Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Runs Scored and K's are Correlated

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Runs Scored and K's are Correlated

    A strong correlation exists between N.L. strikeouts and run production from 1950-2008. Does this mean that the more a team strikes out the more runs it scores?

    http://baseball.suite101.com/article...are_correlated
    Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

  • #2
    I didn't look at the article, but the idea does seem plausible, because a team that strikes out a lot tends to swing at pitches a lot. If that is the case, surely they'd score a few runs. ;P Maybe looking at walks would help too?
    46 wins to match last year's total

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by LouGehrig View Post
      A strong correlation exists between N.L. strikeouts and run production from 1950-2008. Does this mean that the more a team strikes out the more runs it scores?

      http://baseball.suite101.com/article...are_correlated
      If that was true, I'd be revered more than the Babe AND Cobb put together I once struck out in the on-deck circle, after the game had ended
      Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
      Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SamtheBravesFan View Post
        Maybe looking at walks would help too?
        It would and I might. It is time consuming to set up the raw data.
        Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by RuthMayBond View Post
          If that was true, I'd be revered more than the Babe AND Cobb put together I once struck out in the on-deck circle, after the game had ended
          Did you strike out swinging or on a called third strike? It makes a big difference in how we revere you.
          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

          Comment


          • #6
            After reading the article, I agree it looks as if there's a strong correlation between league totals for strikeouts and runs scored.

            But the writer slips up when he states:

            Does this mean that the more a team strikes out the more run it scores? It sure does, but this is the problem. Data must be interpreted, and the interpretations must withstand intense scrutiny. Teams that hit home runs usually strike out a lot but score a lot of runs.
            Sure, he says that for the deadball era this is not true, but he basically states it is true for modern baseball. I don't comprehend standard deviations and the like, so I figured I'd tackle this issue with a little bit of 8th grade math.

            I wanted to keep my sample size consistent, so I decided to look at the NL from 1998-2008, which would give me 16 teams every year.

            I made lists for each season, one with the teams ranked 1-16 in runs scored, and 1-16 in K's. I then proceeded to look at the top 5 in Runs scored, and where they sat in the rankings of the 1-16 in K's. THis is what I got:

            Code:
            There were 5 teams in each season that were in the top 5 in Runs scored. 
               5
            x 11
            ----
              55 Total teams that were in the top 5 in their league in runs scored. 
            This would also mean there were 55 teams in the league that were 
            in the top 5 in strikeouts. 
            
            There were only 17 teams that were in the top 5 of their league in 
            runs scored, and in strikeouts. That equates to .31 percent of the 
            teams who led their league in runs scored, also lead their league in 
            strikeouts.
            So we can see that the author was wrong when he stated that modern day teams that score the most runs also strike out the most. In fact, there was only one instance where the top team in runs scored was the top team in strikeouts:
            2005-Reds

            However, it occurred 3 times that the team with the most runs, struck out the least:
            2000-Rockies
            2001-Rockies
            2003-Braves

            And, there were 3 instances were the team that struck out the least was 2nd in their league in runs scored:
            1999-Rockies
            2002-Cardinals
            2004-Giants

            So now that I'd proven the teams that scored the most hardly struck out the most, I thought I'd check the teams that scored the least.

            Code:
            There were 5 teams in each season that were in the bottom 5 in Runs scored. 
               5
            x 11
            ----
              55 Total teams that were in the bottom 5 in their league in runs scored. 
            This would also mean there were 55 teams in the league that were in 
            the top 5 in strikeouts. 
            
            There were only 19 teams that were in the bottom 5 of their league in 
            runs scored, and the top 5 in strikeouts. That equates to .35 percent
             of the teams who were at the bottom of their league in runs scored,
             and in the top of the league in strikeouts.
            If it is the case that a higher percentage of teams in the bottom 5 of their league in runs scored, are also in the top 5 of their league in strikeouts than the percentage of teams in the top 5 of their league in runs scored and also in the top 5 of their league in strikeouts, then it is not the case that teams who strike out more score more runs.
            Last edited by The Dude; 05-13-2008, 01:46 PM.
            AL East Champions: 1981 1982
            AL Pennant: 1982
            NL Central Champions: 2011
            NL Wild Card: 2008

            "It was like coming this close to your dreams and then watching them brush past you like a stranger in a crowd. At the time you don't think much of it; you know, we just don't recognize the significant moments of our lives while they're happening. Back then I thought, 'Well, there'll be other days.' I didn't realize that that was the only day." - Moonlight Graham

            Comment


            • #7
              First, wouldn't this be much more appropriate for the stats forum?

