For those clamouring for less Ks...

[Rik19753]

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-new-vladimir-guerrero-jr-is-holding-the-old-one-back/

The grass is always greener on the other side.

If you don't want to read the article, here is the summary:

Vladimir Guerrero traded quality of contact in his kill zone for quantity of contact everywhere over the past two years. This led to fewer Ks but fewer hard hit balls. The end result was a 118 OPS+ which was nearly 50 lower than his 166 OPS+ in 2021, and a ISO smaller than that of TJ Friedl's.

 

This is the exact opposite of what happened to Kepler last year. Kepler K'd more, walked less, but hit the ball much harder and was much better overall.

Obviously, it's important to strike a balance between power and Ks. But nobody knows, and nobody will know, where the perfect balance is. Maybe, just maybe, the Twins are doing it the right way and getting the maximum out of their players, and other teams aren't selling out enough for power. 

[Riverbrian]

I have no problem with the Twins taking the approach of being patient, not swinging at junk, looking for that mistake to drive. The Twins front office has explained that patience will lead to more K's... I understand this. However, I suspect that this approach is universal. Explaining the approach may explain why strikeouts occur but it doesn't explain why the Twins led the league in strikeouts because I believe most teams take this very same approach. They probably all preach patience. I'd be willing to bet that the Blue Jays have had a few conversations with Vlad Jr about swinging at the right pitches. 

Like you said... It's important to strike a balance between power and K's.

Our balance was off... we set a strikeout record... no team in the history of baseball has struck out more than the Twins did in 2023. 

This needs to be improved. Gallo off the roster will help a lot. 

 

  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

3 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I have no problem with the Twins taking the approach of being patient, not swinging at junk, looking for that mistake to drive. The Twins front office has explained that patience will lead to more K's... I understand this. However, I suspect that this approach is universal. Explaining the approach may explain why strikeouts occur but it doesn't explain why the Twins led the league in strikeouts because I believe most teams take this very same approach. They probably all preach patience. I'd be willing to bet that the Blue Jays have had a few conversations with Vlad Jr about swinging at the right pitches. 

Like you said... It's important to strike a balance between power and K's.

Our balance was off... we set a strikeout record... no team in the history of baseball has struck out more than the Twins did in 2023. 

This needs to be improved. Gallo off the roster will help a lot. 

 

  

Agreed, you kind of touched on this, but there’s a few ways to look at the article.

1) individual player approach. Vlad jr changing his approach hurt his value to the team. I agree with this in scope.

2) lineup construction. The ‘23 Twins struggled in the first half in part due to homogeneity. It’s really easy to pitch against a lineup that approaches every at bat almost identically. When the lineup got younger, they also got more diverse outcomes. 

3) organizational philosophy. Agreed with the philosophy that high strikeout rate is tolerable as it correlates with power. How closely the organizational philosophy gets followed with regards to 1 and 2 with player acquisition and coaching is the sticky spot (and the homogenous lineup as the example). Execution of the strategy needs to be a bit more nuanced than some of the discussion lends itself to.

[Riverbrian]

12 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Agreed, you kind of touched on this, but there’s a few ways to look at the article.

1) individual player approach. Vlad jr changing his approach hurt his value to the team. I agree with this in scope.

2) lineup construction. The ‘23 Twins struggled in the first half in part due to homogeneity. It’s really easy to pitch against a lineup that approaches every at bat almost identically. When the lineup got younger, they also got more diverse outcomes. 

3) organizational philosophy. Agreed with the philosophy that high strikeout rate is tolerable as it correlates with power. How closely the organizational philosophy gets followed with regards to 1 and 2 with player acquisition and coaching is the sticky spot (and the homogenous lineup as the example). Execution of the strategy needs to be a bit more nuanced than some of the discussion lends itself to.

That sameness was probably a big reason why Arraez was a breath of fresh air in a Twins uniform. 

The Twins approach is fine... We just need some players to be better at it. 

