PDA

View Full Version : Ks are Overrated



Living Legend
06-18-2009, 06:32 PM
In this new era of pitch counts I feel that strikeout pitchers are less effective.

I would prefer a pitcher that throws strikes, pitches to contact, gets grounds balls, and keeps himself in the game as long as possible over a strikeout pitcher that runs 3-2 counts all day and rarely goes over 6 innings.

Agree/Disagree?

Hustla23
06-18-2009, 06:52 PM
Pitch counts are overrated.

Pavelb1
06-18-2009, 07:07 PM
Here are the things a pitcher can control most of all: Walks, K's, and home-runs.

Without even knowing who they are, let's look at the five pitchers with 300 wins and up.

Early Wynn-300 wins, from 1950 to 1960 he never was lower than 7th, and usually 3rd or higher in strikeouts.

Lefty Grove-300 wins, FIRST in K's every year 1925 to 1931.

Randy Johnson-301 wins. Do I need to say anything?

Tom Glavine-305 wins. Not a big strikeout pitcher, but enough for 24th alltime.

We'll skip Mickey Welch and Charlie Radbourn because they arn't modern age pitchers. That brings us to Terrific Tom Seaver at 311 wins. Nuff said.

'Pitching to contact' is for losers who can't strike people out. Crash was wrong, they arn't fascist.

VenezuelanMet
06-18-2009, 07:10 PM
Pitch counts are overrated.

Correct

jetsfan89
06-18-2009, 07:10 PM
bottom of the ninth in a tie game with a man on third with nobody out. if he hits a flyball or a groundball, the runner scores and you lose. if you strike him out, he cant attempt to score.

Armadillo19
06-18-2009, 07:13 PM
They're overrated when it's either strike out or nothing. But, if you can both blow people away and rack up 6-10+ Ks per game, and you're not walking a ton of guys or giving up a bomb if you don't strike anyone out, they are extremely valuable.

good spliff
06-18-2009, 07:15 PM
Old news...It's been like this forever.

SHOELESSJOE3
06-18-2009, 07:23 PM
bottom of the ninth in a tie game with a man on third with nobody out. if he hits a flyball or a groundball, the runner scores and you lose. if you strike him out, he cant attempt to score.


This is true, no contact no choice to advance or score. Please, I hope we don't hear about a strikeout on a wild pitch.

I do agree that over the years it's evident that strikeouts are not as terrible as once believed but in most cases better to make contact. Depends on the game situation.
Your going to now hear some say, maybe the batter might have hit into a DP, the strikeout the lesser evil. Foolish, the batter has no idea that he might hit into a DP before hand. And I might add that at times a run scores on a DP, never on a strike out. The batter can not advance a runner by what he does in the batters box when he strikes out.
Make contact, even when making out the batter can advance the runner, even score him, strikeout ZERO.

Gigantes4Life
06-18-2009, 07:24 PM
Here are the things a pitcher can control most of all: Walks, K's, and home-runs.

Without even knowing who they are, let's look at the five pitchers with 300 wins and up.

Early Wynn-300 wins, from 1950 to 1960 he never was lower than 7th, and usually 3rd or higher in strikeouts.

Lefty Grove-300 wins, FIRST in K's every year 1925 to 1931.

Randy Johnson-301 wins. Do I need to say anything?

Tom Glavine-305 wins. Not a big strikeout pitcher, but enough for 24th alltime.

We'll skip Mickey Welch and Charlie Radbourn because they arn't modern age pitchers. That brings us to Terrific Tom Seaver at 311 wins. Nuff said.

'Pitching to contact' is for losers who can't strike people out. Crash was wrong, they arn't fascist.

To be a bit more specific, pitchers control flyballs and groundballs, not necessarily home runs.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 08:41 PM
bottom of the ninth in a tie game with a man on third with nobody out. if he hits a flyball or a groundball, the runner scores and you lose. if you strike him out, he cant attempt to score.
Bottom of the ninth tie game with a man on first and third with one out. If he strikes out, Albert Pujols is coming up to bat. If he hits a grounder, it's a double play to end the game.

You can't just name a situation and say that one out is better than all the other outs all the time. The value of the out is determined by situation.

With that said, I would rather have a guy like Brandon Webb who will get you constant ground balls and a low pitch count than a guy who is just going to strike everyone out. While I love strikeouts and think that they're important, they do run up pitch counts (which is the only constant).

Havoc Wreaker
06-18-2009, 09:03 PM
Bottom of the ninth tie game with a man on first and third with one out. If he strikes out, Albert Pujols is coming up to bat. If he hits a grounder, it's a double play to end the game.

You can't just name a situation and say that one out is better than all the other outs all the time. The value of the out is determined by situation.

With that said, I would rather have a guy like Brandon Webb who will get you constant ground balls and a low pitch count than a guy who is just going to strike everyone out. While I love strikeouts and think that they're important, they do run up pitch counts (which is the only constant).

You K the batter, Walk Pujols Intentionally and K the next guy :shrug:


As someone said before, Pitch counts are overrated and you can't just assume that a strikeout pitcher will go 3-2 to every batter, a pitcher could very easily K 10-12 and make 95-110 Pitches only

giventofly
06-18-2009, 09:15 PM
You K the batter, Walk Pujols Intentionally and K the next guy :shrug:


As someone said before, Pitch counts are overrated and you can't just assume that a strikeout pitcher will go 3-2 to every batter, a pitcher could very easily K 10-12 and make 95-110 Pitches only
But how often does it happen? Not very.

