Jeff Francoeur swings and missesChris Young and Curtis Granderson strike out a lot.

Some worry about the number of strikeouts that they bring to the lineup.

This worry is natural – for years strikeouts have been had the reputation of being the worst way to make an out.

Bill James observed some time ago that the currency of the baseball game is the out.  Each team has 27 outs to give the other team before the game is over.  Simple stuff that every baseball fan knows.

So why do I mention that in an article on a baseball website?  Well, not only does that show why on-base percentage (e.g.- out avoidance) is so important, but it also shows that an out is an out is an out.

But hold on, it can’t be that simple, can it?  Some outs are worse than others, right?

Well, yes and no.

But baseball of course, isn’t played in a vacuum (or an Excel spreadsheet in anybody’s mother’s basement), and what is true in one situation, is not necessarily true in others.

Luckily, people far smarter than me (in this case Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman and Andrew Dolphin in their work, The Book) have pored over years of data and charted out the run expectancy of every event in every one of the 24 base-out states (bases loaded, 1 out; 1st & 3rd, 0 out; etc.).  If you’re interested, you can find the chart by clicking here.

In many base-out states, the strikeout is the less-preferred way of making an out, but there are some where it may actually be preferred.

With a runner on first and less than two outs, a strikeout is .08 runs less costly than other types of outs.  This makes sense because you can’t hit into a double play when you strike out.

When there is a runner on second or third and less than two outs, a strikeout is .10 runs more costly than other types of outs, because those outs can turn into productive outs.

With runners on first and second and less than two outs, it more or less evens out, with strikeouts being just as costly as any other type of out.

Strikeouts are the most devastating with a runner on third, or a runner on second and third with one out, accounting for .32 and .39 less run expectancy, respectively.

With two outs, it doesn’t really matter because any out signals the end of the inning.

None of this should be terribly surprising, because it all confirms what common sense indicates.

The money quote from Tango et. al, is this:

“What is the impact of these outs?  Suppose the average hitter strikes out 100 times, while our hitter has 140 strikeouts.  If you put him in the cleanup spot [where strikeouts are statistically the most harmful because of how frequent he bats with RISP], those extra 40 strikeouts will cost the team an extra 0.2 runs over the course of a season.  This number is so small as to be virtually irrelevant.”

How irrelevant?  It would take 50 seasons worth of games for that difference to cost a team a single win.

Even in the cleanup position, which Tango et. al concluded is the lineup spot where strikeouts hurt the most, the effects of a high strikeout hitter are negligible.

If the hitter is going to hit .280/.360/.540, it doesn’t make any difference in the long run how he makes an out in those 64% of plate appearances that he fails to reach base.

So for those out there fretting the added strikeouts that come with Granderson and Young, and the ones already existing in the form of Lucas Duda and (for now) Ike Davis, don’t.  The overall impact that it will have on the Mets lineup will be irrelevant.

Meanwhile, Granderson and Young serve as significant upgrades both offensively and defensively over their 2013 counterparts (Marlon Byrd excluded).

So rather than focusing on the added strikeouts to the lineup, which the data shows will have very little impact, focus on the positives that Granderson and Young bring with the bat, the glove and in the clubhouse.

Joe Vasile is the voice of the Fayetteville (NC) SwampDogs.  Follow him on Twitter at @JoeVasilePBP.

7 comments on “Will Curtis Granderson’s and Chris Young’s strikeouts matter?

  • James Preller

    Interesting topic.

    If your hitting philosophy is to work deep counts, an inevitable result will be increased strikeouts. The problem with 2-strike counts is the advantage swings to the pitcher. Some hitters have the ability to change their swings, but in the process of protecting and trying to make contact, they surrender all hope of driving a ball into the gap or over the wall. If they try to swing big — and that’s a complaint about the modern ballplayer, he tends to have “one swing” for all situations — the strikeouts will pile up.

    I’ve heard Warthen state that they want and seek hitters who are comfortable with two strikes. And that scares me.

    OTOH, I’ve never worried too much about the outs. I look at overall production.

    Yet a lineup that strikes out a lot will also be hard to watch, and you’ll see a lot of passive & poor overall ABs. There’s a psychological element to it that I can’t pretend to measure, but don’t entirely discount. I don’t think its great when player after players walks back to the dugout shaking his head. Also, high strikeouts can suggest a deeply flawed hitter. Maybe its working for a period, but it could be a sign that the overall production won’t last. In the case of Kirkkkkk, it wasn’t so much that the strikeouts were bad ways of making outs, but that they indicated he really didn’t have a clue at the plate.

  • Brian Joura

    Yeah, I agree – the key is how is the pitcher beating you with the strikeout. If he’s putting the ball on the black, you tip your hat and walk back to the dugout. If he’s throwing 98 mph gas that you can’t catch up to – no shame in that. If he breaks off a 12-to-6 curve, what are you going to do?

    But if you’re Nieuwenhuis and Davis and you’re consistently chasing pitches a foot out of the strike zone – that’s a problem.

    We’ll see how Granderson and Young fare in this regard. I hope Young gets off to a fast start because I think everyone will be a bit more patient with Granderson.

  • Patrick Albanesius

    The psychological element is very real, but like James said, nearly impossible to measure. It may be true that a strikeout is nearly the same as a ball caught on the warning track in particular cases. However when I’m watching the game, one keeps me interested, and one doesn’t.

  • Jerry Grote

    “Strikeouts are fascist”.

    The idea from Crash Davis in part being that its helpful to keep the rest of the team involved in the game. Moreover, strikeouts by their nature require a minimum of three pitches and a groundout can happen on the first pitch. Throw fast and throw strikes (the very definition of why Dice-K is not welcome on my staff.)

    What frustrates me about Warthen’s desire for guys that work well with two pitches, and in general the idea of working the count to drive up the opposing team’s pitch count, is that the entire philosophy really only works over the first six inning when you are dealing with the other team’s starting pitcher.

    There’s really no concern whether or not you make the LOOGY throw 26 pitches to get an out. Did the closer toss 18 pitches, or 24 last night? I don’t know of any place where I can find pitch/plate appearance only against starting pitchers and its why I put zero importance on the statistic in general. My guess is that the players we have (notably the younger hitters) aren’t particularly good at getting to the 8th pitch by a starting pitcher (other than Mr. Murphy).

    And to bring it around to the point of the article, here’s hoping that veterans of the sort of Young/Granderson are versed in the idea.

  • Eraff

    I’ve always had a sense that Strikes Outs were a heavier burden when they came from multiple hitters….. the toll seems more exponential than culmulative. Lot’s of players with similar traits seem easier to attack in any sport.

  • Jim OMalley

    Well you could look at the Duda sampling from last year after he moved to first base. During that timeframe (between his removal from the outfield and his is stint on the disabled list), fans began thinking he was starting to contribute. Without seeing his defensive flaws in the outfield, his overall production at first base was perceived as “intriguing” despite his strikeouts. Right?

  • TexasGusCC

    While I cannot find myself to argue with data collected from long term studies, why are most players that hit .300+ tough to strike out and most that hit <.250 strike out more often? Because they are fooled more. If you cannot hit the ball, how would he get hits?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 100 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here