not "blue in the face" but approaching the "agree to disagree" point at least for now......
I don't dispute your point #1. It is very believable to me that there is a correlation between the # of strikeouts a pitcher gets and how "good" he is. I expect that would hold up for several different methods of quantifying "good" (era, whip, etc. etc...)
I dispute #2. A most obvious and extreme example, take "pitchers". I guarantee you that generally they strikeout alot (relatively) and generally they are not "good" hitters by any measure.
More importantly, in a macro sense.....
If (your point #1), a high strikeout rate for an individual pitcher is GOOD, that means that a strikeout MUST be better than other outs (popouts and flyouts). You have a finite number of outs, we've both agreed the more strikeouts the better, strikeouts are better than other outs.
Given that assumption, the converse is also true. A team OFFENSE is in direct opposition to an opposing team's PITCHING/DEFENSE (a pitcher being a component part of that team PITCHING/DEFENSE). At a conceptual level, better to have less team strikeouts because this suggests your getting a lower level of quality from your direct opposition - the opposing team's PITCHING/DEFENSE.
Originally Posted by Red_BlueDevil
No thats not what he's saying at all.
Listen, Here's the point and its a simple one:
1. for some reason X, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a pitcher's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is highly correlated (read: predictive) with how "good" he is, is the number of Strikeouts he gets.
2. for some reason Y, if you plug all of the variables that we can measure regarding a batter's performance into a predictive equation, a variable that is not correlated at all (to a point of having probably NO correlation - read: no predictive value) with how good he is, is his number of strikeouts.
Those are the facts BF, they are what they are. Now we can argue until we're blue in the face (as I'm sure you must be by now) what reason X is and what reason Y is, BUT what we can't argue about is what the numbers tell us.
Unless, a predictive value of greater than 95 % isn't impressive to you.