Strikeouts & Winning... Does it matter?

[pacopete4]

Since we seem to have this debate/discussion quite a bit on this board I just thought I would look into a little and see if there is something to it.

 

The last two seasons the Kansas City Royals have ranked 30th (being the best) in amount of strikeouts in the regular season. They have gone to back to back World Series and won it once. I know, pitching wins in the playoffs but I also think there is something to making opponents pitch.

 

But when I look at the numbers from the past two seasons and compare teams that missed the playoffs in 2014 but made it in 2015 (Cubs & Astros), they ranked #1 and #2 in both years but only did playoff damage in 2015.

 

When I first sat down to look at the numbers, I thought I would see this big correlation between striking out and winning ball games. I'm not sure there is one. Pitching still trumps it all. So I guess the next time we talk about this guy being a high strike out guy, maybe we shouldn't be too hard on him? I know we can't have 8-high strikeout guys in our lineup but 2 or 3 won't kill our team.

[Oldcity]

There is a much bigger correlation between team OBP and winning than Ks and winning. There's almost no correlation there.

[1992casey]

For the most part, strikeouts don't matter in determining a player's value because a they statistically rate as about the same as any other out. In other words, a higher OBP and more strikeouts is better than a lower OBP and fewer strikeouts.

 

However, strikeouts can matter in certain at bats when a strikeout might be the worst possible outcome. That illustrates that it's good to be able to choose a pinch hitter who's appropriate to the given game situation.

 

Look at Yuni. He rarely struck out. A reason why he rarely struck out is that he generally made weak contact (resulting in an out) before he ever had the chance to reach three strikes. Note that for the same reason, he rarely walked either. He likely would have been better off risking more strikeouts in order to wait for a better pitch to hit or take a walk.

[jerichoholicninja]

How "bad" or "not bad" a strikeout is depends on the situation. Runner on third, less than two outs it's generally going to be more beneficial to just put the bat on the ball than strikeout. With no runners on base a strikeout is just an out. You can't really just say strikeouts don't matter or strikeouts are bad. I think watching the Brewers over the last few seasons would convince some people that you can't dismiss strikeouts as just another out.

 

However, since pitchers are dominating these days with strikeouts and defensive shifts are creating massive holes in the infield I think having a few more contact orientated players on a team would be beneficial.

[Thurston Fluff]

However, since pitchers are dominating these days with strikeouts and defensive shifts are creating massive holes in the infield I think having a few more contact orientated players on a team would be beneficial.

 

I think you hit on something here. How much strikeouts matter this year may not be the same as they will be in five years. Not so much the specifics of shifts but about how teams are adjusting their strategy overall. What works today may not work tomorrow. As far as the strikeout goes if it didn't matter why are power relievers who can strikeout hitters suddenly becoming in vogue? I think the trend is starting to shift somewhat. Can't really look back at what was important in the past when we are seeing a fairly significant change in how relievers are viewed/used in the present.

[logan82]

Strikeouts correlate with more success for pitchers. Strikeouts don't correlate either way with hitting. Strikeouts do matter, but only in certain situations. Those situations come up so infrequently that strikeouts are not a good stat to look at for hitters unless you are talking about pinch hitting.

[jerichoholicninja]

Strikeouts correlate with more success for pitchers. Strikeouts don't correlate either way with hitting. Strikeouts do matter, but only in certain situations. Those situations come up so infrequently that strikeouts are not a good stat to look at for hitters unless you are talking about pinch hitting.

 

Which doesn't make any sense.

 

Pitcher - strikeouts = good!

Batter - strikeouts = meh

 

I don't get it.

[nate82]

Strikeouts correlate with more success for pitchers. Strikeouts don't correlate either way with hitting. Strikeouts do matter, but only in certain situations. Those situations come up so infrequently that strikeouts are not a good stat to look at for hitters unless you are talking about pinch hitting.

 

Which doesn't make any sense.

 

Pitcher - strikeouts = good!

Batter - strikeouts = meh

 

I don't get it.

