February 20, 2013

Strikeouts Be Damned

Much is being made of the likelihood that Braves’ hitters will rack up the strikeouts in 2013.  AJC beat writer David O’Brien wrote, “no World Series champion has ever struck out as many as 1,200 times, and of the last eight teams to reach the World Series, seven have ranked fifth or better in fewest strikeouts in their respective league, including four that were first or second.”

First of all, it’s not all that telling that no recent World Series winner has struck out 1,200 times.  Strikeouts have basically been rising since the advent of Major League Baseball.  There are relatively few teams in the history of the game that struck out 1,200 times in a season, because the 1,200 strikeout season is a relatively new phenomenon.

It is not unheard of for teams to win the World Series and have a lot of strikeouts.  But if we look at total number of strikeouts, that is going to cloud our view, since even the best teams at avoiding strikeouts these days strikeout a lot more than teams of yesteryear.  The reason is because of changes in the game more than merely an acceptance of the strikeout and hitters not caring.

In today’s game we are more likely to see pitchers pitching in short spurts and going all out instead of pacing themselves.  It’s easier for a pitcher to strike batters out if he doesn’t have to pace himself as much as pitchers have in the past.

Another factor is player strength.  The mound distance hasn’t changed since pretty much baseball as we know it was invented.  The mound has been lowered and raised but essentially pitchers have been pitching at the same distance forever.  But human beings obviously get bigger, stronger, faster, quicker over time.  Bigger, stronger, faster, quicker humans mean faster pitches and faster pitches mean more strikeouts.  Another factor in players’ strength is better nutrition and better knowledge of medicine and the human body.

Along with player strength, there is also better pitches and more knowledge of the physics of pitching.  Through trail and error, pitchers have learned to throw pitches that twist, dart, sink and move more.

So strikeouts are more common just because the nature of the game has changed over time, not because of anything hitters are or aren’t doing differently.  In fact, one could argue that hitters are vastly more skilled, more fit, more trained, more athletic now than they were in, say, 1950.  But pitchers have more than kept up, at least in the ability to miss bats.

Another thing about DOB’s statement is that a few of the recent World Series champions weren’t all that impressive offensively.  They won because of pitching or because they played well over the stretch of a few weeks and those few weeks just happened to be in October/November.  What good is building a team that can make contact if the team can’t score enough runs to get them to the postseason?  Some of those teams with low strikeout totals were good offensive clubs and some of them were not.  There isn’t really a strong correlation.  The stronger correlation to scoring runs and overall offensive production is getting on base and slugging, regardless of how many times those teams made a particular type of out.

The point where DOB stops is 2005.  In 2004 the Boston Red Sox won the World Series with a great offense that led the league in strikeouts and strikeout rate.  The were first in runs scored, first in batting average, first in on-base percentage, first in slugging and third in OPS+ (with a 110 OPS+ to Cleveland and New York’s 111).  It’s clear that the Braves are trying to somewhat follow the Red Sox model for building offense.

The Braves probably won’t have a hitter the caliber of Manny Ramirez or David Ortiz but Frank Wren clearly has on-base and slugging in mind, strikeouts be damned.  This is a good thing.  Not necessarily that he doesn’t care at all about strikeouts.  Of course given a choice between two equally productive hitters of equal age and same position, you’ll take the one that strikes out less.  But the key is production.  Production in baseball is getting on base or avoiding outs, slugging and gaining bases.  The Braves aren’t the ’04 Red Sox but they should be solid at getting on base, slugging and also running the bases.

The 1927 Yankees are another great team and great offensive team, maybe the best team ever, and they struck out a lot for their time.  They led the majors in strikeouts and strikeout rate.  They struck out 610 times, which seems like very few in today’s game.  But the Cardinals were next with 511 strikeouts.

