Jays Centre: are strikeouts really that bad?

[Hot Sauce]

10 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Even if we take situations out, a strikeout is certainly not worse than a hitter feebly putting a ball in play on a pitch out of the zone. Who cares if they made contact and put the ball in play; it was a pitch that shouldn't have been swung at and had a negative outcome on the team. Should the player be celebrated for doing a poor job?

Players like PCA can beat the throw to first on a feebly hit ball like that. 

[chopsx9]

I guess I think my issue is with the initial assumption that an out is made. Sure, if you are presupposing that an out is GOING to be made than the differential between what kind of out it is diminishes.  In the article it talks about a SO out with nobody on base being the same as any other out.  However what is the  expectancy of getting on base when the ball is put in play.  I'm not going to look it up but its greater than 0.  So cherry picking the worst outcome of putting the ball in play and equating it to best possible outcome of a SO - not hitting into a double play - doesn't really seem all that meaningful, no?  

 

 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

52 minutes ago, chopsx9 said:

I guess I think my issue is with the initial assumption that an out is made. Sure, if you are presupposing that an out is GOING to be made than the differential between what kind of out it is diminishes.  In the article it talks about a SO out with nobody on base being the same as any other out.  However what is the  expectancy of getting on base when the ball is put in play.  I'm not going to look it up but its greater than 0.  So cherry picking the worst outcome of putting the ball in play and equating it to best possible outcome of a SO - not hitting into a double play - doesn't really seem all that meaningful, no?  

This is on the right track but you have to zoom out even more to see how things swing back the other way.  Strikeout rate is a byproduct of approach at the plate.  So the question is not about that single at bat, "would you rather have a K or a ball in play/out in play".  It's are you better off with the good things that the approach that generates more Ks gives you.  

As an extreme example, if you were in the same situation 5 times and went HR, HR, HR, HR, K with one approach, and GO, GO, GO, GO, 1B with another, we would never say the second one was better just because it avoided strikeouts/unproductive outs.  In practice, higher K rate is associated with doing more damage when you are not striking out, so the idea that K's are bad because they remove the chance of something good happening is incomplete.  This doesn't mean more K's are always better, but that you have to look at the totality of production instead of putting a microscope on the bad outcome when it happens.

[Hot Sauce]

Imagine for a moment that strikeouts are like the wise sages of the diamond. They’re not just failures. They’re lessons in disguise. As Socrates might have said if he were a baseball fan, “I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think about their batting stance.” What if strikeouts are actually our mentors? Teaching us patience, resilience, and the discipline of not swinging at every pitch thrown our way. After all, it’s not just about the runs scored, but the bonds we build in those moments of defeat, because what if strikeouts aren’t bad? What if the strikeouts are the friends we make along the way?

Edited March 6, 2025 by Hot Sauce

[thawv]

21 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Even if we take situations out, a strikeout is certainly not worse than a hitter feebly putting a ball in play on a pitch out of the zone. Who cares if they made contact and put the ball in play; it was a pitch that shouldn't have been swung at and had a negative outcome on the team. Should the player be celebrated for doing a poor job?

Yes, putting a weak ball in play is better than striking out.  Celebrated???  What?

[Backtobanks]

7 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

This is on the right track but you have to zoom out even more to see how things swing back the other way.  Strikeout rate is a byproduct of approach at the plate.  So the question is not about that single at bat, "would you rather have a K or a ball in play/out in play".  It's are you better off with the good things that the approach that generates more Ks gives you.  

As an extreme example, if you were in the same situation 5 times and went HR, HR, HR, HR, K with one approach, and GO, GO, GO, GO, 1B with another, we would never say the second one was better just because it avoided strikeouts/unproductive outs.  In practice, higher K rate is associated with doing more damage when you are not striking out, so the idea that K's are bad because they remove the chance of something good happening is incomplete.  This doesn't mean more K's are always better, but that you have to look at the totality of production instead of putting a microscope on the bad outcome when it happens.

That example is so extreme that it's ridiculous.  Of course nobody is going to that the second example is better because you avoided strikeouts, but what about using an example where one player is getting a 1B ,FO, GO, 2B, FO while the other is getting 1B, K, K, 2B, K.  They both got 2 hits in 5 AB, but I would rather have the first player.  