Trust me, I love strikeouts. I grew up with Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, and now Rich Harden. The Cubs have lead the league in strikeouts for the past 8 years and I realize how important they are.

I'm just saying, if you can assume that some guy is going to strike out, then I'm allowed to assume that the same guy will hit a ground ball. The only difference is which pitcher is more likely to last longer in the game.

Twitchy
06-18-2009, 09:18 PM
Bottom of the ninth tie game with a man on first and third with one out. If he strikes out, Albert Pujols is coming up to bat. If he hits a grounder, it's a double play to end the game.

No, there isn't a guarantee you double them up. It could go for a base hit, the fielder could make an error, one of the runners could beat out the throw. You could get a double play, but it's far from 100% certainty. A strikeout, on the other hand, is for all intents and purposes a guaranteed out.


You can't just name a situation and say that one out is better than all the other outs all the time. The value of the out is determined by situation.

With that said, I would rather have a guy like Brandon Webb who will get you constant ground balls and a low pitch count than a guy who is just going to strike everyone out. While I love strikeouts and think that they're important, they do run up pitch counts (which is the only constant).

And why is a guy like Brandon Webb more successful than other GB pitchers? Because he's got an above average strikeout rate (7.3K/9 for his career). So by arguing that you'd rather have Webb, you're arguing that strikeouts are not overrated and are very important to a pitchers success.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 09:19 PM
As someone said before, Pitch counts are overrated and you can't just assume that a strikeout pitcher will go 3-2 to every batter, a pitcher could very easily K 10-12 and make 95-110 Pitches only
And I understand that pitch counts are probably a bit overrated, but they exist, and managers/pitching coaches follow them.

I mean, this isn't the old days where guys can just go out and throw 200 pitches a game. Certain players actually NEED to keep track of how many they're throwing, whether we like it or not.

Sorry to keep bringing it up, but Kerry Wood's biggest problem all these years is that he couldn't make it past 50-60 pitches per game....which is why he was put in the bullpen. His arm just can't do it, and I'm sure there are others, especially with how hard some people throw.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 09:21 PM
No, there isn't a guarantee you double them up. It could go for a base hit, the fielder could make an error, one of the runners could beat out the throw. You could get a double play, but it's far from 100% certainty.
I understand that, but like I said, if you're allowed to assume a strikeout, I'm allowed to assume a ground ball. Making errors and beating out throws is a weak argument, in my opinion. It doesn't happen very often at all...that's why they call them errors.

I mean, I could come right back at you with the stupid drop third strike. Doesn't mean it's relevant at all.



And why is a guy like Brandon Webb more successful than other GB pitchers? Because he's got an above average strikeout rate (7.3K/9 for his career). So by arguing that you'd rather have Webb, you're arguing that strikeouts are not overrated and are very important to a pitchers success.Brandon Webb was just the first name that came to mind. I know he also has good K numbers. And as you should have read in my earlier posts, you know that I'm a great fan of strikeouts.

bagwell368
06-18-2009, 09:23 PM
The Sabermetrics guys came up with a K/9 IP threshold which showed rather dramatically that a pitcher that had below a certain number would never (and had never) been a big "winner" (or ERA+ I imagine for SABR's). I believe the number was 4.5. Over the threshold you could win - if you had good control, or a good diving pitch that got beat into the ground for ground ball outs, but not always. However if you have a 3 to 1 or better K/BB ratio and get 7.5 K's or better per game I would say you'd be real good.

Dice-K isn't a big time K pitcher but he throws a ton of pitches - seldom gets 6 complete. Pedro in his prime was a killer K pitcher, and mostly got past 6 1/3, often 7 complete.

BTW, the comment "pitch counts are overrated" is ridiculous. You don't have to like them, but they are a part of baseball today, and given the success of the Red Sox over the past few years in the way they handle their staff, expect more, more 5-6-7 day gaps between starts, etc.

Twitchy
06-18-2009, 09:24 PM
I understand that, but like I said, if you're allowed to assume a strikeout, I'm allowed to assume a ground ball. Making errors and beating out throws is a weak argument, in my opinion. It doesn't happen very often at all...that's why they call them errors.

You're misunderstanding the argument.

With a strikeout, there is a 100% chance of getting an out. There is no debate about whether the player is out. With a groundball, there isn't a 100% chance of getting a double play. Any of the following events could happen:

Base hit
Error
Fielder's choice
Double Play

See the problem? Getting a ground ball does not equal a double play. It doesn't even guarantee that you'll get an out. You can't assume they'll get a double play. A strikeout is a 100% chance of an out. A groundball isn't even close to a guaranteed out.

It's a critical distinction, to understand that a strikeout is a definitive out while a groundball does not lead to a 100% chance of getting an out.



Brandon Webb was just the first name that came to mind. I know he also has good K numbers. And as you should have read in my earlier posts, you know that I'm a great fan of strikeouts.

Regardless, there's no logical argument that strikeouts are a bad thing. The best pitchers in baseball are high strikeout guys. It's not a coincidence. That's not directed at you per say, but anybody who argues a K is overrated.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 09:29 PM
Greg Maddux comes to mind.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 09:31 PM
You're misunderstanding the argument.

