Additionally, strikeouts are also an "indicator" attribute for hitters. Generally speaking, fundamentally good hitters (the ones most likely to be most consistent game in and game out in multiple situations over a career) will not lead their teams/leagues in strikeouts.
Unfortunately, your posts fit nothing but your own personal definition of "fundamentally good hitter". Fundamentally good hitters DO strike out. Strikeouts are a power and patience residual- both key to "fundamental" hitting.
As with your fatally flawed "KRISP" neo-stat, the issue is that you cannot correlate offensive strikeouts with a lack of result (i.e. Team Runs Scored or individual player offensive Run Value).
All offensive strikeouts tell us is that a player has a propensity to strike out. Without a demonstrable effect from an offensive perspective (which you can't demonstrate), your position ends up being nothing.
What you've done is the opposite of objective analysis. You hate offensive strikeouts, thus you position your points around the concept that strikeouts are bad for an offense without actually being able to demonstrate that strikeouts are bad for an offense.
"A hitter striking out can be bad sometimes."
"Therefore strikeouts for a hitter are bad all the time."
"Therefore hitters who strikeout most are always bad."
You claim to be attentive to situation while broadly over-generalizing occurrances that may or may not be bad without attending to performance attributes that don't support your position while over-emphasizing things that do support your position.
That's as non-objective as it gets.
Instead, you should be asking yourself, "What effect do offensive strikeouts have on team and individual performance?"
If you did, you're answer would be, "Not much of anything."
A review of "KRISP" later. But not on this board.