby]

This article doesn't really provide statistical anaylis of strike outs on runs. I will do a quick look at Arizona before and after they got rid of 2 strike out kings

2010 Arizona 2011 Arizona

713 731 runs

1529 1249 strike outs

180 172 home runs

589 531 walks

.250 .250 ba

.325 .322 obp

.419 .413 slugging percentage.

so average was the same but less walks and home runs and they still scored more runs. Hmm interesting.

Hmm, the Orioles got Reynolds last year and they scored 95 more runs than the year before. Interesting.

Those are about equally relevant.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Hmm, the Orioles got Reynolds last year and they scored 95 more runs than the year before. Interesting.

Those are about equally relevant.

Based on "atomic logic" it sounds good.

[Frobby]

I have posted an analysis, several times, of how many runs we lost because Reynolds struck out a lot. Do I really have to do it again? I will dig it up if I have to, but it is something like 5 runs. A lineup with 9 Mark Reynolds (2011) in it would score 5.2 runs per game, about 130 more than the Orioles scored last year. So the 5 runs lost should be viewed in that context.

Obviously the guy isn't hitting right now, but the idea that he isn't a good offensive player because he strikes out a lot is foolish.

Edit -- you can read my analysis here: http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/119823-Reynolds?p=2717697#post2717697 Last year, Reynolds failed to advance a runner from 3B with less than 2 outs 5 more times than the average player. He failed to advance a runner from 2B with nobody out 2 extra times compared to average. He also had one fewer GIDP than average. The net effect of all that is 5-6 runs at best.

[SrMeowMeow]

Wtf. No it's not. It's the most unproductive out. Even an occassional run scores on a double play. I'm not a Reynolds hater, but a K is NOT the same as any other out.

In most cases, strikeouts are almost exactly the same as any other out. In some cases they're worse (versus advancing a runner) and in fewer cases they're much better (versus a double play).

[The Wedge]

Right, Reynolds has 531 career PA with only a runner on 1B. Assume 1/3 of those are with 2 outs and that gives you 350 PA's where a strikeout is as good as or better than another out. I think that reduces the 185 problem strikeouts to 115, or about once every six or seven games.

So in his career, once every six games Reynolds has possibly - possibly - failed to advance a runner by a base. Oh, the horror.

Yes, but in my point of view, when he strikes out, at all, that's worse, as failing to put in to play at all puts the onus completely on him. And a guy who strikes out at league high/record heights is doing that waaaay more than he should be. Strikeouts are boring, besides that, they're fascist.

Basically, I want to see the ball put in play, make the defense work for the out. Handing them the out just bugs me. And while I know it's inevitable, and I accept that for the most part, high K guys bug me more as a result.

It's funny, I basically was just spitballing WHY someone would hate on Reynolds, not actually hating on him myself, but it brought out my pet peeve about K's.

[The Wedge]

In most cases, strikeouts are almost exactly the same as any other out. In some cases they're worse (versus advancing a runner) and in fewer cases they're much better (versus a double play).

See my last post. I personally view it as worse as any other out, and just wish others did, too.

[olehippi]

Huge strike out totals show a lack of knowing how to hit. Huge batting into double play counts show you are a slow runner.

IMO, neither of these statements is true.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Yes, but in my point of view, when he strikes out, at all, that's worse, as failing to put in to play at all puts the onus completely on him. And a guy who strikes out at league high/record heights is doing that waaaay more than he should be. Strikeouts are boring, besides that, they're fascist.

Basically, I want to see the ball put in play, make the defense work for the out. Handing them the out just bugs me. And while I know it's inevitable, and I accept that for the most part, high K guys bug me more as a result.

It's funny, I basically was just spitballing WHY someone would hate on Reynolds, not actually hating on him myself, but it brought out my pet peeve about K's.

Well, it's also true that at the highest level of baseball that a lot of us played, where infielders field .750 and the really good players might not swing and miss all year, players who strike out a lot do really stink. That's how I knew it was time for me to hang it up - in 9th grade when I couldn't hit anything.

[CA-ORIOLE]

See my last post. I personally view it as worse as any other out, and just wish others did, too.

We could bring Jay Payton back. Rarely struck out and could hit a GB to second base at will. Good baserunner. Good bunter. All the attributes of a good fundamental baseball player.

[The Wedge]

We could bring Jay Payton back. Rarely struck out and could hit a GB to second base at will. Good baserunner. Good bunter. All the attributes of a good fundamental baseball player.

