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.
Runs Created- 97.3% correlation with actual Runs Scored (higher than any metric you've ever used)
I'll post this again:
However, of the top 10 MLB Strikeout Batting Title qualifiers since 2000, only three seasons came in at under 5.00 RC/27 Outs. Only 14 player-seasons in that time span ended up under 6.00 RC/27 Outs.
That tells us that the high K rate players not only put up well above average Run values, but that 94% of the highest K seasons since 2000 would have outscored your average 2004 MLB team per game. 72% of those hitters would have outscored the 2004 Boston Red Sox per 27 Outs.
If 94% of the seasons from the top 10 Strikeout leaderboard from 2000-2004 would outscore the MLB average team and 72% of the season on that list would have outscored the highest scoring team in baseball from last season, they're "good" hitters by every definition of the word "good".
The reason you think they're not "good" is that you think offensive players who Strike Out often are "bad". That's it in a nutshell. No more, no less. You think they're "bad", therefore they must be- in defiance of all the information that says those players are "good".
Now you're simply adding in the concept that because pitchers are generally bad hitters and that they strike out a lot then every hitter who strikes out a lot is a bad hitter.
All dogs do not have spots.