Strikeouts

[David]

I'd rather my hitter go up with the right approach, wait for a pitch to hit hard somewhere, and not swing if he doesn't get it. If he walks, he walks. If he hits it, it's up to the BABIP gods, and if he strikes out, he strikes out. It's about the approach.

 

You can't just say, "Oh, I'd rather have contact in this situation than a strikeout." Doesn't work that way. In my mind, that's not even the argument. There are obviously very specific situations where there is a definite advantage to making contact over striking out (i.e. home team, bot 9th, down one or, better yet, tied with a runner at 3rd and less than two outs). That's not the point, though.

 

The hitter just needs to have the right approach, everything else takes care of itself.

 

I think of offensive baseball strategy a lot like I think of poker. It may not be the best analogy, but my thought is 99% (not literally, but you get the idea) of the time, just play the percentages, take your pots over the long haul. That 1% where you've caught a fish and have him read perfectly, bluff and go ahead and reel him in.

[dalgreen]

What amazes me is some people who think strikeouts are overrated when their team is at the plate are enamored with strikeouts when their team is on defense.

 

I'm one who thinks the strikeout is one of the worst things to happen. The reason is because when you strikeout that immediately ends the at-bat. Even if you hit into what looks to be a double -play, the play is still in progress and an ifielder could boot it, make a bad throw to second, or a bad throw to first or you could beat it out. The question is when you're at the plate would you rather make contact (no matter what kind) or strikeout? At least with contact there's a chance of good things happening.

 

Question... is it really that much more likely (significant enough to make a noticable difference over the course of the whole season) that an infielder will committ an error on a DP ball than it is that a catcher will drop a third strike and the runner will make it to first?

 

I realize that errors aren't as rare as runners making it to first on a dropped 3rd strike, but both events are rare compared to the number of times these plays play out successfully.

 

I was using the double-play as one of a lot of possible examples.

 

Again, the better question is would you rather strikeout or make contact? Making contact could mean anything from a homer to popping out to the catcher. The point being (other than a dropped third strike) the strikeout ends the at-bat immediately. I think if you ask a pitcher, "Would you rather have this batter strikeout or make contact?", I'd bet they'd say strikeout because you know there is no way that batter gets on base (except for the very rare dropped third strike). Making contact and anything can happen. That's why I hate the strikeout because that at-bat is over and you have no way of reaching base.

[Caryatid]

What amazes me is some people who think strikeouts are overrated when their team is at the plate are enamored with strikeouts when their team is on defense.

 

I'm one who thinks the strikeout is one of the worst things to happen. The reason is because when you strikeout that immediately ends the at-bat. Even if you hit into what looks to be a double -play, the play is still in progress and an ifielder could boot it, make a bad throw to second, or a bad throw to first or you could beat it out. The question is when you're at the plate would you rather make contact (no matter what kind) or strikeout? At least with contact there's a chance of good things happening.

 

Question... is it really that much more likely (significant enough to make a noticable difference over the course of the whole season) that an infielder will committ an error on a DP ball than it is that a catcher will drop a third strike and the runner will make it to first?

 

I realize that errors aren't as rare as runners making it to first on a dropped 3rd strike, but both events are rare compared to the number of times these plays play out successfully.

 

I was using the double-play as one of a lot of possible examples.

 

Again, the better question is would you rather strikeout or make contact? Making contact could mean anything from a homer to popping out to the catcher. The point being (other than a dropped third strike) the strikeout ends the at-bat immediately. I think if you ask a pitcher, "Would you rather have this batter strikeout or make contact?", I'd bet they'd say strikeout because you know there is no way that batter gets on base (except for the very rare dropped third strike). Making contact and anything can happen. That's why I hate the strikeout because that at-bat is over and you have no way of reaching base.

 

The only way they make it on an error is if they happen to be in that <1.5% of the situations in which an error is made in MLB, so yes, making contact is better in roughly 1% of the situations in general.

 

If runners are on, simply asking the question "strikeout or contact" is really irrelevant, because there are about 85 follow up questions that need to be asked. Its a loaded question.

[David]

What amazes me is some people who think strikeouts are overrated when their team is at the plate are enamored with strikeouts when their team is on defense.

 

I'm one who thinks the strikeout is one of the worst things to happen. The reason is because when you strikeout that immediately ends the at-bat. Even if you hit into what looks to be a double -play, the play is still in progress and an ifielder could boot it, make a bad throw to second, or a bad throw to first or you could beat it out. The question is when you're at the plate would you rather make contact (no matter what kind) or strikeout? At least with contact there's a chance of good things happening.

 

Question... is it really that much more likely (significant enough to make a noticable difference over the course of the whole season) that an infielder will committ an error on a DP ball than it is that a catcher will drop a third strike and the runner will make it to first?

