Pitchers and Strikeouts: Overrated?

[Texsox]

/hijack

 

Strikeouts are also, IMHO overrated for pitchers. I'd rather a guy have a 1-2-3 inning with all ground outs and 7 pitches than 1-2-3 with strikeouts and 18 pitches.

 

/back

[Texsox]

But once in a lifetime, a strikeout, swinging, can lead to a World Series championship

 

As mentioned above, OBP and BA first, then look at outs. If the OBP is satisfactory, then I don't worry as much about the outs. In play is better, but meh, an out is an out.

[lostfan]

/hijack

 

Strikeouts are also, IMHO overrated for pitchers. I'd rather a guy have a 1-2-3 inning with all ground outs and 7 pitches than 1-2-3 with strikeouts and 18 pitches.

 

/back

They do really come in handy when there's a guy on 3rd (or bases loaded) and less than 2 outs though.

 

/end re-hijack

[Balta1701]

/hijack

 

Strikeouts are also, IMHO overrated for pitchers. I'd rather a guy have a 1-2-3 inning with all ground outs and 7 pitches than 1-2-3 with strikeouts and 18 pitches.

 

/back

I dunno, I'd say it depends on your team. And the ballpark you're playing in. Etc.

 

Think about this example...which team is a strikeout more valuable to. The Rockies or the Tigers? The Rockies have a ridiculously good defense. The Tigers defense looks like a disaster area. If I'm pitching for the Rockies, I want to pitch to contact. If I'm pitching for the Tigers, I don't want Miguel Cabrera or Magglio Ordonez having to make a great play, because they wont' be able to do it.

 

For another counterpoint, I think Bill James's followers would argue that the strikeout does correlate pretty strongly with pitching performance also, because if you accept that BABIP is not going to go through huge variations in-between people, and that if people put the ball in play a finite number of those will turn in to hits, if you strike out 10 guys per game, yes it drives up your pitch count, but that takes you from 27 balls your guys have to field to 17. If each guy gets a hit 1/3 of the time they put the ball in play, that takes them from getting 9 hits down to 6.

 

Also, here's the final point. Do we think pitch counts are as important as they are treated today in MLB? Pitchers seem to get hurt just as often, there are still just a scant few who never have injury problems, and the numbers don't seem to have changed that much since I started watching baseball, despite the pitch count limit having gone down seemingly every year.

[Texsox]

They do really come in handy when there's a guy on 3rd (or bases loaded) and less than 2 outs though.

 

/end re-hijack

And exciting. Who, besides then opposing team and fans, doesn't enjoy watching (Texans) Nolan Ryan or Roger Clemens strike out 18?

[Texsox]

I dunno, I'd say it depends on your team. And the ballpark you're playing in. Etc.

 

Think about this example...which team is a strikeout more valuable to. The Rockies or the Tigers? The Rockies have a ridiculously good defense. The Tigers defense looks like a disaster area. If I'm pitching for the Rockies, I want to pitch to contact. If I'm pitching for the Tigers, I don't want Miguel Cabrera or Magglio Ordonez having to make a great play, because they wont' be able to do it.

 

For another counterpoint, I think Bill James's followers would argue that the strikeout does correlate pretty strongly with pitching performance also, because if you accept that BABIP is not going to go through huge variations in-between people, and that if people put the ball in play a finite number of those will turn in to hits, if you strike out 10 guys per game, yes it drives up your pitch count, but that takes you from 27 balls your guys have to field to 17. If each guy gets a hit 1/3 of the time they put the ball in play, that takes them from getting 9 hits down to 6.

 

Also, here's the final point. Do we think pitch counts are as important as they are treated today in MLB? Pitchers seem to get hurt just as often, there are still just a scant few who never have injury problems, and the numbers don't seem to have changed that much since I started watching baseball, despite the pitch count limit having gone down seemingly every year.

 

All excellent points. I retract my earlier statement.

[RME JICO]

/hijack

 

Strikeouts are also, IMHO overrated for pitchers. I'd rather a guy have a 1-2-3 inning with all ground outs and 7 pitches than 1-2-3 with strikeouts and 18 pitches.

 

/back

Strikeouts are overrated for pitchers?

 

Here are the top 10 strikeout pitchers from 2007:

Kazmir, Santana, Bedard, Vazquez, Sabathia, Matsuzaka, Beckett, Haren, Shields, Verlander.

 

That is a pretty good group of pitchers.

