Strikeouts

[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!

 

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

 

I would say that striking out looking is better than striking out swinging, but thats a whole other argument.

 

The point is, being patient > being aggressive almost always.

 

And one part of being a patient hitter may have the side effect of higher K's....but a higher BABIP perhaps?

[BigbadB]

The Cubs also don't scout those kinds of players. They want toolsy guys, not guys who can hit really well.

 

The closest thing they have to a pure hitter like Gwynn and Grace is Murton, who they got from the Red Sox in a trade. What are they doing with Murton? Telling him he's too patient at the plate. What is this advice doing to his offensive production. Making him a below average outfielder.

[BigSlick]

The Cubs also don't scout those kinds of players. They want toolsy guys, not guys who can hit really well.

 

The closest thing they have to a pure hitter like Gwynn and Grace is Murton, who they got from the Red Sox in a trade. What are they doing with Murton? Telling him he's too patient at the plate. What is this advice doing to his offensive production. Making him a below average outfielder.

 

Aren't 2 of the tools being able to hit for average and hit for power?

[Guest]

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 ?

While Pierre is still making a lot of contact he's not connecting with pitches nearly as often as his days with Florida. In his time with the Marlins his contact percentage fluctuated between 93-95%. So far in 2006, however, it's "down" around 89%, though that's still one of the better contact ratios on the team. (Behind only a couple of guys with smaller sample sizes: Tony Womack and Angel Pagan.) Still, it's disturbing that Pierre is swinging and missing about twice as often as he has in past years.

 

As for the general reason why strikeouts are considered to be good for pitchers but not as bad for hitters, I think it's because of their relative importance to each of those camps. Hitters can do a lot of things to compensate for a high K rate and the reduced average that comes with it, from hitting with a lot of power to taking walks. In a addition, you'll actually find that there's a correlation for hitters between strikeouts, home runs, and walks. (In other words, the guys who strike out a lot tend to be the guys who hit a lot of home runs and take a bunch of walks. See Adam Dunn.) Pitchers, on the other hand, don't have a lot of positive things under their control other than the strikeout. If a pitcher can't K guys at a decent clip, about the only thing he can do to keep runs from scoring is keep the ball down and not walk any guys. Even then, however, there's a limit to how effective that pitcher will be because he's allowing a lot of balls in play, and for pitchers a fairly predictable number of those balls will find holes in the defense.

[Magnetic Curses]

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.

 

strikeouts are more important for pitchers than they are for hitters. however, ground balls are about even, they're equally as bad for hitters as they are good for pitchers.

 

while a strikeout eliminates the possibility of getting on base for a hitter AND pitcher, getting a strikeout for a pitcher also stretches him out.

 

some hitters strike out a lot, which might be a bad thing when looking at it alone. however, these hitters aren't afraid of striking out, which is a good thing. if you are so afraid of striking out that you'll beat sinkerballs into the ground again and again, you won't last long in the majors. despite what the fictitious manager told willie mays hayes in major league (which, unfortunately, many people draw much of their baseball knowledge from)--ground balls are worthless for everyone, even fast guys.

 

guys who strike a lot of guys out also throw more pitches, which is the drawback of being a strikeout pitcher, meaing more work for the bullpen and, ultimately less wins--ask kerry wood (who isn't very adept at getting ground balls).

 

i'm going to say this again: IN ORDER TO BE AN EFFECTIVE MAJOR LEAGUE HITTER, YOU ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE AFRAID TO STRIKE OUT!

 

which means taking called third strikes and letting a lot of pitcher's pitches go unswung at. strikeouts are simply a necessary sacrifice that must be made for the sake of driving the ball and getting on base. swing at you pitch, not a low, outside sinkerball that cannot be put in play effectively but might be a strike on this particular day. making a pitcher work harder to throw the perfect pitch will actually work in the hitter's favor, not only will it stretch the guy out, but it will cause him to mess up more often--you know, hang that perfect curveball or spin a juicy belt-high slider.

 

strikeouts aren't necessarily optimal for hitters, but baseball is a marathon, not a sprint, and must be treated as something that simply happens when you're trying to help your team win. and the more strikeouts, generally, the more walks and the higher SLG. that's a trade off that i'll take any day.

[imb]

Strikeouts are bad from a hitters perspective as far as the fact that all outs are bad. What people are saying is that from a numerical standpoint, striking out doesnt effect your numbers as a hitter any more than any other out. Over the course of 600 at bats, a strikeout is a popout is a groundout. Who is more valuable? The guy who strikes out a lot more than average and hits .260 or the guy who hits .300 and grounds out a lot more than average? Well, if the .260 hitting hacking machine walks a lot and hits for power (when he does make contact) while the .300 hitter doesn't walk (and doesnt strike out) but replaces those k's with groundouts because he's a groundball hitter without a lot of power, chances are, the guy with the strikeouts is worth more to your team.

 

You want your pitchers to strike everyone out because if you strike a guy out, he absolutely cannot hurt you via the walk/hit/homerun whatever. You don't neccessarily care if your batters strikeout because they still have another 600+ at bats over the course of the season to be valuable.

 

It's an issue of looking at each particular at-bat or looking at the big picture.