Outs made

[digglahhh]

Does anybody have a list of the players who made the most outs last season. I would supposed Reyes made the most.

[Ubiquitous]

This isn't exact but using BRef's definition of outs Jose Reyes is indeed first followed by Juan Pierre and Jimmy Rollins.

BRef's version doesn't include ROE, it counts that as an out when no out was actually caused. It also counts GIDP as an extra out. I don't agree with that.

[digglahhh]

Cool, thanks.

I know Bbref has them, but I do you know of another site that has that info in a sortable form?

[Ubiquitous]

Don't know about a sortable form, but you can download the data and sort it yourself. I don't have the time to actually look at the PbP data to factor in ROE and dropped third strikes but one can use the Lahman database (which I did) to find the BRef version of outs.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Who holds the single season record? Juan Samuel?

[KCGHOST]

The SBE has this information.

[csh19792001]

I find it odd that this isn't a stat that is more widely kept/recognized. It's as basic as hits....

CAREER
OUTS OUTS
1 Pete Rose 10328
2 Hank Aaron 9136
3 Carl Yastrzemski 9126
4 Cal Ripken 8893
5 Eddie Murray 8570
6 Rickey Henderson 8510
7 Dave Winfield 8422
8 Robin Yount 8415
9 Brooks Robinson 8340
10 Luis Aparicio 8110
11 Willie Mays 8056
12 Paul Molitor 8040
13 Rabbit Maranville 7887
14 Lou Brock 7823
15 Ty Cobb 7753
16 Stan Musial 7704
17 George Brett 7673
18 Reggie Jackson 7659
19 Andre Dawson 7621
20 Al Kaline 7594
21 Rafael Palmeiro 7569
T22 Frank Robinson 7528
T22 Ozzie Smith 7528
24 Rusty Staub 7509
25 Harold Baines 7482

Single Season- I looked through these lists manually, so there might be some omissions. Correct me if I erred.

AMERICAN LEAGUE OUTS LEADERS
1970--Horace Clarke 542
1971--Sandy Alomar Sr. 536
1964--Bobby Richardson 536
1980--Alfredo Griffin 533
1939--Frankie Crosetti 530
1962--Bobby Richardson 529
1965--Bobby Richardson 527
1997--Brian Hunter 525
1961--Bobby Richardson 523
1985--Kirby Puckett 521


NATIONAL LEAGUE OUTS LEADERS
1980--Omar Moreno 560
1979--Frank Taveras 545
1982--Omar Moreno 535
1984--Juan Samuel 532
1962--Ken Hubbs 532
1974--Larry Bowa 531
1972--Roger Metzger 528
1975--Felix Millan 527
1962--Bill Virdon 527
1936--Woody Jensen 526


That's a good trivia question even for a die hard, now that I think about it- what player holds the alltime record for outs made in one season, and what player holds the American League record?

The record for most outs made in any 5 year span is 2433 by Bobby Richardson, from 1961-65. Brock, Cash, Samuel, Carter, and Ripken aren't far behind, though.

[SABR Matt]

This isn't exact but using BRef's definition of outs Jose Reyes is indeed first followed by Juan Pierre and Jimmy Rollins.

BRef's version doesn't include ROE, it counts that as an out when no out was actually caused. It also counts GIDP as an extra out. I don't agree with that.

Wait...you don't think a GIDP should count as two outs? What drugs are you on?

[csh19792001]

Another thing....awhile back Diglahh mentioned that a true testament to Ruth's greatness was ironically the fact that he isn't in the top 100 in career singles.

Which made me think...

Ted Williams is 244th alltime in career outs made. Isn't that perhaps the best testament to his greatness?

[538280]

Ted Williams is 244th alltime in career outs made. Isn't that perhaps the best testament to his greatness?

But how much further up would he be if it wasn't for missed time due to the war (or wars in his case)?

[csh19792001]

But how much further up would he be if it wasn't for missed time due to the war (or wars in his case)?

