Strikeouts

[David]

I wish some (a lot of) people would stop overstating the importance of limiting strikeouts on offense. (And even conversely, of getting strikeouts as a pitcher). It's just not that big, and is probably one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to conventional baseball wisdom. An out is an out.

 

Sure, you can't advance a runner on it, but, assuming nobody is trying to steal, you also can't force an existing baserunner out on one.

 

It also has very little to do with plate discipline, IMHO. In fact, patient hitters will inherently strike out more.

 

Can we please stop talking about strikeouts when deriding a hitter? There are plenty of better things to look at.

[Bruno7481]

I wish some (a lot of) people would stop overstating the importance of limiting strikeouts on offense. (And even conversely, of getting strikeouts as a pitcher). It's just not that big, and is probably one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to conventional baseball wisdom. An out is an out.

 

Sure, you can't advance a runner on it, but, assuming nobody is trying to steal, you also can't force an existing baserunner out on one.

 

It also has very little to do with plate discipline, IMHO. In fact, patient hitters will inherently strike out more.

 

Can we please stop talking about strikeouts when deriding a hitter? There are plenty of better things to look at.

 

The frustration with strikeouts comes in the situation where you only need a little bit of contact to make something happen. That could a man on 3rd and less than two outs. Man on 2nd nobody out, 1st and 2nd, etc.

 

Remember a couple years back where the Cubs had this crazy streak of not scoring when they had the bases loaded? I think it was about two years ago. They would load the bases and end up not getting anyhting out if it, this happened about 4 or 5 times in a row.

 

I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

[David]

I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

 

I'm curious as to whether you've got anything to back this with? Not trying to be a smart ass, I'm honestly curious. I've heard differently...that for the most part, the positive effect of an advanced runner on contact is, on the whole, balanced out by the negative impact of a DP.

 

 

EDIT - for clarity

Edited June 14, 2006 by David

[Caryatid]

 

I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

 

Actually, the difference is negligible. And aside from that, its incomplete. Its NOT about making contact-its about making a specific type of contact in appropriate situations. Hitting the ball anywhere except 2B, 1B, or RF with a runner on 2nd and less than 2 outs is worthless. Hitting anything except a deep fly ball with a runner on 3rd/less than 2 outs is worthless. And futhermore, it creates the opportunity for more than 1 out.

 

To say "more times than not" is impossible to prove. There are no numbers to support that.

[Bruno7481]

I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

 

I'm curious as to whether you've got anything to back this with? Not trying to be a smart ass, I'm honestly curious. I've heard differently...that for the most part, the positive effect of a sacrifice is, on the whole, balanced out by the negative impact of a DP.

 

I'm not speaking strictly in terms of sacrifices. Hitting a groundball to the SS and scoring a runner from 3rd is an example. Grounding out to the rightside and advancing the runner to 3rd, etc. Sure sacrifices are included as well.

 

A double play isn't going to happen each and every time. When I say the positives of contact will outweigh the negatives I am simply saying that when you put the ball in play you creat an opportunity for success. Whether that be a hit, sacrifice, RBI, error, etc.

 

There is no benefit to a strikeout unless of course the ball gets by the catcher and you can advance.

[texascub]

I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

 

I don't think that is true; soft grounders to 2nd do nothing, and if there is a runner on first then there is usually a force out at 2nd and nothing is changed if the defense can't turn the DP. There are also shallow pop-ups and soft liners. I'm not much of a stat-head, but I'd be willing to be that as a whole our team's BABIP is very low.

[Bruno7481]

 

 

Hitting anything except a deep fly ball with a runner on 3rd/less than 2 outs is worthless. And futhermore, it creates the opportunity for more than 1 out.

 

To say "more times than not" is impossible to prove. There are no numbers to support that.

 

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well?

 

I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all.

 

Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out.