[Jason Ross]

1 hour ago, Backtobanks said:

That example is so extreme that it's ridiculous.  Of course nobody is going to that the second example is better because you avoided strikeouts, but what about using an example where one player is getting a 1B ,FO, GO, 2B, FO while the other is getting 1B, K, K, 2B, K.  They both got 2 hits in 5 AB, but I would rather have the first player.  

While I agree, TT's is extreme (it was meant to be, that's not a knock on him), the example you have given is just as anecdotal.

The reality is this: time and time again baseball analysis comes back to the concept that home run rate and strikeout rate are tied at the hip. A five PA outcome sample size tells us nothing. It's a game's worth of outcomes and it's what the issue with this discussion comes from. People who look at this as a "a strikeout is bad" are (generally - I don't want to pigeon hole anyone) looking from a micro level, PA to PA. "Well if Player X hits the ball in the field of play then maybe..." is usually the defense. Looking at how you have framed it, you're looking at it from a game's worth of PA's. It's at the micro level. For example, if in the sixth PA, Player 1 hits a HR and player 2 hits a single, Player 1 is now the far, far, far more successful player at run creation. We can also suggest that Player 2 may have hit into a double play within there, which also throws the data off. It's the issue with looking at it from such a small and narrow lens.

The problem is that it is not a micro discussion, but a discussion at the macro level.  When we zoom out further than a single PA, more than a curated five PA sample, the data says "strikeouts aren't a detractor in run scoring". We have to move past the micro here. It's easy to find examples of the micro - they're very anecdotal. But as we zoom out, we add more and more outcomes, the data stabilizes and doesn't allow a single PA to throw off the sample set.

And because home runs are tied to strikeouts, we have to get to that big picture discussion so as not to grasp to this concept that "maybe the short stop will mess up" as a defense, but that hitters who strike out are attempting to trade that very small chance that an MLB defender will mess up, for a guaranteed run scoring play at a later time. There are 100% break points (it's why contact rate and strike out rate matter) to this data, but it doesn't mean that we should once again bore down to a micro discussion of strikeouts, either.

[squally1313]

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The reality is this: time and time again baseball analysis comes back to the concept that home run rate and strikeout rate are tied at the hip.

For conversations sake....is that causation or correlation? Like, the counter there is that more strike outs doesn't necessarily lead to more home runs, but that players with a high strike out rate but lack of corresponding power just don't make it to the majors. Not to use the dreaded sample size of 5 again, but the average K rate last year, league wise, was 22.6%, and the top 5 guys in HRs ran K rates of 24.3%, 22.2%, 19.4%, 16.7%, and 24.7% (and to head off any accusations of cherry picking, the 6th guy was 12%). Like, there's a chance it's more 'we tolerate high strike outs if/when it comes with a maybe/maybe not associated power skill', right?

[Jason Ross]

21 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

For conversations sake....is that causation or correlation? Like, the counter there is that more strike outs doesn't necessarily lead to more home runs, but that players with a high strike out rate but lack of corresponding power just don't make it to the majors. Not to use the dreaded sample size of 5 again, but the average K rate last year, league wise, was 22.6%, and the top 5 guys in HRs ran K rates of 24.3%, 22.2%, 19.4%, 16.7%, and 24.7% (and to head off any accusations of cherry picking, the 6th guy was 12%). Like, there's a chance it's more 'we tolerate high strike outs if/when it comes with a maybe/maybe not associated power skill', right?

I think it's a correlation. Using the top-5 is fine, but I think we also have to recognize that the top-5 guys who hit home runs last include Soto, Ohtani and Judge - these are freaks who will end up in a special place in baseball history. I think there's a bit of a "self fulfilling prophecy" there - they do special things and probably have a unique ability to hit a lot of home runs in ways others don't. It's why, again, I think we need to look macro. 

Here's a pretty insane study, and I'll admit, I don't think I'm smart enough to understand every piece of data in it - my true trade is a 7th and 8th grade history teacher and not a statistician. There's some crazy data charts that look like garble to me. But I do understand the words of it. The study finds that essentially, for every six strikeouts, home runs increase by 4.14. Below is a nice visualization. This is data from 1950+ on. So it's massively macro.

