Strikeouts are BAD! My daddy said so! (another FJM special)

Having no work tomorrow, I was all set to spend my Sunday night with a bottle of sangria, some incense, a pint of mint chocolate chip, and the third season of Scrubs, stowing away my cares 'til Tuesday morn.

But alas, I was derailed. If only I hadn't gone to espn.com's MLB page and found this piece by Jerry Crasnick, I could be laughing my little heart away to the antics of J.D., Dr. Cox, Turk, and The Janitor--oh, that zany janitor!--this very moment. Instead, I'm back on baseball-reference.com researching career strikeout totals of famous sluggers.

Now those of you who know me have many times suffered through one of my baseball-related diatribes and, most likely, have done so more than once. For those of who haven't, here are my five favorites, listed by total usage and titled like children's lectures:

1. "Don't Blow It--Saves are for Suckers!"
2. "Stikeouts--Just like any Other Out"
3. "Boo-ers are Boneheads--Be Respectful!"
4. "A Good Manager is Swell, but a Capable Fifth Starter is Sweller"
5. "Some Lefties Like Hitting Other Lefties More than Righties, and We Must Be Tolerant and Understanding of That"

As you can see, this one ranks pretty high up on the list. Now before I get to this article, here's my basic stance on striking out:

Strikeouts count for a single out, just like a lineout, just like a groundout, making them roughly the same as every other type of out. Of course, they are not exactly like other outs because the ball is never put in play. And that meakes them worse than other outs... why?

True, outs in play can sometimes do things like advance or score runners when men are on base. Of course, outs in play can become multiple outs or outs on lead runners in scoring position when men are on base. Strikeouts cannot.

True, poorly-hit live balls can sometimes result in an error, a surprise infield hit, or a fortunate blooper. And true, live balls force the defense to expend energy. Of course, strikeouts generally force the pitcher to expend more energy. And, for that matter, some would argue that the mental malaise of inaction and long innings caused by higher strikeout totals wears down defensive players more than actual fielding.

True, there are situations when almost any ball in play will score a game-winning or game-tying run in the final inning of a game. These situations are very rare. And when they do occur, this fact registers in the brain of any batter, allowing him to adjust to this rare situation. And also, why should the inherent advantage in making contact in such situations have any bearing on the 99.9% of ABs that don't fit this bill?

Given all of these hypotheticals, what besides "it looks bad" intuitively explains the notion that hitters shouldn't strike out?

Anyway, that covers the main points for now. The article will add more. So let's do this schtick.

Albert Pujols is renowned for his three Silver Slugger Awards and ability to haunt Brad Lidge's dreams, but he's just a well-rounded guy at heart. Last year, Pujols won his first Gold Glove and advanced from first to third base on a single more than any player in the majors. We kid you not.

Right away, I'm a little confused. First of all, this is a rather obscure fact to throw in the opening paragraph (going first-to-third, that is). But then why does Crasnick add, "I kid you not," as if this should astound us? A) Pujols reached base 269 times last year despite a short time missed to injury. Of those 269 safeties, 92 were walks, which would have seen Pujols standing on first. B) Pujols may not be Jose Reyes, but he's pretty fast. And because he's a fast guy who never steals bases, he was staying on first after a single or walk, thus giving him plenty of opportunity to go first-to-third. Anyway, that's all beside the point.

There's just one facet of the game in which Pujols is deficient: trudging back to the dugout with a forlorn look on his face.

Some players are poor losers, and Pujols is a bad whiffer. Whether the transgression is called or swinging barely matters, he has an almost pathological distaste for strike three.

"I get pissed when I strike out," Pujols said. "I get mad. At least if you put the ball in play, a guy can make an error, and you give your teammates a chance to drive you in and score a run. When you strike out, you don't even give yourself a chance."

That's an admirable sentiment from Pujols. I understand that he takes great pride in making contact, making the defense work, bettering his team, etc., but as I said before, his intentions may be misguided. "It makes me feel like a schmuck" or "I look bad in front of the kids" aren't reasons alone to adopt a "pathological" aversion to strking out. If that means Pujols will take a weak hack at a borderline two-strike "pitcher's pitch" instead of chancing a strikeout for a flier on a superstar call, I'm not so sure that's a good thing.

But when it comes to strikeouts, Pujols resides in a humiliation-free zone.
In an age of breeze-generating swing-and-missers, Pujols is a rare breed of player -- an extra-base machine who inflicts punishment without deleterious side effects.

