"Productive Outs"

[JCA-CrystalCity]

SSB - so you are saying the extra outs didn't help much? 

BTW - did you know that, per ESPN, the Nats led in productive out rate (productive outs per opportunity)?  That stats correlates well with poor offenses.

[MarquisDeSade]

SSB - so you are saying the extra outs didn't help much? 

BTW - did you know that, per ESPN, the Nats led in productive out rate (productive outs per opportunity)?  That stats correlates well with poor offenses.

And yet we still almost lost 100 games again. 

[tomterp]

And yet we still almost lost 100 games again. 

Yep, that's pretty much the point.  All the "purists" who love the sacrifice, and exalt the player who can move the runner along though making an out himself, can look at the Nats as an example of what happens when team successfully executes such strategies.  Big innings are ended before they have a chance to unfold, and scoring signficantly fewer runs is the ultimate outcome.   

 

[cmdterps44]

Yep, that's pretty much the point.  All the "purists" who love the sacrifice, and exalt the player who can move the runner along though making an out himself, can look at the Nats as an example of what happens when team successfully executes such strategies.  Big innings are ended before they have a chance to unfold, and scoring signficantly fewer runs is the ultimate outcome.    

 

I'm looking at you Pudge!!

[Lintyfresh85]

I didn't know 46 DP's* in one season counted as productive.

* - Slight exaggeration

[MarquisDeSade]

I'm looking at you Pudge!!

Yup, thank you.

[welch]

I thought the idea was to move a runner into scoring position...and then drive him in. I have this recurring nightmare of a Nationals runner on second followed by a ground-out, pop-out, strike-out.

I guess my dream is Maury Wills walks, steals second, Willie Davis or Junior Gilliam sacrifices Wills to third, and Tommy Davis hits a sac fly, scoring Wills, and giving Sandy Koufax an insurmountable 1-0 lead.  Not much like Nyjer Morgan getting caught stealing second, Bernadina flying out, and Jason Marquis giving up six runs in the bottom of the inning. The pain, the pain!

[tomterp]

I thought the idea was to move a runner into scoring position...and then drive him in.

Sacrificing typically only slightly, if that, increases the chances of scoring that one run, while decreasing the likelihood of scoring more than one run.  Make other teams earn your outs, don't give them away.

[Evolution33]

Yep, that's pretty much the point.  All the "purists" who love the sacrifice, and exalt the player who can move the runner along though making an out himself, can look at the Nats as an example of what happens when team successfully executes such strategies.  Big innings are ended before they have a chance to unfold, and scoring signficantly fewer runs is the ultimate outcome.   

 

I wonder what the data included because it isn't really a bad thinng if most of the Nationals outs made with a runner on advanced them, but if it doesn't just include outs but all ABs with runners on it is bad. I am sure even the most stat loving baseball fan would take outs that advance runners over other outs.

[PC]

I remember the last Phillies series in Philadelphia when Espinosa led off the game with a single and Desmond bunted him to second for the first out of the GAME.  That's when the "strategy" officially hit rock bottom for me.

Your #2 hitter should never be sacrificing in the FIRST INNING!

[cmdterps44]

I remember the last Phillies series in Philadelphia when Espinosa led off the game with a single and Desmond bunted him to second for the first out of the GAME.  That's when the "strategy" officially hit rock bottom for me.

Your #2 hitter should never be sacrificing in the FIRST INNING!

Yeah, seriously. So dumb.

[Nathan]

I remember the last Phillies series in Philadelphia when Espinosa led off the game with a single and Desmond bunted him to second for the first out of the GAME.  That's when the "strategy" officially hit rock bottom for me.

Your #2 hitter should never be sacrificing in the FIRST INNING!

He was bunting for a hit though, wasn't he?

[Evolution33]

I remember the last Phillies series in Philadelphia when Espinosa led off the game with a single and Desmond bunted him to second for the first out of the GAME.  That's when the "strategy" officially hit rock bottom for me.

Your #2 hitter should never be sacrificing in the FIRST INNING!