BTW... If Vlad Jr. settles down a bit... I believe he would be better... and that's good for me because I have him in my keeper fantasy league.  

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

His first half was atrocious lets just look at the second half.  

235 AB 72 H 17 doubles, 2 triples, 12 HR  36 RBI   27 BB 54 SO   .306/.377/.549  slash line.    

He struck out 22% of the time.  Homerun rate is 5% of at bats.   Which was actually down from the first half.  For his career he strikes out 20% of the time, and his HR rate for his career is 4% of at bats , lastly he walked 11% of the time which is right in line with his career rates of a little better than 10%.  So other than a couple more homers what changed.   His batting average jumped to .300 with a bunch more singles and more doubles.  Not only was he make better contact but a few more hits that were eliminated in the shift started to drop and he had several other hits find holes.  You would have thought with a lot better contact the homer rate would have increase substantially but ultimately thats not what occurred,  It was a drast jump in singles, a good jump in doubles and adding 2 triples to the mix.  

When the BA jumps from .220 to .300 there is obviously something going on, and more than just luck.  

[chpettit19]

19 minutes ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

His first half was atrocious lets just look at the second half.  

235 AB 72 H 17 doubles, 2 triples, 12 HR  36 RBI   27 BB 54 SO   .306/.377/.549  slash line.    

He struck out 22% of the time.  Homerun rate is 5% of at bats.   Which was actually down from the first half.  For his career he strikes out 20% of the time, and his HR rate for his career is 4% of at bats , lastly he walked 11% of the time which is right in line with his career rates of a little better than 10%.  So other than a couple more homers what changed.   His batting average jumped to .300 with a bunch more singles and more doubles.  Not only was he make better contact but a few more hits that were eliminated in the shift started to drop and he had several other hits find holes.  You would have thought with a lot better contact the homer rate would have increase substantially but ultimately thats not what occurred,  It was a drast jump in singles, a good jump in doubles and adding 2 triples to the mix.  

When the BA jumps from .220 to .300 there is obviously something going on, and more than just luck.  

I watched a segment on him on MLB Network sometime last week. His HR rate doesn't match his barrel and hard hit rate type of stats because he gets too much topspin. I forget the exact numbers, but basically balls he hit at a certain velo (or above) and in a certain launch angle range (very much like barrel%, but I don't think they just used barrel%) were compared to the rest of the league. The rest of the league averaged something like 385 ft on those balls while he averaged something like 372 ft. So he smashes the ball, but doesn't get the carry likely because he gets too much top spin and it pulls the ball back down as it flies. He's an interesting hitter who should be better even though he's already really good.

[jorgenswest]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye Bean Counter said:

His first half was atrocious lets just look at the second half.  

235 AB 72 H 17 doubles, 2 triples, 12 HR  36 RBI   27 BB 54 SO   .306/.377/.549  slash line.    

He struck out 22% of the time.  Homerun rate is 5% of at bats.   Which was actually down from the first half.  For his career he strikes out 20% of the time, and his HR rate for his career is 4% of at bats , lastly he walked 11% of the time which is right in line with his career rates of a little better than 10%.  So other than a couple more homers what changed.   His batting average jumped to .300 with a bunch more singles and more doubles.  Not only was he make better contact but a few more hits that were eliminated in the shift started to drop and he had several other hits find holes.  You would have thought with a lot better contact the homer rate would have increase substantially but ultimately thats not what occurred,  It was a drast jump in singles, a good jump in doubles and adding 2 triples to the mix.  

When the BA jumps from .220 to .300 there is obviously something going on, and more than just luck.  

It is possible in the small sample of a partial season that a shift from .220 to .300 in batting average is luck often seen by a huge swing in BABiP. Batting average stabilizes at 910 at bats and neither half was near that sample.

