The War Against Strikeouts

Ask any little leaguer what's the worst result of an at bat, and they will most likely tell you the same thing: "strikeout".

For as long as we have been fans of the game, we have, in some way, thought of the strikeout as a badge of shame. We have used strikeouts to bash players like Adam Dunn and Carlos Pena, and lack of strikeouts to applaud Juan Pierre and Placido Polanco. It is still, to many, the worst thing a batter can do.

Which brings us to the new single season strikeout king, Mark Reynolds. Entering tonight (9/25), Reynolds has already set the bar at 208, with nine team games still to go. Nice fact, right? So, what's the issue?

This is.

ESPN has made an issue of it. Many analysts on ESPN are now in the process of painting Reynolds as an all-or-nothing, Dave Kingman type. Unfortunately, half of ESPN's audience apparently agree with this assessment, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Obviously the thought process is, strikeouts are bad, lots of strikeouts are very bad, Reynolds is bad. That is just not a true statement, however.

On the topic of out making, Reynolds has an OBP of .357. The league average, adjusted to his park factor, is .348. He's above average in not making outs. More significantly, however, is his .560 slugging percentage, a mark that is good for sixth in the National League, a mere one point behind fellow strikeout guru Ryan Howard, and ahead of the highly regarded Adrian Gonzalez.

At .294, he has the third best ISO in the National League. Overall, good for a 131 OPS+. Compare this to Dave Kingman, who had a career .302 OBP in an adjusted average climate of .329. Kingman, like Reynolds, was a big Iso power guy, but his career mark of .242 is below Reynolds for the season.

Only once did Kingman have an ISO higher than Reynolds' currently has, his highly flukey 1979 season where his BABIP was almost 40 points higher than his career mark. Overall, Kingman had a very SLG-heavy OPS+ of 115. Kingman was also a terrible defender, while Reynolds is at least serviceable with a -4.6 UZR/150 career mark at Third Base.

This brings me back to the case of striking out; it's a non-issue. What many media types love to say is strikeouts are somehow a "team killer" and a "rally killer", that good hitters always try to put the ball in play. What they forget to tell the audience is this fact:

Babe Ruth led the American League in strikeouts 5 times. With 795 total strikeouts, he struck out more in the 1920's than any other player. I think Babe Ruth was an okay hitter.

Flashing back to the modern day, look at the major league leader board in whiffs:
1) Reynolds, 208
2) Howard, 179
3) Cust, 175
4) Dunn, 167
5) Pena, 163
t6) Bay, 155
t6) Inge, 155
8) Branyan, 149
9) B.J. Upton, 148
10) Werth, 147

There is your top 10. Five of those guys (Reynolds, Howard, Dunn, Pena, Bay) are very good hitters / cleanup hitters. Jack Cust has seen his strikeout rate shrink in 2009, but in turn has also seen his OBP, SLG, and ISO drop.

Branyan and Werth are also arguably in the first group, as both sport OPS's well above .850. The other two, Upton and Inge, have had mediocre seasons, but are defensive wizards and entitled to the field.

So really, what is the problem with Reynolds strikeouts? Every hitter is going to make outs. Not every hitter is going to blast 43 Home Runs while doing it. If a man can hit, and has all the numbers that say so, who cares how he makes his outs when he does?

Why is the strikeout so dreaded? A simple, 20 second look at a linear weight chart, like the one Tom Tango developed here, shows the difference between a strikeout and a plain old out in the field is: not much.

Baseball players have progressed their thought processes. Baseball front offices have as well. Maybe it is time for the media and 50% of America to catch up.