[David]

LOL I love how one screwed up Quote "code" is attributing a bunch of stuff to me that I didn't say. Keep putting words in my mouth guys. :)

[Bruno7481]

I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

 

I don't think that is true; soft grounders to 2nd do nothing, and if there is a runner on first then there is usually a force out at 2nd and nothing is changed if the defense can't turn the DP. There are also shallow pop-ups and soft liners. I'm not much of a stat-head, but I'd be willing to be that as a whole our team's BABIP is very low.

 

I'm not saying a putting the ball in play guarantees sucess. But it gives you a better chance than a strikeout. Thats it.

[Bruno7481]

LOL I love how one screwed up Quote "code" is attributing a bunch of stuff to me that I didn't say. Keep putting words in my mouth guys. :)

 

Whoops, my bad. That was me.

[David]

LOL I love how one screwed up Quote "code" is attributing a bunch of stuff to me that I didn't say. Keep putting words in my mouth guys. :)

 

Whoops, my bad. That was me.

 

Haha, actually, I think it started with Caryatid's post. But it's ok, I like his band.

[Caryatid]

 

 

Hitting anything except a deep fly ball with a runner on 3rd/less than 2 outs is worthless. And futhermore, it creates the opportunity for more than 1 out.

 

To say "more times than not" is impossible to prove. There are no numbers to support that.

 

Hitting a ground ball to 2B or SS, and sometimes even 3B and 1B wouldn't score the run as well?

 

I'd argue there are no numbers to support your side of the argument either. That is the beauty of it all.

 

Striking out guarantees you that no advance or runs can be scored. So, putting the ball in play gives you a better chance than striking out. Therefore, more times than not putting the ball in play will give you a better chance of success than striking out.

 

I'm not really trying to prove anything. I'm simply asking for the number to support your statement.

 

Putting the ball in play also, more times than not (as related to strikeouts) will lead to more than one out at a time.

[Caryatid]

Haha, actually, I think it started with Caryatid's post. But it's ok, I like his band.

 

Yep, that's was me. Sorry about that. Trying to avoid having 4/5 of my post be a quote.

[Caryatid]

I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

 

I don't think that is true; soft grounders to 2nd do nothing, and if there is a runner on first then there is usually a force out at 2nd and nothing is changed if the defense can't turn the DP. There are also shallow pop-ups and soft liners. I'm not much of a stat-head, but I'd be willing to be that as a whole our team's BABIP is very low.

 

I'm not saying a putting the ball in play guarantees sucess. But it gives you a better chance than a strikeout. Thats it.

 

 

I think the point others might be trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the benefit you get from a guy who "puts the ball in play" is minimal, and if his important stats (OBP, OPS, VORP, etc.) are bad compared to a player who might strike out more, then the value he brings in "putting the ball in play" is virtually meaningless.

 

If two players are completely equal in every way, and one strikes out more than the other-take the guy who hits the ball. However, that shouldn't be a determining factor when there are other, more relevant numbers that should be considered.

 

In a much simpler way-Its not what you do in the at bats in which you make an out, its the at bats where you don't make an out that really matter.

[Bruno7481]

I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

 

I don't think that is true; soft grounders to 2nd do nothing, and if there is a runner on first then there is usually a force out at 2nd and nothing is changed if the defense can't turn the DP. There are also shallow pop-ups and soft liners. I'm not much of a stat-head, but I'd be willing to be that as a whole our team's BABIP is very low.

 

I'm not saying a putting the ball in play guarantees sucess. But it gives you a better chance than a strikeout. Thats it.

 

 

I think the point others might be trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the benefit you get from a guy who "puts the ball in play" is minimal, and if his important stats (OBP, OPS, VORP, etc.) are bad compared to a player who might strike out more, then the value he brings in "putting the ball in play" is virtually meaningless.

 

If two players are completely equal in every way, and one strikes out more than the other-take the guy who hits the ball. However, that shouldn't be a determining factor when there are other, more relevant numbers that should be considered.

 

In a much simpler way-Its not what you do in the at bats in which you make an out, its the at bats where you don't make an out that really matter.

