Strikeouts in OOTP

[JML]

I was chatting with a fellow online leaguer last night and he brought up an interesting point: a hitter's tendency to strikeout is practically irrelevant in OOTP.

Since a player's "hits" rating determines the chance of him getting a hit, a player who doesn't K will find another way to make an out.

For example, let's say that 2 players have a 6 hits rating. One has an 8 avoiding K's, the other a 2. As I understand it, both hitters will have basically the same average, and one will have a ton more K's than the other. It's not like in real life where a player who K's a lot is losing opportunities to get a hit.

It would seem the only advantage gained with the K rating is when putting a player who actually K's more in, say, your #2 or #3 spot in the lineup. This will cut down on DP's he hits into, since a lot of his outs will be K's. Actually, I guess there are a couple advantages to a low strikeout total: the chance of the player reaching base on an error or perhaps advancing a runner to third/home on a grounder to the right side. But the idea of "just put the ball in play and see what happens" doesn't carry nearly as much weight in OOTP-land.

So it seems that, with the current rating system, a players ability to avoid strikeouts is a lot less relevant than in real life. This realization will change my strategy of scouting players to a great degree.

This seemed like a good topic to chew on, so I thought I'd post it.

Thoughts?

[swampdragon]

The hits rating can either reflect the batter's tendency to get a hit in general or his tendency to get a hit when he doesn't strike out. In the example you use, with historical players the batter who strikes out often would have his hit rating raised to compensate if the second tendency is used. For example, Mickey Mantle in 1956 hit .353 overall but .433 when not striking out.
I think the current system is simpler. It's easier to predict BA by checking the hit rating than to have to make the calculations.

[edm]

This could also impact the way you'd allocate your spring training points. I.E put avoiding K points into other areas.

Although I'm sure we've all seen players with similar hit ratings, for example 6, hit anywhere from .260 to well over .300. So it's not a given that players with identical 'Hit' ratings will hit for the same average. I wonder if avoiding strike outs could play a part in the final overall batting average (I've never took notice).

You'd like to think a player with a better rating in avoiding strikeouts would be less prone to slumps, and would overall have a better chance of picking up more hits over a long season than a similarly rated player.

[SufferingSoxFan]

You would also limit the amount of times you hit and run if you have a guy who strikes out a lot. There is greater probability that he will swing and miss in a hit and run.

[Biggie Fries]

But this post does raise a potentially troubling subject that I have seen mentioned elsewhere, with reference to pitchers. In "real" baseball, we know that there are advantages to striking out a lot of batters, since it cuts down on the number of balls that are put into play. (I'm holding walks and HRs constant here.) On average, fewer balls put into play, fewer runs, etc. But in OOTP, it seems that ERA and, as a consequence, wins, are driven more by other variables. Strike out pitchers--power pitchers--do not seem to have a sufficiently high pay-off.

Unless they do, and I am generalizing from too little experience. Does anyone have a different perspective? I find the pitcher problem more pernicious than the hitter problem. With hitters, the previous posters are right: (a) one shouldn't care too much about avoiding strikeouts as a talent, unless (b) one wants to hit-and-run a lot. But it doesn't seem to affect the integrity of the game, since there are numerous studies showing that--contrary to what announcers like to say--striking out is not necessarily worse than other ways of making an out. With the pitchers, though, I think the lack of correlation--at least as I understand it--between strike out ability and effectiveness introduces a tad of unrealism into what is otherwise an extraordinarily realistic game.

[sporr]

I believe that the Avoiding Runs rating is also affected by a pitcher's Getting Strikeouts rating. Therefore, a pitcher with high K ratings will allow fewer runs on average. As a counter point to your argument, there are plenty of examples of flamethrowing pitchers who rack up the Ks but also give up tons of hits and homers. In any case, getting Ks is still keeping the ball out of play, so I don't think it's too unrealistic.

[Biggie Fries]

I'm not denying that there are pitchers who perform well without striking out terribly many hitters (although fewer than you might think, at least based on what I have been reading at www.baseballprospectus.com and elsewhere [e.g. , some of Rob Neyer's stuff]); and, similarly, there are guys who strike out a lot of people and don't perform especially well on other dimensions (Nolan Ryan!) But the issue--at least as I see it, and the way I understood the original post--has to do with "performing well." I presume the be all and end all of pitching is avoiding runs. So I'm not sure that there are a lot of advantages to getting a good strikeout pitcher, for any fixed value on Avoiding Runs. (There are some: Man on third with less than two outs.) This differs from the batter situation, since, for example, whether you walk or not is a potential add-on (or drawback) relative to hitting for average; and for a fixed ability to hit for average, you always want someone with more pop in their bat. It just seems to me that when you have an omnibus category like Avoiding Runs, all the things that go into avoiding runs must somehow come out in balance. In which case, to get back to my parallel to the original post, they may be less relevant than they seem at first glance.