There it is--the proverbial proof in the pudding. (Note: Idiom may not be used properly.) Jerry Crasnick believes that strikeouts are "deleterious side effects." If not for this sentence, I'd have given him the benefit of the doubt and surmised that he simply wrote this column to note a trend in hitting, or to recognize a rare individual ability. But here he clearly puts value to it, and for that, I now have a right to rebut.

Over seven major league seasons, he has amassed 573 walks and only 449 strikeouts on his way to a .622 career slugging percentage.

That's fantastic. But again, what's to say that he couldn't have, say, 600 walks if he'd been more willing to take close two-strike pitches and risk the backwards K? And instead of cutting back his swing with two strikes to increase his chances of contact, what if he'd made a habit of taking aggressive two-strike swings, resulting (presumably) in more K's, fewer singles, and more extra-base hits? What's to say that wouldn't have a net positive impact on that .622 SLG?

Last year, Pujols hit 49 homers and struck out 50 times, nearly joining Johnny Mize of the 1947 New York Giants, the only player in history to hit 50 homers with fewer than 50 whiffs in a season.

Again, that would be rare and cool, but it's not important. Johnny Mize was a fine player, but given the choice of historical greats, I'd much rather have Mickey Mantle, who struck out a ton. Also, this hardly needs saying, but different eras, different game. Strikeouts were simply not as much a part of the game back in '47. Besides Eddie Joost (110 K's), no hitter cracked 90 that year. No pitcher cracked 200, and only three broke 150. Bob Feller led the majors with 196 in 299 IP, or less than 6.0 per 9 IP.

Although Pujols won't match that impressive performance this season, he is a virtual lock to finish with more than 30 homers and fewer than 70 strikeouts for the sixth time. That achievement will move him one notch further up a list dotted with such baseball nobility as Hank Aaron, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams and Willie Mays.

Sweet. That's four guys out of the x great players who've played the game of baseball. That leaves just (x - 4) great players who didn't regularly hit these arbitrary benchmarks. So clearly, you'd better be >30 HR, <70 or you'll never amount to anything in the MLB.

The concept of the contact-making slugger seems as far-fetched as baseball without Scott Boras, but there actually was a time when run producers weren't inclined to wrench their backs in pursuit of the big fly. Babe Ruth, Mel Ott, Stan Musial, Carl Yastrzemski and Aaron are among the Hall of Famers who played two decades or more without a 100-strikeout season.

[Refrain]
Different eras
Different game
In God's eyes
We're all the same

Babe Ruth played when bats were cut from the dashers of old butter churns. Today's sluggers compete against pitchers like Roger Clemens who have six personal trainers and private jets. Why are we comparing these things? But if we really wanna get technical, here are the per-162 game average K totals for some other guys who hit a few dingers in their day:

Reggie - 149
Mantle - 115
Killebrew - 113
Matthews - 101
Foxx (VERY old-timey) - 92, including two 100+ seasons

But again, this implies that I'm putting stock in counting numbers compared across eras, which I'm not, which means I didn't actually write that.

Cincinnati's Adam Dunn, in contrast, had 105 strikeouts at the All-Star break this season.

There it is--the ubiquitous slam on Adam Dunn. Without it, this column would've been Rochelle, Rochelle without Bette Midler.

Pujols is sufficiently well-versed in baseball history to know that Joe DiMaggio hit 361 homers and struck out 369 times in the big leagues.

"Unbelievable," Pujols said, shaking his head. "Those are sick numbers."

Joe DiMaggio was rare. Again, that's a pretty cool stat, but not important. DiMaggio also married Marilyn Monroe and had his name dropped in "Mrs. Robinson," but as far as baseball goes, he was just another excellent player who happened to be very popular and a member of some very successful teams. He was not the greatest hitter ever, nor is his incredibly low strikeout total a shining example to which all players should aspire. It was simply unique. (And as already noted, less unique than if that were to happen today.)

Before Reggie Jackson and Dave Kingman arrived on the scene, Cincinnati first baseman Ted Kluszewski proved that muscle-bound sluggers could be adept at making contact. Kluszewski, whose arms were so huge he couldn't find sleeves to accommodate them, hit 49 homers and struck out 35 times in his best season with the Reds in 1954.

By all accounts, Klu was as strong as a house built out of ox and reinforced by mules. Most likely, he was very capable of cutting down on his swing without sacrificing typical homerun distance and gap power. Again, not everyone can be so lucky. (Also, score the equally ubiquitous Dave Kingman mention and implicit comparison of all high-K sluggers to this poster child for inefficient free swinging.)

