I think the objective is to score a lot of runs and that's exactly what this team has done this season. The team is made up of hard swingers. The team is not made up of contact hitters. Hard swingers will strike out a lot. I don't worry about what kind of outs we make when we make outs. I think some people here would be happier if we were scoring fewer runs as long as we were striking out fewer times. I don't get it. The purpose of the game is to outscore the other team. The purpose of the game is not to strike out fewer times than the other team.

 

 

i agree with that. as long as were scoring runs and a lot of them i really could careless about how much we strikeout. i mean sure if your looking at the stats of players i can see disapointment in the strikeout rate but long as were scoring runs and winning ballgames im a happy fan.

Scoring runs is the goal of the team, not the objective of any individual at bat. One individual at bat will not score runs. The players objective is to hit the ball, get on base, move a runner over, and yes, a revelation, get the runner in when he is at 3rd with less than 2 outs. That does not happen on a strikeout. Like most things, when you focus on the execution individually, you reach your goals of scoring runs. It has been said a million times before by baseball people, you hit more home runs when you are just trying to get a good swing on the ball rather than trying for the home run. So if hack-at-it continues, yea, we will score runs in bunches and the average runs per game will look nice, but you will lose too many close games. I would rather win two games in a row 4-3, and average 4 runs a game, than win 8-0 and lose 3-0. I still average 4 runs.

 

Today I read somewhere that we're one of only 3 teams (I think it was 3) that haven't been shutout this season.

 

I don't know if you have the baseball package but if you did you would probably love the way Mark Grace gets excited over productive outs. The guy makes me want to jump through the screen and strangle him.

Courtesy of the Miami Herald:

 

The shutout thrown by the Marlins was their first of the sseason, and they have yet to be shut out. The Phillies and Orioles are the only teams in the major leagues that have not been involved in a shutout, either as perpetrator or victim.

Courtesy of the Miami Herald:

 

The shutout thrown by the Marlins was their first of the sseason, and they have yet to be shut out. The Phillies and Orioles are the only teams in the major leagues that have not been involved in a shutout, either as perpetrator or victim.

 

I think most of us are aware of the above. There were also a number of games that a late run or two in a lost game came across. It is a nice stat, but not so relevant to our record. There seems to be some discussion here arguing the virtues of our approach on offense. The differences in opinion are valid yet I think so many of us are frustrated by the seemingly high number of times some pitcher has a no hitter against us for at least 5 innings this year. Sometimes the approach to a specific pitcher needs to be considered. You can't hack all the time.

Unfortunately, Ks are like empty calories -

 

They don't move runners, and they don't drive in runs (like a SF or a squeeze) -

 

I can see all the Ks I want by cueing up my old PDub memories from 2000 -

 

Now THAT guy knew how to K........

Then again, not a lot of non-strikeout outs move or drive in runners either

Except when it happens like today when Miggy squibbed that ball and the runners moved up. A strikeout there changes Lowe's thinking and maybe what he throws to Hammer. Usually putting the ball in play creates the opportunity that you get a hit, an error etc, yes, even a double play-but you need to make contact. That is the objective. Rferry, you know that, I think you were just being the devil's advocate.

Of course it happens. And there's no debate that strikeouts don't advance runners, but that doesn't imply that non-strikeout outs would either. And when you consider the risk of a double play or fielders choice by eliminating one of the lead runners or the potential loss in batting ability by batters who change their approach to avoid strikeouts, non-strikeout outs may have no added value at all.

what willingham said is the best approach. Keep the aggressiveness when you have less than 2 strikes, once you are down in the count lower the aggressiveness a little bit.

 

Yea. That's the way to look at things. Hammer probably has more called 3rd strikes than anyone else.

 

The object is to protect the plate with 2 strikes against you. Especially when the ump is being "questionable" with his strike zone. I would much rather see a player swing and miss for that 3rd strike than watch him look at it hit the catcher's mitt. Take that aggresiveness away and watch all the other offensive numbers plummet. Then watch everyone complain.

 

Unfortunately, Ks are like empty calories -

 

They don't move runners, and they don't drive in runs (like a SF or a squeeze) -

 

I can see all the Ks I want by cueing up my old PDub memories from 2000 -

 

Now THAT guy knew how to K........

Then again, not a lot of non-strikeout outs move or drive in runners either

Except when it happens like today when Miggy squibbed that ball and the runners moved up. A strikeout there changes Lowe's thinking and maybe what he throws to Hammer. Usually putting the ball in play creates the opportunity that you get a hit, an error etc, yes, even a double play-but you need to make contact. That is the objective. Rferry, you know that, I think you were just being the devil's advocate.

