Strikeouts ain't that bad

Wondo

FrankHardy brought up an interesting point in his three-way-race-for-NL-MVP thread. One of the reasons Pujols might have an advantage over Howard is that Howard strikes out 3-4 times as frequently as Pujols. But, I was under the impression that K's are not different than any other out. Take into the effect of Hit into Double Plays and using extra outs.

Bill James did a study on this recently (I'll have to dig it up) and concluded the above. If you look at any of the grand formulae for player ranking, I don't think any one of them factor in strikeouts.

Comments?

mikeschmidt

Strikeouts don't both me when someone is hitting .315.

If it were a Dave Kingmore or some other .250 hitter that had either struck out or hit a homer at every plate appearance, that would be a different matter.

ziggy29

<< <i>If it were a Dave Kingmore or some other .250 hitter that had either struck out or hit a homer at every plate appearance, that would be a different matter. >>

If a guy hit .250 and either struck out or homered at every plate appearance, that means he homers once for every four plate appearances. You bet your boots I'd want him in the lineup even if he did strike out 75% of the time.

WinPitcher

that K's are not different than any other out.


I disagree, with a ground out you could move runners up and even drive a run in. same thing with a flyball out.

they are only the same in the sense that an out is an out.

Steve

ziggy29

<< <i>I disagree, with a ground out you could move runners up and even drive a run in. same thing with a flyball out. >>

Of course, that's partially offset by the fact that putting the ball in play puts you more at risk of making TWO outs with one swing of the bat through grounding into a DP.

Skinpinch

Unless a hitter saves an unproportional amount of his k's with a man on third and less than two outs, then strikeouts vs. contact outs has a minimal offensive difference. For every 100 strikeouts, that equates to about 3 runs in the negative. THat is the value of about two 'average' home runs. Strikeouts do make a difference, but not near the degree fans perceive.

A batter simply does not move runners from first to second, or second to third that often on contact outs. As was mentioned, the addition of more double plays(from more contact), simply negates most of the contact value.

None of this is mystery or hypothesis. Every single at bat is logged and can be checked(and has been checked many times).

WinPitcher

Skip I agree with you too. However a groundout has more value then a strikeout and that was the point I was trying to make. regardless of how small it actually may be. games can be won by moving runners along, games are not won by striking out.


Steve

the original quote:

impression that K's are not different than any other out.

Skinpinch

Steve, agreed. In fact, that three runs per 100 strikeouts is an average. The impact in close/late games is most likely greater than that.

Wondo

<< <i>Skip I agree with you too. However a groundout has more value then a strikeout and that was the point I was trying to make. regardless of how small it actually may be. games can be won by moving runners along, games are not won by striking out.


Steve

the original quote:

impression that K's are not different than any other out. >>




WinPitcher,

I agree that games are not won by striking out, but neither are they lost. Hitting into an inning or game ending double play loses games.

WinPitcher

Wondo,

I disagree, what about the other 25 outs? did you mean to say that hitting into a dbl play can end games? for that matter a game ending strikeout accomplishes the same thing. the bottom line is that putting the ball into play has more value then striking out. I learned that in LL.


Steve

DirtyHarry

I hear both sides, but agree with Steve. More things happen when you can put the bat on the ball versus when you whiff. There is an art to moving runners up, hitting to the right side of the infield, sac flies, etc....that whiff artists cannot serve.

Wondo

<< <i>I hear both sides, but agree with Steve. More things happen when you can put the bat on the ball versus when you whiff. There is an art to moving runners up, hitting to the right side of the infield, sac flies, etc....that whiff artists cannot serve. >>




Guys,

I think that is another baseball myth along with clutch hitting and hitting better with someone decent behind you.

Boopotts

<< <i>

<< <i>I hear both sides, but agree with Steve. More things happen when you can put the bat on the ball versus when you whiff. There is an art to moving runners up, hitting to the right side of the infield, sac flies, etc....that whiff artists cannot serve. >>




Guys,

I think that is another baseball myth along with clutch hitting and hitting better with someone decent behind you. >>




Wha? Unless I'm misreading it CAN'T be a myth. Nothing good can come from a strikeout. When you hit the ball, however, good things can and do happen (errors and so forth).

grote15

Wha? Unless I'm misreading it CAN'T be a myth. Nothing good can come from a strikeout. When you hit the ball, however, good things can and do happen (errors and so forth).

I agree. While it may be true that hitting into a double play can be worse than striking out, a team has ZERO chance of doing anything productive if a guy whiffs. And, even hitting into a double play can score a run. Making contact is one of the most fundamental elements of hitting and it's that way for a reason. Statistics, on the other hand, can always be manipulated to advance your point of view whatever it may be.

ToppsCo1lector

Look at Wang from the Yankees. He does just fine with a low strikeout per 9 ratio.