Now, I would like to also suggest to your original point, the study does point to the idea that home runs and strikeout rates don't always go together - Soto and Ohtani clearly show that. But again, it's why I think a real macro look is important here. Because I think it really matters for the not-top players who are using that home run power to really be a useful player. Like Ezeqiel Tovar and his sub 4% walk rate is likely really being propped up by selling out for power. He was still 5% worse than MLB average, but I think a Tovar who decided to hit more baseballs probably is a worse hitter than Tovar who gives up some strikeouts for home runs. 

[squally1313]

14 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think it's a correlation. Using the top-5 is fine, but I think we also have to recognize that the top-5 guys who hit home runs last include Soto, Ohtani and Judge - these are freaks who will end up in a special place in baseball history. I think there's a bit of a "self fulfilling prophecy" there - they do special things and probably have a unique ability to hit a lot of home runs in ways others don't. It's why, again, I think we need to look macro. 

Here's a pretty insane study, and I'll admit, I don't think I'm smart enough to understand every piece of data in it - my true trade is a 7th and 8th grade history teacher and not a statistician. There's some crazy data charts that look like garble to me. But I do understand the words of it. The study finds that essentially, for every six strikeouts, home runs increase by 4.14. Below is a nice visualization. This is data from 1950+ on. So it's massively macro.

Now, I would like to also suggest to your original point, the study does point to the idea that home runs and strikeout rates don't always go together - Soto and Ohtani clearly show that. But again, it's why I think a real macro look is important here. Because I think it really matters for the not-top players who are using that home run power to really be a useful player. Like Ezeqiel Tovar and his sub 4% walk rate is likely really being propped up by selling out for power. He was still 5% worse than MLB average, but I think a Tovar who decided to hit more baseballs probably is a worse hitter than Tovar who gives up some strikeouts for home runs. 

Appreciate all this, and also appreciate that I'm probably trying to counter an argument that you/the original article wasn't even making. Agree from a pure output/run production perspective that Ks don't hurt you materially more than a ball in play out, there's all the data in the world to show that. Just don't know if I'm as bought in on this 'selling out for power' thing, or that like, 'being good at home runs' and 'being good at not striking out' are the two ends of the spectrum. The players that make the majors, which are the players we're basing this data off of, have been filtered through about 15 different layers of cuts, and every time, on the fringe cases, someone decided that their power skill made up for their K issue. It's just the population you end up with. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

3 hours ago, Backtobanks said:

That example is so extreme that it's ridiculous.  Of course nobody is going to that the second example is better because you avoided strikeouts, but what about using an example where one player is getting a 1B ,FO, GO, 2B, FO while the other is getting 1B, K, K, 2B, K.  They both got 2 hits in 5 AB, but I would rather have the first player.  

Of course you would rather have that first one, there's no difference in the upside, which is the entire point!  An actual more grounded example of this dynamic would be something like 1B, HR, K, K, GO vs. 1B, 1B, GO, GO, K.

[Jason Ross]

13 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

Appreciate all this, and also appreciate that I'm probably trying to counter an argument that you/the original article wasn't even making. Agree from a pure output/run production perspective that Ks don't hurt you materially more than a ball in play out, there's all the data in the world to show that. Just don't know if I'm as bought in on this 'selling out for power' thing, or that like, 'being good at home runs' and 'being good at not striking out' are the two ends of the spectrum. The players that make the majors, which are the players we're basing this data off of, have been filtered through about 15 different layers of cuts, and every time, on the fringe cases, someone decided that their power skill made up for their K issue. It's just the population you end up with. 

I think it's fair to point out those filters, discussing this at an MLB level does give us the best of the best. But I think that is countered by two things:

1. This trend isn't new. It's a trend we can trace back, using the chart and study, since 1950. It's a concept we have seen for a while.

