Take that a step further.........
What is that Danny Graves isn't able to do that most people would agree they would like to have their closer be able to do?
Get a strikeout when he needs it.
Late and close games when one key hit or situational at bat will turn a game a strikeout can save the game or lose it for you.
Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley of previous eras knew a little about this as do Gagne and Trevor Hoffman of today's game.
(oh...but I forgot a strikeout is "just another out")
Originally Posted by RFS62
I agree with Wheels that this is probably the best explanation of this point of view I've heard.
But I must admit that I share BCubb's difficulty in reconciling this disparity.
We judge a pitcher by his K rate, and agree that generally a pitcher is more effective when he doesn't allow a hitter to put the ball in play.
Can this be for any other reason than the idea that putting a ball in play can lead to errors, or the obvious increased chance that balls in play may fall in for hits?
And if this is so, how can the other side of the coin, the hitter, not be a better hitter if he struck out less?
I know the response is usually that he'll hit into more double plays and be swinging at bad pitches and all the other reasons we've gone over ad infinitum.
It just seems counterintuitive, even in the face of all the statistical evidence I've seen.
Two baseball axioms, seemingly at odds with one another. And, like BCubb, I still haven't been able to come to terms with these two generally accepted principles seeming to contradict one another.