50 Responses to “Higher strikeout total than batting average points”

1. DaveZ Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 8:45 am

   Reynolds says he doesn't care about K's but I just don't see how his approach is beneficial to a team.

2. Asher B. Chancey Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 9:13 am

   "And, yes, I saw you smile when you read Rob Deer's name."

   Wow, that was pretty awesome. Because I did.

   "Reynolds says he doesn't care about K's but I just don't see how his approach is beneficial to a team."

   I think the answer to that would be, "Okay, you don't care about strikeouts. Do you care about batting average? Or on-base percentage? Or being a productive hitter? Because you can make all your outs by strikeout if you want, but if you don't hit at least .350 on all the balls you put in play, you aren't helping the team."

3. Tmckelv Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 9:22 am

   Being a Yankee fan, this was my first year getting to see a lot of Mark Reynolds. His strikeout totals are ridiculous, and I am sure they are a drain over the whole season.

   But in the small sample-size of games vs NY this year, it seemed like any time the Yanks were in a pickle against the O's, it was because of some damage by Reynolds (not only HRs, but big RBI singles as well). This is just observational, of course.

4. aweb Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 9:36 am

   Reynolds is a prefectly acceptable hitter, for 3B. He's power-heavy, which makes his OPS overstate his worth, but he does walk at a decent clip so his OBP isn't a disaster. He sucks because he's a terrible defensive player at 3B. And he wouldn't be acceptable at 1B, his only other option. So he's a replacement level player, give or take.

   And unless you get Rob Deer and Dave Kingman on the list, I say you have failed!

5. Andy Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 9:40 am

   BTW I wrote a pretty similar post at the end of last season when Reynolds was about to second the record:

   http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8366

6. Andrew Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 9:50 am

   Aweb, Kingman never struck out THAT much and hit below .200 only once (1983, .198 and he was benchwarmer after the Mets traded for Keith Hernandez), so he wouldn't be in this conversation. The classic Kong season was 1982, when he led the NL with 37 HR and drove in 99 runs while batting .204.

   He fanned 156 times that year, tying the Mets club record set by Tommie Agee in 1970 (since broken).

   On the topic, I can't believe Mark Reynolds is still a major leaguer fanning over 200 times a year. I still think by 2015 he will be out of a job.

7. Panrell Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 9:50 am

   Thanks Andy, for this list. So before 2006 it could be said that "No one whiffs like a Deer"

8. aweb Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 10:01 am

   That 1982 Kingman season comes pretty close to the 80% level (76.5%), but I guess if you made the threshold 75% for the list, it gets a lot bigger. Dunn's 2011 looks remarkable next to even these similar seasons - all of the other years had a reasonable power level, but to strike out near record paces, and not even hit for power when you don't, that's uber-useless.

   I also note that all of the guys on the list were terrible defenders anywhere but the easiest position (1B). I guess if you can't hit the ball consistently, it stands to reason your hand-eye isn't quite up to snuff in the field either. And there's no power equivalent when fielding to make up for it.

9. Andy Says:
   September 15th, 2011 at 10:03 am

   My previous post (linked in #5) has the 75% list.

10. Steve Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 10:06 am

    Mark Reynolds has a challenger for his,ummm,crown.Drew Stubbs.

11. Steve Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 10:14 am

    Kingman was a piker compared to Deer,Cust,Reynolds et al.

12. Hartvig Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Rob Deer for the Hall of Fame!

13. Chuck Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Mark Reynolds: "I don't care about strikeouts"

    Kirk Gibson: "You'll never wear a Dbacks uniform again."

    Kevin Towers: "I'm sure that idiot Showalter will take him."

14. GanderFlag Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    An out is not an out. Not only is a strikeout about the most useless way to use a plate appearance (no baserunner advancement, no pressure put on the defense), but a slew of strikeouts makes for an ugly and boring game (unless of course it's your guy on the bump, say Randy Johnson or Curt Schilling).

    The past few seasons, 'The Sheriff' was the poster child for what had been wrong with the way the Snakes went about their business offensively (767 K in 2285 PA, a 33.6% rate). I am so glad, not only that he no longer helps drag down the Dbacks' offense, but that we received a true 8th inning guy (and perhaps future closer) in David Hernandez. Thanks Kirk Gibson and Kevin Towers.