[HolyCow98]

These types of talks are one of the things I like more about baseball than I do in any of the other sports.

In my league, players on my team who have played for me for five or so years and had similar ratings I have noticed this. Hitters with higher avoiding K's have had consistent numbers year after year. Hitters with lower avoiding K's have had great years and than follow that year up with a drop off of as much as 40-50 points in their BA's and 10-15 HR's. On the same note, in game situations, the freeswingers on my team seem to struggle big time with pitchers with high K ratings and feast on the rest of league.

As far as pitchers in my league, the power pitcher types have been very inconsistent. One year going 23-6 2.25 and the next season going 14-10 4.10. The power pitchers throw many more of the amazing gem type of games but over the long haul year after year they have been inconsistent. Of 18 Cy Young winners so far only Pedro Martinez in the start of the league has been a power pitcher but of course his rating were excellent in everything.

In my opinion is this, power pitcher have more of a chance of running into high pitch counts. Lineups can change alot from year to year league wide. Sometimes teams in my league have featured lineups that had a bunch of guys who were all over 6 in getting hits and getting walks. When a power pitcher goes against those types of lineups he often gets to a 100 pitches by the 5th or 6th inning. In those seasons where there are say a few teams in one division who are built like that often a Cy Young caliber power pitcher will be nothing more than a .500 pitcher.

In my rotation I have 4 guys who are kinda like Barry Zito like pitchers( 2 left 2 right). They have 9-10 velocity 8-10 in hits 7-9 in HR 8-10 in K's and D's-B's in Endurance. I have one guy on the staff who is a 6 in velocity 5 in K's but 7-9 in everything else with a A in endurance. In a division stacked with contact hitters who like to walk alot, only the 6 Velocity 5 K guy who isn't seeing drop offs in his numbers. By the way the last 4 Cy Youngs all have gone to three Barry Zito type pitchers. The slow throwing pitcher is 23-4 with a 1.88 ERA and 5 SHO. The other guys are still doing good but are not going to come close to 20 wins and some might not get to 15 wins.

I think that like in real life, the same is true in OOTP, its all about matchups. And the matchups are constantly changing. The challenge of baseball is to always give yourself the best chance at success.

[Cato]

I set up a test league similar to what Jason Moyer(?) descirbed in a previous thread. Two teams, all players setup the same, and all players average talent. I think I used .257 AVG, 24 2B, 4 3B, 18 HR, 53 BB, and 91 K for all ratings (batters and pitchers(minus 3B ratings)). All players were C/.976 fielders at their primary position, C talent in everything else, and right-handed.

Running 10 seasons with this setup produced the following:

PHP Code:

Team   W     AVG   ERA   FPct
A    80.8  0.256  4.30  0.979
B    81.2  0.255  4.34  0.980 


So, the teams seem to be evenly matched. Each team 'won ' the season 5 times.

I changed Team A's hitters to 190 K, which give each a Poor talent and a 2 rating. Results:

PHP Code:

Team   W     AVG   ERA   FPct   K
A    79.4  0.255  4.34  0.978 1320
B    82.6  0.257  4.36  0.981  622 


So, striking out alot doesn't seem to effect much. Team A did win fewer games, but that might be because 10 seasons isn't enough. Team A won the season 3 times, but 2 times each team won 81 games. The difference in FPct is the biggest of any of the tests I have ran. Fewer balls in play by Team A? Or, again, may be a sample size issue.

Any thoughts? Does this mean anything? Is this study setup well enough to have any meaning? I don't know. I just quickly did this and these are the numbers.

[Biggie Fries]

Thanks much for doing this. If I understand correctly, you essentially played 1620 games (10 seasons x 162 games per season) between these two teams and the high strikeout team won 49% of the games. If there were truly no difference between the teams, and 1620 independent (more or less) trials, we would expect roughly two-thirds of the time for the observed percentage won by team A to be within 1.24% of 50%. So, you are absolutely right--no real evidence that striking out like fiends had an adverse effect on wins versus losses. This confirms the idea of the original poster, and also the observation of others, e.g. , I think that it was Rob Neyer who had a column earlier this year showing that it wouldn't have helped the Milwaukee Brewers last year were they to have eliminated their ungodly number of strikeouts in favor of out-making by other means.

And herein lies the solution to what is otherwise a conundrum: How can striking out not matter for hitters, but help pitchers? The answer is that it depends on what strikeouts are being compared with. If it is the difference between striking out and making an out some other way, there is no real difference. So applauding the Keith Lockharts of the world when they ground out to second base and move the runner up is just self delusion.