Well, he's still 79th alltime in PA despite all that, and his career spanned 4 decades. Just think about it- a .483 career OBP!!! True, he played in Fenway, but he also played through a long decline phase (age 42) in a strong league that wasn't particularly oriented towards offense (esp. in comparison to guys like Ruth).

Absolutely amazing he was able to sustain that kind of brillance.

[Ubiquitous]

Wait...you don't think a GIDP should count as two outs? What drugs are you on?

The kind that lets me see straight. Why does the batter get penalized two outs for something that involves the runner, the fielders, the lineup, and the batter?

IF I hit a groundball with the bases empty all I get is an out. If I hit one with a man on first I get two outs. Why? Why is it that the guy who did the exact same thing that with bases empty is not penalized while the hitter with a man on gets penalized? GIDP is not inherent it needs other players. It isn't like a homer or a double where one can hit it in any spot in the order and in any base situation. If I play on a bad team and I am the leadoff hitter my opps for GIDP are going to be much smaller then a #3 hitters opps on a good teams. Plus it doesn't factor the runners on in front of you. If I have Mark Grace or Giambi batting in front of me and moving like a snail I am more likely to recieve double plays then if I had Ichiro or Craig Biggio. So again why should I penalize an individual batter for something that he has little control over?

[SABR Matt]

If it has in fact been proven that batters have little control over the ability to not hit into a double play once someone is on base, I haven't seen the study (that doesn't mean it hasn't been done...I can only read so much at a time)...I was always under the impression that slugs hit into more GIDP's per ball in play than fast guys.

[Ubiquitous]

But a slugger can't hit into a double play unless someone is on base in front of him. The slugger cannot create the situation.

I'll ask again why is a groundball to second only worth one out to a batter if the bases are empty but worth two outs when there is a man on first. What did the batter due to cause a man on first? Nothing he did absolutely nothing. yet he gets penalized twice for the out. If the runner gets picked off or caught stealing or out on a botched hit and run and then the batter grounds out. He gets one out but if the runner stays on first he gets two outs. The second out has nothing to do with the skills of the hitter and everything to do with the scenario. It isn't a true talent level stat. Yes knowing GIDP will help explain the run scoring of that team but it does not reveal the true talent of the player. If a hitter has 600 PA and bats 3rd and grounds into 30 GIDP will he ground into 30 GIDP batting 8th? Batting first? No, because he won't have the same amount of runner on first situations in that lineup spot.

[hellborn]

If it has in fact been proven that batters have little control over the ability to not hit into a double play once someone is on base, I haven't seen the study (that doesn't mean it hasn't been done...I can only read so much at a time)...I was always under the impression that slugs hit into more GIDP's per ball in play than fast guys.

Rob Deer hit into very few DPs, despite not being a "bat control" guy and not being fast...between a lot of Ks and being an extreme fly ball hitter, he was able to avoid GIDPs.
Bill James must have some coverage of this topic...

[hellborn]

But a slugger can't hit into a double play unless someone is on base in front of him. The slugger cannot create the situation.