I do think the shift restrictions helped Kepler and perhaps allowed him to be more comfortable seeking harder contact rather trying to hit the ball to the opposite field. He did hit the ball harder in the second half but I am not sure we should expect a .351 BABiP of the second half or the .210 of the first half. Even in his 2019 season when his hard hit rate was similar to the second half but his BABiP was only .244. He also started off last year in April with a hard hit rate that matched the second half but didn’t get the same reward in stats as he did the second half of the season. 

[Hawkeye Bean Counter]

3 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

It is possible in the small sample of a partial season that a shift from .220 to .300 in batting average is luck often seen by a huge swing in BABiP. Batting average stabilizes at 910 at bats and neither half was near that sample.

I do think the shift restrictions helped Kepler and perhaps allowed him to be more comfortable seeking harder contact rather trying to hit the ball to the opposite field. He did hit the ball harder in the second half but I am not sure we should expect a .351 BABiP of the second half or the .210 of the first half. Even in his 2019 season when his hard hit rate was similar to the second half but his BABiP was only .244. He also started off last year in April with a hard hit rate that matched the second half but didn’t get the same reward in stats as he did the second half of the season. 

If it averages to .260 to .270 that is a very very good player.  I am not expecting a .300 hitter this year,  I do think something has substantially changed and am expecting a .270+ hitter batting average, with everything else remaining the same.   

[wabene]

33 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

It is possible in the small sample of a partial season that a shift from .220 to .300 in batting average is luck often seen by a huge swing in BABiP. Batting average stabilizes at 910 at bats and neither half was near that sample.

I do think the shift restrictions helped Kepler and perhaps allowed him to be more comfortable seeking harder contact rather trying to hit the ball to the opposite field. He did hit the ball harder in the second half but I am not sure we should expect a .351 BABiP of the second half or the .210 of the first half. Even in his 2019 season when his hard hit rate was similar to the second half but his BABiP was only .244. He also started off last year in April with a hard hit rate that matched the second half but didn’t get the same reward in stats as he did the second half of the season. 

Man that .351 babip in the second is crazy. Even moreso considering Kepler usually has among the lowest babip's in the league. I hope he bottles whatever he found last year. 

[Richie the Rally Goat]

6 hours ago, wabene said:

Man that .351 babip in the second is crazy. Even moreso considering Kepler usually has among the lowest babip's in the league. I hope he bottles whatever he found last year. 

And sells it to the rest of the Twins lineup and no one else

[Rik19753]

20 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

I have no problem with the Twins taking the approach of being patient, not swinging at junk, looking for that mistake to drive. The Twins front office has explained that patience will lead to more K's... I understand this. However, I suspect that this approach is universal. Explaining the approach may explain why strikeouts occur but it doesn't explain why the Twins led the league in strikeouts because I believe most teams take this very same approach. They probably all preach patience. I'd be willing to bet that the Blue Jays have had a few conversations with Vlad Jr about swinging at the right pitches. 

Like you said... It's important to strike a balance between power and K's.

Our balance was off... we set a strikeout record... no team in the history of baseball has struck out more than the Twins did in 2023. 

This needs to be improved. Gallo off the roster will help a lot. 

 

  

The fact that the Twins set a K record doesn't automatically mean that the Twins' approach is wrong. There is a possibility that the Twins are just ahead of the curve. In 10 years, we could be saying that a 30% K rate is normal, and that in 2023 teams weren't selling out for power enough.

As I said, there is no way to know the perfect balance because every team plays under different conditions, with different players with different skill sets. Maybe the Twins striking out at an unprecedented rate maximized the production from their lineup.

 

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Rik19753 said:

The fact that the Twins set a K record doesn't automatically mean that the Twins' approach is wrong. There is a possibility that the Twins are just ahead of the curve. In 10 years, we could be saying that a 30% K rate is normal, and that in 2023 teams weren't selling out for power enough.

As I said, there is no way to know the perfect balance because every team plays under different conditions, with different players with different skill sets. Maybe the Twins striking out at an unprecedented rate maximized the production from their lineup.

 

K's are bad. There is no circumstance where the K is good. K's are a problem that smart people will try to solve. K's are a negative result from a good thing much like the air pollution produced by a factory that produces defibrillators. 

