Derek Jeter's career OPS+ ranks tied for 498th

[DragonfromTO]

again, 3rd time.

make contact, put the ball in play...theres a chance. a K, there is ZERO chance.

Who cares about the probability if we're talking about valuing events that have already happened? Whether or not the groundball had a better chance to be a hit when it left the bat doesn't matter much if we already know that it ended up being an out.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Who cares about the probability if we're talking about events that already happened? Whether or not the groundball had a better chance to be a hit when it left the bat doesn't matter much if we already know that it ended up being an out.

2 scenarios:

1 - you hit a dribbler to short or even a pop fly behind 2nd

2 - or you K

which of the above 2 scenarios is more likely to result in an error getting you on base?

 

[StanMarsh51]

no, i didnt say that. my scenario is a batter facing a pitcher, nothing else.

so yes a k is the worst possible outcome for an AB based on the job at hand.

why didnt you say triple play?

No it's not, because if you're using the possibility that a batted ball gets by a fielder and ends up a hit, it's not merely the batter and pitcher being included here as the fielder(s) may have an effect.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

2 scenarios:

1 - you hit a dribbler to short or even a pop fly behind 2nd

2 - or you K

which of the above 2 scenarios is more likely to result in an error getting you on base?

Did Jeter strike out too much?? of course he did... But here is the thing, SOs are a little over-rated because at MOST 25% of them were meaningful... a SO with 2 outs, is just like any other out, a SO with nobody on base is just like every other out...

Also, his strike outs did not affect his ratio stats... Did not affect the number of hits he got, if anything it hurt how many RUNS he scored and he was one of the best scorers in baseball history... So explain how does striking out really negatively affect his career...

 

[Rock Strongo]

No it's not, because if you're using the possibility that a batted ball gets by a fielder and ends up a hit, it's not merely the batter and pitcher being included here as the fielder(s) may have an effect.

i know what my scenario was. thanks. i thought of it.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Did Jeter strike out too much?? of course he did... But here is the thing, SOs are a little over-rated because at MOST 25% of them were meaningful... a SO with 2 outs, is just like any other out, a SO with nobody on base is just like every other out...

Also, his strike outs did not affect his ratio stats... Did not affect the number of hits he got, if anything it hurt how many RUNS he scored and he was one of the best scorers in baseball history... So explain how does striking out really negatively affect his career...

can you reply to my post?

 

[DragonfromTO]

2 scenarios:

1 - you hit a dribbler to short or even a pop fly behind 2nd

2 - or you K

which of the above 2 scenarios is more likely to result in an error getting you on base?

It's not that I don't see the point that you're making, it's that it doesn't matter when you're evaluating results. We're not scouting a young player here, we're valuing actual contributions at the major league level.

In the first scenario, the dribbler/pop fly became an out anyway (we've already established this fact, since the discussion is specifically about the differences between outs). So in the end the higher probability didn't make a difference in the result. Why would/should we treat it like it did? We can give him credit for getting on base that way when he actually gets on base that way, not when he doesn't.

 

[Rock Strongo]

It's not that I don't see the point that you're making, it's that it doesn't matter when you're evaluating results. We're not scouting a young player here, we're valuing actual contributions at the major league level.

In the first scenario, the dribbler/pop fly became an out anyway (we've already established this fact, since the discussion is specifically about the differences between outs). So in the end the higher probability didn't make a difference in the result. Why would/should we treat it like it did? We can give him credit for getting on base that way when he actually gets on base that way, not when he doesn't.

how do you know the dribbler or pop fly became an out?

law of probabilities.

 

[DragonfromTO]

how do you know the dribbler or pop fly became an out?

law of probabilities.

Because that's the whole argument here isn't it?! Which is a better (more valuable) way to have made an out?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

i know what my scenario was. thanks. i thought of it.