 

I see the side you are representing here. But its not like I'm trying to compare Freddy Bynum to Vlad. When you say, a "a guy who puts the ball in play", I'm not thinking of guys just like Pierre, or Neifi, guys who usually make contact but don't do a lot with the bat. I am applying this rational to the guys with the high OBP and OPS as well.

 

If the hitter is up in a situation that requires some contact, like the situation we have covered, I beleive that is more beneficial than a K.

[Caryatid]

I understand that an out is an out. True, making contact can result in a double play on occasion, that is part of the game. But more times than not making contact will produce a a more positive outcome than no contact at all.

 

I don't think that is true; soft grounders to 2nd do nothing, and if there is a runner on first then there is usually a force out at 2nd and nothing is changed if the defense can't turn the DP. There are also shallow pop-ups and soft liners. I'm not much of a stat-head, but I'd be willing to be that as a whole our team's BABIP is very low.

 

I'm not saying a putting the ball in play guarantees sucess. But it gives you a better chance than a strikeout. Thats it.

 

 

I think the point others might be trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the benefit you get from a guy who "puts the ball in play" is minimal, and if his important stats (OBP, OPS, VORP, etc.) are bad compared to a player who might strike out more, then the value he brings in "putting the ball in play" is virtually meaningless.

 

If two players are completely equal in every way, and one strikes out more than the other-take the guy who hits the ball. However, that shouldn't be a determining factor when there are other, more relevant numbers that should be considered.

 

In a much simpler way-Its not what you do in the at bats in which you make an out, its the at bats where you don't make an out that really matter.

 

I see the side you are representing here. But its not like I'm trying to compare Freddy Bynum to Vlad. When you say, a "a guy who puts the ball in play", I'm not thinking of guys just like Pierre, or Neifi, guys who usually make contact but don't do a lot with the bat. I am applying this rational to the guys with the high OBP and OPS as well.

 

If the hitter is up in a situation that requires some contact, like the situation we have covered, I beleive that is more beneficial than a K.

 

I don't disagree with that, given the situation that you describe. However, when looking at overall performance, the Cubs have routinely valued "put the ball in play" over other stats (like OBP) over the last two years, and given the number of times the situation you described comes up against the value of OBP, I'll take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200 Ks over a guy with a .310 OBP and 100 Ks every day of the week.

[David]

I don't disagree with that, given the situation that you describe. However, when looking at overall performance, the Cubs have routinely valued "put the ball in play" over other stats (like OBP) over the last two years, and given the number of times the situation you described comes up against the value of OBP, I'll take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200 Ks over a guy with a .310 OBP and 100 Ks every day of the week.

 

To further emphasize the point of how insignificant the K total is compared to the OBP, I'd take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200K's over a guy with a .380 (just throwing a number out there) OBP and 100K's.

[texascub]

Bruno, I can see where you're coming from but most of our hitters have no clue at the plate so striking out right now is just as good, if not better than, making contact. If our players went up there looking for good pitches to hit and just trying to go with them, I'd be thrilled but that isn't the case. Almost every single player on the roster swings early and often, and when they get down in the count they give up; they don't shorten their swing and try to go with the pitch. I'm sick and tired of watching our hitters give in and roll over a pitch on the outside corner which usually ends up with more negative effects than possitive effects.

 

Also, hitting balls to the right side to more a runner over and that kind of stuff is a great mentality but you've got to get runners on base and in scoring position for that to work in most cases. Since the Cubs can't even get men on base, it is a moot point atleast for the time being.

[BigbadB]

I don't disagree with that, given the situation that you describe. However, when looking at overall performance, the Cubs have routinely valued "put the ball in play" over other stats (like OBP) over the last two years, and given the number of times the situation you described comes up against the value of OBP, I'll take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200 Ks over a guy with a .310 OBP and 100 Ks every day of the week.

 

Agreed. The strike out also prevents runners on base from being removed from the bases (except in hit and run situations or maybe a runner just attempting to steal, I suppose), but

an out that involves contact could create a double play, a triple play, a force out of the lead runner on base and gunning down a runner attempting to take an extra base.