2. We have seen a massive statistical and analytical revolution in baseball which dates back to Tom Tango and Bill James and has been implemented at MLB FO's over the course of 25 years - teams are finding every inch to improve run scoring. If teams didn't think, using their mountains of data and analysis that this wasn't a thing, we'd probably not see increased hitters striking out. I respect that part of this is an appeal to authority, but I also think in the case of the people who are running MLB teams, that they kind of demand that authority right now. In the nicest possible way, the nerds are running the MLB right now and the strikeouts aren't going down. 

You can think of it another way - in sports like basketball, we're seeing teams more and more shoot threes. That the risk of missing more shots is offset by the guarantee of more points. In the NFL, teams are more and more going for it on fourth down, as teams realize that the risk of not getting the fourth is being offset by scoring more and controlling the ball longer. Baseball is seeing a similar version of this - the risk of striking out (and not putting the ball in play and generating an error) is offset by the guaranteed runs scored. 

[CubinNY]

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think it's a correlation. Using the top-5 is fine, but I think we also have to recognize that the top-5 guys who hit home runs last include Soto, Ohtani and Judge - these are freaks who will end up in a special place in baseball history. I think there's a bit of a "self fulfilling prophecy" there - they do special things and probably have a unique ability to hit a lot of home runs in ways others don't. It's why, again, I think we need to look macro. 

Here's a pretty insane study, and I'll admit, I don't think I'm smart enough to understand every piece of data in it - my true trade is a 7th and 8th grade history teacher and not a statistician. There's some crazy data charts that look like garble to me. But I do understand the words of it. The study finds that essentially, for every six strikeouts, home runs increase by 4.14. Below is a nice visualization. This is data from 1950+ on. So it's massively macro.

Now, I would like to also suggest to your original point, the study does point to the idea that home runs and strikeout rates don't always go together - Soto and Ohtani clearly show that. But again, it's why I think a real macro look is important here. Because I think it really matters for the not-top players who are using that home run power to really be a useful player. Like Ezeqiel Tovar and his sub 4% walk rate is likely really being propped up by selling out for power. He was still 5% worse than MLB average, but I think a Tovar who decided to hit more baseballs probably is a worse hitter than Tovar who gives up some strikeouts for home runs. 

That's not a really good curve fit (correlation) but it shows a positive relationship.

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think it's fair to point out those filters, discussing this at an MLB level does give us the best of the best. But I think that is countered by two things:

1. This trend isn't new. It's a trend we can trace back, using the chart and study, since 1950. It's a concept we have seen for a while.

2. We have seen a massive statistical and analytical revolution in baseball which dates back to Tom Tango and Bill James and has been implemented at MLB FO's over the course of 25 years - teams are finding every inch to improve run scoring. If teams didn't think, using their mountains of data and analysis that this wasn't a thing, we'd probably not see increased hitters striking out. I respect that part of this is an appeal to authority, but I also think in the case of the people who are running MLB teams, that they kind of demand that authority right now. In the nicest possible way, the nerds are running the MLB right now and the strikeouts aren't going down. 

You can think of it another way - in sports like basketball, we're seeing teams more and more shoot threes. That the risk of missing more shots is offset by the guarantee of more points. In the NFL, teams are more and more going for it on fourth down, as teams realize that the risk of not getting the fourth is being offset by scoring more and controlling the ball longer. Baseball is seeing a similar version of this - the risk of striking out (and not putting the ball in play and generating an error) is offset by the guaranteed runs scored. 

The tough thing with any analysis about strikeouts is the velocity/stuff explosion has been happening concurrently.  How much of the increase in K's is batters and how much is pitchers?  The average fastball has gone up 1.5 MPH in the pitch tracking era (since 2008).

The top end has gotten even crazier.  Matt Lindstrom had the highest velo in the league (minimum 50 IP) in '08 at 97.8.  Last year 22 guys averaged at least that hard, including a handful of SPs.  3 guys averaged over 100!

[Jason Ross]

12 minutes ago, Bertz said:

The tough thing with any analysis about strikeouts is the velocity/stuff explosion has been happening concurrently.  How much of the increase in K's is batters and how much is pitchers?  The average fastball has gone up 1.5 MPH in the pitch tracking era (since 2008).