 

logan basically explained why it is this way. The amount of times where a batter comes up and a strike out matters is insignificant compared to when a pitcher comes up and a strikeout matters. This is basically the pitcher gets more opportunities to be put into the situations than a batter does over the course of a year.

 

Strikeouts for a batter just do not correlate well to success for a batter but does for a pitcher. The best stat if you want to use just one would be OBP as that is going to correlate more to the overall success of a team than strike outs will.

 

Now look at this and tell me which team you would expect to be the best team of these five teams:

 

Team 1. 1299 Strikeouts

Team 2. 1107 Strikeouts

Team 3. 1290 Strikeouts

Team 4. 1255 Strikeouts

Team 5. 1274 Strikeouts

[3and2Fastball]

I think a lot is being made in terms of the Royals putting the ball in play a lot offensively, and there is probably something to that. To what degree remains to be seen.

 

I think a bigger aspect of their success is their elite bullpen, overall athleticism, above average if unspectacular starting pitching, and defense

[jerichoholicninja]

Strikeouts correlate with more success for pitchers. Strikeouts don't correlate either way with hitting. Strikeouts do matter, but only in certain situations. Those situations come up so infrequently that strikeouts are not a good stat to look at for hitters unless you are talking about pinch hitting.

 

Which doesn't make any sense.

 

Pitcher - strikeouts = good!

Batter - strikeouts = meh

 

I don't get it.

 

logan basically explained why it is this way. The amount of times where a batter comes up and a strike out matters is insignificant compared to when a pitcher comes up and a strikeout matters. This is basically the pitcher gets more opportunities to be put into the situations than a batter does over the course of a year.

 

Strikeouts for a batter just do not correlate well to success for a batter but does for a pitcher. The best stat if you want to use just one would be OBP as that is going to correlate more to the overall success of a team than strike outs will.

 

Now look at this and tell me which team you would expect to be the best team of these five teams:

 

Team 1. 1299 Strikeouts

Team 2. 1107 Strikeouts

Team 3. 1290 Strikeouts

Team 4. 1255 Strikeouts

Team 5. 1274 Strikeouts

 

Is that is a one season sample? If so, I wouldn't take much of anything from it.

 

I'm not saying strikeouts are evil and you need to avoid them at all costs. But if you build teams like the Brewers have for the last decade or so with all or nothing, strikeout prone batters, you'll get those results where your offense will go a month scoring only 2 or 3 runs a game.

[JimH5]

I'm with jericoholicninja on the strikeout stuff.

 

If a pitcher strikes out a batter, shouldn't the amount of goodness we apply to the pitcher come at the expense of badness charged to the batter? The pitcher didn't earn the strikeout in a vacuum. He earned it against an opponent.

 

High strikeout batters can still be extremely valuable, obviously. And a strikeout is essentially no less harmful than an infield popout. And, I think a high strikeout team can also be a winning team.

 

But if an outcome is good for one side, it has to be bad for the other.

[3and2Fastball]

A strikeout, for the hitter, is, in general, better than hitting into a double play. I say "in general" because a ground ball hit into play will not (of course) always end in an out. Who is playing SS? Yuni B or Andrleton Simmons?

[logan82]

Agree with jerico all you want. Strikeouts don't correlate well with runs on offense. They do for pitching. High K pitching allows fewer runs. Low K teams may or may not score more runs.

 

My guess is it has to do with how a ball is put in play and a hitter has more control over how a ball is put in play than a pitcher does. How a ball is put in play is way more important than if a ball is put in play.

 

As far as scoring runs consistently, I bet most fans feel that way about their team. Interesting read on scoring runs.

[1992casey]

Agree with jerico all you want. Strikeouts don't correlate well with runs on offense.

 

Math can defy common sense. I'd surmise that the statheads were surprised when extensive testing showed no correlation between strikeouts and offensive runs.

[JimH5]

I'm talking in the micro sense, a plate appearance at a time.