With a strikeout, there is a 100% chance of getting an out. There is no debate about whether the player is out. With a groundball, there isn't a 100% chance of getting a double play. Any of the following events could happen:

Base hit
Error
Fielder's choice
Double Play

See the problem? Getting a ground ball does not equal a double play. It doesn't even guarantee that you'll get an out. You can't assume they'll get a double play. A strikeout is a 100% chance of an out. A groundball isn't even close to a guaranteed out.
And what happens if you strike a guy out and the catcher lets it get past him? Not an out then, is it?

But it's also not very likely...and neither are botched plays or beating the throw.


It's a critical distinction, to understand that a strikeout is a definitive out while a groundball does not lead to a 100% chance of getting an out.No, it isn't.




Regardless, there's no logical argument that strikeouts are a bad thing. The best pitchers in baseball are high strikeout guys. It's not a coincidence. That's not directed at you per say, but anybody who argues a K is overrated.Yeah, strikeouts are huge. No argument there.

HOWE do i do it
06-18-2009, 09:37 PM
I wouldn't say K's are overrated, but if I had to choose between balls flying in the air, or rolling on the ground, I would prefer them on the ground all day.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 09:38 PM
You're misunderstanding the argument.

With a strikeout, there is a 100% chance of getting an out. There is no debate about whether the player is out. With a groundball, there isn't a 100% chance of getting a double play. Any of the following events could happen:

Base hit
Error
Fielder's choice
Double Play

See the problem? Getting a ground ball does not equal a double play. It doesn't even guarantee that you'll get an out. You can't assume they'll get a double play. A strikeout is a 100% chance of an out. A groundball isn't even close to a guaranteed out.

It's a critical distinction, to understand that a strikeout is a definitive out while a groundball does not lead to a 100% chance of getting an out.



Regardless, there's no logical argument that strikeouts are a bad thing. The best pitchers in baseball are high strikeout guys. It's not a coincidence. That's not directed at you per say, but anybody who argues a K is overrated.

The best pitchers from distant and recent past pitched in different eras when the pitch count wasn't like it is today. That is the main point here.

Ya heard me dawg?

btw, a strikeout isn't a 100% out. What about dropped 3rd strikes where the runner gets to first?

I think so much emphasis is placed on throwing hard and getting a lot of strikeouts that kids are growing up learning that way.

Sometimes I wish there were more Greg Maddux like pitchers who pitch to contact, keep their pitch count low, keep the defense on their toes, and pitch into the 8th or 9th inning consistently.

brandonwarne52
06-18-2009, 09:39 PM
Greg Maddux comes to mind.

6.1 K/9 is right about average (I would guess), and the 3.37 K/BB is solid.

brandonwarne52
06-18-2009, 09:40 PM
I wouldn't say K's are overrated, but if I had to choose between balls flying in the air, or rolling on the ground, I would prefer them on the ground all day.

Not sure if it's true or not, but aren't 7 of 10 grounders hits while only 3 of 10 flyballs hits?

I can't remember where I heard it, or if it's really just one of those tired old baseball sayings.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 09:42 PM
6.1 K/9 is right about average (I would guess), and the 3.37 K/BB is solid.

I would not consider that a strikeout pitcher

giventofly
06-18-2009, 09:43 PM
The best pitchers from distant and recent past pitched in different eras when the pitch count wasn't like it is today. That is the main point here.

Ya heard me dawg?

btw, a strikeout isn't a 100% out. What about dropped 3rd strikes where the runner gets to first?

I think so much emphasis is placed on throwing hard and getting a lot of strikeouts that kids are growing up learning that way.

Sometimes I wish there were more Greg Maddux like pitchers who pitch to contact, keep their pitch count low, keep the defense on their toes, and pitch into the 8th or 9th inning consistently.
You don't necessarily have to throw super hard to be a good strikeout pitcher. You more so have to be deceptive and be able to change speeds well. Throwing fast is just a bonus.

And you have to get over the pitch count thing man. They are here to stay. Some pitchers need them, some don't. Pitches and arms are evolving. Just the nature of the game.

poodski
06-18-2009, 09:46 PM
Not sure if it's true or not, but aren't 7 of 10 grounders hits while only 3 of 10 flyballs hits?

I can't remember where I heard it, or if it's really just one of those tired old baseball sayings.

No that's not true. I'm on my iphone but go to baseball reference go to bat splits for a league and look at babip for them.

Pavelb1
06-18-2009, 09:46 PM
The best pitchers from distant and recent past pitched in different eras when the pitch count wasn't like it is today. That is the main point here.

Ya heard me dawg?

btw, a strikeout isn't a 100% out. What about dropped 3rd strikes where the runner gets to first?

I think so much emphasis is placed on throwing hard and getting a lot of strikeouts that kids are growing up learning that way.

Sometimes I wish there were more Greg Maddux like pitchers who pitch to contact, keep their pitch count low, keep the defense on their toes, and pitch into the 8th or 9th inning consistently.

3371 lifetime strike-outs. That's 10th ALLTIME.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 09:50 PM
You don't necessarily have to throw super hard to be a good strikeout pitcher. You more so have to be deceptive and be able to change speeds well. Throwing fast is just a bonus.

And you have to get over the pitch count thing man. They are here to stay. Some pitchers need them, some don't. Pitches and arms are evolving. Just the nature of the game.

Im not really against the pitch count.

I am just pointing out that it is MUCH more important then it was even 4 years ago. A lot of coaches don't want their SP to go far over 100 pitches.

In order to get a lot of strikeouts you have to throw a lot of pitches.

That means a strikeout pitcher may get 10 Ks but only gets through 6 innings because he has 110 pitch count....

