Is Striking Out a Bad Thing?

The Red Sox currently have a few high strikeout guys. That has caused quite a bit of angst in the Nation. Especially when one of them strikes out in a key situation.

“Get the bat on the ball!”

The Sox broadcasters like to complain about strikeouts because they “don’t move the runners along” in contrast to some opinions that a strikeout is “just another out.” That theory states that the damage the hitters do when they don’t strike out makes it worth putting up with the frequent K’s.

So, which is it? If you have two men on base with one out, is Mike Napoli someone you want at the plate?

Should Napoli adjust himself when he’s at the plate to avoid the strikeout? Should he go all Ty Cobb, choke up, separate his hands, and slap at the ball so he puts it in play? The tricky question is when Napoli should do that. If there’s a runner on first with one out? Bases loaded with no outs? That’s a big question because if you’re having Napoli do that, you’re almost giving up on getting a hit. Sure, if he slaps a grounder it might squeak through, but I wouldn’t count on it. So, we need to be willing to take a sure out and advance a runner just to avoid the chance of striking out. How many times does that really happen? And, in how many of those times is advancing the runner ALL you’re really wanting? Runner on third with none out in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game? Isn’t that it? And, really, since the infield is probably playing in at that point, not sure it’s a great idea then. So, all these people complaining must be talking about other situations. Like, runner on second trailing by a run with none out in the seventh. In that case, a ground ball to second would be better than a K. But, a base hit would be better than either of them, right? So, let’s look at that situation. Let’s use some numbers from Mike Napoli’s 2012 season. A normal 2012 Napoli struck out 30% of the time. So, let’s assume he’d strikeout 30% of the time with a guy at second and none out. But, using the same 2012 stats, he’d get a hit 20% of the time. And, he’d get a walk 13% of the time. The other 34% of the time he makes another kind of out. By sheer luck, some percentage of those would be productive, right? Half of them? A third? Let’s go with a third, just to pick a number.

So, to recap, a regular 2012 Mike Napoli at-bat with a runner on second would strike out 30% of the time. So, 30% of the time it would have been better to have just slapped the ball to second to get the runner to third. But, you’d be limiting yourself. After all, on his own Napoli would do something at least that good 44% of the time. And that’s the number that sticks out to me. You can have Napoli give himself up, and ground out to second. But, almost as often as not, that would be the wrong call. And, sometimes a really wrong call. After all, 5% of the time, Napoli would homer.

People who complain about strikeouts also fall into the same trap as people who like the sacrifice bunt. (After all, I suppose, it’s really the same maneuver.) Moving the runner over is a good thing. After all, it’s easier to score from third than it is from second. That’s true, depending on your definition of “easier.” There are certainly more way to score from third. A sac fly, or a wild pitch for instance. But, are we basing a strategy upon the pitcher throwing a wild pitch to the next batter? Does that make sense? Even the sac fly. Once we get Napoli to ground out to second, we now need the guy after him to hit a deep flyball. So, now we’re basically asking two straight guys to do their best to try to make an out. Does that seem weird to anyone else? What if we just told Napoli to take his rips? He may get a hit. Even a home run. That’s way better than simply moving the runner along. Of course, he may strike out. But, then maybe the next guy will get a hit. If the guy after him gets a hit, the guy scores from second anyway. So, the Sox didn’t lose anything from letting Napoli loose. What if Napoli slaps the ball to second, moving the guy to third and the next guy singles? He would have scored from second anyway. So, you just wasted Napoli. Why would you do that?

What it comes down to is, yes, a strikeout is bad. In a single situation, it looks really bad. But, overall it’s worth the chance since the alternative is so much more.

If you play for one run, that’s usually all you get.

From the Pedro Binder

2001 Topps League Leaders (Strikeouts)

I love the idea of this card. I can see it being an absolute slam dunk in the design meetings.

