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

[Bradysburns]

I wouldn't characterize David Hernandez as a "sack of sunflower seeds". He was a price controlled RP with a closer ceiling with plenty of team control left.

The O's gave up for more for Reynolds then they did for Hardy.

Good point - but he was a pitcher with a lifetime 4-plus ERA at the time (although with plenty of upside), and Mickolio was a bust, more or less. So, Hernandez and a sack of David's.

[The Rick]

It's a tangent - I'll grant you. Feel free to ignore the Vlad part. It's largely an emotional/fan thing for me, not an arm-chair analysis thing.

I have always been a huge Guerrero fan - since his Expo days. My point was, the guy was a fairly consistent hitter, even though his power numbers sucked. And yet people talk about him the way they talk about Garret Atkins. Yet they seem happy to apologize for atrocious defense and truly extreme strikeout numbers.

From reading this thread, in all seriousness, one could conclude that we should SEEK high-strikeout hitters (presumably with horrid defense), as long as they knock in 35 HRs. Yuck. I just hate that kind of baseball, personally.

And by the way, calling anyone a "hater" of Reynolds is a bit extreme. To say you don't like him as a full-time third baseman is not hating; it's simply expressing an opinion about his skills.

He seems like a very nice guy, and would probably be really fun to have a beer with or whatever. And for the umpteenth time, I do like having him on the team - just not at third.

I think most people prefer that he wasn't at 3B. And I think people here are just defending Reynolds from the standpoint that a ton of strikesouts doesn't make you a poor player. It just means you're not as good as you could be. I don't see anyone here wanting a lineup full of strikeout kings, they're just saying that Reynolds is still valuable offensively, even despite his strikeouts.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yet they seem happy to apologize for atrocious defense and truly extreme strikeout numbers

.

Nobody has apologized for Reynolds defense. Even his defenders. The argument has generally been that Reynolds may return to his level of play defensively in AZ. As far as the strikeouts are concerned, their significance has been explained throughout the thread with referenced facts/research. If you want to just ignore them fine. The statisitcs and research point to them not mattering very much. Production is what matters.

[Bradysburns]

That amount of times this matters is very low.

I hate to link to my own site but we detail this here.

It's an interesting article. But what about situations where driving in that runner from third wins you the ALCS, or the WS?

Your underlying logic seems to be: Strikeouts ain't that bad because Mark doesn't often come to bat with a runner at third, and one or fewer outs.

Here's the problem I see with that thinking: What if one of those situations is a potential game winner? Who would you rather have at bat then? Reynolds or a good contact hitter?

To me, those are the "little, unimportant" situations that separate the great teams from the also-rans. That's why no great team would take Reynolds off our hands, to say nothing of his defense.

And one other point: Nobody has said in this entire thread that strikeouts really are the same as other outs. What I have taken away from the thread is that strikeouts are indeed worse than most other outs, over time. The questions is only one of degree, for the most part.

[Bradysburns]

Nobody has apologized for Reynolds defense. Even his defenders. The argument has generally been that Reynolds may return to his level of play defensively in AZ. As far as the strikeouts are concerned, their significance has been explained throughout the thread with referenced facts/research. If you want to just ignore them fine. The statisitcs and research point to them not mattering very much. Production is what matters.

Who is ignoring them? I have become convinced that strikeouts are indeed worse - but just not as much worse as some might think. Do you see it differently?

(In terms of apologizing for his defense, I'm probably thinking about all the posts I've read over the years saying his defense is made up for by his offense. But you're right - that's not really the point of this particular thread.)

[El Gordo]

I really would like to see more of Reynolds at 3B than 10 games before I decide that his 2011 D is the norm. I still think he will be -10 RS 3B, and that his bat will be a +3 - 3.5 RC. Not great but serviceable, and a better solution than Betemit. If we can get something good for him in trade and/or BRob can return, I'd like to see Andino at 3B, as long as his bat plays as it has been.

[crissfan172]

It's an interesting article. But what about situations where driving in that runner from third wins you the ALCS, or the WS?

Your underlying logic seems to be: Strikeouts ain't that bad because Mark doesn't often come to bat with a runner at third, and one or fewer outs.

