Strike-out education 101........John Sickels

[*TR]

Strike two: Ks not the problem

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rob Neyer
ESPN.com


As you might remember, last time I left you with the following fake (though representative) missive:


Rob, I understand that strikeouts for hitters aren't really so bad. But if they're not bad for hitters, then why are they so good for pitchers?

Well, as it turned out, a number of readers weren't actually convinced that strikeouts aren't really so bad. The following is just one of many I received in the same vein ...


Rob,

Reading your column on strikeouts and the Milwaukee Brewers got me thinking ... I agree with you that strikeouts probably aren't as important as many general managers think they are. But I can't help thinking that they're a little more important than you think they are. You say the Brewers didn't score many runs because they had very few walks. This may be naivete on my part, but doesn't a large number of strikeouts suggest a lack of strike-zone judgement? And further, doesn't a lack of strike-zone judgement result in very few walks? And if so, are these not just two sides of the same coin?

Jonathon Jongsma


There are days, I must admit, when I wonder if I've done all I can do, that anyone who wants to know the basics already knows them, and anyone who doesn't isn't ever going to.

And then I read a bunch of e-mails like this one, and I realize that there are still plenty of fans with open minds out there, but somehow they just haven't gotten the word yet.

What I'm getting at here is that strikeouts don't result in few walks, and in fact one can make the case that strikeouts are a necessary evil.

There are three basic hitting skills: making contact, hitting for power, plate discipline. Very few hitters in the history of the game have been able to combine great degrees of all three skills. Just off the top of my head, Ted Williams is the only name that comes to mind. Mantle at his best. Babe Ruth hit for great power and drew a ton of walks, but he did strike out a lot (for his time). Ditto for Barry Bonds. Joe DiMaggio hardly ever struck out and had great power, but generally drew "only" 60 or 70 walks per season.

I'm probably missing an exception or three, but it's generally true that hitters, even the great hitters, have to make compromises. Tony Gwynn probably could have hit 25 or 30 homers per season (rather than seven or eight), maybe drawn 75 walks per season (rather than 50 or 60) ... but then he probably wouldn't have won eight batting titles, would he?

Last season, Sammy Sosa struck out 153 times. That was actually a good year for him, as he'd averaged 172 strikeouts per season from 1998 through 2000.

And you know what? Only a lunatic would have told Sosa to stop striking out so damn often. He's turned into a superstar who hits 60 home runs and draws 100 walks per season, which makes him one of the great hitters of our time.

Let's see, who else ... Jim Thome led the American League with 185 strikeouts last season ... and he also hit 49 homers and drew 111 walks. Most managers can live with the K's. Other hitters among the 2001 strikeout leaders were Troy Glaus, Mike Cameron, Jeromy Burnitz, and Richie Sexson; productive hitters, all.

My point -- in case I haven't already hammered the thing to death -- is that while strikeouts certainly aren't good in themselves, they often come with the territory if you're going to be a good hitter. As hard as pitchers throw these days, and as much as the game is geared toward power, most productive hitters are going to 1) take pitches until they see one that looks good, and then they're going to 2) swing real hard. And so you get your walks (good), your home runs (better), and yes, your strikeouts (not nearly as bad as some people think).

In response to last Friday's column, Dean Taylor -- who's been more civil to me lately than I deserve -- stressed to me that his biggest problem wasn't the strikeouts per se; he was concerned because the Brewers had four consecutive hitters -- Geoff Jenkins, Richie Sexson, Jeromy Burnitz, and Jose Hernandez -- who accounted for so many of the strikeouts.

Here's the basic lineup the Brewers featured last season, with a relevant numbers:



OBP Slug K/162
White .343 .459 122
Loretta .346 .352 73
Jenkins .334 .474 185
Sexson .342 .547 182
Burnitz .347 .504 157
Hernandez .300 .443 197
Belliard .335 .453 104
Blanco .290 .334 112


This isn't perfect, because Belliard actually batted in the No. 1 and No. 2 slots more than anything else. But it's the best we can do. Anyway, what's striking here is how similar the Brewers were. No, I don't mean the strikeouts. I mean the on-base percentages, as six of the eight regulars finished with virtually identical OBP's. I still maintain that the problem wasn't strikeouts, but OBP. Because while it's true that only two Brewers had horrible OBP's, it's also true that no Brewer had an outstanding OBP. You can live with players in the middle, but you've got to have a couple of guys with great ones to bring up the average. And as I hope I demonstrated earlier, there are players who combine high strikeouts and high OBP.