To me Id rather have a pitcher go 8 or 9 innings with a pitch count under 100.

When Greg Maddux was with the Dodgers he had a no hitter through 7 with only 62 pitches thrown.

That is what I want MY ace to do.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 09:52 PM
3371 lifetime strike-outs. That's 10th ALLTIME.

I only saw Maddux pitch in the last several years. Maybe he had more strikeouts earlier in his career, but he didn't have a lot in the end and he developed into a very crafty pitcher.

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:04 PM
I only saw Maddux pitch in the last several years. Maybe he had more strikeouts earlier in his career, but he didn't have a lot in the end and he developed into a very crafty pitcher.

And he wasn't as good of a pitcher, correct?


Bagwell, you are correct. Bill James said the line was 4.5 K/9.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 10:06 PM
And he wasn't as good of a pitcher, correct?


Bagwell, you are correct. Bill James said the line was 4.5 K/9.

He wasn't limited by pitch count earlier in his career.

Ya head that nephew?

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 10:08 PM
Where is the statistic: 'Pitches per out'

Thats a stat I want

giventofly
06-18-2009, 10:09 PM
Where is the statistic: 'Outs per pitch'

Thats a stat I want
Why don't you just calculate it yourself....?

(Innings x 3) / pitches thrown

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:11 PM
You're paying way too much attention to pitch counts, and not to actual effectiveness. A no-hitter isn't really as impressive as a 20 K game, or even 15 K game.

It's pretty simple: a pitcher has full control of a strikeout, but he does not have full control of what happens after the ball leaves the bat. A strikeout has a .000 BABIP, while on average his other hits will have a BABIP of around .300.

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:13 PM
He wasn't limited by pitch count earlier in his career.

Ya head that nephew?

He wasn't limited by a pitch count, he was limited by his diminishing abilities due to age.

It's not about striking out 12 every game. It's about striking out enough as to where you're not completely dependent on your defense, and having a good ratio between strikeouts and K's. Greg Maddux had some crazy good K/BB ratios during his career.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 10:15 PM
You're paying way too much attention to pitch counts, and not to actual effectiveness. A no-hitter isn't really as impressive as a 20 K game, or even 15 K game.

It's pretty simple: a pitcher has full control of a strikeout, but he does not have full control of what happens after the ball leaves the bat. A strikeout has a .000 BABIP, while on average his other hits will have a BABIP of around .300.
Not really.

In fact, it's the only reason anyone could ever justify having a ground ball pitcher over a strikeout pitcher.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 10:16 PM
Why don't you just calculate it yourself....?

(Innings x 3) / pitches thrown

Yo dawg.

Calc up what Maddux was over his career.

While you are at it calc up Nolan Ryan, Lincecum, and Glavine.

I ain't good with maths yo.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 10:17 PM
Yo dawg.

Calc up what Maddux was over his career.

While you are at it calc up Nolan Ryan, Lincecum, and Glavine.

I ain't good with maths yo.
You're not very good with trying to make yourself seem intelligent either.

Do it yourself.

poodski
06-18-2009, 10:19 PM
Yeah a 3.37 k/bb is impressive. K/bb to me is more important than k/9.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 10:19 PM
Yeah a 3.37 k/bb is impressive. K/bb to me is more important than k/9.
Without a doubt.

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:21 PM
Not really.

In fact, it's the only reason anyone could ever justify having a ground ball pitcher over a strikeout pitcher.

If you worry too much about getting a guy who will pitch more innings, then you'll end up getting the worse pitcher.

The groundball pitcher is also more liable to get knocked around from time to time.

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:22 PM
Yeah a 3.37 k/bb is impressive. K/bb to me is more important than k/9.

Of course.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 10:26 PM
If you worry too much about getting a guy who will pitch more innings, then you'll end up getting the worse pitcher.
The problem with your argument is that you're not putting any value into an inning pitched. All your value is coming from JUST the strikeout. Who says that 2 more K's per day is more valuable than one more inning pitched, for example? It's just something that's nearly impossible to quantify.

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:28 PM
The problem with your argument is that you're not putting any value into an inning pitched. All your value is coming from JUST the strikeout. Who says that 2 more K's per day is more valuable than one more inning pitched, for example?

No, I'm not. I'm just saying you should first worry about ability, and then worry about a guy might be able to give you an inning or two of worse pitching every other start.

I agree that I'd rather have the grounderball pitcher with a better K/B ratio than the strikeout pitcher that also walks a lot, though.

poodski
06-18-2009, 10:31 PM
The problem with your argument is that you're not putting any value into an inning pitched. All your value is coming from JUST the strikeout. Who says that 2 more K's per day is more valuable than one more inning pitched, for example? It's just something that's nearly impossible to quantify.

Do you know what theaverage start length of a gb pitcher is compared to a strikeout pitcher?

giventofly
06-18-2009, 10:34 PM
No, I'm not. I'm just saying you should first worry about ability, and then worry about a guy might be able to give you an inning or two of worse pitching every other start.But is getting through an inning successfully not considered ability?

An extreme example would be saying:

My pitcher got through one scoreless inning with no K's, and your pitcher K'd three batters, but gave up four runs in one inning. So why does your pitcher have more "ability" than mine? It's because all your value is held in the strikeout.