Card companies know where their bread is buttered. They know that star cards drive the set, so they need to get as many of them in the set as possible. League Leaders cards are an easy way to accomplish that. But, there are only so many cards in a set. So, rather than give each league leader a whole other card in the set, they usually combine them. Either the leader from each league, or the top finishers from each league. The appeal is obvious. With just one card Topps can have both a Pedro card, and a Randy Johnson card. Instant appeal to two different groups of collectors. But, what if the pairings aren’t so wonderful? What if, like last time, Pedro finished first, and Roger Clemens finished second. Now they have to put Pedro and Roger on the same card. I want very little to do with a Roger Clemens card with the Yankees. Similarly, a Yankees fan would probably spit on a Pedro card. Now, instead of appealing to two different groups, you’ve driven away all the groups. In 2001, Topps had a great solution. Put one league on the front, and the other on the back. Then, you can have both groups going after the card again. I look at this card, and all I see is Pedro. Sitting in my binder, I don’t know if the other side has Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens. It’s just a Pedro card. Perfect!

Except for one thing.

There’s a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo that is usually hidden on the back of the card. Unfortunately, that means it’s right on the front of my Pedro card. There’s the card number stuck in the corner. Actually, they did a pretty good job of incorporating that into the design. But, it’s still right there looking at me. There are also some logos, for Topps, MLB, and the MLBPA. Ick. Worst of all is the fine print. Bleh. I don’t need copyright information cluttering up my Pedro card.

So, while this is a great concept, I can’t endorse it. This might be one of the few times I could get behind an intentional variation. What if Topps made half the cards with Johnson on the front and half with Pedro on the front? Then, maybe, I could find a clean Pedro card. Because this way, it just looks second fiddle.

No matter how well Topps did to try and hide it.

Time to Trade Iglesias?

I keep hearing that the Red Sox farm system is stacked. Apparently there are boatloads of players just begging to be brought up to Boston so they can star for years. As luck would have it, a few of these players play shortstop. That could make for some interesting decisions.

As you’re probably well aware, I always advocate trading prospects. I will trade potential for actual talent every single time. So, when I hear that the Sox have a top-rated power hitting shortstop in their system, my mouth waters. The last time the Sox had one of those, they were able to package him in a deal to get an ace pitcher and star third baseman, leading to a World Series title. Perfect. Shop him now. This was especially appetizing because the Sox had another shortstop in their system. He was a no-hit, all-glove prospect. He’d be able to fill the position nicely. It was fantastic.

But, now things have changed slightly. Now the wizard-like fielder has shown the ability to hit. Now, nobody believes that Jose Iglesias is going to be a .400 hitter. Probably even not a .300 hitter. But, he seems to be showing signs that he might not be a .200 hitter either. And, that’s pretty good. A stellar defensive shortstop can work, as long as he’s not an automatic out. If he can hit .250, his defense might be enough to make him a great fit. So, are other teams starting to think Jose can do just that? Suddenly their image of him isn’t of being overmatched by any fastball. The image is of him beating out hit after hit.

Could that make him almost as valuable in the trade market as Xander Bogaerts? After all, Bogaerts is still all potential. We all assume he can hit in the big leagues. We’ve all assumed lots of players could hit in the big leagues. What if he can’t? What if he’s an above average shortstop, who hits 15 home runs? Where does that rank in value compared to a phenomenal defensive shortstop who hits 5 home runs? Maybe the Sox can be win-win with this? Trade Iglesias now, and stick with Drew for the rest of the year until Bogaerts is ready.

It’s also interesting that I’m not sure what is out there on the market. Assuming that Stanton really is staying in Miami…what’s out there that you would want to spend Bogaerts on? Wouldn’t Iglesias be a better fit for a trade?

Say you’re a team with a chip the Sox want. Wouldn’t it be appealing to get a guy who’s only 23, but can apparently be put in the line-up right now? I think that Ben needs to be actively making calls.