Of course it happens. And there's no debate that strikeouts don't advance runners, but that doesn't imply that non-strikeout outs would either. And when you consider the risk of a double play or fielders choice by eliminating one of the lead runners or the potential loss in batting ability by batters who change their approach to avoid strikeouts, non-strikeout outs may have no added value at all.

 

You do realize how we won that game Thursday don't you? It wasn't actually the home run by Hammer. It was swinging the bat, which caused things to happen. An error put men on 1st and 2nd. A squib hit sent them to 2nd and 3rd with one out. A simple grounder to the right side would have scored Hanley whether it was for an out or a hit. In other words, aggressiveness at the plate. I'll take the Ks when they come. Just keep scoring runs.

Courtesy of the Miami Herald:

 

The shutout thrown by the Marlins was their first of the sseason, and they have yet to be shut out. The Phillies and Orioles are the only teams in the major leagues that have not been involved in a shutout, either as perpetrator or victim.

 

I think most of us are aware of the above. There were also a number of games that a late run or two in a lost game came across. It is a nice stat, but not so relevant to our record. There seems to be some discussion here arguing the virtues of our approach on offense. The differences in opinion are valid yet I think so many of us are frustrated by the seemingly high number of times some pitcher has a no hitter against us for at least 5 innings this year. Sometimes the approach to a specific pitcher needs to be considered. You can't hack all the time.

Well, this was yesterday afternoon, then the night game comes. Another game where the other pitchers go deep and no hit us, and at least now the no shutout argument used by some to convince everyone how good we are hitting is also over.

what willingham said is the best approach. Keep the aggressiveness when you have less than 2 strikes, once you are down in the count lower the aggressiveness a little bit.

 

Yea. That's the way to look at things. Hammer probably has more called 3rd strikes than anyone else.

 

The object is to protect the plate with 2 strikes against you. Especially when the ump is being "questionable" with his strike zone. I would much rather see a player swing and miss for that 3rd strike than watch him look at it hit the catcher's mitt. Take that aggresiveness away and watch all the other offensive numbers plummet. Then watch everyone complain.

 

Unfortunately, Ks are like empty calories -

 

They don't move runners, and they don't drive in runs (like a SF or a squeeze) -

 

I can see all the Ks I want by cueing up my old PDub memories from 2000 -

 

Now THAT guy knew how to K........

Then again, not a lot of non-strikeout outs move or drive in runners either

Except when it happens like today when Miggy squibbed that ball and the runners moved up. A strikeout there changes Lowe's thinking and maybe what he throws to Hammer. Usually putting the ball in play creates the opportunity that you get a hit, an error etc, yes, even a double play-but you need to make contact. That is the objective. Rferry, you know that, I think you were just being the devil's advocate.

Of course it happens. And there's no debate that strikeouts don't advance runners, but that doesn't imply that non-strikeout outs would either. And when you consider the risk of a double play or fielders choice by eliminating one of the lead runners or the potential loss in batting ability by batters who change their approach to avoid strikeouts, non-strikeout outs may have no added value at all.

 

You do realize how we won that game Thursday don't you? It wasn't actually the home run by Hammer. It was swinging the bat, which caused things to happen. An error put men on 1st and 2nd. A squib hit sent them to 2nd and 3rd with one out. A simple grounder to the right side would have scored Hanley whether it was for an out or a hit. In other words, aggressiveness at the plate. I'll take the Ks when they come. Just keep scoring runs.

I don't believe just one thing decides a game. In any case, we are all aware that individual events have a tremendous impact at select moments that may be in contrast to their average impact. But that individual event neither proves or disproves the overall findings, nor does the overall findings make it impossible for an individual event to have significant impact in unique situations.

I don't believe just one thing decides a game. In any case, we are all aware that individual events have a tremendous impact at select moments that may be in contrast to their average impact. But that individual event neither proves or disproves the overall findings, nor does the overall findings make it impossible for an individual event to have significant impact in unique situations.

 

LOL 4 lines, about 65 words, and yet you didn't say a thing. Getting ready to run for a political office or something?

I don't believe just one thing decides a game. In any case, we are all aware that individual events have a tremendous impact at select moments that may be in contrast to their average impact. But that individual event neither proves or disproves the overall findings, nor does the overall findings make it impossible for an individual event to have significant impact in unique situations.

 

LOL 4 lines, about 65 words, and yet you didn't say a thing. Getting ready to run for a political office or something?

LOL...masterfully put

Sometimes it's better to say nothing than to say something stupid, such as the insinuation that one play can sum up a game or that a particular tactic is always successful.