 

You can't completely discount K's. They shouldn't be the first discriminator, but should be considered.

 

With your example, there is no way to determine the pitch count by the outcome. I have seen AB's 10 or more pitches long end in a groundout. Granted a strikeout has a minimum of 3 pitches while a groundout has a minimum of 1. However, the probability of reaching base is basically zero with a strikeout (except for AJ) and is around 34% for a ball in play.

 

So looking at the odds, it is actually better to keep the ball out of play. That doesn't even take fielding errors into account.

[Texsox]

You can't completely discount K's. They shouldn't be the first discriminator, but should be considered.

 

Exactly what I was thinking when I said over rated.

[jackie hayes]

/hijack

 

Strikeouts are also, IMHO overrated for pitchers. I'd rather a guy have a 1-2-3 inning with all ground outs and 7 pitches than 1-2-3 with strikeouts and 18 pitches.

 

/back

Everyone would prefer that. But there aren't many pitchers who can guarantee a batted ball is a ground out and not a single.

 

Even those who think strikeouts are very important DO admit that there are exceptions. Extreme ground-ball pitchers can get away with fewer (guys like Wang, Carmona).

[lostfan]

If you look at sabermetrics I'm pretty sure they will tell you that Javier Vazquez is a much better pitcher than Mark Buehrle because Javy strikes guys out, but when you watch both of them pitch without seeing the numbers, you know Buehrle's more reliable.

[witesoxfan]

I don't feel strikeouts are overrated, but they shouldn't be treated as the ultimate statistic of pitching. Just as a K takes an opportunity away from the opponent for getting a hit, a walk gives away an opportunity for your defense to make an out. So walks, while not equally important, are still rather important.

 

The main reason I use strikeouts is to be able to determine how successful a pitcher should be or how good of stuff they have. Look at the league leaders in K's, watch them pitch, and I'll bet 19 out of 20 of them will have great stuff. It's also a good measure of projectability as well.

[lostfan]

I think a better measure of success using K's is to compare how many K's to BB's a pitcher has. Then have a glance over at their ERA.

[jackie hayes]

I think a better measure of success using K's is to compare how many K's to BB's a pitcher has. Then have a glance over at their ERA.

Well, I don't know if judging "success" is really what people use strikeouts for -- it always seemed more useful as a tool to predict -- if success is sustainable, or if a pitcher might make a jump.

[ptatc]

I think a better measure of success using K's is to compare how many K's to BB's a pitcher has. Then have a glance over at their ERA.

 

I agree. K/BB ratio is the better measure than just K isolated or K/9inn.

 

I think K/BB is important for the hitter also. For example, Thome Ks alot but offsets it with BB. Fields doesn't have the BB to go with the K and will struggle at times.

Edited April 8, 2008 by ptatc

[almagest]

Think about this example...which team is a strikeout more valuable to. The Rockies or the Tigers? The Rockies have a ridiculously good defense. The Tigers defense looks like a disaster area. If I'm pitching for the Rockies, I want to pitch to contact. If I'm pitching for the Tigers, I don't want Miguel Cabrera or Magglio Ordonez having to make a great play, because they wont' be able to do it.

 

Actually, Coors Field is an extremely hitter-friendly park to ALL batted balls, to the point of making strikeouts more valuable there, even with a good defense. Even the humidor they're using now doesn't help all that much.

 

If you look at sabermetrics I'm pretty sure they will tell you that Javier Vazquez is a much better pitcher than Mark Buehrle because Javy strikes guys out, but when you watch both of them pitch without seeing the numbers, you know Buehrle's more reliable.

 

That's pretty selective use of evidence. As a previous poster showed, the pitchers that lead the major in strikeouts are almost always above-average to great.

[lostfan]

Well, I don't know if judging "success" is really what people use strikeouts for -- it always seemed more useful as a tool to predict -- if success is sustainable, or if a pitcher might make a jump.

Yeah that's what I mean though. If you look at a young pitcher who strikes out a lot of batters but walks almost as many (or more) he is going to have trouble when he moves up a level, or if he's already at that level, it's going to catch up with him. This is why I'm not particularly worried about John Danks in spite of his high ERA, that ratio is like 2:1 for him. Gavin Floyd also in the last year or so has done a lot better in that area, his ratio from Philly blows.

 

I know you know all this, so I don't know why I'm saying it. lol.

[lostfan]

That's pretty selective use of evidence. As a previous poster showed, the pitchers that lead the major in strikeouts are almost always above-average to great.