Also, if having those four high-strikeout guys batting consecutively made a difference, statistically, the Runs Created formula wouldn't work for the Brewers. But it did work. It worked almost perfectly.

I should note, too, that since batting order isn't particularly important, the high-strikeout guys didn't have to bat consecutively; if all those strikeouts in a row were a problem, then manager Davey Lopes should have broken them up.

And finally, it's been suggested -- not by Dean Taylor, but by readers -- that while a huge number of strikeouts might not have much discernible statistical impact, it might have a negative impact on the team's morale. Well, maybe. But in 1927, one free-swinging (or was it patient?) team set a new major-league record with 605 strikeouts. They were the New York Yankees, and morale was probably pretty good as they won 110 games and swept the World Series.

Well, that was a nice tidy conclusion ... and I haven't mentioned pitchers once, even though pitchers were supposed to be the subject of today's missive. So tune in Wednesday, when I'll try to avoid any further digressions ...

?2002 ESPN Internet Ventures


------------------

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Here's one for you:

Devise an APBA game that will run through a season and determine how many runs an offense will score, on average, based on certain input factors.

1) Team A: every batter hits a homerun every 4th at bat and strikes out the other three times, no walks drawn. Each batter in the lineup then has a .250 OBA and a 1.000 SLG, each and every game.

How many runs would such a team score in an average game and over the course of a season?

2) Team B: every batter hits a single every 4th at bat, a double every 4th at bat. and strikes out the rest of the time, no walks drawn. Each batter then has a .500 OBA and a .750 SLG, each and every game.

Which team would score more runs on average?

------------------

[Hawaii007]

Well Y'Town,
Going by that...the "productivity" of each hitter is the same based on OPS. The whole runs thing is a bit odd because it all depends on when the singles and the doubles were hit in conjunction with the other ones.

In looking at Neyers argument, we shouldn't be worried about Escobar or Branyan's K totals, but more worried about their BB totals. plate discipline i believe can be taught.

------------------

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Team A is easy to figure out -- the all-or-nothing team would score 9 runs a game on the road and 8 runs a game in home wins. Each player would make three outs and one homer every game (in home wins, they would only play 8 innings on offense).

The other team is a little harder, especially if they never steal bases or take extra bases on long singles or score from 1st on doubles -- all of the things that real ballplayers do.

But based on the formula, each player would make 3 bases (a single and a double) and two outs for every 4 at-bats, but the team would have more at bats per game, since the entire lineup would only make 18 outs after 4 at-bats each, which is 6 innings.

Anyway, after 6 innings, the team would have 9 singles, 9 doubles and 18 outs -- using the basic runs-created formula that would be 27 bases times .500 OBA, or 13.5 runs (on average) in 6 innings.

So projected to 8 innings (in a home win), Team B would be scoring 16.9 runs a game, and would score an average of 20.3 runs per game on the road in 9 innings.

So even though each team would make the same number of bases (32 or 36) each game, the singles and doubles hitting, higher average team would score, on average, twice as many runs as the all-homer, low average team.

The runs-created formula is perhaps the best proof that Bill James was right all along -- adding a players OBA and SLG (OPS) is not nearly as good a way of seeing how good a hitter he is as MULTIPLYING his OBA and SLG, since both averages are important in how many runs he creates, and a lower OBA doesn't offset a higher SLG at all, whether for a player or for a team.

------------------

[Alex]

Ytown Tribe fan, as interesting as your scenario is, it involves a player hitting .500 versus another who only hits .250.

The Batting average disparity is hard to work with. I also think that every player has an "optimal" amount of times they should be striking out per season.

If they are below that number, they may be too concerned with finesse over power, and if they are above that number, they may be trying to inefficiently use all of their power all of the time.

Figuring out a players optimal strikeout amount is very difficult to do.

I believe in two sets of numbers to determine productivity.

