Our hitting approach

[Frobby]

No, but the Orioles had 43 more PA's than the Giants in total which is roughly the same so you can compare the gross number of strikeouts between the two teams. Once you take out pitchers, the O's non-pitchers have 371 more PA's than the Giants non-pitchers. You can't compare them because the number of PA's are so different.

Percentage wise, the Orioles non-pitchers struck out 20.9% of the time. Giants non-pitchers struck out 19.3% of the time. It still makes your point to an extent but at least we are comparing the same thing now.

I agree with this. My original methodology understated the difference between the two teams, while Russsnyder's overstated it. Apply this methodology over 6108 PA and the difference would be about 98 strikeouts, not 40 as I said and not 171 as Russsnyder said.

I still don't feel you can look at any one aspect of a team in a vacuum and say that because they've had postseason success, that means the aspect of their game is the better approach. Mr. Bumgarner has a bit to do with how the Giants have done. The Giants allowed fewer than three runs a game in both the 2010 and 2012 postseasons, and so far again this year.

[saltman241]

It seems to me there are plenty of approaches that will win games in the regular season, but only a couple that work in the post season.

The post season is so different in so many ways. Adapt or get bounced.

Yup. How many league leaders in HR's have won the World Series? There's a reason.

[Frobby]

It seems to me there are plenty of approaches that will win games in the regular season, but only a couple that work in the post season.

The post season is so different in so many ways. Adapt or get bounced.

Yup. How many league leaders in HR's have won the World Series? There's a reason.

I think it's pretty well established that there is no single approach to what works in the postseason. There have been several research articles posted here, though I can't find them right now.

[saltman241]

I think it's pretty well established that there is no single approach to what works in the postseason. There have been several research articles posted here, though I can't find them right now.

Perhaps but I think it's also very evident that some just don't work.

[Frobby]

Perhaps but I think it's also very evident that some just don't work.

And what do you think those are?

Let me be clear: I don't think the Orioles are a great-hitting team. They were 6th in the AL in runs scored, and while that is above average, it is far from spectacular. But I don't think their approach doomed them in the postseason. They just ran into a hot team and lost four close games.

[Number5]

Yup. How many league leaders in HR's have won the World Series? There's a reason.

The only "reason" is that baseball is a team sport. The odds for the league-leader in any particular stat happens to play on the World Series winner is pretty remote. To begin with, all players in one of the two leagues are completely eliminated, since the WS winner, by definition, can only come from one league. The only stats that might have a slightly above-random correlation where the league-leader has a significantly higher occurrence of being a member of the WS-winning team might be stats that are team-dependent, like Wins, Runs Scored, and RBI. These are stats that are now viewed as less significant individually than they were viewed prior to the advent of sabermetrics. Bottom line, there really is not the kind of "reason" that the home run leader of a league isn't always on the World Series winner, in the way that you are trying to imply.

[UpstateNYfan]

How can you talk about hitting approach without discussing opposing pitcher's approach? Each pitcher creates a challenge for the batter. If I was facing Jimenez I would take until I get a called strike, same with Britton. With Chen I'd be swinging away from the get go. Hitting is more reaction than thinking...in the .4 seconds or so you have to react and not do too much thinking. There is no universal approach other than see the ball, hit the ball. Each batter loses at least 70% of the time and frustrates the home team fan about the same. I think it's the hardest thing to do in sport.

[saltman241]

The only "reason" is that baseball is a team sport. The odds for the league-leader in any particular stat happens to play on the World Series winner is pretty remote. To begin with, all players in one of the two leagues are completely eliminated, since the WS winner, by definition, can only come from one league. The only stats that might have a slightly above-random correlation where the league-leader has a significantly higher occurrence of being a member of the WS-winning team might be stats that are team-dependent, like Wins, Runs Scored, and RBI. These are stats that are now viewed as less significant individually than they were viewed prior to the advent of sabermetrics. Bottom line, there really is not the kind of "reason" that the home run leader of a league isn't always on the World Series winner, in the way that you are trying to imply.

No I was referring to the TEAM that leads the majors in homers. How many have won the worlds series? Leading the league in HR's as a team shows a team approach. I'm not going to bother debating it anymore but ours seems to favor the 3 outcome approach. Well except we don't walk, so 2 outcome.

[Number5]

Same answer. How teams tend to score their runs is simply not something that will directly relate to winning the World Series. The important ting on offense is actually scoring the runs, not how it happens. Again, chances are that Pitching Wins will have the greatest correlation, for the obvious reason that the team with the most wins in each league will be in the playoffs 100% of the time and, therefore, have the greatest number of opportunities to win the World Series than any other statistic.

[Frobby]

No I was referring to the TEAM that leads the majors in homers. How many have won the worlds series? Leading the league in HR's as a team shows a team approach. I'm not going to bother debating it anymore but ours seems to favor the 3 outcome approach. Well except we don't walk, so 2 outcome.

How many teams that had the fewest strikeouts in the majors won the World Series? I don't think a stat like this can tell you very much. On a quick look, since divisional play began in 1969, the 2009 Yankees, 1984 Tigers, 1983 Orioles and 1976 Reds all led the majors in homers.

[saltman241]

How many teams that had the fewest strikeouts in the majors won the World Series? I don't think a stat like this can tell you very much. On a quick look, since divisional play began in 1969, the 2009 Yankees, 1984 Tigers, 1983 Orioles and 1976 Reds all led the majors in homers.

So 4 times in 46 years. And before the Yankees did it in 09 it hadn't happened in 30 years.

[Number5]

So 4 times in 46 years. And before the Yankees did it in 09 it hadn't happened in 30 years.

Wow. Do you really not see the irrelevance? This is actually considerably more often than the 1 in 30 chance that the random odds provide that the major league leading HR team happens to win the World Series. The two are almost totally unrelated. This higher-than-random occurrence can be explained perhaps by the fact that the team with the most home runs is likely to be scoring more than an average number of runs - increasing their chances a bit when compared to the rest of the league, but again, how the runs are scored is irrelevant, as long as the team is scoring enough to win ballgames.

[zweem]

Maybe it's the ballparks that determine which hitting style works best----this year big pitchers parks may create dink hits--,and of course there is luck .

[Frobby]

So 4 times in 46 years. And before the Yankees did it in 09 it hadn't happened in 30 years.

But I repeat, what is the point unless you show there is some other stat reflecting team approach that is more highly correlated with winning the WS? In 46 years you would expect the team that led in HR to win the WS two times or less, if it was just random chance, so the homer-leading team beat the odds. And guess what? The team that struck out the least has only won 2 World Series in that 46 year span (2002 Angels and 1991 Twins).

[DrungoHazewood]

It seems to me there are plenty of approaches that will win games in the regular season, but only a couple that work in the post season.

The post season is so different in so many ways. Adapt or get bounced.

I completely disagree with this. There is little/no evidence that any specific approach to any part of the game is significantly more/less effective in a short series than the regular season.