I remember the Mets beating the Nats 3-0 doing the 3 times. Reyes reaches first, steal, Lo Duca bunt, Wright sac fly. Worst feeling game ever

[MarquisDeSade]

I wonder what the data included because it isn't really a bad thinng if most of the Nationals outs made with a runner on advanced them, but if it doesn't just include outs but all ABs with runners on it is bad. I am sure even the most stat loving baseball fan would take outs that advance runners over other outs.

Who cares what the data includes, seriously.  After watching 154 games (and scoring 140) this year there's very little "analysis" that can convince me this wasn't just a piss poor team (outside of a few flashes of brilliance) that really mailed it in for over 90% of the season. 

[PC]

He was bunting for a hit though, wasn't he?

The net result was a sacrifice and that's what he was credited with.

[Evolution33]

Who cares what the data includes, seriously.  After watching 154 games (and scoring 140) this year there's very little "analysis" that can convince me this wasn't just a piss poor team (outside of a few flashes of brilliance) that really mailed it in for over 90% of the season. 

Of course it was a bad offense but there is a huge difference between just including outs vs all outcomes. It also makes a difference if it was a percent vs counting. Almost said something dumb. Almost said I was sure the nats made more outs than other teams.

[Nathan]

The net result was a sacrifice and that's what he was credited with.

Sure, but that's not like Riggs calling for a sac from the bench.  If he called for a sac at that point in a game he should be fired.

[PC]

Sure, but that's not like Riggs calling for a sac from the bench.  If he called for a sac at that point in a game he should be fired.

Ok, now what evidence do we have that he didn't call it? What does the preponderance of the evidence tell us, knowing fully what kind of manager he has shown himself to be?

[shoeshineboy]

SSB - so you are saying the extra outs didn't help much? 

Not even sure what that means.

[MarquisDeSade]

so you are saying the extra outs didn't help much? 

Not to sound like Joe Morgan but does any of this really matter? 

[Kevrock]

SSB - so you are saying the extra outs didn't help much? 

BTW - did you know that, per ESPN, the Nats led in productive out rate (productive outs per opportunity)?  That stats correlates well with poor offenses.

This surprised me. The Nats struck me as a horrid situational hitting team. I wonder what the splits were for productive outs in the first five innings and the last four innings.

The Giants were fourth, btw.

[Evolution33]

This surprised me. The Nats struck me as a horrid situational hitting team. I wonder what the splits were for productive outs in the first five innings and the last four innings.

The Giants were fourth, btw.

But if the data includes every time a team was in the situation vs. simply when an out was made with a runner on base and that runner advanced then the data is punishing teams for getting hits. I can see this data being useful if it is only counting outs and is a rate. If a team advances a runner 40% of the time they make an out with a runner on base I can't see how that is a negative, but if it is the team makes an out and advances a runner 40% of the time in that situation that is bad.

[HalfSmokes]

If a team advances a runner 40% of the time they make an out with a runner on base I can't see how that is a negative, but if it is the team makes an out and advances a runner 40% of the time in that situation that is bad.

it's a negative over the course of the season when the runner is advanced by a bunt which tends to be a wasted out. I think what it really says is the nats make a lot of productive outs (i.e. sacrifices) , while better teams try to actually get hits. Throw in caught stealings, GIDP, and lumbering baserunners, and you have a team that can make 'productive outs' without actually scoring many runs.

[Evolution33]

it's a negative over the course of the season when the runner is advanced by a bunt which tends to be a wasted out

Yes but the data says nothing about a bunt. It simply mentions productive outs. Which to me translates to outs that advance a runner. It is at best a marginal increase in chance to win. Probably less than half a percent and ultimately this is all meaningless, but it says nothing about a bunt. It is quite simple that a 7 pitch groundout that moves a runner is better than a 7 pitch strikeout that accomplishes nothing. This isn't really about bunting.

[HalfSmokes]

Yes but the data says nothing about a bunt. It simply mentions productive outs. Which to me translates to outs that advance a runner. It is at best a marginal increase in chance to win. Probably less than half a percent and ultimately this is all meaningless, but it says nothing about a bunt. It is quite simple that a 7 pitch groundout that moves a runner is better than a 7 pitch strikeout that accomplishes nothing. This isn't really about bunting.

I think it's saying that sacrificing (including bunting) to make a 'productive out' isn't as good a thing as fossil announcers make it sound