I won't pretend to know the perfect balance but I think it is safe to say that setting the team strikeout record isn't good. It is certainly not something other teams are going to admire or strive for. The team that struck out the 2nd most (The Mariners have shoved their 2023 K leaders out the door in an attempt to repair something broken)

There is no chance that other teams will look at a team that was 10th in runs scored and 1st in K's and think it's a blueprint. 

Now... will baseball drift the direction you suggest naturally. Maybe... but it will face resistance from the front offices as they try to navigate the ship much like the Mariners are doing. 

 

[Cap'n Piranha]

On 1/23/2024 at 5:14 AM, Riverbrian said:

K's are bad. There is no circumstance where the K is good. K's are a problem that smart people will try to solve. K's are a negative result from a good thing much like the air pollution produced by a factory that produces defibrillators. 

I won't pretend to know the perfect balance but I think it is safe to say that setting the team strikeout record isn't good. It is certainly not something other teams are going to admire or strive for. The team that struck out the 2nd most (The Mariners have shoved their 2023 K leaders out the door in an attempt to repair something broken)

There is no chance that other teams will look at a team that was 10th in runs scored and 1st in K's and think it's a blueprint. 

Now... will baseball drift the direction you suggest naturally. Maybe... but it will face resistance from the front offices as they try to navigate the ship much like the Mariners are doing. 

 

Ks are bad, but so are outs.  Striking out is in the grand scheme of things probably no worse than grounding out or flying out.  Are there times where a ball in play is beneficial, such as advancing a runner or a sacrifice fly?  Yes.  Are there times where a ball in play is detrimental, such as a GIDP or a lead runner being erased?  Yes.

Since almost every hitter will make an out at least 60% of the time, it really doesn't matter in a vacuum whether that out is via strikeout or ball in play.  There are certainly situations where a ball in play is preferable (runner on second/third, less than 2 outs), but that speaks more to an issue with approach; if a hitter is swinging the same way regardless of situation, that's an issue.  In other words, the issue is the process, not the result.

[Riverbrian]

21 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Ks are bad, but so are outs.  Striking out is in the grand scheme of things probably no worse than grounding out or flying out.  Are there times where a ball in play is beneficial, such as advancing a runner or a sacrifice fly?  Yes.  Are there times where a ball in play is detrimental, such as a GIDP or a lead runner being erased?  Yes.

Since almost every hitter will make an out at least 60% of the time, it really doesn't matter in a vacuum whether that out is via strikeout or ball in play.  There are certainly situations where a ball in play is preferable (runner on second/third, less than 2 outs), but that speaks more to an issue with approach; if a hitter is swinging the same way regardless of situation, that's an issue.  In other words, the issue is the process, not the result.

A strikeout is a guaranteed out. 

An out is an out but... a ball in play can be a bloop single... advance a runner. And Yes it can be a double play. K's are worse and I'm sure you will agree with that. 

But to be clear... I am not arguing with the process.

Patient hitters will produce more two strike counts and therefore more strikeouts... swinging at crap instead of getting to a two strike count is going to lower slugging. I'm ok with the process... However our result was setting a record spanning the history of baseball for the most strikeouts in a season. That has to be corrected without changing the process. Other teams use the same process and they did not break the record in K's. 

In our case... It's the result. We need better balance. 

Losing Gallo is going to help... The funny thing is... we've had a lot of discussion on the subject over the summer about how the Nationals don't strike out much but yet are one of the worst offenses in baseball... so... here come the Nationals signing Joey Gallo to increase those K's for them. The Nationals may also be searching for balance from the opposite end just like the Mariners are.  

Mr. Miyagi once said: Lesson not just karate only. Lesson for whole life. Whole life have a balance. Everything be better. 