I agree that I'd rather have the grounderball pitcher with a better K/B ratio than the strikeout pitcher that also walks a lot, though.
That's basically the point I'm trying to hammer home....which is probably why I seem so ambiguous in my arguments in this thread.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 10:36 PM
Do you know what theaverage start length of a gb pitcher is compared to a strikeout pitcher?
No clue, to be honest. But this situation seems like it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, instead of a broad statistical analysis. At least in my opinion....

poodski
06-18-2009, 10:41 PM
No clue, to be honest. But this situation seems like it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, instead of a broad statistical analysis. At least in my opinion....

I suppose.

I think though when deciding which one you would want would also depend on what kind of bullpen you have. If it's top notch you can handle a shorter outing but if it blows you may want a guy that can get to the 8th regularly.

giventofly
06-18-2009, 10:42 PM
I suppose.

I think though when deciding which one you would want would also depend on what kind of bullpen you have. If it's top notch you can handle a shorter outing but if it blows you may want a guy that can get to the 8th regularly.
Exactly.

All things must be considered, which is why I didn't bother much posting a bunch of statistics. That, and I'm feeling extra lazy tonight and ready for beer.

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:45 PM
But is getting through an inning successfully not considered ability?

An extreme example would be saying:

My pitcher got through one scoreless inning with no K's, and your pitcher K'd three batters, but gave up four runs in one inning. So why does your pitcher have more "ability" than mine? It's because all your value is held in the strikeout.

Over the course of a start, sure, that might work out. But over the course of a season, or career, such an extreme example doesn't really model reality.

And if you'd want to do a study on that, you'd have to set different samples of players based on some parameters. IE, put all pitchers with the past 3 seasons >7 K/BB and a X GB% in one bucket, and see how they fared over the next few seasons. You'd have to adjust for age.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 10:48 PM
Outs per pitch since 2002 (no 'pitches thrown' stat befoer then)

Maddux: .38 outs per pitch.

Randy Johnson: .19 outs per pitch

Johan Santana: .19 outs per pitch

Lincecum: .18 outs per pitch

I think im on to something here

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:50 PM
I think you're onto a small sample size.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 10:53 PM
I think you're onto a small sample size.

6+ years isnt enough?

brandonwarne52
06-18-2009, 10:53 PM
I agree.....with Seam.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 10:54 PM
Maddux is the king with .38 outs per pitch.

That is modern gangsta pitching right there boi.

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:55 PM
And that has really worked for him, huh?

Greg Maddux WAR since 2002: 24.7

Randy Johnson WAR since 2002 minus 2009: 34.9

I only looked at Maddux and Johnson because they're comparable in age, but I guarantee it won't get any prettier with Timmy and Johan.

I'd take you seriously if you were onto something that actually had more than marginal importance.

brandonwarne52
06-18-2009, 10:55 PM
What did the pitch economy get him? Was he better than those other pitchers you listed?

Edit: Yeah, wow. Good call there SeaM.

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:55 PM
6+ years isnt enough?

No, looking at 4 pitchers isn't enough.

poodski
06-18-2009, 10:56 PM
Walks take on average 5.5 pitches

Strikeouts take 4.8 pitches

All others take 3.3 pitches

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 10:59 PM
What did the pitch economy get him? Was he better than those other pitchers you listed?

Edit: Yeah, wow. Good call there SeaM.

Johan Santana WAR since 2002 minus 2009: 39.4

Tim Lincecum has averaged 5 wins above replacement per season since 2002 (in only 2 seasons). Maddux has averaged 4.1, which is still very good.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 11:00 PM
No, looking at 4 pitchers isn't enough.

Gimme a list and I will calc em up.

I doubt any good pitcher will beat Maddux at .38 outs per pitch.

Who do you think could beat him?

Seamhead
06-18-2009, 11:02 PM
Again, does it really matter if he hasn't provided more value?

I'm not going to give you a list of pitchers. Use the whole major leagues.

poodski
06-18-2009, 11:03 PM
Gimme a list and I will calc em up.

I doubt any good pitcher will beat Maddux at .38 outs per pitch.

Who do you think could beat him?

What does it matter though? If the other pitchers have better production it doesn't really mean anything.

pf289
06-18-2009, 11:10 PM
I have been saying the title of this thread for years.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 11:13 PM
So for every 3 pitches that Maddux threw he got almost 1.2 outs

Yo. That is tuff.

Pavelb1
06-18-2009, 11:17 PM
So for every 3 pitches that Maddux threw he got almost 1.2 outs

Yo. That is tuff.

Over what time period are you saying Maddux averaged about 8 pitchs an inning?

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 11:22 PM
Derek Lowe: .193

Roy Halladay: .209

Tim Wakefiled: .194

As you can see the average is about .19.

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 11:24 PM
Over what time period are you saying Maddux averaged about 8 pitchs an inning?

since 02'.

(innings * 3)/pitches thrown

Living Legend
06-18-2009, 11:31 PM
AJ Burnett: .186 <----awful

Smoltz: .204

No one comes close to Mad Dawg.

degnor
06-19-2009, 04:13 AM
Strikeouts are like HRs. They're fun to watch, and certainly help a team, but are overrated because of the excitement surrounding them. I'd just as easily take a good groundball pitcher. ERA and IP are what matters, pure and simple. Don't care how many he strikes out, just as long as he gets his job done

Cheezombie
06-19-2009, 06:10 AM
Strikeouts are like HRs. They're fun to watch, and certainly help a team, but are overrated because of the excitement surrounding them. I'd just as easily take a good groundball pitcher. ERA and IP are what matters, pure and simple. Don't care how many he strikes out, just as long as he gets his job done

and what correlates with ERA best?

