Our hitting approach

[weams]

Whatever they did or whoever they looked like, it certainly worked. 11 runs.

I enjoyed watching KC try to come back with their approach. That what speed do.

[weams]

Do teams that walk less score less runs?

Not to my knowledge. I think total base runners and slugging would make a bigger difference.

[Russsnyder]

We struck out 1285 times this season, compared to the Giants' 1245. Not a huge difference at all. We scored more runs, had a higher OPS, and had the same OBP. People draw too many conclusions from which team happens to have a few good days in October.

I would like to see the stats when you take the Giants pitchers at bats out of the equation. The Giants have had not just a few good days in October. They have had a few good years. I would take the O's lineup over the Giants. When healthy it isn't even close. I would take the Giants postseason approach to hitting with two strikes and their approach to making contact as spelled out by Joe Buck last night.

[weams]

I would like to see the stats when you take the Giants pitchers at bats out of the equation. The Giants have had not just a few good days in October. They have had a few good years. I would take the O's lineup over the Giants. When healthy it isn't even close. I would take the Giants postseason approach to hitting with two strikes and their approach to making contact as spelled out by Joe Buck last night.

I think Verducci is a bit more game aware than Joe.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Not to my knowledge. I think total base runners and slugging would make a bigger difference.

I don't think that teams that have a higher slugging %, walk less. It still holds true that OBP is the greatest correlation to runs scored, and walks is the greatest correlation to OBP.

And walks are down, which even more goes against Tom's point. He thinks walks are causing less runs to be scored and ruining the pace of the game, but walks are down. He might have a point if runs were down and the game was so slow and teams were walking more than ever, but the latter just isn't true.

[weams]

I don't think that teams that have a higher slugging %' date=' walk less. It still holds true that OBP is the greatest correlation to runs scored, and walks is the greatest correlation to OBP.

And walks are down, which even more goes against Tom's point. He thinks walks are causing less runs to be scored and ruining the pace of the game, but walks are down. He might have a point if runs were down and the game was so slow and teams were walking more than ever, but the latter just isn't true.[/quote']

I like the Orioles approach myself.

[Can_of_corn]

Do teams that walk less score less runs?

Do teams that walk more score more?

2014 only so please don't read too much into it.

Top walk totals. Where they finished in runs scored.

1- Oakland 586 729 (fourth)

2- Minn 544 715 (seventh)

3- Boston 535 634 (18th)

4- Tampa 527 612 (27th)

5- Pitt 520 682 (10th)

[weams]

Do teams that walk more score more?

2014 only so please don't read too much into it.

Top walk totals. Where they finished in runs scored.

1- Oakland 586 729 (fourth)

2- Minn 544 715 (seventh)

3- Boston 535 634 (18th)

4- Tampa 527 612 (27th)

5- Pitt 520 682 (10th)

Well you can't go back much further because Biogenensis changed a lot.

[Can_of_corn]

Well you can't go back much further because Biogenensis changed a lot.

Read a piece this morning positing that the old theory of getting the starter's pitch count up is outdated considering current bullpen composition. Nice to see folks are listening to me. I think it was that new FA manager. He probably reads the Hangout.

[weams]

Read a piece this morning positing that the old theory of getting the starter's pitch count up is outdated considering current bullpen composition. Nice to see folks are listening to me. I think it was that new FA manager. He probably reads the Hangout.

A lot of folks read the Hangout.

[weams]

Tom Tango and Bill James

Right, the HR has very little dependence. For those not afraid of math: In a typical run environment, a typical runner on base might score 35% of the time, and so a HR adds 0.65 runs to each runner. There might be say 0.60 runners on base per plate appearance, so a HR will add 0.65 x 0.60 = 0.39 runs, plus he himself is always 1 run, so 1.39 runs. In a Pedro environment, a runner might score 25% of the time, so a HR adds 0.75 runs to each runner (HR always clears bases). You might have 0.50 runners per PA, so a HR will add 0.75 x 0.50 = 0.38 runs. Add the HR of 1 run, and you have 1.38. On the other hand, a single will add around 0.30 runs to the average runner, regardless of run environment. But he has fewer runners on base, and he himself will score less in a Pedro run environment. A single might be +.45 to +.50 in a normal run environment but is +.35 for Pedro. A HR is basically "recession proof".

Asked by: tangotiger

Answered: 10/26/2014

Sorry. . .I overlooked this when you sent it. The discussion is gone now, but. . . just in case.

[weams]

Kipnis didn’t strike out more this season; in fact, he struck out less. That would seem to be the chief indicator of a slow bat, at least in my eyes.

Kipnis did hit fewer line drives, but in favor of grounders. He also hit more popups, but not even close to an alarmingly high number. One thing in the batted ball mix we do see is a HR/FB rate that was about one-third what it was the year before (12.4 percent –> 4.8). That doesn’t explain all, or really that much of the decline, but it certainly plays a part.

Interestingly enough, Kipnis saw over 100 more pitches this season to last — and nearly all of them were balls. He saw 1641 strikes in 2013 and 1642 in 2014 despite seeing 118 more pitches total.

One thing Kipnis didn’t do this season was hit the ball to either the push or pull side with authority. As a left-handed hitter, Kipnis hit .327/.323/.388 to left field. If a guy isn’t an opposite-field dynamo like Joe Mauer, that’s not just a decent line the other way, that’s downright solid. But to the pull side Kipnis hit .259/.258/.386, and pulled just 12 extra-base hits. To center Kipnis hit well enough — .326/.326/.458 with 14 extra-base knocks — but this represents a huge decline for Kipnis all across the board.

It turns out Kipnis is a bit like Mauer in that regard. In 2013 Kipnis had a 1.317 OPS and .559 wOBA to left field. But Kipnis did well to spray the ball all around the field, with a .913/.389 mark to center and a .803/.344 mark to right. As I frequently will say I’m no genius, but maybe that — which is, hitting the ball with far less authority to all fields — could be explained with a slower bat?

http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/kipper-snacked-value-whacked/

[Frobby]

I would like to see the stats when you take the Giants pitchers at bats out of the equation. The Giants have had not just a few good days in October. They have had a few good years. I would take the O's lineup over the Giants. When healthy it isn't even close. I would take the Giants postseason approach to hitting with two strikes and their approach to making contact as spelled out by Joe Buck last night.

What the Giants have done the last five years has been impressive, it's not like they've had a great offense. They've never been higher than 5th in the NL in the last five years. They were 10th and 6th when they won their two WS.

[weams]

What the Giants have done the last five years has been impressive, it's not like they've had a great offense. They've never been higher than 5th in the NL in the last five years. They were 10th and 6th when they won their two WS.

I'm very impressed with their dynasty.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm very impressed with their dynasty.

They remind me of the Cards. If you let them sneak into the playoffs you better watch out.