View Single Post
  #62  
Old 05-24-2013, 06:28 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
2012
AL Strikeouts
1: Oakland Athletics (94-68) Runs Scored: 8th
2: Tampa Bay Rayes (90-72) Runs Scored: 11th
3: Baltimore Orioles (93-69) Runs Scored: 9th

14: Kansas City Royals (72-90) Runs Scored: 12th
13: Minnesota Twins (66-96) Runs Scored: 10th
12: Cleveland Indians (68-94) Runs Scored: 13th

I'm not going to continue doing that for every single season, but you can look through every single season and see if you can find a strong correlation between strikeouts and runs scored if you want. I don't think you'll find one. As far as the 2011 World Series, the White Sox had the second fewest strikeouts with 989 and scored a whopping 654 runs.
You continue to miss the point. It's not about total runs scored out of context. It's about not giving up outs. Giving up outs is something you don't want to do if you want to win.

When the Rangers were at their best offensively and went to the World Series, they were striking out less than any other team in the league. When the Giants won the World Series last year after running away with their division, they had the second fewest strikeouts in the majors despite having a couple of starting pitchers who struck out in about half of their plate appearances. If you don't have a great offense, and the Giants hit fewer than 100 home runs, not striking out allows you to do more things to score runs. If you lead the league in batting average, as the Rangers and Cardinals did with the fewest NL strikeouts in 2011, striking out less means more means you have more productive outs and you manufacture more runs. Not striking out is something that improves your offense.

Regardless of what statisticians who never played the game might conclude, the reality is about not giving up outs when you have two strikes on you. The more you strike out, the harder our offense has to work to score. Really, that should be obvious when you watch baseball.

Even if you look at baseball as rolls of the dice and percentages, I don't see how anyone can defend players who intentionally decrease their chances of some level of success with two strikes by refusing to shorten their swings to make contact, to focus on making contact, when even a foul tip can put them out with only the catcher tested defensively.
Reply With Quote