Steve McCatty On Strikeouts

[Curve Ball Dave]

Seems I'm not the only one who feels this way.


Nationals pitching coach Steve McCatty believes fewer K's equals more W's, and so far so good

WASHINGTON – The man who oversees baseball's best pitching staff does not care for the position's most glamorous statistic. In fact the thought of it makes Steve McCatty recoil. He crosses his arms. His head shakes. A sour expression crosses his face.

"Strikeouts are bull[bleep]," he says.

Steve McCatty doesn't want his pitchers trying to strike out every batter.

He scoffs. Such a waste, he implies...

"If you try to strike out every hitter you're going to burn up pitches," says McCatty, the Nationals pitching coach. "Look, just do the math. If you're taking 15-20 pitches to get through every inning that will multiply fast."
He would rather his pitchers let the hitters hit the ball. This is an organizational emphasis of the Nationals. Instead of two strikeouts in an inning, how about just one along with a pop-up to second base? It's just easier, he says.



He also understands there are times when strikeouts are necessary. For instance, there was a moment last weekend when Gonzalez had a runner on second with less than two outs in the middle of a 1-1 tie. To McCatty that was a perfect time for a strikeout. This way you get an out while not allowing the runner to advance or risk a ground ball getting through the infield for a hit. But, he adds, there aren't that many times you really need a strikeout...


"Outs are outs," McCatty says, still standing in the Nationals clubhouse. "If you don't need the strikeout, why use all the pitches to get one? I'd rather win 2-1 and have our pitcher strike out two and walk four than lose 2-1 and have our pitcher strike out 13 and walk one."

[Skipaway]

You know what could have made his arguments stronger? His team not 5th in the majors for strikeouts, and his team not having the 1st and 3rd best starters in terms of K/9.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

You know what could have made his arguments stronger? His team not 5th in the majors for strikeouts, and his team not having the 1st and 3rd best starters in terms of K/9.

The article points out the irony.

[Skipaway]

And you know what's funny? Gio Gonzalez just joined the team this year to be coached by Steve McCatty. This is also the year Gonazlez has the highest strikeout rate in his career. His pitch per plate appearance number is also up from the past three years, only lower than his rookie year.

Whatever Steve McCatty is doing, he's not making Gio Gonzalez striking out less.

[Skipaway]

I think McCatty is probably just intentionally making an exaggerated point to compensate for some people's over-emphasize on strikeouts. Strikeouts are important, just that a pitcher shouldn't try too hard for strikeouts just for the sake of it, because that could hurt you in other ways. It's just like how going for home runs all the time would hurt a hitter.

Since some pitchers might have the wrong mind set to begin with, McCatty need to exaggerate his point to help convert the pitchers.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

And you know what's funny? Gio Gonzalez just joined the team this year to be coached by Steve McCatty. This is also the year Gonazlez has the highest strikeout rate in his career. His pitch per plate appearance number is also up from the past three years, only lower than his rookie year.

You're making the assumption that Gonzalez is knowingly not following the doctrine of the coach and is trying to get strike outs despite McCatty's instructions. We do not know this. Gonzalez may be getting more K's despite following what McCatty for all we know, the article is not clear.

Never the less, the fact that Nationals pitchers have high strike out rates in no way refutes what McCatty is saying. In both theory and practice, an out is an out. There are certain situations in close games where a strike out is the most desired outcome for a pitcher. But for the rest of the situations in baseball an out is out and the fewer pitches it takes to get an out the better.

[Curve Ball Dave]

One other point.

That which is good for a batter is bad for a pitcher and visa versa.

Sabermaticians tell us that it's ok for a guy to strike out over 200 times in a season because an out is an out and as long as other numbers are good he can strike as many times as he wants (see Reynolds, Mark).

So if strike outs are not inherently bad for hitters, they serve no additional good inherent for the pitchers. An out is out.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Never the less, the fact that Nationals pitchers have high strike out rates in no way refutes what McCatty is saying. In both theory and practice, an out is an out. There are certain situations in close games where a strike out is the most desired outcome for a pitcher. But for the rest of the situations in baseball an out is out and the fewer pitches it takes to get an out the better.

It isn't a good point though. A strike-out for a batter is just an out(sometimes it is better for a batter to strike-out than put the ball in play, such as double play balls). For a pitcher it is the only out they fully control. Once the ball is put into the play they have little control over whether it becomes an out or not.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

One other point.

That which is good for a batter is bad for a pitcher and visa versa.

Sabermaticians tell us that it's ok for a guy to strike out over 200 times in a season because an out is an out and as long as other numbers are good he can strike as many times as he wants (see Reynolds, Mark).

So if strike outs are not inherently bad for hitters, they serve no additional good inherent for the pitchers. An out is out.

The reason a strike-out is good for a pitcher or better than other outs is because it is the only kind of out they fully control. Once the batter puts wood on the ball they have little control over whether it is an out or not.

