Strikeout question

[Kneel B4 Zod]

Strikeouts are often said to be no worse than other outs, from the hitters perspective. It looks ugly and doesn't advance runners, but there is no chance of DP.

Meanwhile, getting strikeouts is considered a key success factor for pitchers.

is this a contradiction? or is there something I'm not understanding?

[kyleb]

As a pitcher: Once the ball is in play, pitchers have very little control over where it falls. By striking batters out, they reduce their dependence on luck.

As a hitter: Strikeouts can be very bad - people who have poor secondary skills and need to bat .300 to be useful (e.g. Jeff Francoeur, Juan Pierre, etc) suffer greatly from striking out. Hitters like Adam Dunn who strike out a ridiculous amount of times isn't so bad, because the reason he strikes out is the same reason he hits a dickload of home runs. He also walks a bunch, mitigating the reason to hit for average.

[Jack of Arcades]

Picture every batter in the major leagues having more or less the same ability to get a hit when they put a ball in play. That is, if Cesar Izturis hits the ball, it's going to be a hit as often if Adam Dunn hits the ball. In this case, what would be important in evaluating hitters? 1) how much they walk 2) how much power they have, and 3) how much the strikeout, since strikeouts will have a direct correlation with their batting average.

This is more or less the picture with major league starting pitchers. It's not exact, of course, but the range in pitcher abilities to control the batting average on balls in play (BABIP) is far smaller than the hitters'. Thus, striking out many batters is a huge advantage for pitchers. For batters, however, a guy like Adam Dunn can crush the ball every time he makes contact.

All it takes it to sort the leaderboard by strikeouts for both pitchers and hitters. You look at the pitchers with the most strikeouts and all of them are damned good pitchers. Sort by strikeouts for hitters and you really couldn't find much of a relationship...

[Paluka]

Strikeouts are a predictor of success for a pitcher, moreso than a key to success. Those aren't really the same thing. I think it is stupid that strikeouts are taken into account by Cy Young voters.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]



All it takes it to sort the leaderboard by strikeouts for both pitchers and hitters. You look at the pitchers with the most strikeouts and all of them are damned good pitchers. Sort by strikeouts for hitters and you really couldn't find much of a relationship...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitters vs. Pitchers

[THAY3R]

It appears that the League Leaders in Strikeouts for hitters are mostly pretty damn good.

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears that the League Leaders in Strikeouts for hitters are mostly pretty damn good.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's a selection bias here. for example, search for the worst-fielding shortstops over recent years and you will find a bunch of guys whose bats kept them in the lineup, like jeter and mike young. guys who field poorly and can't hit don't stick at the position. of the guys who K themselves silly, the good ones will hold down everyday jobs, and the others will find themselves working out their problems in AAA.

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
Strikeouts are a predictor of success for a pitcher, moreso than a key to success.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not true. yes, the correlation between past strikeout rates and future success is high, but the correlation between past strikeout rates and past success is also high.

BP pitching leaders

the top of the list is dominated by strikeout pitchers. the exceptions are extreme groundball pitchers and guys who are humidor-assisted. even the extreme groundballers at the top have decent strikeout rates.

i do agree that strikeouts don't fit into the definition of the cy young award.

[Propertarian]

A pitcher with a 3 ERA and 200ks is as valuable as a pitcher with a 3ERA and 120ks, and a .300/.400/.500 hitter with 170 ks is as valuable as a .300/.400/.500 hitter who strikes out 40 times.

Strikeouts are no worse or better than other outs. Both are still 'key sucess factors' for both. The reason they are key sucess factors is that they tend to lower runs allowed for pitchers, and lower OBP and slug for hitters.

For pitchers, a guy who pulls off a 3 ERA with a low k rate often has experienced hit luck throughout the year (unless he is really stingy with walks and homers), and will probably have a higher ERA the next season.

If a hitter improves his whiff rate from the past year, his average will also improve usually.

[hawk59]

I think the confusion is this: Say player A has a .800 OPS and strikes out 50 times in a full season. Player B has a .800 OPS and strikes out 120 times in a full season. What they are saying is that Player B's extra strikeouts do not make him less valuable than Player A, because after all they have the same OPS.

That is all they are saying, is that assuming 2 players have the same OPS then a guy that srikes out a lot is not going to be less valuable then a guy who does not strike out. But a player's AVG is going to be in large part determined by how much he strikes out, so a guy who strikes out a ton is going to have to make up for his lower AVG through a combination of more walks and more power.

That's a reason why batters with the most K's are often the most valuable offensive players: because the only reason a guy that K's a lot is still in the majors is because he walks a lot and hits HR's. If you strike out a lot but dont walk and don't hit HR's then you are just a guy with a low AVG and won't be around for long.

And then for pitchers it's the same thing: the more guys you strike out the lower your opponents batting avg will be. But AVG is not the important stat, it is OPS. So that is why a pitchers walk rate is also very important, if you strike out a lot of guys your BAA will be low, and if you don't walk many then they won't be able to make up for it and their OPS will be low as well.