Just Another Out

[ExpectMorePayLess]

I was reading an old article from Baseball Prospectus and..................

 

Baseball Prospectus Basics
Just Another Out?
by Ryan Wilkins

 

 

As we've stated on a number of different occasions throughout the Baseball Prospectus Basics series, one of the goals of performance analysis is to separate perception from reality. Sometimes that means interpreting numbers, and sometimes that means interpreting events with our eyes. Either way, it's about collecting information, and getting a little bit closer to the truth.

 

HITTERS

Evaluating the importance of strikeouts, especially for hitters, is something that has traditionally fallen into the second category. And it's easy to understand why: baseball is a game that centers around the ongoing conflict between batter and pitcher, and there are few outcomes that capture the drama of that conflict better than a mighty whiff, followed by a long walk back to the bench. On the surface at least, a strikeout appears to be the ultimate failure for a hitter-infinitely worse than a Texas-leaguer or a flyout to center.

 

From a quantitative perspective, however, there is little evidence to suggest that a strikeout is "worse" than a groundout, popout, or any other means of making an out, with respect to generating runs. Sure, it might look bad-not even being able to put the ball in play-but the fact is that error rates, in this era of improved equipment, are as low as they've ever been. Granted, putting the ball in play, whether in the air or on the ground, can sometimes enable a hitter to advance a runner, but it also increases the chance of hitting into a double-play-a far greater rally-killer than a strikeout.

 

As a result of all that, the value of "just putting the ball in play" is as low as it's ever been. The following graph illustrates the correlation-or lack thereof-between team strikeouts and team run scoring from 1950-2002:

As you can see by the round, lifeless blob in the middle of the graph, there is virtually no positive correlation between a team's strikeout totals and its runs-scored totals. When it comes to offense, an out is an out is an out.

 

On an individual level, the evidence against strikeouts as the scourge of the earth only gets more damning. Check out the correlation between Ks and the various elements of offensive production:

Correlation of SO/PA with (all players 1950-2002, 300+ PA)

 

While it might not be overwhelming, there is a distinct, positive correlation between an individual's strikeout rate and a number of useful attributes: hitting for power-as represented in this case by isolated power (ISO, or slugging percentage minus batting average) and slugging percentage (SLG)-as well as drawing walks-as represented by walk-rate (BB/PA). Of course, causation is a sticky subject, so try not to misinterpret the above data as "proof" that increased strikeouts cause an improvement in a player's secondary skills. It's just that where one group shows up, often so does the other.

 

Notice, also, the virtually non-existent (albeit positive) correlation between strikeout rate and "complete" measures of offensive performance like on-base plus slugging (OPS) and Marginal Lineup Value Rate (MLVr). No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't appear that strikeouts have much of an effect on a team's-or an individual's-ability to produce runs.

But those are hitters. Pitchers, on the other hand, are a completely different story.

 

PITCHERS

Where the value of "just putting the ball in play" has often been overstated for hitters, the opposite has long been the case for pitchers. In their case, a strikeout is most definitely not "just another out." In fact, the ability to create outs for one's self is among the most important skills a pitcher can possess.

 

Why? There are a number of reasons, but mainly it's because more strikeouts mean fewer balls in play. Fewer balls in play mean (on average) fewer hits surrendered. And with fewer hits surrendered come fewer runs allowed. The steps aren't perfect, mind you, but on a macro level they hold up. The following graph illustrates the correlation between individual strikeout rate and ERA from 1993-2002:

Or, to perhaps give this conclusion some real-world resonance, look at the disparity in ERA between those pitchers with the highest strikeout rates in the league in 2003 and those at the bottom of the barrel:

 

The difference isn't accidental. In a nine-inning complete game, Kerry Wood is roughly 30% less reliant upon his defense to convert batted balls into outs than someone like Kirk Rueter or Nate Cornejo would be. That's not just a huge difference, that's a Marlon-Brando-pulling-up-a-chair-to-the-buffet difference.

 

Strikeout rate also has predictive value. According to a study conducted by Keith Woolner, pitchers with high strikeout rates age better than comparable pitchers (i.e., pitchers who posted similar park-adjusted ERAs at the same age) with low strikeout rates. Bill James also gave this subject some treatment in his most recent edition of the Historical Baseball Abstract when discussing Mark Fidrych, and came to a similar-if slightly hyperbolic, as Tommy John can attest-conclusion: "There is simply no such thing as a starting pitcher who has a long career with a low strikeout rate."

 

The prominence of the strikeout in Major League Baseball has been increasing steadily over the past 130 years, and it may continue to grow as teams begin to let go of their macho attachment to "just putting the ball in play" on offense, while further valuing pitchers who are self-sufficient on the mound. Like many other developments in baseball, this will be a sign of evolution, and a better game overall will be the result.

 

Don't fear the strikeout. In many ways it is a harbinger of better things to come.

 

Related Content:  Strikeout Rate,  Strikeout

you have to open link to see actual graphs

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

 

 

WHAT SAY YOU?

[drock2190]

I say its too late, can't read that wall of text

[drjim]

The key is that this is an old article. I'm not willing to find it, but later studies have softened this conclusion a little. Ks do matter somewhat.

 

It does defy logic that ks would be the most important fact for one half of the equation and not matter at all for the other half.

