Strikeouts

[magnumo]

Strikeouts have been debated many times in many places, in terms of how bad it is for a hitter to strike out. Everyone knows that strikeouts are bad for a team's offense, but.....

How much should an individual player's performance be "downrated" if he strikes out a lot? Little, if any, imo.

Here are a few points which are rarely challenged:

1. The strikeout is an "unproductive" out..... statistically speaking, the most unproductive batting outcome which produces a single out.

2. A ground ball which results in a double play generally is a worse outcome than a strikeout (although a GIDP CAN result in a run if it happens with no outs).

3. Nevertheless, almost all observers agree that it's better for a hitter to put the ball in play rather than strike out.

However, in order to address the question in bold above, let's compare the offensive performance of two hypothetical players:

- Player A: .295 AVG, .375 OBP, .550 SLG, .925 OPS, 30 HR, 105 R, 115 RBI, 15 SB, 60K

- Player B: .295 AVG, .375 OBP, .550 SLG, .925 OPS, 30 HR, 105 R, 115 RBI, 15 SB, 150K

Obviously, the numbers listed for each player are identical, EXCEPT for strikeouts.

My opinion is that player A and player B produced essentially EQUAL value for their teams' offenses, despite the fact that player B struck out 2-1/2 times as much as player A.

- An otherwise productive hitter (e.g. Player B) should NOT be downrated just because he strikes out a lot. Rather, he should be rated based upon his production, REGARDLESS of how often he strikes out.

- A player such as our hypothetical Player B would be even MORE productive if he cut down on his strikeouts, but his strikeouts don't detract from the offensive numbers which he DID produce. Obviously, with less strikeouts, Player B's other numbers probably would increase, such that he would be MORE productive than Player A.

Comments and other opinions are welcome.

 

[Darkstone42]

I am generally of the same mind as you, mags, when it comes to this. If the guy is producing, I don't care how often he strikes out.

I do, however, think strikeouts give some indication as to how a young player might project, and I also think it's more difficult to achieve a high OBP if you strike out a lot. So basically, I think folks just want to see their hitters not strike out much because high strikeout rates are often indicative of other problems which reduce a player's production overall.

 

[Illinest]

This seems as good a place as any to mention that two of the players I was most disappointed to have missed out on had pretty decent seasons with their new team. Both with the Orioles coincidentally.

JJ Hardy hit 30 hrs, OPS of .801 and played decent defense at SS.
doh!
Mark Reynolds only OPSed .806 (still 136 points higher than Overbay did) and struck out 200 times but he also hit 37 hrs and would've been a sorely needed source of RH power.

I'm just saying - they were both cheap and they both worked out. Oh and Kuroda was the pitcher I wanted and he had a great season too, but I've heard a lot of people saying that he will only play for the Dodgers so I can't really blame Neil for that one.

Well I guess I should admit that Beltre and De la Rosa both performed better than I expected and I never would've dreamed that Werth would get the contract he got, and I did want Werth before I found out how much the Nats paid to get him.

 

[element1286]

There was a really good article on fangraphs awhile back, I'm trying to find it. But it had a graph that plotted strikeout % vs wOBA. And the graph showed that after a certain %, I think it was around 25%, that the strikeout % was having a large impact on most players performance.

For example Pedro Alvarez striking out in 30.7% of his career PA's is a huge problem, IMO.

 

[Illinest]

I can buy that because if you strike out TOO much it's a sign that you probably just can't hit.

But even 25% can equal more than 150 strikeouts in a season. There's a lot of fans who look at 150 strikeouts and say "hopeless". Kind of like how lots of fans (and even players) will look at a guy who get 100 RBI and say "All Star".

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that SOs are not in direct correlation with productivity and for many players who strike out a lot they're not even worth looking at. Adam Dunn in his prime was striking out 160-200 times per season and it didn't stop him from averaging 127 OPS+ throughout his career. He also has a career OBP higher than Ken Griffey Jr. That's strikeouts you can live with.

 

[element1286]

Found one interesting article at fangraphs.

Why Strikeouts Stink | FanGraphs Baseball

But can't find the one I was thinking of orginially.

But I think the stance that k's are bad, which is the traditional view, or simply don't matter, which is the hyper extreme sabremetric view, are both incorrect, IMO.

 

[thedddd]

I think my thoughts are right along with everyone else but there are points when Strikeouts are at their worst, IMO.

1. Making the 3rd out. By not putting the ball in play you are not giving your team a chance to produce.
2. With 0 or 1 out and runners in scoring position (no force out). No opportunity to move the runners up a base.
3. Runner on 3rd with 0 or 1 outs. No chance to sacrafice.
4. No runners on base. Without putting it play the batter has almost no chance to get on base. The only time is on a strike 3 wild pitch.

With those scenarios for Player A vs Player B in mags example if you take away 100K's for player B they could have actually have had better production. I do agree they shouldn't be deemed worse than player A but with the right adjustments should be better than player A.

 

[Illinest]

It's still a bass-ackwards way to look at things.
If the guy has a decent OBP and hits some HRs then it doesn't matter how he got there.
Articles like this try to make generalizations about strikeout rates but it doesn't matter. Adam Dunn had an OBP near .400 and he hit 40 homeruns. It did not matter one whit that 200 of his outs came via the strikeout.