[RpR]

21 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Ks are bad, but so are outs.  Striking out is in the grand scheme of things probably no worse than grounding out or flying out.  Are there times where a ball in play is beneficial, such as advancing a runner or a sacrifice fly?  Yes.  Are there times where a ball in play is detrimental, such as a GIDP or a lead runner being erased?  Yes.

Since almost every hitter will make an out at least 60% of the time, it really doesn't matter in a vacuum whether that out is via strikeout or ball in play.  There are certainly situations where a ball in play is preferable (runner on second/third, less than 2 outs), but that speaks more to an issue with approach; if a hitter is swinging the same way regardless of situation, that's an issue.  In other words, the issue is the process, not the result.

A strike out shows the pitcher is controlling the batter, psychologically a HUGE difference.

[jorgenswest]

32 minutes ago, RpR said:

A strike out shows the pitcher is controlling the batter, psychologically a HUGE difference.

Psychologically to me watching the game. Yes.

Psychologically to the batter or the next batter or the bench. I am not so sure.

There is too much failure for all players in baseball for a player to get to the majors without being pretty resilient. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, RpR said:

A strike out shows the pitcher is controlling the batter, psychologically a HUGE difference.

If this is true, then certainly a batter hitting a homerun is the batter controlling the pitcher.  Therefore, it might be preferable to lose minor battles in order to win a major one (that is, batters are fine being controlled occasionally in return for the greater instance of controlling the pitcher).

[Riverbrian]

18 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

If this is true, then certainly a batter hitting a homerun is the batter controlling the pitcher.  Therefore, it might be preferable to lose minor battles in order to win a major one (that is, batters are fine being controlled occasionally in return for the greater instance of controlling the pitcher).

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, Riverbrian said:

A strikeout is a guaranteed out. 

An out is an out but... a ball in play can be a bloop single... advance a runner. And Yes it can be a double play. K's are worse and I'm sure you will agree with that. 

But to be clear... I am not arguing with the process.

Patient hitters will produce more two strike counts and therefore more strikeouts... swinging at crap instead of getting to a two strike count is going to lower slugging. I'm ok with the process... However our result was setting a record spanning the history of baseball for the most strikeouts in a season. That has to be corrected without changing the process. Other teams use the same process and they did not break the record in K's. 

In our case... It's the result. We need better balance. 

Losing Gallo is going to help... The funny thing is... we've had a lot of discussion on the subject over the summer about how the Nationals don't strike out much but yet are one of the worst offenses in baseball... so... here come the Nationals signing Joey Gallo to increase those K's for them. The Nationals may also be searching for balance from the opposite end just like the Mariners are.  

Mr. Miyagi once said: Lesson not just karate only. Lesson for whole life. Whole life have a balance. Everything be better. 

Quibbling to be sure, but strikeouts are not guaranteed outs--passed or dropped third strikes do result in baserunners as opposed to outs.  The frequency with which this happens is very small, to be sure.

You are correct that a ball in play can do positive things.  My entire argument is that while balls in play can do positive things, they can also do negative things.  A strikeout is (almost) always one out; it is never 2.  A ball in play is at least one out 70% of the time (the league-wide BABIP was .297 in 2023); about 3% of the time (nestled within that 70%) it is 2 outs, and sometimes it's still one out even if the batter reaches (lead runners being thrown out, runners trying to take an extra base being gunned down, etc).  As such, I don't agree that strikeouts are worse than ball-in-play outs.

Now, if the argument is that striking out is worse than putting the ball in play, result undefined, then I agree.  I would rather have a team that ends every plate appearance with a ball in play than a team that ends every plate appearance with a strikeout.  However, if the option is between a team that records every out via a ball in play as opposed to a team that records every out via strikeout, I'm not so sure.

I agree that better balance is needed--that's what I meant by the issue is the process.  When there is a runner on third and one out, contact becomes more important.  When you're down 2 to start 9th inning, getting a baserunner is more important.  When you have runners on first and second with two outs, getting a homer is more important (which probably means higher strikeout odds).  In short, I want our hitters to understand the game situation, and adjust their approach accordingly.