I'll ask again why is a groundball to second only worth one out to a batter if the bases are empty but worth two outs when there is a man on first. What did the batter due to cause a man on first? Nothing he did absolutely nothing. yet he gets penalized twice for the out. If the runner gets picked off or caught stealing or out on a botched hit and run and then the batter grounds out. He gets one out but if the runner stays on first he gets two outs. The second out has nothing to do with the skills of the hitter and everything to do with the scenario. It isn't a true talent level stat. Yes knowing GIDP will help explain the run scoring of that team but it does not reveal the true talent of the player. If a hitter has 600 PA and bats 3rd and grounds into 30 GIDP will he ground into 30 GIDP batting 8th? Batting first? No, because he won't have the same amount of runner on first situations in that lineup spot.
The batter comes to the plate with the chance to advance the runner and his team ends up with two outs instead...you've gotta count that!
Batters with a lot of runners on will have more chances for RBI and GIDP...doesn't mean that either stat is inherently unfair or that the batter's ability doesn't have a huge effect on what his total numbers will end up being for either one.
Jim Rice had seasons with tons of RBI and GIDP, and him having lots of guys on inflated both those numbers, but you can't argue that he had an ability to bring runners home with his power hitting AND also had a propensity for banging hard grounders to short that erased both him and a guy on base. The numbers end up being distorted somewhat, but they still reflect the abilities of the batter and not just the situation he's hitting in.
I guess that the basic fact is that a groundball to second is worth two outs with a man on first if two outs result from it being hit. Why does a batter get 4 RBI for hitting a HR with the bases loaded and only 1 for a solo shot? Is it not fair that a hitter can hit the ball 420 feet to LF at Yankee and not get a homer when he probably would have in another park? If there's a runner on first, the batter is supposed to do something that moves that runner closer to home, not the dugout...and, if he grounds up the middle but a DP is turned because the 2B was cheating towards the bag, should we credit the batter with a hit because he would have gotten one if the bases were empty??

[ElHalo]

If it has in fact been proven that batters have little control over the ability to not hit into a double play once someone is on base, I haven't seen the study (that doesn't mean it hasn't been done...I can only read so much at a time)...I was always under the impression that slugs hit into more GIDP's per ball in play than fast guys.

12 different players have hit into at least 30 DP's in a season, one doing it three times. I'd personally divide them up into...

Slow: Ernie Lombardi, Billy Hitchcock, Tony Armas, Cal Ripken, Ben Grieve
Middling: Carl Yasztremski, Jim Rice, Bobby Doerr, Ivan Rodriguez, Brad Ausmus
Quick: Jackie Jensen, Dave Winfield

[Ubiquitous]

The batter comes to the plate with the chance to advance the runner and his team ends up with two outs instead...you've gotta count that!
Towards the hitter, and the hitter alone? So it isn't anybody elses fault or credit? The runner had nothing to do with it? As a team yes GIDP help explain run scoring. But how does it explain an individual?

Batters with a lot of runners on will have more chances for RBI and GIDP...doesn't mean that either stat is inherently unfair or that the batter's ability doesn't have a huge effect on what his total numbers will end up being for either one.
Jim Rice had seasons with tons of RBI and GIDP, and him having lots of guys on inflated both those numbers, but you can't argue that he had an ability to bring runners home with his power hitting AND also had a propensity for banging hard grounders to short that erased both him and a guy on base. The numbers end up being distorted somewhat, but they still reflect the abilities of the batter and not just the situation he's hitting in.
I never said RBI are great stats or that one should credit Jim Rice for being a run producer simply because he had high RBI totals. I have the same beef with RBI that I do with GIDP.


I guess that the basic fact is that a groundball to second is worth two outs with a man on first if two outs result from it being hit. Why does a batter get 4 RBI for hitting a HR with the bases loaded and only 1 for a solo shot? Is it not fair that a hitter can hit the ball 420 feet to LF at Yankee and not get a homer when he probably would have in another park? If there's a runner on first, the batter is supposed to do something that moves that runner closer to home, not the dugout...and, if he grounds up the middle but a DP is turned because the 2B was cheating towards the bag, should we credit the batter with a hit because he would have gotten one if the bases were empty??

Its kind of odd because it seems you see my side on RBI but at the same time decide to look the exact opposite when it comes to GIDP. You seem to understand that RBI is flawed and a stat of opp yet to choose ignore that for GIDP.

[SABR Matt]

At the team level, GIDP helps explain run scoring, which means when you start translating down from the team level to the player level...if you want your RC estimator to predict run scoring, GIDPs have to be accounted for. I'm open to suggestions on how that should work...

Especially prior to the PBP era where we don't know who was on base when the GIDP was hit.

[digglahhh]

Ubiq, I totally get what you're saying, but let's extrapolate it further.