We are talking about an almost 14-year old piece of analysis that has been through the ringer. Pitchers that have the highest K/9 are usually the most sucessful pitchers because of the volatile nature of BAIP.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

It isn't a good point though. A strike-out for a batter is just an out(sometimes it is better for a batter to strike-out than put the ball in play, such as double play balls). For a pitcher it is the only out they fully control. Once the ball is put into the play they have little control over whether it becomes an out or not.

But a good pitcher can control how well a ball is put in play. Good pitchers get hitters to swing badly by changing speeds and location. Bad swings mean pop ups and grounders which turn into outs. Sure, there will be those that fall in, but by in large if hitters don't get good swings they don't get hits.

Your point about double plays reinforces the notion that what is bad for a hitter is good for a hitter. Double play: Bad for hitter therefore good for a pitcher. In that situation the strike out is bad for the pitcher and "good" (insofar as only one out was recorded) for the hitter.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

But a good pitcher can control how well a ball is put in play. .

See that is the point of McCraken's work. That assumption is not a fact. His research found the opposite to be true: that while a pitcher's ability to cause strikeouts or allow home runs remained somewhat constant from season to season, his ability to prevent hits of balls in play did not.

Yes good pitchers have MINOR control over that, but once the ball is in play they have little to no control. They can't account for park factors, defensive alignment, defensive ability and just plain luck, which plays a much greater role in what becomes a hit and what doesn't than a pitcher does.

They have a lot more control over walks and strike outs.

Go through any pitchers career and look at pitchers who have low K/9 stats, their ERA varies greatly from year to year. It is the nature of BAIP.

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Your point about double plays reinforces the notion that what is bad for a hitter is good for a hitter. Double play: Bad for hitter therefore good for a pitcher. In that situation the strike out is bad for the pitcher and "good" (insofar as only one out was recorded) for the hitter.

To your second point. The pitcher is not going to control if it is going to be a double play or not. So the ball going into play is neither good nor bad for the pitcher. The batter speed, fielder ability, and luck have more to do with if it is a double play or not. Is a bad thing for the hitter because it is now 2 outs, and the result is good for the pitcher, but the ball being put into play isn't good or bad for the pitcher. The reason I put it on the batter, because he has more control on whether it becomes a double play or not than the pitcher does.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

But a good pitcher can control how well a ball is put in play. Good pitchers get hitters to swing badly by changing speeds and location. Bad swings mean pop ups and grounders which turn into outs. Sure, there will be those that fall in, but by in large if hitters don't get good swings they don't get hits.

Your point about double plays reinforces the notion that what is bad for a hitter is good for a hitter. Double play: Bad for hitter therefore good for a pitcher. In that situation the strike out is bad for the pitcher and "good" (insofar as only one out was recorded) for the hitter.

This has been debated to absolute death in the baseball community and on these boards.

I could write an impassioned debate but it simply suffices to say that what you think you know is not correct and has been proven as such.

As Jax alluded, Voros McCracken discovered this 13 years ago and it has been tested dozens of times by other researchers and proven and sharpened.
Defense independent pitching statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I would also go on and say if you do not believe in the therory then you should probably stop playing OOTP.
Markus included DIPS into the core engine of OOTP way back in version 6.


You seem to have an interest in the subject but are asserting a lot of things that have a long history of having already being proven. I would suggest subscriptions to sites like Baseball Prospectus and Baseball America where you can find a wealth of information about advanced statistics if you are willing to put in the time.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

We are talking about an almost 14-year old piece of analysis that has been through the ringer. Pitchers that have the highest K/9 are usually the most sucessful pitchers because of the volatile nature of BAIP.

Correlation is not causation.

Pitchers that have high K/9 do so because they throw more strikes consistently than bad pitchers. The more strikes you throw the more you are ahead in the count and the more likely you are to record a strike out, not because you were necessarily trying but because when you are 0-2/1-2 the hitter is at a huge disadvantage and often strikes himself out. Further, these pitchers are most effective at changing speeds and locations and are getting strike outs as a residual effect of simply attacking the strike zone not because they are necessarily trying.

McCatty is correct in theory. The fewer pitches it takes to get a batter out the better in the long run. When you're pitching in 98 degree heat like we're having this summer, no pitcher in his right mind would want to throw as many pitches to get a K when he get the same result (an out) with just one.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Correlation is not causation.

Pitchers that have high K/9 do so because they throw more strikes consistently than bad pitchers. The more strikes you throw the more you are ahead in the count and the more likely you are to record a strike out, not because you were necessarily trying but because when you are 0-2/1-2 the hitter is at a huge disadvantage and often strikes himself out. Further, these pitchers are most effective at changing speeds and locations and are getting strike outs as a residual effect of simply attacking the strike zone not because they are necessarily trying.

Care to wager what ball to strike ratio Nolan Ryan had?

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

See that is the point of McCraken's work. That assumption is not a fact. His research found the opposite to be true: that while a pitcher's ability to cause strikeouts or allow home runs remained somewhat constant from season to season, his ability to prevent hits of balls in play did not.