After all, the value for Jose Iglesias may never be higher.

Wet Wonderful Weekend

I had several favorite parts about the games in NY this weekend. The one that jumps to mind first? The Sox won the games in the right order. It always seemed that if they played the Yankees over a weekend where two of the games were nationally televised, the Sox would dominate on Friday night, and get blown out Saturday and Sunday with the country watching.

That didn’t happen this time. Naturally, winning all three games is the preference. But, if they had to lose one, I’m glad it was Friday. Then they went out and smoked the Yankees Saturday on Fox, and Clay dominated them Sunday night on ESPN. Very nice.

The interesting part is that the Sox managed to do it while missing their starting third baseman, center fielder, and right fielder. Again, that’s the advantage of not having any superstars. It’s easier to replace Shane Victorino’s production than it was to replace Manny’s. Depth suddenly becomes something you can accomplish. That being said, hopefully those guys can return sooner rather than later.

The rain shortened game last night came at a great time too. When the best pitcher on your staff is having a little shoulder issue, it’s nice to be able to keep his workload down without sacrificing innings like that. Although, he certainly didn’t look like he was suffering from any discomfort. It was nice that the rain also let him pitch long enough to qualify for the win. Would have been really annoying if the 45 minute dry delay to start the game had robbed Clay of a decision. Or, even worse, robbed the Sox of a victory. (If I didn’t know any better, I’d think that might have been the Yankees plan all along.)

The rain also helped the bullpen. With the off day today, they were able to get two full days off for all of them. And, really, since Saturday’s game was an afternoon, and Tuesday is a night game…there’s even more than just two days.

So, the Sox come home for a tough fight against Texas. I forgave the Sox for being swept by the Rangers in Texas. Now that they’re home they really need to get a couple of these wins. This is a big month for the Sox. They quality of their opponents is probably the highest of any month of the season. They really need to tread water, at the very least, for this month.

Which is why taking two of three in NY is even sweeter.

What Were You Doing in 1971?

Today I’d like to continue my stroll through the box of cards my neighbor had asked me to look though. If you have no idea what I’m talking about, check out my initial post here. To see what I found from the 1970 Topps set, check here.

By far, the most cards in the box were from 1971 Topps. That, of course, left ample opportunity to find some cool stuff. Did I find any? Let’s find out.

Of course, there were lots of checklists. Some were marked, some weren’t. It looks like there’s a full set of marked ones, and the rest were left unblemished. Amazingly the unmarked ones weren’t simply tossed out. There are even several copies of the coins checklist, which was an unexpected find.

Bill Mazeroski always makes me smile. I wonder why.

One of the things I love about baseball cards is the ability to go back in time. Here is Red Sox World Series hero Luis Tiant from his Twins days.

Time travels the other way too.

Shudder. Shudder.

Spoiler alert. This is probably the best card I found. Unfortunately, the scanner didn’t crop it too badly.

Unlike the 1970 cards, there were a lot more Hall-of-Famer’s base cards in the set. Of course, they weren’t names Ryan or Celmente. But, they’re still in the Hall.

Of course, there were also plenty of Hall of Famers on the League Leaders cards. The format of the cards is so simple, but I still like it. Plus, the opportunity to get three hall of Famers on one card is hard to beat. For some reason, the number of Johnny Bench cards is just excessive.

More Hall of Famers who led their league in something. Almost as interesting as the cards full of Hall of Famers, are the ones with just the one. How did Alex Johnson sneak by Carl Yastrzemski? I also like how Topps used different pictures each time a player showed up on a card. Lots better than seeing the same card over and over.

Of course, the highlight of the stack is the pile of Red Sox cards. No Yaz, but I guess that’s OK. I wonder what happened to him.

So, much like the 1970 set, there’s nothing to retire on. Lots of great stuff though. Just looking back and enjoying all the great players from that year was well worth the time it took to flip through the box.

I wonder what will happen in 1972.