The first set is CONTACT BATTING AVERAGE...meaning what is a players batting average for every plate appearance that ends with them making contact with the ball.

The second set of numbers is the ROWS batting average, or The Ratio of Walks to Strikeouts.

So, if a ballplayer is Contact hitting .300 with a rows of .500, I can compare that to other ballplayers such as Manny Ramirez who hits around .500 when he puts the ball in play, and still manages a .500 average for walks to strikeouts.

If Major League Baseball kept both sets of stats for all players, we could begin to see what ballplayers are "optimized" and which players are not.

------------------
Alex

[Hawaii007]

It is too early in the morning for me to be thinking about this thread.

------------------

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Fair enough, Alex. Let's take a lineup of actual hitters who have very different batting stats, but nearly identical OPS's

Team A will be the Russell Branyan All-Stars and will consist of guys who bat .240 with 20 doubles and 40 homers a year, don't steal many bases and draw about 50 walks a year while striking out over 150 times.

On average, each hitter on Team A will have a .320 OBA and a .480 SLG.

Team B will be the Tony Phillips All-Stars, and will consist of guys who bat .260 with 25 doubles, 15 homers, steal 70 bases and draw 100 walks a year while striking out about 90 times.

On average, each hitter on Team B will have a .390 OBA and a .410 SLG.

Over the course of a season, which team would score the most runs per game? Which team would win more blowouts? Which team would be shut out more often?

In actuality, the runs scored would be close -- over a season, Team B would score slightly more runs than Team A per game. But the distribution of those runs would be very different.

Team A would win more blowouts by a huge margin, but would be shut out much more often. The lower OBA would be the biggest drawback, and the lack of speed would be a secondary problem.

Team B would have a tighter spread of runs scored, game after game -- rarely scoring a huge number of runs, but hardly ever getting shutout. The lack of big power would make it hard for Team B to overcome a big deficit, but the high OBA and speed would keep the team in most games.

If you have a good combination of Matt Lawtons and Einar Diaz's to go with your Russell Branyans, you can be productive; if you have too many of the Branyans, you are subject to getting shut out way more often.

What was it Tribe fans kept saying last year? We would win one game by 11 runs then lose three close, low-scoring games in a row.

That was evident in the playoff series against Seattle.

------------------

[Wilhelm]

Kaiser said something similar to that, Y'Town. Last year we could pummel poor mop up pitchers late in the game with meaningless 3 run homers in the 8th inning of a blow out. Looks great in the stats, and that's it.

People forget how inflated stats can get by facing poor pitching. Here is Kaiser's Opinion: Higher average hitters do much better against quality pitching than low average power hitters do.

You are not going to get many extra base hits against the Clemens, Pedros, et. al. of the world. You have to string together some hits and have great pitching yourself.


------------------

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Our problems weren't so much with the Clemens' and Pedro's as it was with the journeyman lefties every team seems to have.

Our all-or-nothing types were helpless against them, and it really broke up any chance of a rally in a given inning.

Back to the original point: it isn't K's specifically that hurt an offense, and it isn't K's specifically that make a great pitcher -- it is OUTS.

You only have 3 outs to work with, then an inning is over. A guy that draws a walk does two things for the team -- he gets a baserunner and he doesn't make an out.

A pitcher's job is simple -- get outs without giving up runs.

A batter's job is nearly as simple -- first, avoid making an out; THEN move a baserunner or draw a walk, or get a hit.

Branyan's problem isn't that he tries for homeruns so often nor is it that he strikes out so often -- his problem is that pitchers aren't afraid of him because he has such a hole in his swing. Any pitcher facing Russ has a 3:1 chance of getting him out on K's, and only a 1 in 4 chance that he will hit the ball hard.

Pitchers ARE afraid of Thome and his 100 walks a year show that. That's 100 times a year he ISN'T making an out.

------------------

[srg]

Branyans problem is not a "hole in his" swing, that would come under the deffinition of plate coverage wich is not Russels weakness as a hitter . Branyan's problem is "Plate Approach", Russel has yet to cut down on his swing while down in the count, that was what Eddie Murray was working on in their hitting sessions last month. He started to show progress in this area last year until Fryman came back.

------------------