 

Two players (and their teams) are on opposing sides of one outcome. Whatever happens will result in a victory for one side and a defeat for the other, in equal proportions.

[Thurston Fluff]

Agree with jerico all you want. Strikeouts don't correlate well with runs on offense. They do for pitching. High K pitching allows fewer runs. Low K teams may or may not score more runs.

 

My guess is it has to do with how a ball is put in play and a hitter has more control over how a ball is put in play than a pitcher does. How a ball is put in play is way more important than if a ball is put in play.

 

As far as scoring runs consistently, I bet most fans feel that way about their team. Interesting read on scoring runs.

 

I know I started this comparison but I was conflating two very different things to stimulate conversation. It's slow right now so why not? What I was comparing is how strikeouts effects one player (the pitcher) vs what they do to an entire offence. Strikeouts, as they correlate to pitchers, is in how they effect that specific pitcher. In other words I was using K rates to judge the specific pitcher. The effect of strikeouts on offence is judged by the effects it has based on the total of all hitters. In this instance it is judging the strikeout itself, not as a tool to judge the player. So what I was really comparing is how strikeouts effects one player vs what they do to an entire offence. That is not valid at all.

The mistake I think a lot of people make about strikeout hitters is assuming because strikeouts do not necessarily matter to the overall offence then we can make no real judgement about the player who creates them. If we really wanted to make the case that strikeouts don't matter for a particular hitter then we would have to study the effects on each hitter to see if they, in particular, are effected by how much they strike out. Not in what happens to the entire offense when someone strikes out.

Personally I think there are two types of strikeout hitters. One that doesn't mind striking out in an effort to get the right

pitch or take a walk, the other because he just can't make contract very well. The former may be able to cut down his rate when the situation calls for it while the latter probably cannot. So I think the whole judgement of whether strikeouts matter to an offence is off base (no pun intended.) I would love to see a study done on hitters K rates in specific situations and see if certain hitters make bad strikeouts more often than others with similar K rates. Maybe then we could put to bed the debate of whether certain hitters can be judged by K rates like pitchers are. It would also go a long way towards judging how strikouts effect the team as a whole.

[3and2Fastball]

Strikeouts for pitchers can really effect their pitch count, though, too. We saw that with Gallardo, for instance. One of the things that made Greg Maddux so great was that as a "groundball pitcher", he didn't have to rely on strikeouts to get through innings and kept his pitch count lower

[NievesNoNO]

Always in interesting debate. I don't think it's black and white. I know statistics have "proven" there is no correlation between runs scored and K rate and often the team with the higher K rate will have more power hitters and score more total runs. I'd be interested to see what the correlation is on a per game bases; like what does it do to the deviation on a per game basis. I'd feel better about a team that puts up 5 runs every game over a 5 game stretch than a team that puts up 10-10-2-2-1

[DuWayne Steurer]

Always in interesting debate. I don't think it's black and white. I know statistics have "proven" there is no correlation between runs scored and K rate and often the team with the higher K rate will have more power hitters and score more total runs. I'd be interested to see what the correlation is on a per game bases; like what does it do to the deviation on a per game basis. I'd feel better about a team that puts up 5 runs every game over a 5 game stretch than a team that puts up 10-10-2-2-1

 

 

I did a (very very informal) study myself on this once when we were having this discussion back in (I believe, 2008) There's a belief that high walk/high power teams tend to "score runs in bunches" so to speak, and what I found is that this just really isn't the case. The run distribution curve is pretty much the same for "contact" teams, power teams, etc, etc, etc. As you go through seasons, you may find outliers (well, you'll always find outliers), but they aren't exclusive to teams that rely on power. I have a thumb drive with the doc I did, but I'm not sure where it's at, so right now all I can say is "I remember doing it", and you'll just have to take my word for it!

[CheezWizHed]

Agree with jerico all you want. Strikeouts don't correlate well with runs on offense.

 

Math can defy common sense. I'd surmise that the statheads were surprised when extensive testing showed no correlation between strikeouts and offensive runs.

