Originally Posted by Nellie_Fox
Doub, you state that outs are the most precious commodity. So, can you argue that a player who puts the ball in play will make fewer outs than a player who strikes out? What would you estimate, a quarter to a third of those balls in play will result in a hit or error, while all the strikeouts will result in an out?
Only compare strikeouts, as indc said. You can't throw in an assumption that higher strikeouts lead to more power. Fewer strikeouts will result in fewer overall outs. All I was addressing was the constant incorrect arguments that strikeouts don't matter because they're no worse than any other kind of out, because that makes the incorrect assumption that the alternative to a strikeout is some other out. The alternative to a strikeout is "not a strikeout" which is a very different thing.
No, you are absolutely correct and I apologize if that was the argument I seemed to be presenting. I was merely addressing the notion that a high number of strikeouts are some kind of harbinger of offensive doom, because they are not. Perhaps in a game-by-game, inning-by-inning analysis you can pick out spots where an out made on a ball in play would be super beneficial over a strikeout, the only argument I'm trying to present is that when viewed over a full season's worth, is that whether or not a team strikes out a lot is inconsquential compared to other, more important aspects of offense.