Let's think about that. We'll look at a Hall Of Fame pitcher-Greg Maddux. For his career he averaged 6.1 K/9 so he had to get 21 other outs per game some other way. That's about 3.5 times more in balls in play than not. Arguing that a pitcher has only minor control over what happens once a ball is hit and the rest is a function of luck is saying Maddux got into the HOF on 78% luck because his skill had no bearing on the outcome of an at bat once the ball was hit.

Does anyone want to make that argument?

Statistics are like a bikini. They show you a lot but not everything.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Let's think about that. We'll look at a Hall Of Fame pitcher-Greg Maddux. For his career he averaged 6.1 K/9 so he had to get 21 other outs per game some other way. That's about 3.5 times more in balls in play than not. Arguing that a pitcher has only minor control over what happens once a ball is hit and the rest is a function of luck is saying Maddux got into the HOF on 78% luck because his skill had no bearing on the outcome of an at bat once the ball was hit.

Does anyone want to make that argument?

Statistics are like a bikini. They show you a lot but not everything.

It isn't just luck and I never said it was. I said there are other factors that have more control over it. Luck was just one of them.

Greg Maddux did another thing in the DIPS theory better than almost all pitchers and that was avoid walks, which is very important in the theory.

Look I like talking baseball, but you are making assumptions based on, well I am not sure. We are talking about one of the most important studies in the last 50 years of baseball. Mcatty is just plain wrong and there is over 100 years of data to back that up.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

Greg Maddux did another thing in the DIPS theory better than almost all pitchers and that was avoid walks, which is very important in the theory.

I have argued in other threads that avoiding walks is far more important than striking batters out. Simply put, there are many HOF pitchers who had K/9 rates that were lower than the elite strike out pitchers of their era, but you won't find very many HOF pitchers with high BB/9 rates. Nolan Ryan made to the HOF because he cut his BB/9 rate from the 6s to the 3s after he joined the Astros. His K/9 rate dropped at the same time. He was great not because he strike out more which he did not, but because he walked less batters.

Look I like talking baseball, but you are making assumptions based on, well I am not sure. We are talking about one of the most important studies in the last 50 years of baseball. Mcatty is just plain wrong and there is over 100 years of data to back that up.

McCatty is not wrong. There is data that supports his opinion and he has one thing all of those who do the studies do not-actual real life MLB pitching experience and success.

Until someone has actually toed the rubber and tried not to just get one batter out, but a whole lineup over the course of a game, then that person can't tell McCatty or even me who did about 300 times at the competitive adult level that we're full of beans when we say trying get a strike out is a waste of time and effort except in specific situations. Did I either or McCatty say strikes outs in and of themselves are bad? No. We are saying expending effort to get strike outs, which is not the same thing, is a fool's errand.

The HOF is full of pitchers with high K/9 rates not because they were deliberately trying to strike batters out, but as a residual benefit of having very good control and high quality pitches.

[Curve Ball Dave]

And yet another point about BABIP.

Forget what the statistics say. Watch an actual complete game thrown by a really good pitcher. We'll give him his 6 strike outs so the ball was put in play at least 21 other times.

Anyone who has watched enough games, and I'll assume that's anyone posting here, will or should attest that the pitcher's skill had a lot to do with whether or not he gave up fewer runs than what his team scored for him. It was not just dumb luck every time out. Pitchers are not in the HOF on dumb luck. Even the very best still had more than twice as many balls put in play against them than strike outs.

Saying a pitcher has no control over what happens to a ball put in play may be literally true. But to say a pitcher can't control how well a ball is put in play and therefore maximize the probability of an out, which is something BABIP or any other metric is yet to measure, is saying pitching is just all dumb luck.

[jaxmagicman]

Well there is not much to discuss if you aren't going read the study. It pretty much says the exact opposite of what you just said. We can continue to discuss this once you have read it.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

Well there is not much to discuss if you aren't going read the study. It pretty much says the exact opposite of what you just said. We can continue to discuss this once you have read it.

Do you want to discuss statistics spit out by a computer or do want to discuss the actual playing of the game of baseball, because that's two different things.

Never mind what McCracken or any other statistician says in their studies. Make the argument based on the playing of the game to me that the skill of the best pitchers in baseball past and present had no bearing on the outcome of an at bat when you consider that even with the top strike out pitchers the ball is put in play more than twice as often as not. Let's talk the actual pitcher/batter confrontation and what his going through the mind of both. Let's ask actual batters if the pitcher's skill had any bearing on whether or not they could make solid contact for hits as oppose to hitting one off the end of the bat for an easy fly out.

And if you agree that Maddux or anyone else isn't in the HOF on dumb luck 78% of the time, why is he there and not someone else? If the skill of the best pitchers had no bearing over the outcome of an at bat when the ball was put in play, which is the overwhelming majority of at bats, how did they do so well? And don't tell me about someone's statistical study. Speak to me as someone who either had to try to get a lineup out three times a game, or someone who was in a lineup trying to get a base hit three times a game.