[RpR]

42 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

If this is true, then certainly a batter hitting a homerun is the batter controlling the pitcher.  Therefore, it might be preferable to lose minor battles in order to win a major one (that is, batters are fine being controlled occasionally in return for the greater instance of controlling the pitcher).

Batters hitting home runs in strings in one game is rare; pitchers striking out batter in strings in one game is common.

Your analogy is faultiy.

Pitcher controls the pitches and if he strike out  a gent  repeatedly he owns that batter, simple as that.

PItchers get pulled for too many walks, not too many strike outs; so many here are trying to make batters striking out OK, but had snit fits when batters hit into ground outs, bizarre.

[Alex]

Yes strikeouts are a bad result, for sure.   But, an approach that leads to a high number of strikeouts isn't necessarily bad (which is the point of the OP's post). 

It's easy to think that changing an approach to one that leads to fewer strikeouts would mean more runs, but that's just not always going to be the case.   

That change approach may lead to fewer at bats that result in strikeouts, but it could also lead to fewer hard hit balls on those that they do connect with, which could mean fewer extra base hits and fewer hits overall (again, see the numbers in the OP).   

It's why, at least when considering  approach, looking at overall results is important and not just the result of an AB.   The Twins managed a top 10 offense despite striking out at record numbers.   The Cleveland Guardians were one of the bottom three teams in the league in offense but struck out the least.  The Nationals struck out just a bit more than Cleveland and were a bottom 10 offense. 

Gallo going elsewhere, as mentioned above, is definitely going to help the strikeout numbers, but it's interesting to consider that trading his ABs for Larnach (who would have been a reasonable replacement option and would have struck out less) might not actually have resulted in better offense.   Obviously, not signing him and just plugging in Wallner would have been a significantly better option.

That's not to say that things can't be tweaked, but focusing on one result of ABs (even if it's a historic one) doesn't tell the whole story.

[Cap'n Piranha]

I was curious, so I did some more digging, looking at 2023 stats by team, and grouping the 10 teams with the most strikeouts, and the 10 teams with the fewest strikeouts, I found that there's not really a difference.  Teams with fewer strikeouts had the advantage in HR hit (by an average of 3/team), runs scored (by an average of 29/team, or one run every 5.6 games), and SLG (by an average of .012/team, which is 12 singles/1000 ABs [or 6 doubles, 4 triples, or 3 HR]; that works out to one more single every 2.5 games, one double every 5 games, one triple every 7.5 games, or 1 HR every 10 games.

Lower strikeout teams also had a better batting average (not surprising), but only by .012 points; they averaged 8.58 hits/game compared to high strikeout teams averaging 8.18 hits/game.  That works out to one more hit every 2.5 games.  High strikeout teams held a slight advantage in less soft contact (15.5% for high strikeout v 15.6% for low) and walks (by an average of 6/team), and both groups were essentially tied in hard contact.

So given this data, it would suggest that an increased strikeout rate does not result in more hard contact, homeruns, or ultimately runs--therefore the idea that accepting strikeouts as the cost for more power and harder contact does not hold water.  However, given the very small advantages low strikeout teams enjoyed over high ones, it also does not appear that strikeouts are a plague upon offensive production.  As it turns out, strikeouts are only slightly worse than non-strikeout outs when it comes to season-long offensive output.  Therefore, the drive to avoid them is based more on a disdain for the aesthetic of strikeouts, rather than any significant statistical merit.

Interestingly, when looking at the middle 10 teams for strikeouts, they look very much like the best of both worlds.  This group scored the most runs, hit the most homers, and had the best hard hit rate.  Their SLG was the same as the low strikeout teams, and they were very close on walks and soft contact to the high strikeout teams, while AVG was only .004 behind the low strikeout teams (1 hit every 8ish games).  Suggests that, indeed, balance is a good thing.

