The Angels lead MLB in (batting) strikeouts

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

It takes one home run to score.  It takes three singles.  Baseball today is more about the balance between power and strikeouts rather than contact versus no contact.

The Angels outside of Trout and Ohtani do not have the power to offset the lack of contact.

The problem is not the lack of contact but the lack of power.

You can score runs with no power, but then you need guys that have .400 OB and .300 batting averages.  In todays game, might as well as well wish for unicorns.

Strikeouts are only a problem if you are not a dangerous hitter.  And the the real problem is you are not a dangerous hitter.

Guys with power hit doubles. A single then scores a run. A strikeout does fuck all.

How many times have we seen these guys whiff with runners in scoring position? The eye test says a lot. Hell in many cases they don't even need a hit. A flyout will do the job.

[Dtwncbad]

If strikeouts in isolation were the problem, the Braves, who lead the NL in strikeouts (2nd overall in baseball) would not have a .577 win percentage.

The Braves lead the majors in team SLG.

They have the power to offset the strikeouts.  The Angels don’t.

The Angels problem is the lack of players in the lineup that can do real damage.

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Guys with power hit doubles. A single then scores a run. A strikeout does fuck all.

How many times have we seen these guys whiff with runners in scoring position? The eye test says a lot. Hell in many cases they don't even need a hit. A flyout will do the job.

Read your own first sentence.  You need the double.  The Angels are 25th in the majors in doubles.

The Angels get a single instead of a double and then the next single doesn’t produce a run.  You are making my point for me.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Dtwncbad

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

Well no, but clearly striking out as much as they do is a problem.

They've been awful in 1-run games. 20 hits could be 3-4 wins. 

This is going to be a circular argument T.  You just can't assume the same outcome if the entire approach is different.  Even on the at bats where they did well.  You tell a guy not to whiff and maybe he hits a few more singles but loses a couple because he's not hitting the ball as hard or he loses a few xbh.  It seems it could be a bit more strategic and my biggest concern is that they're not armed appropriately when they get to the plate.  But the notion that striking out less would result in a better offense isn't totally accurate.  

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

If strikeouts in isolation were the problem, the Braves, who lead the NL in strikeouts (2nd overall in baseball) would not have a .577 win percentage.

The Braves lead the majors in team SLG.

They have the power to offset the strikeouts.  The Angels don’t.

The Angels problem is the lack of players in the lineup that can do real damage.

It's not the problem. But it's definitely A problem.

This is a team that can't afford to strikeout as much as they do. If they have runners on base, they need to hit to score those runners. 

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, Docwaukee said:

This is going to be a circular argument T.  You just can't assume the same outcome if the entire approach is different.  Even on the at bats where they did well.  You tell a guy not to whiff and maybe he hits a few more singles but loses a couple because he's not hitting the ball as hard or he loses a few xbh.  It seems it could be a bit more strategic and my biggest concern is that they're not armed appropriately when they get to the plate.  But the notion that striking out less would result in a better offense isn't totally accurate.  

What do you mean by assuming the same outcome? I really am trying to understand why you guys are acting like it's not a serious problem.

You don't score runs if you don't put the ball in play.

[Docwaukee]

5 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

If strikeouts in isolation were the problem, the Braves, who lead the NL in strikeouts (2nd overall in baseball) would not have a .577 win percentage.

The Braves lead the majors in team SLG.

They have the power to offset the strikeouts.  The Angels don’t.

The Angels problem is the lack of players in the lineup that can do real damage.

they do actually.  their expected slugging is 62 point higher than actual.  For some reason, that hasn't worked and I think that's where some of this is coming from.  Not sure why that's the case.  

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

It's not the problem. But it's definitely A problem.

This is a team that can't afford to strikeout as much as they do. If they have runners on base, they need to hit to score those runners. 

We agree the offense sucks.  I would state it differently.  I would say if the team is going to be in todays game of high strikeouts, they can’t afford to have this many hitters in the lineup that pose no real danger with poor SLG.