But if you look at strikeouts from the pitchers' standpoint, a strikeout means they got somebody out. If they didn't strike them out (and didn't walk them), then the batter put the ball in play, at which point (unless it is Keith Lockhart) something good for the hitter (a base hit, an error) might happen.

So the issue within OOTP is: How exactly does the getting strikeouts (or avoiding strikeouts) rating affect outcomes? We have just seen a demonstration that, where batters are concerned, the avoidance of strikeouts is no big deal. Which suggests that avoidng strikeouts means just making more outs by other means. And that's just fine, because it gives a result that accords with what we think we know about real baseball.

But, when it comes to the pitchers, it seems to me it would be preferable if more strikeouts meant fewer balls in play, hence fewer hits and errors, hence fewer runs (on average--there will always be variation and exceptions). Yet, with a category like Avoiding Runs, which I can only assume is a composite of giving up strikeouts, walks, doubles, etc. , it is hard to see how the pitcher's ability to get strikeouts will have an independent effect on their productivity.

[Ragnar]

I have to disagree with the original post from experience. I simply do not find with batters that strikout alot hit for the same average as batters that don't. Doesn't fielding have anything to do with it? A batter that doesn't strike out alot could hit a ground ball past a poor SS turning that hit into a single where as a strik out is always an out. Plus a batter that doesn't strike out may hit a sac fly not effecting his average. All I know is that I can't stand batters that strike out alot for several reasons. A strike out pitcher comes in and seems to waste them......they can't hit and run.....they strike out with 1 out and a man on 3rd.......I try to stay away from strike out hitters.

[Alan T]

I don't think I have a problem with how K's are handled and I will try to explain why...

In baseball strikeouts can be more benefitial at times to someone who puts the ball in play, and can sometimes be more of a negative. You obviously have less chance of a double play with a high K guy than you do with someone who puts the ball in play. On the other hand with a high K guy, you have a harder time with a hit and run and you are less likely to take advantage of fielding mistakes...


So how does this translate to OOTP? Well you have to look at how often a player gets a hit.. you can use his batting average for that. You look at how often someone is likely to take a walk, which you can get from his OBP... and you look at how often someone strikes out...

You can take someone like Jose Hernandez, his batting average was .288 .. that would be good for a what? about a 5 rating depending on your era settings. but he had 188 K's in 525 at bats. That would have to be a 0, 1 or 2 rating for avoiding K's ..

Then take someone like Placido Polanco, he also had a .288 Batting average, so give him the same 5 rating for hits. He only had 41 K's in 548 at bats though. So give him a higher avoid K rating.. maybe a 6 or 7.

A fun one to illustrate with this has always been Jim THome.. .304 batting average last year. So lets give him a 6 rating for hits. (Better than Polanco), however he had 139 Ks in 480 at bats.. thats pretty bad.. so maybe a 2 or 3 rating in avoiding K's.

So I guess my point is I think Strikeouts in ootp is actually accurately depicted... It was something that made me ponder when I first came across it, but when I looked at how it behaved more, I think I like it this way just fine.

[Ragnar]

Maybe if you sim games it doesn't matter. But I have never had a batter hit over .300 that had a 4 or less in avoiding strikouts. I play most of the games.

[JAttractive]

I have to agree with Alan T. It used to bother me as well until I looked at how he did.

My only concern is whether the game generated fictional players semi-accurately depict the proportions of player-types you see in real life ie. Are the contact and K's rating simply assigned randomly or is it more likely for instance that a high contact hitter also has a higher K rating? If that is the case I am happy.

[voxpoptart]

Batters, in real life, can have high batting averages with many strikeouts or low averages with few strikeouts. Pitchers, over any length of time, canNOT -- hits against a pitcher are a direct function of balls in play (non-K's, non-HR's), shaped only by fielding and luck.

In OOTP4, it often happens that a pitcher will have a good K rating and a poor Hits rating, or vice versa. If a player's young and the Talent levels are roughly the same (no more than one level apart), i'll let it slide. If i see a veteran whose K and Hits ratings are out of whack, or a prospect whose talent levels are, i jump into editor mode and change things. How to change is informal -- usually i'll bring the Hits rating into line and compensate by negatively changing the Doubles, Homers, and/or Walks rating; the ERA rating when i'm done shouldn't change. If the Hits rating is better in line with the pitcher's Velocity, i'll adjust the K's directly.

It's open to abuse, of course. I try to be fair.

[Alan T]

I think I disagree fundamentally with that as well.. I think most often a pitcher who strikes out alot of batters does reduce the risk of errors , bad hops or other luck that creates hits. So yes a Strikeout pitcher has that advantage for them. however I think there can be pitchers that are successful in low number of hits against them without being a strikeout pitcher over a long duration.

Looking at the pitchers last year with the best opposing batting average againsts...

Pedro had hitters bat .198 against him. He obviously is a high K pitcher.