              Originally posted by The Dude View Post
              If it is the case that a higher percentage of teams in the bottom 5 of their league in runs scored, are also in the top 5 of their league in strikeouts than the percentage of teams in the top 5 of their league in runs scored and also in the top 5 of their league in strikeouts, then it is not the case that teams who strike out more score more runs.
              Exactly. Anyone who states that higher K totals (in and of themselves) lead to higher run totals, lacks even a rudimentary background in research and/or statistics.

              Why? They're not controlling for extraneous and/or confounding variables. This is a false positive and leads to the assumption causal (but not correlative) relationship. You can't infer that B results from A without considering everything that contributes to the impact of variables C,D,E, etc....

              With today's conditions (namely, everything being setup to favor sluggers and home runs), vastly more players are going to benefit from the all or nothing approach to the plate. HR hitters tend to K more, and with these conditions, teams with more HR hitters tend to score more runs.

              Incidentally, in the long run, K's are almost 10% worse in very low run scoring environments. My gripe with player who K a ton has little to do with long run statistics- or statistics in general.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post

                Incidentally, in the long run, K's are almost 10% worse in very low run scoring environments. My gripe with player who K a ton has little to do with long run statistics- or statistics in general.
                Is it more of an aesthetic or stylistic issue?
                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                  Is it more of an aesthetic or stylistic issue?
                  It's a skill issue, and part style/aesthetics. It all comes back to greatness vs. value.

                  I think DiMaggio is one of the greatest hitters ever in large part because of his HR/K ratio. Williams is in the vicinity of Ruth as a hitter, IMO, in part because of his ridiculous BB/K ratio. Speaker was clearly one of the greatest hitters ever because he couldn't be struck out despite being one of the top few power hitters in baseball.

                  To me, Adam Dunn will never be a truly great hitter even if he is very valuable on paper. A tremendous amount of K's indicates some combination of selfishness, impatience, and a general lack of diversity of skills at the plate. Singles and doubles shouldn't be mishit attempts at homers. Going up trying to pull the ball every time for a homer is artless and it isn't real hitting.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
                    It's a skill issue, and part style/aesthetics. It all comes back to greatness vs. value.

                    I think DiMaggio is one of the greatest hitters ever in large part because of his HR/K ratio. Williams is in the vicinity of Ruth as a hitter, IMO, in part because of his ridiculous BB/K ratio. Speaker was clearly one of the greatest hitters ever because he couldn't be struck out despite being one of the top few power hitters in baseball.

                    To me, Adam Dunn will never be a truly great hitter even if he is very valuable on paper. A tremendous amount of K's indicates some combination of selfishness, impatience, and a general lack of diversity of skills at the plate. Singles and doubles shouldn't be mishit attempts at homers. Going up trying to pull the ball every time for a homer is artless and it isn't real hitting.
                    What about guys who routinely ground into double plays?

                    Would it be better to have a guy who struck otu not a ludicrous amount of times but a high amount of times, or a guy who routinely grounded into double plays but didn't strike out much?

                    Just curious.
                    “There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil.” Walter Lippmann

                    "Fill in any figure you want for that boy (Mantle). Whatever the figure, it's a deal." - Branch Rickey

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You cannot get a hit if you don't make contact. If, when making contact, you happen to hit into a double play, then so be it. But first thing is first. Giving yourself the chance for a hit. A guy like Ripken grounded into about 20 double plays a year. As many as Cecil Fielder. I'll take that. I'll take him making contact and letting a hit be possible.

                      Adam Dunn-----------BA--------K------PA

                      Man on 2nd----------.184-----105-----422
                      Men on 2nd&3rd------.235-----23------93
                      Man on 3rd lt 2 outs--.265-----57------230
                      Man on 3rd, 2 outs---.188-----49------205
                      Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 05-13-2008, 10:37 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Dude View Post
                        After reading the article, I agree it looks as if there's a strong correlation between league totals for strikeouts and runs scored.

                        But the writer slips up when he states:



                        Sure, he says that for the deadball era this is not true, but he basically states it is true for modern baseball. I don't comprehend standard deviations and the like, so I figured I'd tackle this issue with a little bit of 8th grade math.

                        I wanted to keep my sample size consistent, so I decided to look at the NL from 1998-2008, which would give me 16 teams every year.

                        I made lists for each season, one with the teams ranked 1-16 in runs scored, and 1-16 in K's. I then proceeded to look at the top 5 in Runs scored, and where they sat in the rankings of the 1-16 in K's. THis is what I got:

                        Code:
                        There were 5 teams in each season that were in the top 5 in Runs scored. 
                           5
                        x 11
                        ----
                          55 Total teams that were in the top 5 in their league in runs scored. 
                        This would also mean there were 55 teams in the league that were 
                        in the top 5 in strikeouts. 
                        