"He had a short stroke and a great eye," said Joe Nuxhall, longtime Reds broadcaster and a former Kluszewski teammate. "He hit two irons instead of nine irons. If Ted had more loft on the ball, God knows how many homers he would have hit."

Thank you, Joe Nuxhall, Youngest Man to Ever Appear in Major League Game (how he's usually addressed). Taken out of context, this implies no particular bent for or against striking out, so that's how I'll interpret it. More "nine irons" = loopier swing = more dingers = more strikeouts = less singles = indeterminate overall impact on offensive production.

Although Bobby Bonds and Rob Deer posted strikeout numbers that have withstood the test of time, 13 of the 20 most prolific strikeout seasons have come since 2000. Dunn, Jim Thome, Preston Wilson and Jose Hernandez are among the notable offenders.

Two of the guys he mentions, Thome and Dunn, have been two of the most dominant and feared sluggers in the game over the last 5+ years. When Wilson struck out 156 and 187 times in 1999 and 2000 respectively, he also put up OPS+'s of 107 and 119 as a CF. As for Hernandez, the year he struck out 188 times, 2002, was also a career year in which he put up a 121 OPS+ as a SS. By comparison, the NL top five in AB/K that year went like this:

Kendall - 83
LoDuca - 100
Vina - 82
Polanco - 99
E4 Young - 90

Any list of sluggers at the opposite end of the spectrum would have to include Pujols, Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Vladimir Guerrero and Carlos Lee. Bonds' only 100-whiff season came when he was a rookie with Pittsburgh in 1986. None of the other four has ever topped 100 strikeouts.

St. Louis shortstop David Eckstein, who has played with both Guerrero and Pujols, noted that they couldn't be less similar in style.

Quick revision before moving on: "St. Louis shortstop David Eckstein, who has ridden the coattails of both Guerrero and Pujols to national exposure, TV commercial face time, and an undeserved World Series MVP, noted that they couldn't be less similar in style."

Pujols hits from a wide base, works a lot of deep counts and takes the same methodical approach whether he's ahead 3-0 or behind 0-2.

Guerrero, in contrast, was born to hack. This year, he is seeing an average of 3.22 pitches per plate appearances, the fewest of any major league regular except Baltimore's Corey Patterson. Guerrero swings at balls in the dirt and over his head, and still manages to hit them with authority.

Even the staunchest advocates for selectiveness in the box will stop short of quibbling with Vlad's hitting style because he is so unique and potent. He's sort of the Brett Favre or Allen Iverson of baseball in that he makes us say, "That was a ridiculous thing to do," but then we can't say, "That was the wrong thing to do," because he so often succeeds in outrageous, unconventional ways.

That said, 3.22 pitchers per at-bat is not something for other hitters to emulate, as it creates a tangible advantage for a pitcher (i.e. less pitches thrown, more fishing at bad balls). If Jerry Crasnick, or anyone else for that matter, is implying that 3.22 pitches per AB is an acceptable tradeoff for not striking out, he is insane.

Vlad gets away with it because he's so valuable in spite of his hack-happy ways. Randall Simon was not, and that's why he is not on a major league roster right now, his 10.9 career AB/K be damned.

"His arm span is outrageous," Eckstein said. "He'll hit balls six inches off the dish -- out, in, up and down. With his ability to extend those arms, it makes pitches that might be horrible to other hitters right in his wheelhouse."

We surveyed several hitters and hitting instructors, and they said Pujols, Bonds et al are linked by uncanny strength and hand-eye coordination. They are, in the words of San Diego hitting coach Wally Joyner, "blessed" with an ability to send the ball a long way without maximum effort.

Crasnick needed to survey "several hitters and hitting instructors" for that? Those are perhaps the two most obvious observations about hitting ever. Thank you, Wally Joyner et al for telling us why Pujols, Bonds et al are good at hitting--strength, hand-eye coordination, and the "ability to send the ball a long way." All he left out was "ability to stand upright" and "in-tact spinal cord."

If a power hitter can drive the ball 380 feet over the fence by swinging at 80 percent capacity, rather than cranking it up to 100 percent in an effort to send the ball 450 feet, he is bound to be more successful at making contact.