[Docwaukee]

Just now, tdawg87 said:

What do you mean by assuming the same outcome? I really am trying to understand why you guys are acting like it's not a serious problem.

You don't score runs if you don't put the ball in play.

Ok.  So let's say normally I would swing as hard as I can on anything I swing at.  But instead, I am going to try minimize my k's.  So my approach becomes different.  Where contact becomes more of a goal than hitting the ball hard when I hit it.  

You don't know when you're gonna strike out.  So if you try not to in EVERY at bat (because you can't just do it in at bats where you struck out because how would you know), you are going to decrease your power.  How many fewer hrs and double would Mike Trout have if he changed his approach with two strikes and just tried to put the ball in play?  

And in today's game, putting the ball in play with weak contact has proven to not work.  

To me, the bigger problem is why aren't they getting the results they should be getting when they do actually put the ball in play.  Striking out less COULD be helpful but if it results in consistently weaker contact across the board because of a different approach, then things might actually get worse.  

[tdawg87]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

We agree the offense sucks.  I would state it differently.  I would say if the team is going to be in todays game of high strikeouts, they can’t afford to have this many hitters in the lineup that pose no real danger with poor SLG.

 

1 minute ago, Docwaukee said:

Ok.  So let's say normally I would swing as hard as I can on anything I swing at.  But instead, I am going to try minimize my k's.  So my approach becomes different.  Where contact becomes more of a goal than hitting the ball hard when I hit it.  

You don't know when you're gonna strike out.  So if you try not to in EVERY at bat (because you can't just do it in at bats where you struck out because how would you know), you are going to decrease your power.  How many fewer hrs and double would Mike Trout have if he changed his approach with two strikes and just tried to put the ball in play?  

And in today's game, putting the ball in play with weak contact has proven to not work.  

To me, the bigger problem is why aren't they getting the results they should be getting when they do actually put the ball in play.  Striking out less COULD be helpful but if it results in consistently weaker contact across the board because of a different approach, then things might actually get worse.  

Ok I think I understand now. I think I'm just frustrated seeing these guys strike out so much every night and it's clouding my judgement. 

Trout's strikeouts are particularly annoying, but he's still getting the job done as usual. But I suppose that's an example of what you guys are saying. 

[Taylor]

I don't get why people are arguing the premise of this topic. It's not a coincidence that the Angels lead the majors in strikeouts and seem to have trouble putting any kind of offensive momentum together.

 

[Docwaukee]

Just now, Taylor said:

I don't get why people are arguing the premise of this topic. It's not a coincidence that the Angels lead the majors in strikeouts and seem to have trouble putting any kind of offensive momentum together.

 

correlation does not always equal causation.  High K rates aren't good but sort of expected for this team.  Maybe not to the extent they've occurred.  But there are other reasons the offense isn't performing well.  

1.  A lack of depth.  They just don't have very good players in the lineup and when 2 or 3 guys don't have a really good night, we're kinda screwed.  
2. For some reason the power they have isn't translating into runs
3. They walk away from at bats confused as to what they just saw (this one is my opinion based on what I've seen)

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, Docwaukee said:

correlation does not always equal causation.  High K rates aren't good but sort of expected for this team.  Maybe not to the extent they've occurred.  But there are other reasons the offense isn't performing well.  

1.  A lack of depth.  They just don't have very good players in the lineup and when 2 or 3 guys don't have a really good night, we're kinda screwed.  
2. For some reason the power they have isn't translating into runs
3. They walk away from at bats confused as to what they just saw (this one is my opinion based on what I've seen)

Of course. I don't think tdawg was arguing that the strikeouts are the only reason the offense is struggling.

And as a fan, it absolutely blows watching the Angels struggle to make good contact.

[UndertheHalo]

The strikeouts are obviously a problem.  The Angels don’t do the other things necessary to make them not a problem.  