Here's the problem I see with that thinking: What if one of those situations is a potential game winner? Who would you rather have at bat then? Reynolds or a good contact hitter?

To me, those are the "little, unimportant" situations that separate the great teams from the also-rans. That's why no great team would take Reynolds off our hands, to say nothing of his defense.

And one other point: Nobody has said in this entire thread that strikeouts really are the same as other outs. What I have taken away from the thread is that strikeouts are indeed worse than most other outs, over time. The questions is only one of degree, for the most part.

What if you're not even in the position to win the ALCS or WS because your 3B is putting up an OPS of .700? Yeah...hypotheticals are stupid because they don't take into account everything outside of that isolated situation. Unless you have some magical replacement that can hit for an .800 OPS and strikeout far less than Reynolds, you're not going to replace his bat effectively.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Who is ignoring them? I have become convinced that strikeouts are indeed worse - but just not as much worse as some might think. Do you see it differently?

(In terms of apologizing for his defense, I'm probably thinking about all the posts I've read over the years saying his defense is made up for by his offense. But you're right - that's not really the point of this particular thread.)

You made the point about the K's, not me. They're statistically insignificant. In that sense, I don't care about them.

[Kevin Lomax]

What if you're not even in the position to win the ALCS or WS because your 3B is putting up an OPS of .700? Yeah...hypotheticals are stupid because they don't take into account everything outside of that isolated situation. Unless you have some magical replacement that can hit for an .800 OPS and strikeout far less than Reynolds, you're not going to replace his bat effectively.

This answers the question for me.

I'll cross the ALCS or World Series bridge when I get there. I'm not sure that bridge is particularly close at this moment.

If you had a gun to my head though, I trust Reynolds with a bat, especially later in the year. He is patient and I can count on him to not get fooled by a particular pitch almost every time, ala Jones and the low and away breaking ball.

[OFFNY]

This answers the question for me.

I'll cross the ALCS or World Series bridge when I get there. I'm not sure that bridge is particularly close at this moment.

If you had a gun to my head though, I trust Reynolds with a bat, especially later in the year. He is patient and I can count on him to not get fooled by a particular pitch almost every time, ala Jones and the low and away breaking ball.

Hey, are you by any chance related to Neil Lomax? Is your screen name taken from the character in The Devil's Advocate?

[Kevin Lomax]

Hey, are you by any chance related to Neil Lomax? Is your screen name taken from the character in The Devil's Advocate?

No to your first question.

Yes to your second. If you read through the first link I posted, you'd understand more clearly.

[tennOsfan]

A strikeout is the same as any other out.

DH him if you don't like this defense.

No, really, strikeouts aren't the same as any other out. Strikeouts don't bring in runs, and they don't advance runners. They don't pose a threat to turn into base hits. A batter has to HIT the ball in order to do anything productive.

This is one of the myths that pop up on this board that drives me crazy.

[Kevin Lomax]

No, really, strikeouts aren't the same as any other out. Strikeouts don't bring in runs, and they don't advance runners. They don't pose a threat to turn into base hits. A batter has to HIT the ball in order to do anything productive.

This is one of the myths that pop up on this board that drives me crazy.

Dude...are you just going to ignore the massive amount of research and all the good posts by people in this thread? Everything that has needed to be said on the subject has.

Edit: aside from the instance noted earlier in this thread, in a college game last night or two nights ago, a run scored on a strikeout. So there.

[atomic]

Dude...are you just going to ignore the massive amount of research and all the good posts by people in this thread? Everything that has needed to be said on the subject has.

Edit: aside from the instance noted earlier in this thread, in a college game last night or two nights ago, a run scored on a strikeout. So there.

I haven't seen any research in this thread. Where is the evidence that strikeout isn't worse than other outs?

[CA-ORIOLE]

I haven't seen any research in this thread. Where is the evidence that strikeout isn't worse than other outs?

I've referenced it several times. I'm not sure what Lomax's link was to. The analysis/reasons have been discussed in depth. Here is Tango's summary of the study in the book which is the primary one I recall.

http://www.tangotiger.net/strikeout.html

The difference is around .01 or .02 runs per out. Being 100 strikeouts worse than average means that your strikeouts have a additional direct cost of 1 or 2 runs.