[Riverbrian]

3 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I was curious, so I did some more digging, looking at 2023 stats by team, and grouping the 10 teams with the most strikeouts, and the 10 teams with the fewest strikeouts, I found that there's not really a difference.  Teams with fewer strikeouts had the advantage in HR hit (by an average of 3/team), runs scored (by an average of 29/team, or one run every 5.6 games), and SLG (by an average of .012/team, which is 12 singles/1000 ABs [or 6 doubles, 4 triples, or 3 HR]; that works out to one more single every 2.5 games, one double every 5 games, one triple every 7.5 games, or 1 HR every 10 games.

Lower strikeout teams also had a better batting average (not surprising), but only by .012 points; they averaged 8.58 hits/game compared to high strikeout teams averaging 8.18 hits/game.  That works out to one more hit every 2.5 games.  High strikeout teams held a slight advantage in less soft contact (15.5% for high strikeout v 15.6% for low) and walks (by an average of 6/team), and both groups were essentially tied in hard contact.

So given this data, it would suggest that an increased strikeout rate does not result in more hard contact, homeruns, or ultimately runs--therefore the idea that accepting strikeouts as the cost for more power and harder contact does not hold water.  However, given the very small advantages low strikeout teams enjoyed over high ones, it also does not appear that strikeouts are a plague upon offensive production.  As it turns out, strikeouts are only slightly worse than non-strikeout outs when it comes to season-long offensive output.  Therefore, the drive to avoid them is based more on a disdain for the aesthetic of strikeouts, rather than any significant statistical merit.

Interestingly, when looking at the middle 10 teams for strikeouts, they look very much like the best of both worlds.  This group scored the most runs, hit the most homers, and had the best hard hit rate.  Their SLG was the same as the low strikeout teams, and they were very close on walks and soft contact to the high strikeout teams, while AVG was only .004 behind the low strikeout teams (1 hit every 8ish games).  Suggests that, indeed, balance is a good thing.

Good Digging. 

Posters who look at not just the Twins but also the other teams to form a basis for opinions on the Twins will always get my attention and respect. 

Using a bizarre comparable that I like to use from time to time. To me the strikeout problem is like what happens with your gas mileage when you buy a truck or SUV. If you need to haul some stuff around (Power). You are going to sacrifice MPG's (Strikeouts) in order to haul that stuff around. 

It's alright... you need to haul stuff around so the low MPG is part of the deal.  

However... other teams were able to haul stuff around and get 20 MPG... The Twins were getting 10 MPG. 

The Twins need to remove that bike rack. Quit idling all the damn time. Check tire pressure and quit tromping on the accelerator. 

[Alex]

8 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

So given this data, it would suggest that an increased strikeout rate does not result in more hard contact, homeruns, or ultimately runs--therefore the idea that accepting strikeouts as the cost for more power and harder contact does not hold water. 

Well, imo,  that's not really the argument.  No one is saying that teams that strikeout more hit for more power as a rule.  Bad hitters strike out, too.   Your data collection doesn't really provide enough data to say that power approaches do/don't lead to strike out since it lacks a control  (it's significantly more muddy than the OP)  What your data does show, as you mention and has been widely accepted, is that strikeouts, on their own, aren't an indicator of good or bad offense.

[Cap'n Piranha]

16 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

Good Digging. 

Posters who look at not just the Twins but also the other teams to form a basis for opinions on the Twins will always get my attention and respect. 

Using a bizarre comparable that I like to use from time to time. To me the strikeout problem is like what happens with your gas mileage when you buy a truck or SUV. If you need to haul some stuff around (Power). You are going to sacrifice MPG's (Strikeouts) in order to haul that stuff around. 

It's alright... you need to haul stuff around so the low MPG is part of the deal.  

However... other teams were able to haul stuff around and get 20 MPG... The Twins were getting 10 MPG. 

The Twins need to remove that bike rack. Quit idling all the damn time. Check tire pressure and quit tromping on the accelerator. 