 

I realize that errors aren't as rare as runners making it to first on a dropped 3rd strike, but both events are rare compared to the number of times these plays play out successfully.

 

I was using the double-play as one of a lot of possible examples.

 

Again, the better question is would you rather strikeout or make contact? Making contact could mean anything from a homer to popping out to the catcher. The point being (other than a dropped third strike) the strikeout ends the at-bat immediately. I think if you ask a pitcher, "Would you rather have this batter strikeout or make contact?", I'd bet they'd say strikeout because you know there is no way that batter gets on base (except for the very rare dropped third strike). Making contact and anything can happen. That's why I hate the strikeout because that at-bat is over and you have no way of reaching base.

 

But I just gave a counterexample where a batter can reach base on a strikeout. That said, I have no preference between making contact or a strikeout. I'm more concerned with the approach the hitter is taking. If it's the right approach, the outcome means little to me, because, over time, the right process is the best way of ensuring consistently achieving the right outcome. If more strikeouts come as a result of the right approach, so be it. Outside of the most extreme specific cases, I don't want any hitter up there making contact for the sake of making contact. Ever.

[Derwood]

First, strikeouts ARE bad when you have a lineup that is coached to be overly aggressive. Striking out on balls out of the zone is extremely counterproductive in that it a) creates an out when there shouldn't have been one and b) the pitcher is throwing far fewer pitches.

 

As for the "runner on 3rd, less than 2 out" thing, that runner could score on:

 

- a base hit

- a passed ball

- a wild pitch

- a sac fly

- an error

- a fielder's choice

- a squeeze play

 

He will NOT score on:

 

- a strikeout

[Caryatid]

I think if you ask a pitcher, "Would you rather have this batter strikeout or make contact?", I'd bet they'd say strikeout because you know there is no way that batter gets on base (except for the very rare dropped third strike). Making contact and anything can happen. That's why I hate the strikeout because that at-bat is over and you have no way of reaching base.

 

So if you think that by asking a pitcher that question, you'll get a relevant answer, I believe its the equivalent of asking this: You have two players. One only struck out 47 times last year, the other struck out 168. That's the only information I'm giving you. Which one do you want?

 

Is that a fair question?

[Caryatid]

First, strikeouts ARE bad when you have a lineup that is coached to be overly aggressive. Striking out on balls out of the zone is extremely counterproductive in that it a) creates an out when there shouldn't have been one and b) the pitcher is throwing far fewer pitches.

 

As for the "runner on 3rd, less than 2 out" thing, that runner could score on:

 

- a base hit

- a passed ball

- a wild pitch

- a sac fly

- an error

- a fielder's choice

- a squeeze play

 

He will NOT score on:

 

- a strikeout

-a pop out

-a short fly out

-a foul out

-a double play

-a line out

-a ground out (depending on the defensive positioning)

-infield fly rule

-a botched squeeze play

-a fielder's choice (out at home)

 

 

There's so much more to the question of "contact vs. strikeout"...

[abuck1220]

What amazes me is some people who think strikeouts are overrated when their team is at the plate are enamored with strikeouts when their team is on defense.

 

 

as strange as it seems, it's true.

 

i'm not very good at explaining why...so maybe someone else can chime in.

[Derwood]

it's hard for me to believe that people are actively defending strikeouts on offense

[Caryatid]

it's hard for me to believe that people are actively defending strikeouts on offense

 

Nobody's defending strikeouts-the point is that the difference between a strikeout and any other type of out is virtually insignificant.

 

As I've written now four times, if two players are virtually identical in every facet of the game, take the guy who hits the ball. But picking a guy with a lower OBP/OPS/VORP simply because he "makes contact" is stupid. And its something this Cubs team has done over the last two years.

 

Jeez, this gets frustrating.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The strikeout argument is about scale.

 

On the big scale of evaluating a hitter's worth:

 

Strikeouts are bad, but they do not negate actual production. They make it harder to sustain that production, which is why they are important for minor leaguers and players without MLB track records.

 

On a small scale of situations:

 

Strikeouts are more debated as a matter of approach. There are very few situations worse than a strikeout in the situations being described. However, if you adjust your approach to consciously avoid strikeouts(and therefore make more contact) you sacrifice the ability to hit for extra bases. This means the difference in overall production isn't going to be very different. You may score a little more consistently avoiding strikeouts, but since the season is too short to always bear that out, and this approach is the opposite of what you want your hitters to do in other situations, I'd say that dealing with the strikeouts(and the XBH's that come with them) would be the best choice.

[Hacking Out Machine]

 

 

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.

 

Here are some numbers to support his statement.

