First off you should at least know that I am smart enough to know that a strikeout is barely more detrimental in terms of net runs lost than a normal out. Something to the tune of -.011 runs different than a regular out.
So I bring the question up for this reason.
Is it conceivable that if a player like lets say Adam Dunn were to strikeout less he would be much more valuable.
After two strikes for Dunn's career he has a 152/278/306/584 line. It gets even worse when you look at Dunn with 2 strikes and less than 3 balls. He has approximately (I say approximately cuz I did the math) a 135/133/264/397 line given those parameters.
Dunn is very good before 2 strikes (377/495/807/1.303), and even a very good one with a full count (195/497/418/915).
So what would happen if Dunn were to try to make more contact on 0-2,1-2 and 2-2 counts. I am not saying become Juan Pierre, but just widen the strike zone a little bit. Dunn makes doesnt make very good contact (71.4%), but you would think even if he were able to cut down on maybe 30% of those strike outs I think he would be okay.
Dunn has struck out 1044 times in situations with 2 strikes and < 3 balls. So if we cut that down to lets say 700 times. Now if he could do that with say a 275 BABIP it would give him an extra 35 hits. Raise his BA up 20 points in doing so also raise his OPS up to a .437. Not a lot, but thats only a 30% decrease in Ks. Cut it in half and his OPS is up to around 500. Or a 25% increase from where it was.
Dunn sucks in those situations (most players do), but if he became a little more aggressive only in those situations it could pay off a little for him.
The more I got into this the more I realized it probably isn't worth it, but we haven't had much discussion in here so I thought I might as well leave it up.
So do you think a batter should maybe change their ways and become a little more aggressive with 2 strikes and less than 3 balls. Or should they just stay the same no matter what?