FanGraph
Strikeouts Stink
by Steve Slowinski - August 10, 2011
It’s long been a sabermetric truism that for hitters, strikeouts aren’t any worse than any other out — or at least, that strikeouts are much less harmful than is typically assumed. Strikeouts are slightly worse than outs on balls in play, since sometimes in play outs can advance or score a runner. But the difference between the two is minuscule, while fans tend to lampoon high strikeout hitters and overestimate the negative effects of strikeouts.
So the sabermetric truism has stuck: strikeouts aren’t that bad. Hitters can have high strikeout rates and still contribute loads of offensive value through their plate discipline. After all, the end goal is not making an out, right? It shouldn’t matter how a player does it, simply as long as they reach base at a high rate and avoid making outs.
But there’s a problem with this logic. While a player can be valuable even he strikes out frequently, strikeouts still decrease how often a player reaches base and can have an adverse effect on a player’s on-base percentage. They’re not as harmless as casual saberists typically assume.
Let’s walk through a quick thought experiment. Say we have a player, Zadock Bartlett, who has good plate discipline (10% walk rate) but strikes out a high percentage of the time (say, 25%). Zadock is going to reach base 10% of the time due to his walks, but when he doesn’t walk, ideally he would like to reach base as often as possible through a hit. And there are two main ways Zadock could boost his batting average: have a high percentage of his balls in play fall for hits (in short, have a high BABIP), hit home runs, or put the ball in play as often as possible.
That’s pretty straightforward, right? If a ball goes over the fence for a home run, nobody can catch it so it obviously goes for a hit. If Zadock has a high percentage of his balls in play fall in for hits — and some players can post BABIPs higher than league average on a consistent basis — then his batting average will obviously be higher. And if Zadock puts the ball in play more often, he’s giving himself more chance and opportunities for his balls to fall in for hits.
To put it another way, when a player strikes out, they don’t give themselves a chance to get a hit. The more often Zadock strikes out, the lower his batting average and on-base percentage will be…unless he compensates through posting a higher BABIP or hitting lots of home runs.
If we assume a league-average BABIP rate, here’s what batting averages we can expect from players based on their strikeout rate and home run total (per 500 PA):
Red = below average ; Blue = average ; Green = above average
League average strikeout rate = 18.4%
As you can see, hitters only start getting into trouble if they’re striking out in over 20% of their plate appearances — specifically, above 25% is the danger zone. Once you cross that threshold, even if you’re mashing a large number of home runs and walking at an above-average clip, it gets difficult to post a high on-base percentage.
Here’s the same chart as above, only this time it’s displaying on-base percentage instead of batting average. It’s assuming a league-average BABIP rate and a 10% walk rate (above league-average):
Once you start striking out in 25% (or more) of your plate appearances, it’s difficult to post an on-base percentage higher than .340; you either need to be a very powerful or very patient one, or be able to post a high BABIP.
Of course, many of the hitters that strike out this often fall into one of these categories; most of them are powerful hitters that smash a large number of home runs and walk at a high clip as well. Problems arise when you’re a player like B.J. Upton: a player that hits for moderate power, but strikes out 25% of the time. With a slightly depressed BABIP (.275) and a strike out rate near 25%, his on-base percentage this season is a mere .310. And that’s despite having a 10% walk rate.
I don’t mean to suggest that saberists should reverse course and start telling everyone that strikeouts are the devil; I’m simply trying to provide some perspective, and to remind everyone that strikeouts do have a negative consequence. If I see a rookie posting a strikeout rate above 25%, I’m going to start getting worried about them unless they’ve also shown good plate discipline and power.* When you’re striking out that much, your margin for success shrinks.
*Well, or they’re an excellent fielder. Then they get some leeway as well.
Batting average is a statistic that gets too much love from mainstream fans, but it tends to get undervalued among saberists. Getting a hit is just as important as drawing a walk — you can’t have a high on-base percentage unless you do both. And as often as we point to BABIP as the cause of a high or low batting average, a player’s strikeout rate can have an influence as well.
<
MLB History: A Strikeout Is the Cruelest Out
By Harold Friend (Senior Writer B/R) on May 1, 2010
There is nothing worse than a strikeout.
A strikeout is not just another out, it is an out that is a completely wasted at-bat for the offensive team.
Almost nothing positive occurs when a batter strikes out, and the few good things that can happen are so rare in today’s game that they can usually be discounted.
A batter can reach base after striking out if, with fewer than two outs and first base is unoccupied or with two outs and first base occupied, the catcher misses the third strike and the batter beats the throw to first.
There is an instance in which a strikeout can be as good as a base on balls.
When the batter has two strikes and the next pitch is clearly going to get by the catcher, an alert batter can intentionally swing at the pitch, knowing he will strike out, but also realizing that he will stand an excellent chance of reaching first base.
Almost none of today’s players ever attempt such a play. The reason players give is that it will break their rhythm for future plate appearances.