The top end has gotten even crazier.  Matt Lindstrom had the highest velo in the league (minimum 50 IP) in '08 at 97.8.  Last year 22 guys averaged at least that hard, including a handful of SPs.  3 guys averaged over 100!

Yes. I do think the velocity thing probably factors into here. I had another study I was about to post (sorry, got sidetracked with an Instant Analysis on the Breakout Roster being announced so I had to go write that up) from Rocky Mountain SABR which also explored that.

It's probably nearly impossible to remove the two at this stage, but I also think that's not necessarily something that detracts from the overall argument, because I think as velocity increases, the need to hit home runs also increases. The idea of stringing three hits together against guys with the stuff they have today feels more daunting than ever. It likely means that with that stuff strikeouts are raising, but I think it also means the necessity to hit home runs is more important than ever. If you can't rely on getting four hits an inning, then getting a walk and a home run is probably worth the strikeouts you give up. 

[chopsx9]

18 hours ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

This is on the right track but you have to zoom out even more to see how things swing back the other way.  Strikeout rate is a byproduct of approach at the plate. 

But you are assuming only players trying to hit home runs  strike out AND that the players striking out will eventually hit enough HRs to justify their SOs.  Non - home run hitters strike out all the time.  Zack Geloff struck out 188 times and hit 18 home runs.  Ryan Mcmahon and O'neil Cruz had similar numbers. Hell Jacob Young struck out 102 times and hit 3 HRs. Obviously an extreme but go back to pitchers hitting - how many HRs did they hit.  Even if you want to say that SOs are an acceptable trade off for hitting home runs - and I'm not arguing that they can't be - it doesn't apply to every hitter.  It also doesn't take away the negativity of a SO.  It wouldn't have to be qualified an "acceptable tradeoff" otherwise.

[Bertz]

6 minutes ago, chopsx9 said:

But you are assuming only players trying to hit home runs  strike out AND that the players striking out will eventually hit enough HRs to justify their SOs.  Non - home run hitters strike out all the time.  Zack Geloff struck out 188 times and hit 18 home runs.  Ryan Mcmahon and O'neil Cruz had similar numbers. Hell Jacob Young struck out 102 times and hit 3 HRs. Obviously an extreme but go back to pitchers hitting - how many HRs did they hit.  Even if you want to say that SOs are an acceptable trade off for hitting home runs - and I'm not arguing that they can't be - it doesn't apply to every hitter.  It also doesn't take away the negativity of a SO.  It wouldn't have to be qualified an "acceptable tradeoff" otherwise.

I think mainly there's just no free lunch.  Whether it manifests as homeruns or doubles or line drive singles, if your primary focus as a hitter is on "not striking out" you're almost certainly going to have a worse batted ball profile.

Are there hitters who have chosen wrong?  Almost certainly.  But everyone's choosing to make a tradeoff.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

10 minutes ago, chopsx9 said:

But you are assuming only players trying to hit home runs  strike out AND that the players striking out will eventually hit enough HRs to justify their SOs.  Non - home run hitters strike out all the time.  Zack Geloff struck out 188 times and hit 18 home runs.  Ryan Mcmahon and O'neil Cruz had similar numbers. Hell Jacob Young struck out 102 times and hit 3 HRs. Obviously an extreme but go back to pitchers hitting - how many HRs did they hit.  Even if you want to say that SOs are an acceptable trade off for hitting home runs - and I'm not arguing that they can't be - it doesn't apply to every hitter.  It also doesn't take away the negativity of a SO.  It wouldn't have to be qualified an "acceptable tradeoff" otherwise.

No, that's not the assumption at all.  The idea is that there is a point where the productivity you get in the at bats you don't K makes up for the marginal negative of putting the ball in play less.  The existence of that line is the point, because you have to consider what that line is and not just the singular at bat or the focused idea of 'are strikeouts worse than other outs'

[imb]

this is a real fun back and forth just kidding. its kind of a pointless exercise. even if you determine the exact perfect ratio of strikeouts to contact or strikeouts to homeruns or whatever.... ok now what? how does that inform your decision making as a FO? There's like 4 decent free agents every year and they all go to the dodgers. You can't really use that information to build your roster anyway.