 

The Cubs were one of the league leaders in K's a few years back, and they also scored runs much better than they do now, and they really don't strike out much anymore.

 

The problem with this team isn't that they don't strike out enough or make contact with the ball, it's that most of them aren't very good hitters.

[texascub]

I don't disagree with that, given the situation that you describe. However, when looking at overall performance, the Cubs have routinely valued "put the ball in play" over other stats (like OBP) over the last two years, and given the number of times the situation you described comes up against the value of OBP, I'll take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200 Ks over a guy with a .310 OBP and 100 Ks every day of the week.

 

To further emphasize the point of how insignificant the K total is compared to the OBP, I'd take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200K's over a guy with a .380 (just throwing a number out there) OBP and 100K's.

 

A hitter would never be able to sustain a .400 OBP and strikeout 200 times, his BABIP would be so insanely high I'd be very surprised if it ever happened. An average player will get between 500-600AB's per year so if he's striking out 1/2-1/3 of the time he'd have to have around 200 hits a year to maintain that OBP assuming that he doesn't walk or get walked very often.

[KaiserCesar]

I think the strikeout stat for hitters is solely useful for evaluating young talent and how easily these players will adjust to higher levels of play. If they strike out more, it will be much more difficult to make consistent contact when the competition gets better. But if a player is striking out in the majors, but also producing there is no further level to worry about. The whole productive outs way of thinking is insignificant in relation to raw production.

[BigSlick]

I don't disagree with that, given the situation that you describe. However, when looking at overall performance, the Cubs have routinely valued "put the ball in play" over other stats (like OBP) over the last two years, and given the number of times the situation you described comes up against the value of OBP, I'll take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200 Ks over a guy with a .310 OBP and 100 Ks every day of the week.

 

To further emphasize the point of how insignificant the K total is compared to the OBP, I'd take a guy with a .400 OBP and 200K's over a guy with a .380 (just throwing a number out there) OBP and 100K's.

 

A hitter would never be able to sustain a .400 OBP and strikeout 200 times, his BABIP would be so insanely high I'd be very surprised if it ever happened. An average player will get between 500-600AB's per year so if he's striking out 1/2-1/3 of the time he'd have to have around 200 hits a year to maintain that OBP assuming that he doesn't walk or get walked very often.

 

You realize that Adam Dunn routinely does what you think is impossible?

 

 

2002 Cincinnati Reds MLB 22 Cin MLB 158 535 84 133 28 2 26 71 19 9 128 170 9 13 1 3 8 .249 .400 .454 854

2003 Cincinnati Reds MLB 23 Cin MLB 116 381 70 82 12 1 27 57 8 2 74 126 10 8 0 4 4 .215 .354 .465 819

2004 Cincinnati Reds MLB 24 Cin MLB 161 568 105 151 34 0 46 102 6 1 108 195 5 11 0 0 8 .266 .388 .569 957

2005 Cincinnati Reds MLB 25 Cin MLB 160 543 107 134 35 2 40 101 4 2 114 168 12 14 0 2 6 .247 .387 .540 927

 

.388 OBP and 195 strikes out in 2004. Certainly not far enough from .400 and 200.

Edited June 14, 2006 by BigSlick

[BigbadB]

That's not true, but he's not that far off from doing it. He's reached 195 K's in a season, and he's had an OBP over .400, but it wasn't in the same season.

 

But, if there was a guy that could probably do it, Dunn is probably the most likely.

[BigSlick]

That's not true, but he's not that far off from doing it. He's reached 195 K's in a season, and he's had an OBP over .400, but it wasn't in the same season.

 

But, if there was a guy that could probably do it, Dunn is probably the most likely.

Heh, i'm already ahead of you there buddy.

[texascub]

He also gets walked routinely over 100 times a year; notice that towards the end of my post I added the disclaimer "assuming he doesn't walk or get walked very often".