                        There were only 17 teams that were in the top 5 of their league in 
                        runs scored, and in strikeouts. That equates to .31 percent of the 
                        teams who led their league in runs scored, also lead their league in 
                        strikeouts.
                        So we can see that the author was wrong when he stated that modern day teams that score the most runs also strike out the most. In fact, there was only one instance where the top team in runs scored was the top team in strikeouts:
                        2005-Reds

                        However, it occurred 3 times that the team with the most runs, struck out the least:
                        2000-Rockies
                        2001-Rockies
                        2003-Braves

                        And, there were 3 instances were the team that struck out the least was 2nd in their league in runs scored:
                        1999-Rockies
                        2002-Cardinals
                        2004-Giants

                        So now that I'd proven the teams that scored the most hardly struck out the most, I thought I'd check the teams that scored the least.

                        Code:
                        There were 5 teams in each season that were in the bottom 5 in Runs scored. 
                           5
                        x 11
                        ----
                          55 Total teams that were in the bottom 5 in their league in runs scored. 
                        This would also mean there were 55 teams in the league that were in 
                        the top 5 in strikeouts. 
                        
                        There were only 19 teams that were in the bottom 5 of their league in 
                        runs scored, and the top 5 in strikeouts. That equates to .35 percent
                         of the teams who were at the bottom of their league in runs scored,
                         and in the top of the league in strikeouts.
                        If it is the case that a higher percentage of teams in the bottom 5 of their league in runs scored, are also in the top 5 of their league in strikeouts than the percentage of teams in the top 5 of their league in runs scored and also in the top 5 of their league in strikeouts, then it is not the case that teams who strike out more score more runs.

                        This is the author and your post is fantastic -- well, maybe not fantastic, but great. That is just my point at the beginning of the article. The statisticians can do what they want with the data, and often they do just that. I love your eighth grade math, because it can be understood.

                        We can try to correlate anything. The problem becomes cause and effect. Two things can vary directly but may be unrelated.

                        It is ridiculous to think that merely because strikeouts and runs scored are higly correlated, strikeouts produce runs (I'm playing with words.).

                        Your analysis is great because it exposed the fallacy that teams that strike out a lot score a lot of runs.
                        Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 1905 Giants View Post
                          What about guys who routinely ground into double plays?

                          Would it be better to have a guy who struck otu not a ludicrous amount of times but a high amount of times, or a guy who routinely grounded into double plays but didn't strike out much?

                          Just curious.
                          What about them?

                          A guy like Joe Torre and Ernie Lombardi were rally killers, sure.

                          But at least they're putting the ball in play. Giving their team a chance, cutting down with two strikes, taking the ball the other way on the outside pitch.

                          Double plays always score guys from third. IIRC, the Yankees won the 1960 World Series on a GIDP- only run scored in the game. K's produce nothing, at least a GIDP has the potential to produce something.

                          Great major league hitters adjust and try to hit the ball to the right side with a man on 2nd and less than 2 outs. They try to hit the ball into the air with a player on third and less and 2 outs. There are productive, adaptive hitters and productive outs. Adam Dunn types produce a HR every 18 AB's and not much else. All those walks, but clog the basepaths once they're on, thus largely devaluing their own bases on balls.

                          In any case, GIDP's are much more rare than K's, which negates the comparison anyway. Far more outs in today's game are attributable to K's than GIDP's.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                            You cannot get a hit if you don't make contact. If, when making contact, you happen to hit into a double play, then so be it. But first thing is first. Giving yourself the chance for a hit. A guy like Ripken grounded into about 20 double plays a year. As many as Cecil Fielder. I'll take that. I'll take him making contact and letting a hit be possible.

                            Adam Dunn-----------BA--------K------PA

                            Man on 2nd----------.184-----105-----422
                            Men on 2nd&3rd------.235-----23------93
                            Man on 3rd lt 2 outs--.265-----57------230
                            Man on 3rd, 2 outs---.188-----49------205
                            Now I see that you beat me to it, Ran.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes, there are all those caveats (which the author mentioned, but maybe should have gone into more detail on). But still, a "Pearson's r" of 0.97 seems RIDICULOUS. From what I've heard, it virtually doesn't happen. I'm not saying the author's wrong, since I have no idea, but it'd be interesting to have verified. And if it is accurate, I'd love to see research looking more into it.
                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X