15. Jason Winter Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    "An out is not an out. Not only is a strikeout about the most useless way to use a plate appearance (no baserunner advancement, no pressure put on the defense),"

    Nobody's ever grounded into a double play by striking out either. Reynolds has never had more than 10 GDPs in a season. Yes, there are strike-em-out-throw-em-out DPs, but I'd wager that managers rarely, if ever, put a guy in motion when someone like Reynolds is at the plate.

    Everyone always talks about advancing runners as a positive of making contact while conveniently ignoring that sometimes making contact also removes runners. In 2010, players hit into GDP's 6.5% of the time with a runner on first (some of the non-DPs included situations with two outs, but I don't have any way to break those out). For his career, Reynolds has hit into a GDP in 4.5% of those situations.

    Also, over 50% of plate appearances come with the bases empty (55.5% in 2010).

    I won't say that strikeouts a good thing, but they're not always worse than a regular out, either. Sometimes they're even better.

16. Todd Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    An out IS an out. If no one is on base, it makes no difference how a guy makes his outs. And, most of the time, it doesn't matter how he makes them when a guy is on. A pop up, foul out, lazy fly ball, routine ground ball . . . makes no difference most of the time.

    In fact, strikeouts can be a good thing. Rob Deer, despite being a right handed and somewhat lumbering slugger, seldom grounded into double plays because he either struck out or hit the ball into the air.

    A good example would be Mickey Mantle and Bobby Richardson in '61. Who ya gonna take?

    But, even more than that, the effect of strikeouts on offense has been studied. I believe Bill James determined that each strikeout was worth .03 of a run, meaning that a guy with 200 strikeouts would cost a team 6 runs a year, or about half a win. If that guy hits 30 or 40 HRs, however, then his strikeouts are nothing more than a mild nuisance.

17. daveyk Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    wasn't surprised to see rob deer's name on that 80% list. but, i thought i'd also see Steve Balboni's name as well.

18. Doug Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    @16.

    "If no one is on base, it makes no difference how a guy makes his outs."

    Not true. A ball needs to be put in play for errors to happen. Aside from circumstances arising from third strikes not caught (very rare), nobody ever got an ROE by striking out.

19. Chuck Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    "But, even more than that, the effect of strikeouts on offense has been studied. I believe Bill James determined that each strikeout was worth .03 of a run, meaning that a guy with 200 strikeouts would cost a team 6 runs a year, or about half a win. If that guy hits 30 or 40 HRs, however, then his strikeouts are nothing more than a mild nuisance."

    There's no way to do that, no matter who does it, no matter the formulas used, the result is nothing more than pure speculation.

    It's silly to think a guy who strikes out as often as Reynolds does would cost his team six runs.

20. Andy Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    I disagree with Chuck at 19, but also think that Todd at 16 hasn't got it quite right. The cost of a strikeout certainly CAN be determined--we know run expectancies for each base-out situation, so it's easy to determine how the RE changes when the number of outs ticks up by 1 (on a strikeout). But from there it's not so simple to determine how many runs that costs a team over a season--it would have to be compared to something--for example if the player instead hit a fly ball deep enough to score a runner on third but not advance any other runners. I can believe that is worth about 0.03 run, since players don't come up with runners on 3rd all that often (once every 30 times seems very roughly right), and in that sense, a striking out 200 times would cost 6 runs per season AS COMPARED TO a player who instead flew out each time.

21. Andy Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    I should also add that Chuck;'s world must be very boring. In addition to being devoid of color, it doesn't even have any shades of gray.

22. nwicubfan Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Dunn and Deer are the only guys to do it with really poor production. Not that the other guys/seasons were great, but you can live with a high strikeout, low batting average a little easier with the OPS is over .750, and in some cases, close to .900. Pena was pretty dreadful last year too.

23. Chuck Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Reality is quite colorful Andy, and I'm flattered by your concern.

24. Anon Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    - Reynolds would make an acceptable 1B but certainly not a good one.
    - I've been predicting for awhile that Reynolds will eventually have a monster year where a few extra hits drop and his BABIP spikes and he will have an MVP caliber year.
    - Reynolds v the Yankees this year - 271/333/600 with 6HR and 14 RBI. Meanwhile BAL's record v the Yankees is 5-13 with a 72-122 run differential.
    - Ks are not good - while they largely avoid a DP, they basically are an automatic out (excepting, of course, the dropped 3rd strike). Any ball in play has a significant chance of being a hit and of course there is always the small chance of an error. Even the worst contact can end up being a swinging bunt that is often hits. The central sabermetric argument about Ks is not that they are not bad but that they can be overcome with other skills, usually BBs & HRs. Mark Reynolds does both well but really tests the limits of just how many Ks one can have and still be a productive hitter.

25. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    In 2010, players hit into GDP's 6.5% of the time with a runner on first (some of the non-DPs included situations with two outs, but I don't have any way to break those out). For his career, Reynolds has hit into a GDP in 4.5% of those situations.

    Check the situational hitting pages. MLB average this year is GIDP in 10.3% of DP situations. Reynolds in his career is at 7.8%.
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2011-situational-batting.shtml
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/reynoma01-bat.shtml#batting_situational::none
    However, WAR estimates he has been worth 3 runs below average in avoiding DPs over his career. Not sure what's causing that disconnect.

    ***

    I believe Bill James determined that each strikeout was worth .03 of a run
    ----
    There's no way to do that, no matter who does it, no matter the formulas used, the result is nothing more than pure speculation.

    Well, assuming what any statistic really means or is worth requires speculation. What is a .300 BA? It depends on how many extra-base hits it includes, how many came with men on base, how many came in tight games, how many came with the platoon advantage, how much foul area there was, etc etc etc. I'd say if you break it down, every single .300 BA in history had differences in value; some big, some miniscule. We account for the big differences like era and park with broad adjustments. Most of the time, we ignore the little differences and just assume .300 is .300. And most of the time that's good enough, we understand what the number means.

    So, yes, there is a way to measure the value of a strikeout vis-a-vis a contact out. It doesn't mean it's perfect, it doesn't mean it holds 100% for every single season of every single player under every single circumstance. But as a macro-analysis, we *can* calculate the *average* value of a strikeout, just as we do the average value of a single or a stolen base. There just aren't that many "productive" outs. If I've calculated correctly, about 4% of all outs this season have been productive (as defined by B-R). So the vast majority of contact outs are no different from strikeouts, and of course DPs are far worse.

    Strikeouts are bad, if you're trying to project a player's potential, if they prevent a player from being productive. But once you already know how a player performed, all else being equal, they are not that important. If two guys batted .300/.400/.500 with 30 HR, and one of them struck out 200 times and the other 20, the 200-K player probably created slightly fewer runs. It's not a big difference.

26. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    Mark Reynolds does both well but really tests the limits of just how many Ks one can have and still be a productive hitter.

    Concur.

27. Chuck Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Um, the Orioles announced about a week or so ago Reynolds is now a first baseman.

    Chris Davis will play third the rest of the season, if he proves incapable, any moves in the offseason will be there and not at first.

28. Chuck Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    Johnny @#25,

    I was honestly so excited reading your comment, thinking that you really did "get it" and the majority of your interactions here were nothing more than Ron White trying out new material...until I read the last paragraph.

    Sigh.

    The more things change, the more they remain the same.

    I know you were being facetious with your example but at the same time, for every one less strikeout, that's one extra ball in play, or hit by pitch, or walk, or three extra on the pitch count.

    Just because sabermetrics can't quantify or justify something doesn't mean it's meaningless.

    I watched the Yankee/Mariner game last night, loosely, I kept flipping over to the Dbacks game to watch Kershaw drill Parra, and counted eight productive outs.

    Eight out of seventy.

    Either BR's definition of a productive out is screwed, or the game was an exception to the rule.

    Either way, productive outs lead to bases, not runs.

    There's nothing productive about a strikeout.

    Sure, it's better than a DP, but that's an exception too.

    If Mark Reynolds struck out fifty times less per season and GIDP the league average, he'd still be more productive, even if the extra 40 or so AB's led to one run.

    Because the 40 K's would have led to zero.

29. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    I know you were being facetious with your example but at the same time, for every one less strikeout, that's one extra ball in play, or hit by pitch, or walk, or three extra on the pitch count.

    No, because I explicitly said "all else being equal."

    And strikeouts tend to use more pitches than other PA.

    If Mark Reynolds struck out fifty times less per season and GIDP the league average, he'd still be more productive, even if the extra 40 or so AB's led to one run.

    And if Mark Reynolds struck out 50 fewer times, how many fewer HR would he hit?

    Yes, of course if he simply struck out less he'd be a better player. The strikeouts are a byproduct of the way he plays. Maybe to strike out 50 fewer time, he'd have to swing so feebly he couldn't get the ball out of the infield. He simply doesn't have that ability.

    The fact is, *despite* the Ks, he's still able to be productive (some seasons). You may not like that style of play, but that's an aesthetic argument, not a value one.