The ’27 Yankees struck out in 9.8 percent of their plate appearances.  The Cardinals were next at 8.7 percent, which is a fairly big margin.  In many ways the ’27 Yankees were the first great team that were built upon out-avoidance and power.  Some great teams strike out, some don’t.  But every great team that had a good offense was good at getting on base, slugging and gaining bases, regardless of how often or how many times they struck out or made any particular kind of out, for that matter.  It’s about how often a team makes outs, not how.

The 2013 Braves obviously aren’t the 1927 Yankees.  There probably isn’t another 1927 Yankees.  But contrary to the views of those who think the strikeout potential of this team is a big deal, we should take comfort in history showing that it is not.  It’s not a big deal, that is, as long as the Braves live up to their potential in getting on base, slugging and baserunning, and if the pitching staff does its part.



31 Responses to “Strikeouts Be Damned”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. 26
    Lefty33 Says:

    “The idea of labeling yourself, or others, instead of just relying on good information and being an intellectually curious baseball fan is something I find rather odd.”

    But as usual, that’s not the issue.

    It’s no different than politics.

    The same information is out there for everyone to see and to use.

    It’s all about how a person goes about twisting that information to fit their own beliefs/agenda. The issue is that many people have different interpretations of what they find to be good data. A team like the Phillies 100% does not use a metric based approach to analysis of talent just like a team like the A’s is obviously heavily metric based in their approach.

  2. 27
    Lefty33 Says:

    “But PLEASE people, no personal attacks or negative blog shtick. If religion and politics are off limits, let’s make sure sports can still be discussed and enjoyed (or at minimum, tolerated).”

    Hmmm, maybe you should tell that to Payne as he loves to come to other sites and do the exact same negative blog schtick for a while until he runs away when things get heated.

    High road? LOL!

    Pot meet kettle.

  3. 28
    Lefty33 Says:

    “There is no relationship between strikeouts and runs scored, at least that’s what the data strongly suggests.”

    Earth to Payne, earth to Payne.

    That’s not where this discussion started.

    You keep avoiding that over and over.

    The original article that you based your own theory on had nothing to do with that. It had to do with how if a team strikes out past a certain point they have next to no chance at winning/playing in a WS and the data more than strongly suggests that to be true which is why David O’ Brien wrote it to begin with.

    “If you have data and a compelling argument otherwise, please reveal it.”

    I’ve “revealed it” more than once now on two different sites.

    The discussion that you want to start is an entirely different debate about an entirely different topic. How about we finish up discussion number one before getting to discussion number two?

    I can’t imagine that you’ll do that because that would involve you having to admit to being wrong and that’s not something I’ve ever seen you do even when it’s been past the point of ludicrous, like it is now.

    “Personal attacks, offensive language and insults are acknowledgements that you can’t refute the facts.”

    Kettle meet pot.

    “I’m just waiting for reasonable refutation of the facts.”

    LOL! Just like I’m waiting for you to even attempt to refute the premise of where this whole thing began last week.

    “Please don’t turn this comments section in to offensive language and personal attacks. I love a good debate, filled with logic and evidence. Let’s take emotional vitriol out of this comments page. If you can’t bring that to the table, I would ask you not to make comments”

    Why are you an intellectual coward? Why can’t you actually debate instead of constantly changing the subject when you’re in over your head or cutting and running constantly when you’re wrong.

    Like I said before Princess, anytime and anyplace but I’m not moving on to anything else until we resolve the points from where the discussion began.

  4. 29
    Steve Says:

    Lefty – we get it. You don’t agree with the blog and you don’t like Shaun. But it’s enough. Your tone and your choice of words are not aligned with how everyone else conducts themselves on this site. Please find another forum.

  5. 30
    Vinnie Says:

    Just trying to support you Shaun. Sorry, won’t happen again.

  6. 31
    Shaun Says:

    Vinnie, thanks for commenting and please continue to read and comment on my pieces. We just had to put a stop to some of the offensive craziness and personal attacks.

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Leave a Reply