Next was Tim Wakefield who is only a moderate K pitcher. Opponents batted .204 against him. And over the course of his career, he has been fairly successful as far as opposing batting average against.

Next Randy Johnson and A.J. Burnett both can be classified as K pitchers, followed by Derek Lowe who hitters hit .211 against him. He clearly is a hard sinker pitcher who relies on ground balls to get his outs. You could argue that he has not done it over a long duration however.

If you dig through the next 20 or so pitchers, all of whom held opponents under .250 batting average against, you will see the like of Damian Moss, Odalis Perez, Jamie Moyer none of which are high strikeout pitchers.

Some pitchers such as Moyer or Tom Glavine have made careers without being high strikeout guys.

So yeah, sure being a pitcher that strikes out 10-12 guys a game makes things alot easier on you than striking out 2 a game. Thats 10 less outs you have to deal with, but its not a necessity to having low batting averages against.

[voxpoptart]

Alan T: Sorry, i let it look like i was venturing an opinion. The direct and exact long-term correlation between a pitcher's balls-in-play and his number of hits allowed has been proven, as of early 2002, by one Voros McCracken, his work vetted by Bill James and Rob Neyer (among others). A pitcher has no control -- none -- over his number of hits allowed except by preventing homers and getting K's.

This isn't intuitively obvious -- before it was discovered and proved, i would certainly not have believed it.

This doesn't mean, of course, that one season's opposing-BA leaders won't include some non-strikeout-oriented pitchers. Luck and excellent team defense matter; indeed, i tend to build my OOTP4 teams around excellent defense. Also, a pitcher who allows few homers or walks can surrender a high _batting average_ but a low _run total_.

But when i see an OOTP4 pitcher whose Hits and K ratings don't mesh, i hop into Editor mode and fix it, as said above. To others who share my desire for realism, i recommend this. To those who don't care about realism, that's okay, i can't imagine why you should. G'day!

[Alan T]

I read that study and am a big fan of most stuff that Bill James does, however I felt that study had short fallings.

As I said, most often that is correct, a pitcher who K's hitters is at a much bigger advantage than pitchers that do not. I already stated that.

What the study does not take into account are two things:

1) The exceptions to the rule which there are some proven examples of pitchers having a 10 year span of mediocre strikeout totals and still doing fine.

2) Those cases where opposing avg does not correlate well with the pitcher's Strikeout totals. Too often a pitcher who already is a big strikeout pitcher will strikeout 40 more players the next season in roughly the same number of innings pitched yet have a considerably worse opponent avg against.

So I still stand by my point, that yes pitchers who strikeout alot of hitters do have a big advantage, however they are the rule to which there are proven exceptions.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by edm
This could also impact the way you'd allocate your spring training points. I.E put avoiding K points into other areas.

Doing that will reduce your player's ability to take a base on balls as well as reducing his ability to avoid strikeouts. I would not consider destroying a player's ability to take a walk in order to get a marginal gain in another area to be a good strategy.

Jason

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by Alan T
1) The exceptions to the rule which there are some proven examples of pitchers having a 10 year span of mediocre strikeout totals and still doing fine.

I'll agree with mediocre if you mean "average" or "slightly above average" such as Greg Maddux (who also has had the best defense in baseball behind him, which helps).

I'd like to see some examples of great pitchers with productive careers who had K/9 rates well below the league average. I'm talking 4 K/9 or less in most seasons.

2) Those cases where opposing avg does not correlate well with the pitcher's Strikeout totals. Too often a pitcher who already is a big strikeout pitcher will strikeout 40 more players the next season in roughly the same number of innings pitched yet have a considerably worse opponent avg against.

That's because the batting average on balls in play for a pitcher in any given season is determined by defense and luck. The latest studies (not by James, who also did not do the original study being discussed here or any studies relating to the matter, that I'm aware of) show that a team level with a consistent defense year-in and year-out (1990's Braves, for instance) will allow a consistent batting average on balls in play, but individual pitchers fluctuate wildly. Defensive support is really no different than run support in that regards, one season a guy will get 6 runs a game from his team the next he'll get 3 runs per game.

When it comes down to it, a great pitcher does 4 things - throws a lot of innings, strikes out a lot of guys, doesn't allow many walks, and doesn't allow many homeruns. I'm not sure that I can think of anyone in baseball right now who fits all 4 criteria besides *maybe* Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson, who not so coincidentally are also consistently the best pitchers in the league every year. If Schilling didn't allow so many homeruns he'd be one of the greatest pitchers to have ever played the game - a strikeout/9 ratio on par with a power pitcher, a walk/9 ratio on par with Greg Maddux, and 250 innings a year. That's someone I'd want on my team (too bad my team is the Phillies, grr).

Jason