It's not though because it supports the point I was trying to make. Guys like Buehrle and Carmona have K:BB ratios of like 2:1 or even 3:1 and they can impose their will on hitters and be All-Stars, even if neither of them will ever come close to leading the league in strikeouts.

 

Pitchers lead the league in strikeouts because they are great pitchers, not vice versa.

[jackie hayes]

Yeah that's what I mean though. If you look at a young pitcher who strikes out a lot of batters but walks almost as many (or more) he is going to have trouble when he moves up a level, or if he's already at that level, it's going to catch up with him. This is why I'm not particularly worried about John Danks in spite of his high ERA, that ratio is like 2:1 for him. Gavin Floyd also in the last year or so has done a lot better in that area, his ratio from Philly blows.

 

I know you know all this, so I don't know why I'm saying it. lol.

I dunno about that. A fly ball pitcher with a good k/bb ratio and a poor k rate may still struggle quite a bit. If Danks struck out fewer hitters, I would worry about him, but he actually gets a good number of strikeouts. (More than 1 per inning in the minors, last year about 100 k in 140 ip -- that's a pretty good rate.)

 

My own impression is that a good k/bb rate is necessary for just about every pitcher. (Though young pitchers can and do improve that over the first few years. Alas, Daniel Cabrera...) A good k rate is necessary for most pitchers, though not everyone.

[lostfan]

I dunno about that. A fly ball pitcher with a good k/bb ratio and a poor k rate may still struggle quite a bit. If Danks struck out fewer hitters, I would worry about him, but he actually gets a good number of strikeouts. (More than 1 per inning in the minors, last year about 100 k in 140 ip -- that's a pretty good rate.)

 

My own impression is that a good k/bb rate is necessary for just about every pitcher. (Though young pitchers can and do improve that over the first few years. Alas, Daniel Cabrera...) A good k rate is necessary for most pitchers, though not everyone.

That much is true, there are exceptions to every rule though. You have HOF guys like Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson who walked and hit an insane number of batters every year, but their ratio is offset by the fact that it seems like they struck out damn near everyone else. When you can throw triple digits consistently you pretty much get a free pass on the # of walks you give.

[lostfan]

I agree. K/BB ratio is the better measure than just K isolated or K/9inn.

 

I think K/BB is important for the hitter also. For example, Thome Ks alot but offsets it with BB. Fields doesn't have the BB to go with the K and will struggle at times.

Absolutely, only difference really is that guys who are known to strike out a lot are usually going to walk more than they K unless your name is Barry Bonds and you get an absolutely comical number of walks.

[jackie hayes]

That much is true, there are exceptions to every rule though. You have HOF guys like Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson who walked and hit an insane number of batters every year, but their ratio is offset by the fact that it seems like they struck out damn near everyone else. When you can throw triple digits consistently you pretty much get a free pass on the # of walks you give.

Even there, Ryan had a better than 2/1 k/bb ratio. Johnson's actually had a fantastic k/bb ratio, except for his first 4-5 years. He's been 3/1, 4/1 or better since those early years. (And imo he's been a much better pitcher than Ryan, too.)

 

I used to look at RJ's numbers and think, See! There's still hope for Daniel Cabrera! I just love watching that guy when he's on.

[lostfan]

Even there, Ryan had a better than 2/1 k/bb ratio. Johnson's actually had a fantastic k/bb ratio, except for his first 4-5 years. He's been 3/1, 4/1 or better since those early years. (And imo he's been a much better pitcher than Ryan, too.)

 

I used to look at RJ's numbers and think, See! There's still hope for Daniel Cabrera! I just love watching that guy when he's on.

I think one would be hard-pressed to find a pitcher with a sucky K:BB ratio who doesn't range from mediocre to bad. My original statement was worded a little wrong.

[jackie hayes]

I think one would be hard-pressed to find a pitcher with a sucky K:BB ratio who doesn't range from mediocre to bad. My original statement was worded a little wrong.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I'd just say that a good k/bb ratio is necessary but not sufficient (unless we're talking about an extreme gb pitcher or something like that).

[RME JICO]

I think one would be hard-pressed to find a pitcher with a sucky K:BB ratio who doesn't range from mediocre to bad. My original statement was worded a little wrong.

That is correct, and if you think about it, the guys with less K's are hard pressed to maintain a good K:BB ratio.

[witesoxfan]

NOAH LOWRY!11!1!!!!1!!