There's no reason ANYBODY should be striking out 200 times per year, high OBP or not. your baseball knowledge is definitely in the bottom 10 percent of this board And you're a borderline troll who should have been banned long ago. And, seeing as you're a genius, would you care to explain to me why it's a good thing that they're striking out 200 times per year? Care to tell me why with runners on the corners and one out, it's ok that he strikes out, instead of putting the ball in play and perhaps getting the runner home? Yes, when you strike out you avoid the double play. But that is worst-case scenario. If there's not a runner on 1st, a strikeout isn't any better than a ground out or a fly ball. At least with a fly ball or grounder, you can possibly advance the runners. With a strikeout, barring a dropped 3rd strike, they don't. It's simple, really. So, care to tell me why it's desirable for a high OBP guy to strike out at disgusting levels? Seeing as that's the position you're taking by rebuking my argument. I'd be quite happy to hear it. i don't think you've really understood any of this. it's not a good thing that they're striking out 200 times or 250 times or 150 times or whatever. those are outs and outs are bad. but they're just outs. there are times a k is worse than a pop up or a groundout and there are times it's better, but the point is that some arbitrary number like 200 isn't the end of the world. Someone like Mark Reynolds strikes out 200 times, but his OPS+ is still 98. that's not good but there are a lot of players who produce at that level, only their outs come via weak contact or whatever. it just seems weird to see something like "you better never strike out 200 times!", but you never see someone say something like "you better never groundout 300 times!", considering a guy who Ks a lot is likely to be a more productive hitter.