[Docwaukee]

Just now, Taylor said:

Of course. I don't think tdawg was arguing that the strikeouts are the only reason the offense is struggling.

And as a fan, it absolutely blows watching the Angels struggle to make good contact.

yes.  It also sucks to watch guys go into slappy mcgrounder mode.  Like Wade trying to lay a bunt down in every at bat.  It's a consequence of something else though.  Not totally sure what.

[tdawg87]

1 minute ago, Docwaukee said:

yes.  It also sucks to watch guys go into slappy mcgrounder mode.  Like Wade trying to lay a bunt down in every at bat.  It's a consequence of something else though.  Not totally sure what.

I thought it was a change in hitting philosophy but I don't see how or why they'd do that. 

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, tdawg87 said:

I thought it was a change in hitting philosophy but I don't see how or why they'd do that. 

It might be.  But we wouldn't even be talking about this if they had the .462 slg expected vs. the .400 they have.  Maybe that's just bad luck.  I don't know.

[fan_since79]

7 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

The strikeouts are obviously a problem.  The Angels don’t do the other things necessary to make them not a problem.  

They don't work counts. They don't walk. They don't even try to beat the constant shifts. When they do hit it's right into it. They don't hit-and-run. etc etc etc

In general, the hitters are confused in the batter's box. Baffled, befuddled, and bewildered. A total mess. You'd think they took up baseball last week.

The bullpen doesn't know the basic principles of pitching. The starting rotation has the obligatory two reclamation projects who are busts, the struggling youngster who magically pitched a no-hitter (did that really happen?), and one ace who might bolt for greener pastures next year. 

It's hard to watch this 76-86 team year after year. When does football start?

 

That wasn't me who started the "We Can Do This" thread. That was some other guy who got a hold of my password.

[UndertheHalo]

1 minute ago, fan_since79 said:

They don't work counts. They don't walk. They don't even try to beat the constant shifts. When they do hit it's right into it. They don't hit-and-run. etc etc etc

In general, the hitters are confused in the batter's box. Baffled, befuddled, and bewildered. A total mess. You'd think they took up baseball last week.

The bullpen doesn't know the basic principles of pitching. The starting rotation has the obligatory two reclamation projects who are busts, the struggling youngster who magically pitched a no-hitter (did that really happen?), and one ace who might bolt for greener pastures next year. 

It's hard to watch this 76-86 team year after year. When does football start?

 

That wasn't me who started the "We Can Do This" thread. That was some other guy who got a hold of my password.

It was you. 

[fan_since79]

2 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

It was you. 

...in a psychotic break.

[Angel Oracle]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

If strikeouts in isolation were the problem, the Braves, who lead the NL in strikeouts (2nd overall in baseball) would not have a .577 win percentage.

The Braves lead the majors in team SLG.

They have the power to offset the strikeouts.  The Angels don’t.

The Angels problem is the lack of players in the lineup that can do real damage.

Well, the lack of it in the bottom half of the order anyway

One main concern is strike zone recognition.   How many times do they let pitches in the heart of the plate go by, and then swing at junk?   I understand that only early in the game, if the pitcher hasn’t been seen before.

Edited July 2, 2022 by Angel Oracle

[Jason]

52 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

 

 I'm just frustrated seeing these guys strike out so much every night 

There is a simple solution for your frustration 

[tdawg87]

Just now, Jason said:

There is a simple solution for your frustration 

[Clark W Griswold]

The “looking” strike outs are the ones that kill me. I think Trout doesn’t want to expand his strike zone so he watches strike 3 more than he should. He needs to expand it with 2 strikes because there’s only 1 guy after him who is a threat to do any damage. 
Bring in Vlad Sr for some hitting lessons.  He didn’t care about the strike zone.

[Duren, Duren]

The Ted Williams book and hitting approach is still a classic. And applies in life too! 

Zones of competence. 

https://fs.blog/make-better-decisions/