I see what you did there, one extreme to another. And while yeah, Payton isn't what I'd call ideal either, I just don't like high strike out totals.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I see what you did there, one extreme to another. And while yeah, Payton isn't what I'd call ideal either, I just don't like high strike out totals.

I gotcha. I don't like Reynolds either and I think we should deal him, but it's not because of his offense (or at least his offense last year). If he were an average thrd baseman, he'd be a pretty valuable player.

[SrMeowMeow]

See my last post. I personally view it as worse as any other out, and just wish others did, too.

I understand why you, and many other people, dislike strikeouts. When you swing and miss, you look stupid. You just got straight-up beaten. And you're doing it 200 times a season. Players with good bat control look more skilled. However, it just seems to be the case (in large part thanks to sabermetric research) that as long as you're a good enough hitter in terms of OPS or whatever, it really doesn't matter how you make your outs, however ugly they look.

And to top it off, there's a strong correlation among major league hitters between striking out a lot and hitting for a lot of power. I looked at all hitters from 1950 til now with minimum 5000 PA (so these are players who were viewed as good enough to have long careers) and the only below-average hitters per wRC+ on the first page (30 batters) are Jose Hernandez and Brandon Inge. The list also includes a bunch of mashers. Richie Sexson, Adam Dunn, Sammy Sosa, Mo Vaughn, Troy Glaus, Jose Canseco, Reggie Jackson, etc. Flip it around and sort by lowest strikeout totals and you have about half of the thirty below average and half above. There are five I'd consider very good to elite - Tony Gwynn, Yogi Berra, Ted Kluszewski, Don Mattingly, and Stan Musial. Then you have pretty much who you'd expect. Nellie Fox leads the list, striking out an incredible 2.1% of time - and posting an incredibly mediocre .290/.348/.365 line. Bobby Richardson struck out 4.2% of the time and "hit" .266/.299/.335. Tim Foli put together a .251/.283/.309 line and struck out 6.1% of the time. Richardson and Foli got 5783 and 6573 plate appearances, respectively, in large part because of how professional they must have looked with the bat. It certainly wasn't because their bat was actually producing anything.

There are two players on the second list with isolated power over .200. There are fifteen with an ISO under .100. On the first list, every single player is over .100 ISO, and 26 out of the 30 - 26 out of 30! - have an ISO over .200.

[Roll Tide]

Reynolds is worse than Gregg so he isn't even the worst player on this team.

Dude ...Seriously ??? Reynolds hasnt started hitting yet. When he does start hitting he will be easier to move than Gregg. If the Orioles would do anything as the article says ...Then why on earth dont they release him and cut their losses. No way anyone trades for him period...He's horrible

[The Rick]

I understand why you, and many other people, dislike strikeouts. When you swing and miss, you look stupid. You just got straight-up beaten. And you're doing it 200 times a season. Players with good bat control look more skilled. However, it just seems to be the case (in large part thanks to sabermetric research) that as long as you're a good enough hitter in terms of OPS or whatever, it really doesn't matter how you make your outs, however ugly they look.

And to top it off, there's a strong correlation among major league hitters between striking out a lot and hitting for a lot of power. I looked at all hitters from 1950 til now with minimum 5000 PA (so these are players who were viewed as good enough to have long careers) and the only below-average hitters per wRC+ on the first page (30 batters) are Jose Hernandez and Brandon Inge. The list also includes a bunch of mashers. Richie Sexson, Adam Dunn, Sammy Sosa, Mo Vaughn, Troy Glaus, Jose Canseco, Reggie Jackson, etc. Flip it around and sort by lowest strikeout totals and you have about half of the thirty below average and half above. There are five I'd consider very good to elite - Tony Gwynn, Yogi Berra, Ted Kluszewski, Don Mattingly, and Stan Musial. Then you have pretty much who you'd expect. Nellie Fox leads the list, striking out an incredible 2.1% of time - and posting an incredibly mediocre .290/.348/.365 line. Bobby Richardson struck out 4.2% of the time and "hit" .266/.299/.335. Tim Foli put together a .251/.283/.309 line and struck out 6.1% of the time. Richardson and Foli got 5783 and 6573 plate appearances, respectively, in large part because of how professional they must have looked with the bat. It certainly wasn't because their bat was actually producing anything.

There are two players on the second list with isolated power over .200. There are fifteen with an ISO under .100. On the first list, every single player is over .100 ISO, and 26 out of the 30 - 26 out of 30! - have an ISO over .200.

I know that he will never glean anything from this, but this is a great post. Thanks for doing this research. Unrtunately the rules won't allow me to rep you until I spread it around, etc, etc.