Quote: Originally Posted By examinerebb on 2/23/2008
Quote: Originally Posted By bosoxbill on 2/23/2008
I think it's remarkable that this EXACT attitude is addressed in the BP article.
You don't think it's possible that you're guilty of a little "old fashioned" thinking?
As for striking out being the result of a poor approach, I think you should probably look at the strikeout leaders, year by year, at baseball-reference.com. It's a who's who of some pretty awesome hitters. You mean to tell me that, more than any other players in baseball in their years, they were guilty of taking poor approaches?
I think trying to slap a useless two-hopper instead of hitting the ball hard is probably the epitome of a poor approach...
...but the numbers seem to tell me there's no difference. It's an out.
I'll concede that it's possible it's old-fashioned thinking. It also could just be experience, since I played baseball for the better part of two decades. As I said, high strikeout totals are tolerated
only from otherwise exceptional hitters. No surprise then that the strikout leaders post good numbers in other offensive categories. Strikeouts don't equal better production. Better production equals leniency on your strikout totals. This is where your numbers are lying to you. And yes, I would say that they were guilty of taking poor approaches more often than other hitters. Example: Vlad Guerrero. The guy is a phenomenal hitter. An absolute freak of nature in terms of hand-eye coordination and lower arm strength. His talent helps him overcome the fact that he swings at pitches in his eyes, on his shoetops, 8 inches outside, etc.
I don't recall ever arguing that hitting a weak two-hopper was a good approach. But expanding your strike zone with two strikes, fouling off pitches you can't do anything with until the pitcher makes a mistake, and not swinging out of your shoes are all fairly easy ways to give yourself a better chance at a positive outcome. If you take an all-or-nothing approach with two strikes, that's exactly what you'll get as a result.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm FOR high strikeout totals - of course, as you say, they're matching up like that for exactly that reason. Strikeouts DO NOT equal better production.
But it's clearly foolish to say that you can't be productive AND strikeout a lot.
And it's clearly foolish to say that you can't be productive AND strikeout very little.
And it's clearly foolish to say that you can't be a joke AND strikeout very little.
And it's clearly foolish to say that you can't be a joke AND strikeout a lot.
So, strikeouts DO NOT equal poor production either.
last four paragraphs put another way: it seems like strikeouts (in a vaccum) can't tell you much of anything about a batter's production.
So why is it such a stretch to say that perhaps there's no reason to prefer fewer strikeouts, if all else is equal? Particularly when there's mounting statistical evidence that...
A) productive outs aren't that important in scoring runs.
B) strikeouts don't seem to detract from run production, given the low chance of errors, and the increased double plays (which are CATASTOPHIC to run production - this cannot be overstated)