Originally Posted by Kc61
Good answer. Let's take a different hypothetical.
Take Drew Stubbs with his 166 Ks. Compare him to a different hitter, Batter X.
Batter X is identical to Stubbs in every way, same approach, same results, but he makes more contact. He strikes out only 83 times and makes contact and hits a fair ball an additional 83 times.
IMO, Batter X will have better overall numbers than Drew. IMO, an identical hitter making more contact will do better.
That's my point. More contact is generally better, all other things being equal.
Those two bolded items don't compute. If the results are the same he will have the same overall numbers.
If the batter you propose existed he would have better OBP and SLG than Drew Stubbs if some of those 83 extra contacts were not outs, that would be a better hitter than Drew Stubbs. The batting average doesn't change anything.
You are making the circular assertion that if Drew Stubbs were a better hitter he would be a better hitter. Obviously, if he hit the ball better then he would have better BA/OBP/SLG stats.
I often hear the notion that if he would strike out less he would be a better hitter. OK fine. How is he going to strike out less? How will that affect the rest of his at-bats? If it really were that simple why hasn't he done it already? People have been saying that about hitters for decades but it simply doesn't work that way.
You can't isolate out the strikeouts from the total package. That is like saying "if Drew Stubbs didn't hit as many routine bouncers to the shortstop he would have a better batting average." How is that different than saying "If Drew Stubbs didn't strike out as much he would have a better batting average"?