When a batter strikes out, runners do not advance and runs do not score. A strikeout eats up an out. That’s it.
Even a double play can be better than a strikeout, and depending on the situation, can actually be productive.
It is recognized when the first batter of an inning is retired, it doesn't matter if he strikes out or hits a 400-ft drive that is caught, but the not-so-subtle difference is that the pitcher might gain more confidence in the latter instance.
With two outs, it usually doesn't matter how the defense gets the third out.
In 1962, the Yankees and Giants split the first six games of the World Series. The seventh game at Candlestick Park was a scoreless pitching duel between the Yankees’ Ralph Terry and the Giants’ Jack Sanford until the Yankees batted in the top of the fifth inning.
Bill Skowron singled, Clete Boyer singled, and pitcher Ralph Terry drew a base on balls.
It was a great opportunity for the Yankees to break the game open, but leadoff man Tony Kubek grounded into a double play, scoring Skowron. That was it.
The only run of the game, the run that was the margin of victory for the Yankees to win the World Series, scored as the result of a double play.
Double plays kill rallies, but at least the ball is in play.
Kubek made contact and hit the ball well, but it was hit to a fielder. A batter can’t direct the flight of the ball. But striking out is failure because contact is not made.
In the early days of game, striking out was a disgrace. Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Nap Lajoie, Honus Wagner, and Eddie Collins rarely were strike out victims. They took great pains to avoid such humiliation.
Cobb struck out only 357 times in more than 11,000 official plate appearances, and the four other greats had similar statistics.
Things changed when Babe Ruth popularized the home run, but even the free swingers in those years had some discipline.
Ruth never struck out 100 times in a season.
His highest total was 93 in 1923, but he batted .393, hit 41 home runs, and had an incredible on base average of .545. Still, striking out was shameful and Ruth was criticized for it.
Jimmy Foxx struck out more than 100 times in a season only twice, Hank Greenberg only once, and Ralph Kiner only once, which was his rookie year.
Joe DiMaggio struck out only 369 times in his entire career, which was remarkable for a power hitter.
Great home run hitters do not have to strike out more than 100 times a season, but they do— again and again.
In his first full season, which was 1952, Mickey Mantle batted .311 with 23 home runs. In the World Series against the Dodgers, Mantle hit .345 with two home runs, including a grand slam.
It was an excellent season that foreshadowed a great career, yet that winter, baseball periodicals and yearbooks did not emphasize Mantle’s batting average or home runs. They criticized Mantle’s 111 strikeouts and lamented that he would never become a truly great player unless he drastically reduced his strikeouts.
Over a 162-game schedule, Mickey averaged 36 home runs and 115 strikeouts,
Willie Mays averaged 36 home runs and 83 strikeouts.
Henry Aaron averaged 37 home runs and 68 strikeouts.
Today, it is a different game. Sportscasters and former baseball players have stated that “an out is an out” and a strikeout is simply another way of a batter being retired.
No one illustrates that view more than Mark Reynolds.
The Arizona Diamondbacks' third baseman averages 35 home runs and an incredible 215 strikeouts over a 162-game season. Mark is considered one of the game's top hitters.
Many players subscribe to the false belief that a strikeout is no worse than any other type of out. Do they really believe that a strikeout is just as good as a fly ball to the outfield when there is one out and a runner on third?
Would the arbitrator at a salary hearing agree with the concept that “an out is an out?”
For the modern hitter, there is little disgrace or humiliation associated with striking out, especially among those who lead the league in strikeouts but hit for power. The obligatory “I have to cut down on my strikeouts” is ever present in sound bites, but little is done to remedy the problem.
A few seasons ago, Tom Seaver and Gary Thorne discussed whether or not Mark McGwire, with all the strikeouts, was helping St. Louis.
Thorne felt that McGwire was a detriment because if he didn’t hit a home run, he would do nothing to start a rally, continue a rally, or move a runner along. His strikeouts had killed many rallies.
Seaver agreed, but put in the disclaimer that McGwire’s home runs helped the team, and he concluded that McGwire was more of a positive than a negative. Home runs are good.
Implicit in the discussion was the fact that no out is worse than a strikeout.
Reference:
Baseball Reference
<
I like to use Adam Dunn as an example of a player that suits some of the above criteria. He strikes out a ton but compensates with his big home run, doubles, rbis, and obp numbers.
Those playoff teams compensate for their strikeouts and even their double play totals with balanced teams. They all have good starting pitchers and they all have good bullpens. They also have balanced offenses with good defense. The all have productive players that can come off the bench and pick up the slack. They have a nice mix of veterans and young players.
I don't think the Indians have quite reached any of those levels.......yet.
Can Stubbs, Reynolds, and Swisher compensate as Dunn can? For that matter Kipnis and Santana?
Are the Indians as well balanced as those teams that made the playoffs?
In my opinion.......I don't think so.
I guess I'm a "small ball" fan at heart. I like productive outs. I really hate unproductive outs. The "power ball" numbers are great if you can compensate for the unproductive numbers.