Storm4
06-19-2009, 07:17 AM
In this new era of pitch counts I feel that strikeout pitchers are less effective.

I would prefer a pitcher that throws strikes, pitches to contact, gets grounds balls, and keeps himself in the game as long as possible over a strikeout pitcher that runs 3-2 counts all day and rarely goes over 6 innings.

Agree/Disagree?

That might be true if you're a younger pitcher such as Kazmir or Joba.

What about guys like Verlander, Halladay, Santana, Sabathia, Beckett, etc that can go for 7+ innings and pick up the strikeouts along the way?

poodski
06-19-2009, 07:56 AM
So I was thinking about these numbers last night. And the Maddux one just didnt make any sense. .38 pitches per out? That would mean he essentially throws less than 2 pitches per batter. Which is well unrealistic.

So I ran the numbers, I just went to THT, and got numbers since 2004. Doing the math Maddux's number is actually .15 pitches per out. Which makes a hell of a lot more sense. I dont know where your number came from but its incorrect.

Living Legend
06-19-2009, 12:23 PM
So I was thinking about these numbers last night. And the Maddux one just didnt make any sense. .38 pitches per out? That would mean he essentially throws less than 2 pitches per batter. Which is well unrealistic.

So I ran the numbers, I just went to THT, and got numbers since 2004. Doing the math Maddux's number is actually .15 pitches per out. Which makes a hell of a lot more sense. I dont know where your number came from but its incorrect.

Well my numbers are since 2002.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=1800

1859 IP * 3 = 5577 outs

5577/19715 pitches = .283 outs per pitch.

Its seems I made an error with the .38 stat.

But Maddux is WAY higher then .15, he is .283 which is still 80 points higher then the next closest pitcher.

I ain't good with maths dawg, but I triple checked this one.

Maddux = .283 <--- That is still amazing dawg.

sep11ie
06-19-2009, 12:34 PM
^ You type like the black dude from American Idol talks.

poodski
06-19-2009, 12:43 PM
Well my numbers are since 2002.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=1800

1859 IP * 3 = 5577 outs

5577/19715 pitches = .283 outs per pitch.

Its seems I made an error with the .38 stat.

But Maddux is WAY higher then .15, he is .283 which is still 80 points higher then the next closest pitcher.

I ain't good with maths dawg, but I triple checked this one.

Maddux = .283 <--- That is still amazing dawg.

Maddux didnt average 232.3 innings per season from 02-08.

Look at the stat P/IP. Dont look at career cuz thats not right but look at his years. Most years were between 13.2 and 13.8. So figure he averaged about 13.4 P/IP thats 13.4 pitches per 3 outs (his two small stints with LA were way lower). Thats 4.46 pitches per out, or .22 outs per pitch. Which isnt bad, but still not all that different from everyone else.

Living Legend
06-19-2009, 01:00 PM
Maddux didnt average 232.3 innings per season from 02-08.

Look at the stat P/IP. Dont look at career cuz thats not right but look at his years. Most years were between 13.2 and 13.8. So figure he averaged about 13.4 P/IP thats 13.4 pitches per 3 outs (his two small stints with LA were way lower). Thats 4.46 pitches per out, or .22 outs per pitch. Which isnt bad, but still not all that different from everyone else.

Ah my bad.

I told u wasn't good with maths yo

bagwell368
06-19-2009, 01:24 PM
3371 lifetime strike-outs. That's 10th ALLTIME.

One thing about K numbers now compared to 1915 or even 1948. Hitters were much more concerned about contact, BA, and not striking out due to pride, and lack of understanding of what was really productive. WJ was the big K pitcher of his age, and look at his K/IP, the Grove, then Feller (the first of real throw them by you guys - such as Ryan).

Also consider that the 3 20 K games on record happened since 1985 - part of that was expansion, but more of it is hitters trying to be 35+ HR guys that make millions, not some contact hitter just hanging on.

I think adjustments have to be made if you want to compare what is a K guy now and in 1926.

Another note on Maddux, I saw him pitch live twice - once when a Cub and once when a Brave, and the strike zone they gave him was roughly 35% bigger then what a guy like Lester gets today. His reputation for control earned him an awful lot of those K's. He was crafty and smart. No doubt that it will be a long time before we see a guy that throws at his speed with that many K's per IP. I've had both of my sons watch his games many times. His behavior and cool on the mound are outstanding.

Another small slice of this discussion relates to the K pitcher himself. Ryan and Sam McDowell are perhaps the best examples I have seen. Gas and more gas, and I modeled myself after them as a child - sadly. The real pitchers of dominance are guys like Gibson, Koufax, Pedro, Seaver, RJ, RC - they all had the hammer, they all had one other great pitch, and sometimes a third pitch, and they were smart as hell, and tough as nails. They learned it was better to mix the gas with the hook and the change and whatever else they had, that's why they are the best of the past 50 years (and they lasted because at times they did try to induce hits and not always go for K's) - and Ryan never was.

Seamhead
06-19-2009, 04:49 PM
Ah my bad.

I told u wasn't good with maths yo

Oh, damn. That throws your perfectly constructed thesis out of the window.

Gigantes4Life
06-19-2009, 05:10 PM
Johan Santana WAR since 2002 minus 2009: 39.4

Tim Lincecum has averaged 5 wins above replacement per season since 2002 (in only 2 seasons). Maddux has averaged 4.1, which is still very good.