 

Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring

Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol:

 

Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home.

 

 

The problem with being obsessed with avoiding the strikeout is when it's an overall strategy, not just an outcome of a certain scenario. When there is a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs, yeah, you want to make contact. But when you are so deathly afraid of striking out that you hack at the first pitch anywhere close to the plate just to "get it in play", you start to make outs at a breakneck pace. Instead of waiting for a pitch they can drive, weak hitters like the ones the Cubs seek out are so afraid of striking out that they hack at everything they can reach, resulting in weak contact, oftentimes early in the count. That's why we see starting pitchers throw complete games with 85 pitches thrown against the Cubs.

 

In my opinion, the anti-strikeout paranoia is one of the biggest problems the Cubs have. it's almost as if they assume death if they are called out on strikes.

 

Note that the Cubs as a team are among the toughest to strikeout in baseball. We see what dividends that has paid.

[dalgreen]

I think if you ask a pitcher, "Would you rather have this batter strikeout or make contact?", I'd bet they'd say strikeout because you know there is no way that batter gets on base (except for the very rare dropped third strike). Making contact and anything can happen. That's why I hate the strikeout because that at-bat is over and you have no way of reaching base.

 

So if you think that by asking a pitcher that question, you'll get a relevant answer, I believe its the equivalent of asking this: You have two players. One only struck out 47 times last year, the other struck out 168. That's the only information I'm giving you. Which one do you want?

 

Is that a fair question?

 

I love the discussion but I don't understand your question. My question is basically simple based on when a batter steps into the box there are two things that can happen-- get on base or not get on base. Striking out means 99.9999999% of the time you will not reach base. Making contact at least gives you a better chance of getting on base.

 

And, no, I don't want guys to make contact just for the sake of making contact, but with two strikes I do think hitters should choke up and just try to make contact in certain situations. I wonder with the bases loaded last night if Phil Nevin would've just tried to get on base instead of swinging for a non-game tying grand slam if he'd struck out? I don't know, but it would've been nice to have some kind of contact there --- again it could've been a double play, pop up on the infield, single, double, line out, sac fly, etc.

[Derwood]

Then there is Juan Pierre, who both strikes out a lot AND makes useless contact.

[dalgreen]

 

 

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.

 

Here are some numbers to support his statement.

 

Striking out with runner on 3rd = 0 % chance of runner scoring

Putting the ball into play with runner on 3rd = >0 % chance that runner will score from 3rd. :lol:

 

Prime example of a strikeout being worse than a regular vanilla out, was last night when Cedeno was batting with runners on 1st and 3rd and only 1 out. If Cedeno makes contact the worst thing that could happen to him is that he would ground into a double play and the inning is over. (Big deal the pitcher was coming up next) I'm sure most people would rather take the odds that Ronnie would either beat out a double play or get a SF than having him strikeout and leaving it up to Marshall to get the runner home.

 

 

The problem with being obsessed with avoiding the strikeout is when it's an overall strategy, not just an outcome of a certain scenario. When there is a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs, yeah, you want to make contact. But when you are so deathly afraid of striking out that you hack at the first pitch anywhere close to the plate just to "get it in play", you start to make outs at a breakneck pace. Instead of waiting for a pitch they can drive, weak hitters like the ones the Cubs seek out are so afraid of striking out that they hack at everything they can reach, resulting in weak contact, oftentimes early in the count. That's why we see starting pitchers throw complete games with 85 pitches thrown against the Cubs.

 

In my opinion, the anti-strikeout paranoia is one of the biggest problems the Cubs have. it's almost as if they assume death if they are called out on strikes.

 

Note that the Cubs as a team are among the toughest to strikeout in baseball. We see what dividends that has paid.

 

I think that's a good point, and it might just be semantics. I hate guys who have a bunch of strikeouts, but I want guys who don't strikout because they simply know how to hit and have a good approach at the plate. Give me a lineup full of David Ecksteins, Tony Gwynns, and Mark Graces any day. LOB due to strikeouts would be non-existent.

[dalgreen]

Then there is Juan Pierre, who both strikes out a lot AND makes useless contact.

 

That's what I don't get with him. Back in the day when he had some value, he was one of the toughest guys to strikeout. Other than just not being good, what happened?

[Caryatid]

I think if you ask a pitcher, "Would you rather have this batter strikeout or make contact?", I'd bet they'd say strikeout because you know there is no way that batter gets on base (except for the very rare dropped third strike). Making contact and anything can happen. That's why I hate the strikeout because that at-bat is over and you have no way of reaching base.

 

So if you think that by asking a pitcher that question, you'll get a relevant answer, I believe its the equivalent of asking this: You have two players. One only struck out 47 times last year, the other struck out 168. That's the only information I'm giving you. Which one do you want?