I halfway agree on the analogy.  Where you lose me is in not including that the teams that got 20 MPG while hauling stuff probably paid a lot more for their truck/SUV.  Atlanta, Houston, the Mets, Toronto and San Diego all appear on the top ten list for teams with the fewest strikeouts; those teams ranked 1st, 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 10th in payroll.  Meanwhile, only Philly and the Angels appear on both the top ten list for most strikeouts and highest payroll.  Just like you can pay more to get a higher-performing vehicle, you can also pay more to get a higher performing strikeout v homerun lineup.

[Cap'n Piranha]

11 hours ago, Alex said:

Well, imo,  that's not really the argument.  No one is saying that teams that strikeout more hit for more power as a rule.  Bad hitters strike out, too.   Your data collection doesn't really provide enough data to say that power approaches do/don't lead to strike out since it lacks a control  (it's significantly more muddy than the OP)  What your data does show, as you mention and has been widely accepted, is that strikeouts, on their own, aren't an indicator of good or bad offense.

Plenty of people say this.  It's one of the supposed justifications for increased strikeouts.  The data I provided was simply intended to demonstrate there is no correlation between striking out more and hitting for more power; if there was, why did teams with fewer strikeouts hit more homeruns and have higher SLG?

You are correct in saying that bad hitters strikeout.  What you don't acknowledge is that bad hitters who strike out don't last long in the league (or they never make the league to begin with).  A team will stomach a player who hits .200 while striking out 35% of the time if that is accompanied by a .350 OBP and 35 HR (it's why Joey Gallo keeps getting MLB contracts).  They won't if the player hits .200 with a 35% k rate, but only has a .275 OBP and 10 HR.

So the only point I'm making with my data is that we shouldn't think the Twins offense will magically get better by striking out less, nor should we think that the Guardians offense would get better by striking out more.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I halfway agree on the analogy.  Where you lose me is in not including that the teams that got 20 MPG while hauling stuff probably paid a lot more for their truck/SUV.  Atlanta, Houston, the Mets, Toronto and San Diego all appear on the top ten list for teams with the fewest strikeouts; those teams ranked 1st, 3rd, 7th, 9th, and 10th in payroll.  Meanwhile, only Philly and the Angels appear on both the top ten list for most strikeouts and highest payroll.  Just like you can pay more to get a higher-performing vehicle, you can also pay more to get a higher performing strikeout v homerun lineup.

Half Way? 

C'mon... It's just a half more. You can get here with me. 

Honestly... I just pulled that analogy out of my... umm... well... same place I pull most of my analogies out of.  

But, to continue to torture the analogy beyond recognition. You will find low priced vehicles mixed in with the high priced vehicles all with similar MPG's.

The money spent is buying comfort, stylishness, other things. 

The Twins didn't choose a vehicle (whatever the price) because it got 10 miles to the gallon. They were hoping for 20 just like everybody else gets.

They got 10 miles to the gallon and now they got to look at their driving behavior.  

 

 

[Alex]

8 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

The data I provided was simply intended to demonstrate there is no correlation between striking out more and hitting for more power; if there was, why did teams with fewer strikeouts hit more homeruns and have higher SLG?

Because that group is just generally a better group of hitters?   In order to really come to your conclusion, at least the one I was discussing, I think you'd have to look at more players altering their approach (as in the two examples of the OP).

 

8 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

  What you don't acknowledge is that bad hitters who strike out don't last long in the league (or they never make the league to begin with

I would acknowledge there are players that strike out enough that they don't stay in the league if it isn't offset some other way with a bat or in the field, but even within major league players there is a spectrum.  

 

8 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

So the only point I'm making with my data is that we shouldn't think the Twins offense will magically get better by striking out less, nor should we think that the Guardians offense would get better by striking out more.

I agree with you on this because it's not about the striking out more or less, it's what it means in the tradeoff of the approach or player skillset.   If the Twins were replacing Joey Gallo for Luis Arraez, it would have been a better offense and be striking out less.   If the Guardians traded for Kyle Schwarber in place of Will Brennan, they'd have a better offense and striking out more.