Lincecum's 1st season wasn't a full season either. So he could possibly be around the 6-7 WAR a season, maybe even better.

Also, here are the leading pitchers in K/9 for 2008:

Tim Lincecum, Edinson Volquez, A.J. Burnett, Chad Billingsley, C.C. Sabathia, Josh Beckett, Ervin Santana, Javier Vazquez, Jake Peavy and Dan Haren.

See the connection? All of them had a FIP under 4, only 3 of them over 3.5.

ramz.n
06-19-2009, 05:29 PM
Here are the things a pitcher can control most of all: Walks, K's, and home-runs.

Without even knowing who they are, let's look at the five pitchers with 300 wins and up.

Early Wynn-300 wins, from 1950 to 1960 he never was lower than 7th, and usually 3rd or higher in strikeouts.

Lefty Grove-300 wins, FIRST in K's every year 1925 to 1931.

Randy Johnson-301 wins. Do I need to say anything?

Tom Glavine-305 wins. Not a big strikeout pitcher, but enough for 24th alltime.

We'll skip Mickey Welch and Charlie Radbourn because they arn't modern age pitchers. That brings us to Terrific Tom Seaver at 311 wins. Nuff said.

'Pitching to contact' is for losers who can't strike people out. Crash was wrong, they arn't fascist.

ur calling halladay a loser??:mad:

Gigantes4Life
06-19-2009, 05:32 PM
Halladay's K'd over 7/9 IP the last 2 years, which is good.

Strangeland
06-22-2009, 03:20 AM
This is true, no contact no choice to advance or score. Please, I hope we don't hear about a strikeout on a wild pitch.

I do agree that over the years it's evident that strikeouts are not as terrible as once believed but in most cases better to make contact. Depends on the game situation.
Your going to now hear some say, maybe the batter might have hit into a DP, the strikeout the lesser evil. Foolish, the batter has no idea that he might hit into a DP before hand. And I might add that at times a run scores on a DP, never on a strike out. The batter can not advance a runner by what he does in the batters box when he strikes out.
Make contact, even when making out the batter can advance the runner, even score him, strikeout ZERO.

This is why it makes no sense when sabermetric nerds say strikeouts don't matter for a batter.

degnor
06-22-2009, 03:45 AM
Yes, they are. But, shhhhh, don't let people here know you think so.

poodski
06-22-2009, 10:55 AM
This is why it makes no sense when sabermetric nerds say strikeouts don't matter for a batter.

No they matter a little more.

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html

As you can see in some instances a K is a lot more detrimental than an out (i.e. a runner on third with less than two outs.), but when you add up all situations the difference between an out and a strike out is about .011 runs. So by averaging that out a batter would have to strikeout 91 less times for it to even matter up to a run.

Yes strikeouts are very very very slightly worse than regular outs. Anyone telling you other wise is incorrect. But the difference is pretty miniscule that its not a big deal that Dunn strikes out 200 times, instead of only striking out 100 times. The difference would be just over 1 run over the course of an entire season.

Seamhead
06-22-2009, 12:39 PM
Yes, they are. But, shhhhh, don't let people here know you think so.

Or else prepared to be proved wrong with statistics and logic backed up by objective evidence.

poodski
06-22-2009, 12:59 PM
Or else prepared to be proved wrong with statistics and logic backed up by objective evidence.

There are a lot of instances where a K is more detrimental than an out.

The difference can be as much as .41 runs difference (-23, 1 out). Its just situational. Just like a walk. The only time a walk is worth what a single is, is when the bases are empty.

Then again trying to get that through to some people could be nearly impossible.

Seamhead
06-22-2009, 01:04 PM
There are a lot of instances where a K is more detrimental than an out.

The difference can be as much as .41 runs difference (-23, 1 out). Its just situational. Just like a walk. The only time a walk is worth what a single is, is when the bases are empty.

Then again trying to get that through to some people could be nearly impossible.

Yeah, everything changes once context is inserted. But on average -- are K's that much worse for a hitter than any other type of out is? No.

Living Legend
06-22-2009, 01:15 PM
When a player hits the ball it is not a guaranteed hit.

I watch strikeout pitchers walk the tightrope for 6 innings and they are ready to leave the game and goto sleep due to exhaustion.

They walk the bases loaded with 3-2 count after 3-2 count and they have thrown over 100 pitches.

For god's sake, just throw a hittable pitch and get the double play or easy ground out.

I find it funny when the SP gets pulled in the 6th with the bases loaded, then the RP comes in and the first pitch is a groundball double play.

Yo, you can have your Ks dawg.

rselinger
06-22-2009, 01:21 PM
I'll take the best of both worlds: Roy Halladay.

Can get the strikeout when he needs to, always pitches deep into games.

There was an article where he was quoted saying he pitches to get ahead in the count and if they swing and ground out, fine. If he gets them to two strikes, he tries to put them away.

It sounds obvious, but it makes me wonder if the strike out pitchers pitch the whole batter trying to strike them out, as opposed to getting ahead.

Cheezombie
06-22-2009, 04:34 PM
When a player hits the ball it is not a guaranteed hit.

I watch strikeout pitchers walk the tightrope for 6 innings and they are ready to leave the game and goto sleep due to exhaustion.

They walk the bases loaded with 3-2 count after 3-2 count and they have thrown over 100 pitches.

For god's sake, just throw a hittable pitch and get the double play or easy ground out.

I find it funny when the SP gets pulled in the 6th with the bases loaded, then the RP comes in and the first pitch is a groundball double play.