 

Is that a fair question?

 

I love the discussion but I don't understand your question. My question is basically simple based on when a batter steps into the box there are two things that can happen-- get on base or not get on base. Striking out means 99.9999999% of the time you will not reach base. Making contact at least gives you a better chance of getting on base.

 

And, no, I don't want guys to make contact just for the sake of making contact, but with two strikes I do think hitters should choke up and just try to make contact in certain situations. I wonder with the bases loaded last night if Phil Nevin would've just tried to get on base instead of swinging for a non-game tying grand slam if he'd struck out? I don't know, but it would've been nice to have some kind of contact there --- again it could've been a double play, pop up on the infield, single, double, line out, sac fly, etc.

 

I should clarify-the point is simply that the question of "do you want a hitter to make contact or strikeout?" without any followup is really a loaded question-of course you want the guy to make contact. However, its really an irrelevant question. I was just trying to point out that by simply asking a pitcher "contact or K", you're not really getting at the point of the larger issue of approach at the plate.

 

There is so much more to the situation-what kind of contact is it, how many pitches has he seen, what was the pitch like that he hit.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Then there is Juan Pierre, who both strikes out a lot AND makes useless contact.

 

That's what I don't get with him. Back in the day when he had some value, he was one of the toughest guys to strikeout. Other than just not being good, what happened?

 

How does your perception align with reality ?

 

So far, there have been 18 non-pitchers on our 25 man roster during the course of this season. Normalizing their strikeouts by AB's, you go from a maximum of 35.6% to a minumum of 7.3% K/ABs.

 

While Pierre is striking out at a somewhat higher rate than his career average, just where do you think he ranks within the 18 hitters we've used this year ?

[BigbadB]

Give me a lineup full of David Ecksteins, Tony Gwynns, and Mark Graces any day. LOB due to strikeouts would be non-existent.

 

That's basically what the Cubs have right now. A bunch of guys that don't strike out that much. Neifi Perez rarely strikes out.

 

The Reds have K'd 140 more times than the Cubs, and I'll take their offense over the Cubs all day long.

[dalgreen]

Give me a lineup full of David Ecksteins, Tony Gwynns, and Mark Graces any day. LOB due to strikeouts would be non-existent.

 

That's basically what the Cubs have right now. A bunch of guys that don't strike out that much. Neifi Perez rarely strikes out.

 

The Reds have K'd 140 more times than the Cubs, and I'll take their offense over the Cubs all day long.

 

I'd disagree. If we had the Ecksteins, Graces and Gwynns, we'd have a much better OBP and higher averages.

[gus_dog]

Watching the Astros hit Maddux in the 2nd inning tonight (06/14/2006) illustrates how nice it is to have contact hitters. One ball hit hard, the lead-off double, everything else was dribblers, and bunt, and a dink in to RF.

 

I'd take that approach.

[abuck1220]

Watching the Astros hit Maddux in the 2nd inning tonight (06/14/2006) illustrates how nice it is to have contact hitters. One ball hit hard, the lead-off double, everything else was dribblers, and bunt, and a dink in to RF.

 

I'd take that approach.

 

yeah, except nine times out of ten, dribblers and dinks aren't worth crap. i'd rather have strikeouts and extra base hits than no strikeouts with a bunch of bloops and slow rolling grounders.

[dalgreen]

Watching the Astros hit Maddux in the 2nd inning tonight (06/14/2006) illustrates how nice it is to have contact hitters. One ball hit hard, the lead-off double, everything else was dribblers, and bunt, and a dink in to RF.

 

I'd take that approach.

 

Don't forget it's also easy to be a contact hitter when Maddux is hanging breaking pitches all night. Of course, if he were pitching to the Cubs we'd swing over it.

[BigSlick]

Give me a lineup full of David Ecksteins, Tony Gwynns, and Mark Graces any day. LOB due to strikeouts would be non-existent.

 

That's basically what the Cubs have right now. A bunch of guys that don't strike out that much. Neifi Perez rarely strikes out.

 

The Reds have K'd 140 more times than the Cubs, and I'll take their offense over the Cubs all day long.

 

Preach it brutha!

[XZero771679666304]

Give me a lineup full of David Ecksteins, Tony Gwynns, and Mark Graces any day. LOB due to strikeouts would be non-existent.

 

That's basically what the Cubs have right now. A bunch of guys that don't strike out that much. Neifi Perez rarely strikes out.

 

The Reds have K'd 140 more times than the Cubs, and I'll take their offense over the Cubs all day long.

 

Preach it brutha!

 

True, but Gwynn and Grace could rake. We don't have any hitters of that caliber.