[Bull]

18 hours ago, chopsx9 said:

But you are assuming only players trying to hit home runs  strike out AND that the players striking out will eventually hit enough HRs to justify their SOs.  Non - home run hitters strike out all the time.  Zack Geloff struck out 188 times and hit 18 home runs.  Ryan Mcmahon and O'neil Cruz had similar numbers. Hell Jacob Young struck out 102 times and hit 3 HRs. Obviously an extreme but go back to pitchers hitting - how many HRs did they hit.  Even if you want to say that SOs are an acceptable trade off for hitting home runs - and I'm not arguing that they can't be - it doesn't apply to every hitter.  It also doesn't take away the negativity of a SO.  It wouldn't have to be qualified an "acceptable tradeoff" otherwise.

But it’s not just home runs, it’s hard hit balls you’re looking for. A ball sneaking through the infield at 98mph instead of grounded weakly at 78 mph, a double in the gap instead of a looper to the shortstop. But then sometimes it’s a swing and miss instead of a weak grounder or looper. And sometimes it’s a line out screaming into a rightfielders glove instead of a bloop single. The results vary, but usually swinging in a way that has a potential for hard contact gives better results than weak contact. 

[Derwood]

I think it’s fair if someone thinks strikeouts are less fun to watch even if they aren’t statistically more harmful or cause lower run production. 

[chopsx9]

On 3/6/2025 at 6:44 PM, Bertz said:

I think mainly there's just no free lunch.  Whether it manifests as homeruns or doubles or line drive singles, if your primary focus as a hitter is on "not striking out" you're almost certainly going to have a worse batted ball profile.

Are there hitters who have chosen wrong?  Almost certainly.  But everyone's choosing to make a tradeoff.

Absolutely agree that "not striking out" is not the approach to take - and I have not suggested that -  HOWEVER that does not lessen negativity of a SO.  Just because they are going to occur doesn't somehow make them less negative.

[chopsx9]

On 3/7/2025 at 12:58 PM, Bull said:

But it’s not just home runs, it’s hard hit balls you’re looking for. A ball sneaking through the infield at 98mph instead of grounded weakly at 78 mph, a double in the gap instead of a looper to the shortstop. But then sometimes it’s a swing and miss instead of a weak grounder or looper. And sometimes it’s a line out screaming into a rightfielders glove instead of a bloop single. The results vary, but usually swinging in a way that has a potential for hard contact gives better results than weak contact. 

Nobody has said to stop trying to make hard contact.  The original question was are SOs less bad than perceived.  Strike Outs are inevitable - even players that don't try to hit home runs are going to SO.  Just because they are inevitable doesn't make them less negative.  Those two are not mutually exclusive.  In the age of the universal DH has there been a single at bat with a runner on third where anyone has thought "Well I hope he strikes out here"? - without issuing some sort of qualification on the contact made.

 

The question was how negative are SO's - not should players try to avoid strike outs at all cost.

[chopsx9]

On 3/6/2025 at 7:15 PM, imb said:

this is a real fun back and forth just kidding. its kind of a pointless exercise. even if you determine the exact perfect ratio of strikeouts to contact or strikeouts to homeruns or whatever.... ok now what? how does that inform your decision making as a FO? There's like 4 decent free agents every year and they all go to the dodgers. You can't really use that information to build your roster anyway.

That was the point in my initial post.  How meaningful is the comparison:

"So cherry picking the worst outcome of putting the ball in play and equating it to best possible outcome of a SO - not hitting into a double play - doesn't really seem all that meaningful, no?  "

No player is going to try and not make contact and they can't choose the quality of contact they ultimately make.

[imb]

21 minutes ago, chopsx9 said:

That was the point in my initial post.  How meaningful is the comparison:

"So cherry picking the worst outcome of putting the ball in play and equating it to best possible outcome of a SO - not hitting into a double play - doesn't really seem all that meaningful, no?  "

No player is going to try and not make contact and they can't choose the quality of contact they ultimately make.

well, you're taking micro issue - a single at-bat - and using it to justify a take on a macro position, if a strikeout is worse than bad contact (or however we're framing it.) And you just can't do that. Is a strikeout worse than bad contact? Depends on the situation.