30. nwicubfan Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 9:39 pm

    @28 you are assuming that a player could decrease the amount of strikeouts he has, but keep the production numbers---of course it would be great for Mark Reynolds if he cut down on strikeouts without cutting into his power, but is this really possible? How many extra base hits would you sacrifice over the course of a season? If a player is otherwise productive (knocks the crap out of the ball), you can put up with strikeouts over the course of the season.

31. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Incidentally, I just checked the NY-SEA boxscore.
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SEA/SEA201109140.shtml

    I count 5 outs which advanced baserunners, but three of them were sac bunts. So two productive outs on swings. And two GIDP. And zero ROE. And none of those outs led to runs.

    Not that one game proves anything. Except I don't know what you're counting.

32. Chuck Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 11:15 pm

    "And if Mark Reynolds struck out 50 fewer times, how many fewer HR would he hit?"

    He'd hit more.

    "Maybe to strike out 50 fewer time, he'd have to swing so feebly he couldn't get the ball out of the infield. He simply doesn't have that ability."

    That, my friend, is an aesthetic argument.

    I know the answer to my next question, but I'm asking to avoid the accusations of assuming.

    Why do you think he would have to cut down on his swing to strike out less?

33. Chuck Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    #31

    Again, productive outs lead to bases, not runs.

    A sac bunt or ground out, or fielder's choice or strikeout on a passed ball that allows a runner to move from second to third is a productive out.

    Whether he ends up scoring or not is irrelevant.

34. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 15th, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    He'd hit more.

    Seriously? I don't think you even believe half the BS you spew.

    So why does he strike out so much? He simply doesn't care? He's never had a coach recommend he simply take a more controlled swing and suddenly he'll hit 50 homers?

    Why do you think he would have to cut down on his swing to strike out less?

    Why do you think he wouldn't? How do you think he could strike out less? Concentrate harder?

    Batters take bigger swings to generate more power. There is a difference between the way most players swing now and they way they used to. Reynolds doesn't swing to maximize contact/minimize strikeouts. He swings to hit the ball far. Because of the resiliency of the ball and the size of the parks, this often pays off.

    Of course, you know all this, but just feel like being a contrarian dick.

    A sac bunt or ground out, or fielder's choice ... that allows a runner to move from second to third is a productive out.

    Agreed.

    Whether he ends up scoring or not is irrelevant.

    Of course it's relevant. Runs are worth something. Bases are not, except insofar as they eventually lead to runs. Presumably a base advanced on a productive out has as much run expectancy as any other base advanced, followed by an out. A certainly number of them will eventually score. If none of them ever did, it would be (essentially) worthless.

35. Chuck Says:
    September 16th, 2011 at 12:13 am

    Look, Johnny, the biggest difference between us is obvious.

    I played, you didn't.

    The shorter the swing, the more power it generates.

    Everyone who ever held a bat knows that.

    Fly to Arizona (at your expense) and I'll turn you from a basement dwelling tampon wearing pansy to jacking 400 footers in ten minutes (again, at your expense).

    It's shocking how little you know about the game.

36. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 16th, 2011 at 1:07 am

    Jeez, I thought power was generated by batspeed combined with bat-mass. But it's true, I don't even know which end of the bat to hold. I would check the physics books on this but I tend to read them upside down and it all goes over my head.

    It's shocking how little you know about the game.

    Not so shocking, when our resident genius never directly addresses anything, but deflects and dances around questions with oblique answers. I blame the teacher.

    I wonder why you're not an MLB coach, since you could cut 50 Ks and add 10 HR to Reynolds' line in 10 minutes.

37. Chuck Says:
    September 16th, 2011 at 1:31 am

    "Jeez, I thought power was generated by batspeed combined with bat-mass"

    It is.

    What does that have to do with swing length?

    "I wonder why you're not an MLB coach, since you could cut 50 Ks and add 10 HR to Reynolds' line in 10 minutes."

    Mark Reynolds has the IQ of roadkill.

    He's been in the major leagues six years, played with two ML teams and four minor league teams, and hasn't changed.

    The problem isn't his hitting coaches.

38. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 16th, 2011 at 1:59 am

    What does that have to do with swing length?

    That's what I'm wondering.

39. Andy Says:
    September 16th, 2011 at 7:07 am

    Mark Reynolds has the IQ of roadkill.

    He's been in the major leagues six years, played with two ML teams and four minor league teams, and hasn't changed.

