Originally Posted by BadFundamentals
Some good points there....very good. And some good numbers. And comparing the value added of moving up runners with the "risk" of losing value through a double play I think is also a fair comparison.
We have to go back to the original pecking order.
We agree that strikeouts and a high strikeout rate are good for a pitcher and relatively better outs than flyouts, groundouts etc...(taken on a whole). The question then is: Is there enough to be gained from "the double play" (or the groundout) on a large scale to say that it is a better out on a whole than the strikeout?
The key lies in that pecking order: K > GO > FO > LO etc. ... The double play and any other intangibles would need to be factored in here. If after factoring in intangibles we still say that on a large scale we like the K as the best out for the pitcher (defense). Then it would have to be true that on a large scale the K is the worst out for a hitter (offense).
Not true at all. All outs are equal from a pitcher's standpoint as well. In any given game, there are 27 outs that a pitcher needs to get. His success in any one game depends upon getting those 27 outs without giving up enough baserunners to allow a bunch of runs to score. How those outs are recorded has little basis on the number of runs scored.
On the other hand, a high K/9 with a low BB/9 is an indicator of the SUSTAINABILITY of a pitcher's success. A pitcher who K's few, gives up a lot of walks, and allows a lot of homeruns can luck into a good season occasionally if a lot of the balls he allows in play go toward a fielder. However, the chances of him repeating such success is little.