When there is nobody on, a hard grounder to the traditional four hole is a simple 43 groundout. However when the fielders are in double play depth that hard grounder might get through for a hit.

What I'm getting at here is that so many play results are situation specific, to varying degrees. The circumstances can be obvious and tangible like having runners on. They can be abstract but measurable like defensive shifts for situational purposes. Or, they can be invisible, like a 2B with a wicked hangover. You can only really take what did happen and not make qualifications for situation because that road is infinite. This is the primary limitation with many types of analysis, the nuances that just reading a PBP log does not tell you about.

This has been my point of contention on the Ks being no worse than other outs debate. By assuming that the K is the inevitable result of the at bat, you disconnect it with the skills that coincide with the ability to not strikeout. The batter strikes out and there is no context to that strikeout. Did he swing at a pitch out of the zone, did he miss a pitch he should have hit previously in the AB? What if that pitch is fouled off, or taken and the next pitch is a meatball that the batter could crush for a jack? In that sense, the K is compared only to other outs and not to all the other possible outcomes of the batter making contact or prolonging the AB.

But if you want to fit things neatly into a numerical paradigm, you are forced to ignore the more abstract considerations. I'm not attacking those paradigms right now, just pointing out a limitation that you must accept when accepting the K is no worse than any other out debate, or any of that sort.

[digglahhh]

I find it odd that this isn't a stat that is more widely kept/recognized. It's as basic as hits....


Yeah, me too.

I've gotten through to some of my friends who are reluctant to accept the Jose Reyes is a poor hitter because of OBP argument by using outs.

Even the simple stats like OBP, have a SABR-stigma to them which puts some people off. I found that I was able to convince them of the merits of OBP reigning supreme over BA by taking a reverse approach to OBP, and making them look at the reciprocal out % side of the equation.

When you tell them, listen, Jose Reyes made the most outs of anybody in baseball last year it hits them hard, they get it. But if you simply say his OBP is too low to be a good leadoff hitter regardless of his speed they say you're a stat geek with his head up his asymptote.

[digglahhh]

Well, he's still 79th alltime in PA despite all that, and his career spanned 4 decades. Just think about it- a .483 career OBP!!! True, he played in Fenway, but he also played through a long decline phase (age 42) in a strong league that wasn't particularly oriented towards offense (esp. in comparison to guys like Ruth).

Absolutely amazing he was able to sustain that kind of brillance.

One more,

I agree with this completely. Doesn't the merit of being like say top 40 in career hits diminish if you are in the top 20 in AB?

If you score higher on pure longevity stats like games played an ABs than you do in counting stats like hits and RBI, doesn't that mean something?.

Conversely, the more longevity stats you accumulate the more impressive high rate stats are.

Ted Williams is top is 95th all time in games played. He ranks better than 95th all time in R, H, TB, 2B, HR, RBI, BB, RC, XBH, TOB. He's in the top 20 in many of those. However he is not in the top 100 in Ks. Meanwhile in almost 2300 career games and prime time missing he ranks in the #1 or #2 all time in SLG, OBP, and thus OPS, as well as #7 in BA and #12 in AB/HR.

Utterly astounding!

[digglahhh]

Didn't notice the double post, sorry

[Ubiquitous]

Ubiq, I totally get what you're saying, but let's extrapolate it further.

When there is nobody on, a hard grounder to the traditional four hole is a simple 43 groundout. However when the fielders are in double play depth that hard grounder might get through for a hit.

What I'm getting at here is that so many play results are situation specific, to varying degrees. The circumstances can be obvious and tangible like having runners on. They can be abstract but measurable like defensive shifts for situational purposes. Or, they can be invisible, like a 2B with a wicked hangover. You can only really take what did happen and not make qualifications for situation because that road is infinite. This is the primary limitation with many types of analysis, the nuances that just reading a PBP log does not tell you about.