    And then there's Chuck, who played only in the minors and thinks ESPN's reporting is real journalism.

40. Biff Says:
    September 16th, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Reynolds has the same mind set Dave Kingman had, which is see how far you can hit it, not how well you can hit it. His approach is terrible in disadvantageous pitch counts. I've never watched him with 2 strikes and thought to myself, "Good job Mark for protecting the plate and staying alive". ANY adjustment in his swing in that situation would be welcome; could he really be any worse? If he shortened his swing and even if he didn't hit the ball as far with 2 strikes (which is debatable), it would still be better to see a ball hit even 103 feet than 0 feet.

    The moment he stops hitting home runs is the moment he can share a beer with Jack Cust and talk about the good ole' days.

41. nwicubfan Says:
    September 16th, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Reynolds, Cust, and Kingman are all extreme examples. Are they really the best examples of how much a strikeout is or isn't overrated? Babe Ruth led the league in strikeouts (as a hitter) 5 times, albeit players struckout less then. Reggie Jackson (all time leader) led the league 5 times as well, and finished with a carreer OPS of 139. Jim Thome (the active leader in K's), led the league 3 times, and has a career OPS of 147.

42. Andy Says:
    September 16th, 2011 at 10:39 am

    By the way, Chuck, the real difference between you and JT is that regardless of whether he's right, JT always gives detailed, though-out arguments, whereas you mainly spew opinions as if they are facts and expect us to simply accept them as gospel.

43. Mr. Dave Says:
    September 16th, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    I don't get how Mark Reynolds still holds down an every day major league job. I do realize that Baltimore doesn't have much else ready to take over for him, but the fact that they traded for him at all boggles my mind. Anyone that manages to make Rob Deer, Steve Balboni and Dave Kingman look like they had plate disipline should not be allowed to play that often.

44. groundball Says:
    September 17th, 2011 at 12:30 am

    I wouldnt say Reynolds lacks plate discipline now. He does BB sometimes.

    However, on the other hand if the best argument for Reynolds Ks is that "he grounds into less double plays"........well, a better argument is needed.

45. groundball Says:
    September 17th, 2011 at 12:35 am

    Oh, and in any case, I agree I dont believe Reynolds would hit more HRs most likely by cutting down 50 Ks, however, at the normal BABIP rate of .300, wouldnt that be with 50ks less 15 extra hits? So, the other question is would he lose enough BB and HRs from the change to nullify those 15 hits?

46. The Original Jimbo Says:
    September 17th, 2011 at 6:45 am

    @43

    Reynolds is hitting perfectly fine. If anything he should be the Orioles number 5 hitter, not their number 7 hitter. He could even be their number 4 hitter, his OBP and SLG are higher than Vlad Guererro's.

    And Dunn got a start today and tied himself up by going 0-4 with 1 SO. He now is at .161 and 161 strikeouts.

47. Johnny Twisto Says:
    September 17th, 2011 at 8:46 am

    at the normal BABIP rate of .300, wouldnt that be with 50ks less 15 extra hits?

    Unless one follows the Chuckian school of hitting (not yet as well-known as the Lau school), there's no reason to assume he would manage a .300 BABIP with an adjusted swing focused on avoiding strikeouts. But even if he did, I have no idea how to weigh +15 hits vs whatever he might lose. I don't think there's any way to tell what he would lose.

48. The Original Jimbo Says:
    September 17th, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    Swinging at more pitches early in the count for example would lead to fewer strikeouts. It would also lead to fewer walks, and presumably weaker hits due to lack of selectiveness.

49. Charles Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:35 am

    0.03 runs per strikeout

    I don't know how a person can come up with that, but I made my own unscientific evaluation.

    In the majors this year, the top 5 pitching staffs with repect to SO/9IP averaged 8.0, the bottom 5 averaged 6.3

    Top 5 SO/9IP 8.0 WHIP 1.23 R/G 3.6
    Bottom 5 SO/9IP 6.3 WHIP 1.37 R/G 4.4

    It's OK that everyone struck out, we would have only scored 0.81 runs anyway.

50. Charles Says:
    September 21st, 2011 at 11:55 am

    The cost of a run for that batter for every strikeout he makes is his Runs/(PA-SO). How often does he score when he doesnt strikeout? Major league average 0.14. And that's not even taking into account RBI's. RBIs/(PA-SO)= 0.13. Strikeouts are rally killers.