My roommate (Quigs) and I were talking yesterday about the various ramifications of the recent Ryan Howard contract extension. (For those of you who don't follow baseball....start following baseball.) Quigs, a big Brewers fan, was interested in comparing Howard's stats to his Milwaukee counterpart, Prince Fielder. He put the two side-by-side and we noticed that very little separated the two apart from age (Fielder is significantly younger) and the number of times each struck out (Howard had far more K's than Fielder).
Quigs--a guy who knows his sports--pointed out the discrepancy, gave the edge to Fielder, and moved on, but I didn't. Rather, I asked him to explain why the difference in strikeouts, by itself, gives Fielder an edge. (In his defense, I had just asked Quigs to defend a position that he hadn't expressly advocated...this would be unfair--or good strategy, I guess--if I were trying to "win" an argument, but here I was just trying to get an academic treatment going. In other words, he and I are not at odds, except to the extent that he's playing devil's advocate to further the discussion.) I don't remember exactly how Quigs made his points, so at this point I'm going to turn this history into historical fiction. Let's pretend, quite reasonably, that he started with this:
1. "Strikeouts are an out. Outs are bad. All other things equal (namely, at-bats), the more outs you make, the worse a batter you are." Well, yes, but this can be attacked on multiple grounds. Most pressingly, we have already accounted for outs made when we compared their batting averages and similar statistics. If Fielder and Howard each get a hit one out of three times, who cares how they got out the other two times?
2. "Not all outs are equal." No argument there. The strikeout doesn't put the ball in play, whereas flyballs, groundouts, etc. will force the defense to make a play. This will lead to the occasional error. Put differently, if Player A strikes out 100 times, he'll reach first base maybe twice (on the account of a dropped third strike). If Player B hits 100 balls right at fielders, he'll reach base maybe 5 or so times (my best guess).
But wait, there's more! Groundouts and flyouts can advance a runner, while a strikeout adds nothing to this. (Yes, a runner can advance on a strikeout if the ball passes the catcher, but unless the swing-and-miss led to the catcher misplaying the ball, the fact that you struck out did not cause the runner to advance.) This is true, but you have to wonder how often Fielder and Howard move up runners. If I'm managing either of these sluggers, I'm not telling them, "Hey, there's a runner on second with no outs...try to chop a grounder to the first baseman." I'm telling them, "find a pitch you like and drive it." In this case, it helps that both Fielder and Howard are leftys and, as such, will end up advancing runners fortuitously.** I've gotta tip my hat to Quigs on this one...it seems like the added benefit of advancing the runners is significant.
(Random Shawon Dunston pic to break up the wall of text.)
My brother also took up the "Strikeouts are worse than other outs" argument, and he floated a few ideas that were off the beaten path but worth considering:
3. "Batters who strike out frequently are less likely to be intentionally walked." Well, that may or may not be true, but let's assume it is true. (It's beyond the scope of this post to support this statement, and it sounds reasonable.) Do you even want your best hitter to be walked intentionally in a big situation (I'm thinking 2nd and 3rd with one out)? Unfortunately, my lack of knowledge limits us here--I don't know whether it's more desirable to have your best hitter batting with 2nd and 3rd or to have (presumably) your second-best hitter batting with the bases loaded. In fact, I suggested to my brother that it might be a detriment to have your best hitter strike out less cuz that means he's more likely to be passed intentionally in these situations, and he responded with, "So, your argument is basically that Howard is better than Fielder (all other things equal) cuz the other team would rather face Howard than Fielder? That doesn't make a lick of sense." He's got a point.
4. "Strikeouts are psychological rally-killers." Interesting idea. I guess he's right to some extent--nothing takes the air out of a stadium like a strikeout with the bases loaded. Well, except for a double play with the bases loaded, which I suppose is more likely to occur when the batter who strikes out less is at the plate (assuming the two batters of equal batting averages, etc). The GIDP argument is one of the few in support of the strikeout, and I'm not sure how much water it holds.
5. "Strikeouts make you seem human." I like this point better. Being prone to striking out is such a conspicuous chink in the armor that it makes the hitter seem vulnerable. I can picture a fan saying something like this: "Wait, you mean he hits .320, hits for power, and he never strikes out? Jeez, does he have any weakness whatsoever?!" I can also picture that fan saying about a different player: "Yeah, he hits .320 and he hits for power, but at least he strikes out a lot." Now, it obviously makes no difference what the fans think of an opponent, but maybe pitchers are subject to similar fallacious reasoning and that their pitching suffers as a result.
Interesting stuff.
**I've said it before, but I'll say it again (to no one in particular): "Fortuitous" means "happening by chance; accidental." It does not mean "fortunately lucky." That's why we have the word, "serendipitous." If you happen to run into your friend at the mall, that is fortuitous. If you accidentally run your car into your friend's car at that same mall, that is also fortuitous.