 

I think the point that jerichoholicninja and JimH5 are trying to make is that if that holds true for the hitter, it should hold true for the pitcher too.

 

Example (fictional numbers):

If all pitchers that get 9Ks/9IP average 2.50 RA.

Then the inverse is also true of the hitters. Teams hitting against those pitchers will only average 2.5 runs per game (who will also average 9k/9IP).

 

For every run scored by the offense, a pitcher must give it up. For every K made by the pitcher, a batter must give it up.

 

If Ks don't correlate to runs scored by a batter (which I'm in agreement), I'm not sure how they can correlate to runs not scored for the pitcher. The logic doesn't add up there. If there are actual numbers of significant sampling that state it does, I'd like to see that.

[sveumrules]

Agree with jerico all you want. Strikeouts don't correlate well with runs on offense.

 

Math can defy common sense. I'd surmise that the statheads were surprised when extensive testing showed no correlation between strikeouts and offensive runs.

 

I think the point that jerichoholicninja and JimH5 are trying to make is that if that holds true for the hitter, it should hold true for the pitcher too.

 

Example (fictional numbers):

If all pitchers that get 9Ks/9IP average 2.50 RA.

Then the inverse is also true of the hitters. Teams hitting against those pitchers will only average 2.5 runs per game (who will also average 9k/9IP).

 

For every run scored by the offense, a pitcher must give it up. For every K made by the pitcher, a batter must give it up.

 

If Ks don't correlate to runs scored by a batter (which I'm in agreement), I'm not sure how they can correlate to runs not scored for the pitcher. The logic doesn't add up there. If there are actual numbers of significant sampling that state it does, I'd like to see that.

 

Here is an article that breaks down why Ks mean different things for pitchers than they do for hitters...

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/4/1/4165664/how-can-strikeouts-be-great-for-pitchers-but-not-that-bad-for-hitters

 

Money quote...

 

"The correlation between K% and wOBA for that same sample of batters is small at r = .12, suggesting that if anything wOBA increases by the slightest margin as K% increases. Not so bad for those hitters.

 

Pitcher's K% has a much stronger correlation to ERA at -.52, however, using a sample of 1071 pitchers from 2002-2012 with at least 150 IP for the season. Clearly, very good for pitchers."

[homer]

I love me a good "do strikeouts matter" thread. Haven't had one in a few years.

[1992casey]

The logic doesn't add up there. If there are actual numbers of significant sampling that state it does, I'd like to see that.

 

I think that math is "logical" by definition. It's common sense that isn't adding up. The discrepancy is definitely befuddling, but it is what it is. sveumrules has offered up some numbers.

 

I think that the most important thing is that you can't dismiss a Gorman Thomas or an Adam Dunn or a Russell Branyan simply because they strike out a lot. And you can't laud a Yuni B. because he doesn't. There's more that comes into the picture.

 

José Hernandez was an interesting case. He was with the Brewers for three years. The year he struck out the most was his most productive at the plate (188 K, .356 OBP, .478 SLG, .834 OPS). The year he struck out the least was his least productive (125K, .315 OBP, .372 SLG, .687 OPS).

 

When we talk about the Royals, we tend to zero in on their very low strikeout total, but that doesn't tell the whole story. They were still above the MLB average in both OBP and SLG. The low strikeout total is just a part of the story.

[pacopete4]

I love me a good "do strikeouts matter" thread. Haven't had one in a few years.

 

 

You're welcome. Just seemed like it came up in just about every player that we sign or we'd like to sign.

[Thurston Fluff]

"The correlation between K% and wOBA for that same sample of batters is small at r = .12, suggesting that if anything wOBA increases by the slightest margin as K% increases. Not so bad for those hitters.

 

Pitcher's K% has a much stronger correlation to ERA at -.52, however, using a sample of 1071 pitchers from 2002-2012 with at least 150 IP for the season. Clearly, very good for pitchers."

 

 

I get the math but I wonder if players/GM's knowing the math means the math will change. Or already has.