This has been my point of contention on the Ks being no worse than other outs debate. By assuming that the K is the inevitable result of the at bat, you disconnect it with the skills that coincide with the ability to not strikeout. The batter strikes out and there is no context to that strikeout. Did he swing at a pitch out of the zone, did he miss a pitch he should have hit previously in the AB? What if that pitch is fouled off, or taken and the next pitch is a meatball that the batter could crush for a jack? In that sense, the K is compared only to other outs and not to all the other possible outcomes of the batter making contact or prolonging the AB.

But if you want to fit things neatly into a numerical paradigm, you are forced to ignore the more abstract considerations. I'm not attacking those paradigms right now, just pointing out a limitation that you must accept when accepting the K is no worse than any other out debate, or any of that sort.


This isn't really about why an out was cause but how to score an out. FOr instance in your K example the same can be applied to any other kind of out. Was it a laser right at a fielder, did the RF'er jump over the wall to get it, was it a check swing dribbler, so on and so on? This is more about the flaw that is inherent in almost every system out there which is that virtually all offensive events are credit or blamed on the hitter. Everybody else is basically ignored. A man on first the hitter gets a single and scores the runner. As far as I know every single system gives credit for that action to the hitter. Nothing is given to the runner, no extra blame is placed on the fielders. Yet the runner most likely had a great deal to do with scoring on that play, and poor fielding execution might very well have helped too.

[hellborn]

Towards the hitter, and the hitter alone? So it isn't anybody elses fault or credit? The runner had nothing to do with it? As a team yes GIDP help explain run scoring. But how does it explain an individual?

I never said RBI are great stats or that one should credit Jim Rice for being a run producer simply because he had high RBI totals. I have the same beef with RBI that I do with GIDP.

Its kind of odd because it seems you see my side on RBI but at the same time decide to look the exact opposite when it comes to GIDP. You seem to understand that RBI is flawed and a stat of opp yet to choose ignore that for GIDP.
I agree that all basic stats have flaws in that they cannot account for the unique circumstances of each at bat and play, and that credit or blame for an event that is very complicated and can involve quite a few total players tends to be assigned to one player. Those who are blinded by stats use them without understanding...they really need to be used with a reasonable understanding of their limitations to be meaningful.
That being said, I think that RBI and GIDP are useful and give us insight into the abilities of a player, to some degree. If a batter comes to the plate with runners on, his job is to move them closer to or past home...if he ends up erasing some of them from the basepaths, that should be counted against him. If he has Ernie Lombardi on base for him at lot, his job is tougher and he may end up with more fielder's choices and GIDP along with fewer RBI, and that's not completely fair. Eliminating the unfairness in basic stats just gives us stats that are a lot more difficult to compile and understand. I enjoy reading about assessments of fielding value that involve analysis of every ball hit towards a player, but how can I really critique or totally understand the meaning of the assessment? Somebody I don't know decided a ball I didn't see should've been caught for a reason that isn't made clear? I suppose that the same thing is probably being done for hitters, and it might be interesting to see what the results are, but normal fans will still probably fall back on OPS, K/9, and chances/game to discuss things amongst themselves.

[digglahhh]

Good post Hellborn,

One specific thing type of thing that always gets me, is line drive percentage and stuff. They say, something like 75% of all line drives fall in for a hit. Well, I scored games play by play for MLB.com. I actually, I do a hybrid type scoring and proofreading the scoring of others that are at the park. I do several games at once from the office. So there are times when I'll have the game on TV and I'll score something a lineout to the LF, but the guy at the game will call it a flyout. Its rather subjective.

Also, when you think about connotation, it is easy to see why line drives are so frequently hits. Line drive has a more positive connotation than fly ball. So, when its a judgment call, you are probably more likely to score the batted ball as a line drive if it falls in for a hit, and score it a fly ball, if it is caught.

This is just a specific example of the type of thing Hellborn was noting, and there are many, many more. I've been ranting about the subjectivity and disingenousness of official scoring for some time already.