True as that may be, doesn't that also imply that a less-than-perfectly hit ball would have an equally diminished flight distance at 80%? If we say a solidly-but-not-perfectly-hit ball at a good homerun trajectory will travel 400 ft and then apply that ratio (which, by the way, comes out to 84.4% if my mental calc is right and not 80%... not sure if he'd meant that to line up, unless he's accounting for some "diminishing returns" effect for swings over a certain effort level, which would probably be accurate... Ok, I'm reading too much into this), we're left with a harmless ~340 ft flyout. So again, there's still advantage in risking a whiff for additional power.

"Remember Steve Kemp?" Joyner said.

No. But here are his stats. They seemingly have no bearing on this topic.

"Every time he swung, he had to go pick up his hat somewhere because he was swinging so hard. These guys don't have to do that."

This has nothing to do with anything.

Sheffield, with his pronounced waggle and violent follow-through, seems to contradict that statement. But as Phillies manager Charlie Manuel points out, Sheffield is a different hitter with two strikes. He is more under control and conscious of hitting the ball to the opposite field. The same goes for Lee.

Houston's Lance Berkman, a career .300 hitter despite six 100-strikeout seasons, thinks contact-making sluggers are distinguished by their otherworldly plate coverage. Berkman has seen Lee do damage on balls that others can only dream of hitting.

I have never followed Carlos Lee as a hometown fan except sort of when he was with the White Sox, so I could very well be wrong about this. But he's always struck me as more of a fisher than an exceptional bad-ball hitter. In fact, I'd say Carlos Lee is a great example of a good hitter who probably doesn't know his own limitations when it comes to the pitches he can and can't hit. I'll leave it at this because I may be dead wrong.

"When you can handle a wider variety of pitches than the average hitter, you're going to strike out less," Berkman said. "When a guy makes a mistake in the zone and I can handle it, that's when I have to capitalize. But there are plenty of spots where they can throw it and I can't hit it. That's why I strike out a lot."

Don't feel too sorry for Berkman. He has made four All-Star teams and hit 40 homers twice. But he still is not immune to being awestruck over the skill sets of certain peers.

Lance Berkman need not, and should not, be awestruck by Carlos Lee. He is a much better hitter.

"I think some of it has to do with biomechanics, and some of it is quick-twitch muscles," Berkman said.

Not to be a jerk because I really appreciate Berkman's sciencey-like analysis, but wouldn't quick-twitch muscles sort of fall under the general subject of biomechanics?

"If you throw a fastball above the belt to Albert or Vlad, they'll kill it. They're just quicker than anybody else. Sheffield and Bonds are the same way. They're quicker."

Every once in a while, Pujols wishes he weren't so blessed. During a 13-3 loss at Philadelphia in July, Pujols swung at a two-strike pitch with the bases loaded and bounced into a game-ending double play.

Exactly. Now that doesn't mean Pujols hit into the double play because he went out of his way to cut back his swing to avoid a strikeout. Nor does a healthy hack preclude the possibility of a weakly-hit ball, but it does lower that probability. This just illustrates that double plays are a negative side effect of putting poorly-hit balls in play .

"Sometimes hand-eye coordination takes over, and it's pretty tough not to put the ball in play," Pujols said.

It's a nice problem to have, if you can swing it.

Again, the bias. Not striking out is a "nice problem." That is the problem with this column. When does Crasnick ever substantiate this belief? When does anyone? Who has ever proven that a player's offensive production will increase if he adapts his swing to a higher-contact style? I'm not sure it's possible. Nor is it possible to prove that a player would boost offensive production if he were willing to strikeout more. So why does everyone default to the former?

Strikeout totals alone tell us nothing--NOTHING--about the quality of a major-league hitter. There have been plenty of horrible hitters with hight strikeout totals. There have also been plenty of great ones. There have also been guys like DiMaggio and Pujols who hit for power without striking out while there have been guys like Felix Fermin, Mike Caruso, Juan Pierre, and Deivi Cruz, who have hit poorly despite their ability to make contact.

Strikeout totals can tell us in a very elementary sense about a hitter's style, but they cannot tell us whether an individual player would increase his production by avoiding strikeouts. Every player finds his optimal balance of power-contact, long swing-short swing, uppercut-slapperoo. To suggest that a player is somehow more desireable because his balance state leads him to strike out less is a huge leap of faith substantiated by nothing.

Strikeouts are healthy. They're natural--an unavoidable side-effect of failure. They're like germs. We can go through life fearing germs, pathologically obsessed with ridding our world of germs. But in the end, all you get is a weak immune system and hands so chapped from Purell that you can't even grope a pair of breasts without wincing. But evidently that's what guys like Crasnick would prefer.