 

And thinking about Walker specifically, it is not just the obscene k rate but also the extremely low bb rate that hampers him.

[drivlikejehu]

Yeah, the walk rate is really what illustrates Walker's severe limitations as a hitter. The K rate is bad but it wouldn't be completely hopeless if he worked counts and took a good number of walks.

 

The combination is completely hopeless. But he will be a minor league attraction for a number of years to come.

[lightfoot789]

I truly understand the logic behind the BB rationale.  I just can't figure out how or why he scores more than everyone on his team or in the league for that matter.   I'm talking every year he is among the league leaders.  That's why "I" find him an anomaly.  It defies logic and prevents me from being as hopeless as you are.  But I get the normal odds of the situation.  Just to many intangibles that go along with Walkers history to make me say nay nay.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

It does defy logic that ks would be the most important fact for one half of the equation and not matter at all for the other half.

 

 

This...

 

That's the part that I've never quite understood about these conclusions.  If it matters for pitchers, then it matters for hitters too.  It may not matter in the same way, but it matters. 

 

Side note, I'm pretty sure this is from a style of thinking that no longer exists in the SABR community.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I truly understand the logic behind the BB rationale.  I just can't figure out how or why he scores more than everyone on his team or in the league for that matter.   I'm talking every year he is among the league leaders.  That's why "I" find him an anomaly.  It defies logic and prevents me from being as hopeless as you are.  But I get the normal odds of the situation.  Just to many intangibles that go along with Walkers history to make me say nay nay.

 

As I point out in the other current Walker thread, he's never been the best run scorer on his own team and except for rookie ball it hasn't even been close. He just plays in a lot of games while other guys get promoted. 

[BoomBoom]

 

As I point out in the other current Walker thread, he's never been the best run scorer on his own team and except for rookie ball it hasn't even been close. He just plays in a lot of games while other guys get promoted. 

 

Must be playing because coaches want him in the lineup.  Why does he play in a lot of games?  Actually more games than any player in the system over the last 3 years.  

 

And your statement is not even close to the truth.  He has been 1st or 2nd in total runs scored every season.  And the people who were routinely ahead of  Walker have all played for the Twins this season (Polanco; Sano; and Buxton).  Twins fans will be patient with a 23 year old in AA.  Trust me.

[nicksaviking]

This...

 

That's the part that I've never quite understood about these conclusions.  If it matters for pitchers, then it matters for hitters too.  It may not matter in the same way, but it matters. 

 

Side note, I'm pretty sure this is from a style of thinking that no longer exists in the SABR community.

The difference lies in what happens when the ball is put into play. Batters statistics don't get any boost from putting the ball in play and moving a runner over. Getting the runners into scoring position is a pretty strong at bat though and the pitcher too often pays for it. Strikeouts prevent this. Unless the catcher drops strike three, strikeouts prevent everything in fact. They are baseballs trump card.

[drivlikejehu]

Yes, Walker has been good enough to crack the minor league lineup every day. Ditto for hundreds of other non-prospects.

[DuluthFan]

I like how the article says strikeout pitchers have longer careers, yet use the example of Kerry Wood who did not have a long career starting. Strikeout pitchers tend to throw more pitches, more pitches lead to more arm wear.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

The difference lies in what happens when the ball is put into play. Batters statistics don't get any boost from putting the ball in play and moving a runner over. Getting the runners into scoring position is a pretty strong at bat though and the pitcher too often pays for it. Strikeouts prevent this. Unless the catcher drops strike three, strikeouts prevent everything in fact. They are baseballs trump card.

bingo. If a k is just another out, then why measure BABIP? There's a lot more uncertainty with struck balls than whiffed balls. While OBP has a better correlation to runs score than BA, and K rate has a less direct inverse relationship. Errors happen that result in getting on base and advancing runners is more beneficial than not. these events rarely happen on strikeouts.

[Lonestar]

With all due respect, I’m not sure some of you understand the difference between RBI + Run Scored and Run Created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runs_created

This article is about team stats and individual strikeouts (not an individual’s strikeouts).  An individual strikeout is pretty much like any other out (except a double play). Team strikeouts are essentially irrelevant when calculating Runs Created.  That’s because there’s a relevant range for team K rates.  There’s nothing like ABW’s 37% and the effect it would have on Hits and BB’s.

 

ABW hits HR’s like Dave Kingman and Rob Deer and strikes out sort of like them too.  The problem is he doesn’t walk like them. So he is not going to get on base often and he’s going to make a lot of outs. Getting on base is good.  Making outs is bad, whether they are K’s or not.

 

     Remember, teams get roughly the same number of outs per season.

     ABW figures to create many more outs per 500 plate appearances than most.

 

BABIP is meaningful for pitchers.  They all have the same normal range (more or less).  Anything outside of that range is luck and/or bad defense.

 

BABIP doesn't work like that for hitters.  We don’t know what ABW’s true BABIP is.  What we do know is that it won’t be .369 like it is now, regardless of intangibles.  His BABIP in his first three years against inferior competition is less than .310.  The thing is, ABW’s K rate is keeping him from taking advantage of his BABIP and limiting his OBP/Iso D.

 

We are all Twins fans and we are pulling for Adam Brett Walker II. Some of us are more optimistic about him than others. Has anyone looked for major leaguers that had a K% of 30%+ and a BB% of 7.3%-?