Yo, you can have your Ks dawg.

That's why the reallly good pitchers strike a lot out, but don't walk anyone.

brandonwarne52
06-22-2009, 04:36 PM
Yeah, it's like he thinks Daniel Cabrera is the rule here or some ****.

Gigantes4Life
06-22-2009, 04:58 PM
Again, if you look at say the top 10 pitchers in K/9 they've all been extremely good.

DodgersFanFor23
06-22-2009, 05:04 PM
Ah my bad.

I told u wasn't good with maths yo

ahh

Living Legend
06-22-2009, 05:10 PM
That's why the reallly good pitchers strike a lot out, but don't walk anyone.

And still average 6 ip per start

brandonwarne52
06-22-2009, 05:13 PM
And still average 6 ip per start

Johan Santana has averaged 6.79 IP per start since he became a full-time starter.
Roy Halladay has averaged 7.02 IP per start in that same type of time frame.


Who else could you be talking about?

Cheezombie
06-22-2009, 05:17 PM
And still average 6 ip per start

Pitchers who don't walk guys can go deeper into games. See Dan Haren who averages about 220 IP every season.

Living Legend
06-22-2009, 05:19 PM
Johan Santana has averaged 6.79 IP per start since he became a full-time starter.
Roy Halladay has averaged 7.02 IP per start in that same type of time frame.


Who else could you be talking about?

They are the rare exceptions that have stuff so filthy that people just cant hit it. Most SP dont last that long nowadays.

Robphunk
06-22-2009, 05:25 PM
There are a handful of pitchers that can average that 6.1 to 7.0 ip and only have a couple strikeouts. Key being control and staying down in the zone, and they can get ground balls all day long, until they start elevating their pitches and its all downhill from there.

hoggin88
06-22-2009, 05:39 PM
They are the rare exceptions that have stuff so filthy that people just cant hit it. Most SP dont last that long nowadays.

Good call on the edit...

iam brett favre
06-22-2009, 10:10 PM
Disagree. Strongly.

Lets look at the K leaders last year, and their numbers:


(2008)
-Tim Lincecum-
-CC Sabathia-
-AJ Burnett-
-Ervin Santana-
-Edinson Volquez-
-Johan Santana-
-Dan Haren-
-Roy Halladay-
-Chad Billingsley-
-Javier Vazquez-

(2009)
-Justin Verlander-
-Tim Lincecum-
-Javier Vazquez-
-Zack Greinke-
-Jon Lester-
-Felix Hernandez-
-Johan Santana-
-Chad Billingsley-
-Dan Haren-
-Roy Halladay-
-Jake Peavy-
-Josh Johnson-
-Josh Beckett-

Oh yeah....so many ineffective pitchers, right?

misterd
06-22-2009, 10:49 PM
Yeah a 3.37 k/bb is impressive. K/bb to me is more important than k/9.

One stat being more important does not make the other stat UNimportant.

K's, of course, tend to be better than contact outs as K's will never:

-bloop in for a single
-be dropped by a fielder (ok, the C, but that rarely results in a base)
-dribble through Bill Buckner's legs
-get lost in the lights/sun
-thrown into the stands
-allow a runner to tag
-move up the runners
-drive in a run
-cause a fielder to run into a wall (or another player)
-get caught in the NY Jet Stream and delivered to the right field bleachers.

iam brett favre
06-22-2009, 10:51 PM
If anyone is going to sit here and say that K's are overrated or not important...I really, really have to question your level of intelligence towards baseball.

Twitchy
06-22-2009, 10:53 PM
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/02/post_6.php

Having a good K rate and a low GB rate > having a high GB rate and a low K rate.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/02/categorizing_pi_4.php#comments

Pitchers with high K rates, bad walk rates and low GB are still better than pitchers with low K rates, high GB and good walk rates.

I don't know how much simpler you can put it, other than strikeouts are the most effective thing a pitcher can do.

iam brett favre
06-22-2009, 10:57 PM
Agreed with Twitchy 100%.

Cheezombie
06-23-2009, 02:15 AM
So the other day someone asked me why K stands for strikeout...and i realized that i couldn't answer it. What does the K mean?

DodgersFanFor23
06-23-2009, 04:03 AM
So the other day someone asked me why K stands for strikeout...and i realized that i couldn't answer it. What does the K mean?

You know when the home plate umpire jumps and turns to the side. It stands for the Karate Chop he makes when he calls the strikeout.:p

Pavelb1
06-23-2009, 08:07 AM
K's *are* overrated. There's nothing they can do that 'C' can't...sometimes they're so useless as to be silent all together.

Robphunk
06-23-2009, 09:00 AM
They had to use K because they used S for other stats.

Robphunk
06-23-2009, 09:26 AM
So the other day someone asked me why K stands for strikeout...and i realized that i couldn't answer it. What does the K mean?




They had to use K because S was already used.
K was used to represent the word struck...S was already taken to represent Sstolen base. . Some people would also say that the letter K is made with 3 strokes with the pencil to go with 3 strikes, some old timers actually put a backwards K when a batter strikes out looking. Hope that helps.:)

Cheezombie
06-23-2009, 01:42 PM
They had to use K because S was already used.
K was used to represent the word struck...S was already taken to represent Sstolen base. . Some people would also say that the letter K is made with 3 strokes with the pencil to go with 3 strikes, some old timers actually put a backwards K when a batter strikes out looking. Hope that helps.:)

ahh ok.