"I'll move the goal posts whenever it suits me"

 

[Rock Strongo]

"I'll move the goal posts whenever it suits me"

it was my scenario. i set the goal posts originally. i changed nothing.

 

[DragonfromTO]

2 scenarios:

1 - you hit a dribbler to short or even a pop fly behind 2nd

2 - or you K

which of the above 2 scenarios is more likely to result in an error getting you on base?

Even though this wasn't the point being discussed let's briefly discuss it anyway.

If Derek Jeter had struck out half as often as he did, given league average fielding percentage how many more times would he have reached base on errors?

Using current rates you're looking at about 15 "extra" errors over his 20 year career (920 Ks become balls in play, .984 F% × 920 = 905.28 are fielded without error)

 

[Rock Strongo]

Even though this wasn't the point being discussed let's briefly discuss it anyway.

If Derek Jeter had struck out half as often as he did, given league average fielding percentage how many more times would he have reached base on errors?

Using current rates you're looking at about 15 errors over his 20 year career (920 Ks become groundballs, .984 F% × 920 = 905.28 are errorless)

errors, base hits, anything.

 

[DragonfromTO]

errors, base hits, anything.

But see here we go again, if you're crossing the line into talking about balls that become base hits now you're quite clearly arguing something different. I thought you were making the case for hidden value that doesn't show up in the stat line (since RBOE doesn't count positively for the batter). You're not arguing "Derek Jeter wasn't that valuable as an offensive player because he struck out too much", you're arguing "Derek Jeter wasn't as valuable an offensive player as he could have been because he struck out too much".

If you're comparing two players with the same batting average over 10,000+ ABs is it fair and accurate to say "player A is much better at hitting for average than player B because he struck out fewer times"? You would say "well, those extra balls in play could lead to more hits", while I would say "then why didn't they? If they did then he would have a better batting average than Player B and we'd have a clear answer here"

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

it was my scenario. i set the goal posts originally. i changed nothing.

"they're my goal posts. I'll imply they're somewhere until it doesn't suit my argument, then I'll tell you they were somewhere else all along."

 

[DragonfromTO]

I guess the point that needs to be clarified here is that the argument isn't about the difference between a strikeout and a groundball/fly ball but about the difference between a strikeout and a groundout/flyout.

 

[Rock Strongo]

But see here we go again, if you're crossing the line into talking about balls that become base hits now you're quite clearly arguing something different. I thought you were making the case for hidden value that doesn't show up in the stat line (since RBOE doesn't count positively for the batter). You're not arguing "Derek Jeter wasn't that valuable as an offensive player because he struck out too much", you're arguing "Derek Jeter wasn't as valuable an offensive player as he could have been because he struck out too much".

If you're comparing two players with the same batting average over 10,000+ ABs is it fair and accurate to say "player A is much better at hitting for average than player B because he struck out fewer times"? You would say "well, those extra balls in play could lead to more hits", while I would say "then why didn't they? If they did then he would have a better batting average than Player B and we'd have a clear answer here"

a k is the opposite of getting on base...correct?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Even though this wasn't the point being discussed let's briefly discuss it anyway.

If Derek Jeter had struck out half as often as he did, given league average fielding percentage how many more times would he have reached base on errors?

Using current rates you're looking at about 15 "extra" errors over his 20 year career (920 Ks become balls in play, .984 F% × 920 = 905.28 are fielded without error)

Here's the thing. Rock has already acknowledged that Derek Jeter has the 20th best offensive WAR in the history of the game, so whether Jeter struck out too much according to Rock really doesn't matter.

In a few years, Jeter will be a first ballot HOFer.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

a k is the opposite of getting on base...correct?

Incorrect. "Not getting on base" is the opposite of "getting on base."

A K is a scenario of "not getting on base" and there are others.

 

[DragonfromTO]

a k is the opposite of getting on base...correct?

No. I'm not sure there's an exact "opposite" but if forced to choose I'd say that making an out is the opposite of getting on base.