If you want to use it as a predictive tool for prospects then you're talking something different, but for a major leaguer there is almost no reason to look at strikeouts. You look at his OBP. If he's getting on base a lot then he's doing his job. Period.

 

[thedddd]

It's still a bass-ackwards way to look at things.
If the guy has a decent OBP and hits some HRs then it doesn't matter how he got there.
Articles like this try to make generalizations about strikeout rates but it doesn't matter. Adam Dunn had an OBP near .400 and he hit 40 homeruns. It did not matter one whit that 200 of his outs came via the strikeout.

If you want to use it as a predictive tool for prospects then you're talking something different, but for a major leaguer there is almost no reason to look at strikeouts. You look at his OBP. If he's getting on base a lot then he's doing his job. Period.

It depends. If the game winning run is on third and he whiffs then it does.

I think in the grand scheme at the end of a season they don't matter as much for major league players but under certain situations during the season they are HUGE.

 

[element1286]

Yea, I don't know, I have a hard time saying straight up strikeouts don't matter, to dddd's point there are certainly situations where they can be beneficial such as moving runners, possiblity of an error, sac flys, etc.

 

[Illinest]

Take for example freddy sanchez in his prime. He could put the ball in play and rarely struck out but his obp rarely got higher than dunns consistent 380 or so. You need to keep in mind that dunn is less likely to make an out. That's the most important thing. The nature of the out - be it a so or a sac fly is of significantly less consequence. Let's not also forget that an out that was put in play could also be a double play.
Obp is way more important.

 

[element1286]

Take for example freddy sanchez in his prime. He could put the ball in play and rarely struck out but his obp rarely got higher than dunns consistent 380 or so. You need to keep in mind that dunn is less likely to make an out. That's the most important thing. The nature of the out - be it a so or a sac fly is of significantly less consequence. Let's not also forget that an out that was put in play could also be a double play.
Obp is way more important.

Yea, I agree, OBP is more important (much more), but there is a difference between strikeouts being less important, and not important.

 

[magnumo]

Moving runners

Element made the comment that putting the ball in play rather than striking out can move runners.

Going back to my example, that's a difference I hadn't thought about. When we compare the number of strikeouts by Player A (60) and Player B (150), plain ol' subtraction suggests that Player A had 90 more opportunities to move runners.

But the actual number isn't that big..... it must be reduced for:

- Situations where Player B struck out with the bases empty (no runners to advance).

- Situations where Player B made the 3rd out by striking out (since the inning is over).

- The frequency of balls hit into play which do NOT advance runners.

- Situations where advanced runners don't score anyway.

- Situations where the advanced runner scores, but would have scored anyway (e.g., next hitter hits HR or EBH).

At any rate, although I'm guessing that the difference between Player A and Player B is SMALL, they are NOT QUITE equal on offense. It is highly likely that Player A advanced more runners, some of whom probably scored, but would NOT have scored had they not been advanced by Player A.

Conclusion: Even though the main point stands (i.e., an otherwise productive hitter should not be downrated just because he strikes out a lot), Player A probably contributed a bit more to his team's offense (via advancing runners), even though it doesn't show up in the stats.

 

[element1286]

Yea, I think we are splitting hairs here. I don't downgrade any offensive performance because a guy k's a lot. I just worry that at some point those k's are going to make him fall off a cliff performance-wise.

 

[Illinest]

But hitter A is also going to hit into more double plays.
Hitter B might very well make more long fly ball outs (read this as potential sac flys) than hitter A as well, since his approach is generally more conducive to good contact when he does make contact.

 

[element1286]

But hitter A is also going to hit into more double plays.
Hitter B might very well make more long fly ball outs (read this as potential sac flys) than hitter A as well, since his approach is generally more conducive to good contact when he does make contact.

Putting the ball in play also can result in a error by the defense, where a strikeout there is almost no possibility of that, again splitting hairs, but I think it is non-zero.

 

[Illinest]

Well I think the anguish over strikeouts comes from a worry that the hitter isn't capable of making contact and I think that's the sort of thing that is almost always worked out in the minors anyways.

Grossman - for example - will strike out a lot when he's too selective. That's a result of the approach. The more pitches you see, the more mistakes you'll see. Dunn took it to an extreme and was very good at punishing mistakes. He also got into lots of 2 strike counts as well on the other hand. Being better at protecting the plate reduces strikeouts on the other hand but it doesn't necessarily mean that you're making good contact. Who can forget Akinori Iwamura chopping weak dribblers to the middle infield every time up?

So we ask - why is Alvarez striking out? I think his strikeout concerns are legitimate because he is flailing a lot. He doesn't seem to be controlling the strikezone - rather he's getting in trouble quickly and getting punished with two strikes.
If on the other hand he were waiting on a pitch he can drive and maximizing his chances at solid contact then I wouldn't care too much if he racks up 200 SOs.

 

[thedddd]

Being selective is one thing and we all know Alvarez is not. He needs to be fixed in AAA.

I agree the conversation is basically about splitting hairs but in the overall view yes Dunn would be more valuable than Garcia strictly due to the fact he hit for more power and had similar OBP. I think in game situations strikeouts are very damaging but not at the end of the season valuations if the OBP was high enough.

Coincidentally though in arbitration hearings teams can/will use specific damaging situations to devalue players so both DP's and K's would be used against them. Then in that case all batters have a greater chance to have damaging strikeout scenarios than double play scenarios strictly due to the sheer volume.