Strikeouts Are Overrated, Period

 

Strikeouts. For some reason when you talk about who are the greatest pitchers in the game, people want to use strikeouts as one of the top 3 metrics. The "Pitcher's Triple Crown" consists of Wins, ERA and strikeouts. I could go on about how much the other two statistics matter (or not), but strikeouts is the one that gets under my skin the most. It's one of several types of out, period. 

First, how do you strikeout a batter? Well there is the conventional way, of whiffing the guy. Then, there's the more rare version which includes a batter bunting a ball foul with two strikes in the count. There is an entry in the official rule book about strikeouts which states:

10.15 Strikeouts
A strikeout is a statistic credited to a pitcher and charged to a batter when the umpire calls three strikes on a batter, as set forth in this Rule 10.15.
(a) The official scorer shall score a strikeout whenever a batter:
(1) is put out by a third strike caught by the catcher;
(2) is put out by a third strike not caught when there is a runner on first before two are out; (3) becomes a runner because a third strike is not caught; or
(4) bunts foul on third strike, unless such bunt on third strike results in a foul fly caught by any fielder, in which case the official scorer shall not score a strikeout and shall credit the fielder who catches such foul fly with a putout.
(b) When a batter leaves the game with two strikes against him, and the substitute batter completes a strikeout, the official scorer shall charge the strikeout and the time at bat to the first batter. If the substitute batter completes the turn at bat in any other manner, including a base on balls, the official scorer shall score the action as having been that of the substitute batter.

So there's a lot to a strikeout that requires its own subsection. You can strikeout a guy with a third strike thrown, caught by the catcher. You get a strikeout if the catcher drops the ball and does (or does not) throw the ball successfully to first base to record the out. You get a strikeout if you are pitching to one guy, and he has to leave the game and another guy takes his place and strikeouts finishing the at bat. You get a strikeout if a guy bunts foul with two strikes. So I guess it does deserve to be a subsection.

Let's get to the part that makes me upset; that people overstate the value of this type of out. A pitcher's goal when he takes the mound is to limit the amount of guys who get on base. He can do that with strikeouts, sure. He can also do that with ground outs, popouts, flyouts, lineouts, etc. If a pitcher makes a good pitch, most guys will get themselves out one way or another. So do strikeout totals make you a more or less successful pitcher?

There is a debate going on as to whether Jered Weaver or Justin Verlander is the Cy Young frontrunner in the American League. I don't see the debate at all, but people keep discussing it on sports shows and pages. I think that Jered Weaver's total statistics speak for themselves: 15-1, 2.13 ERA, 0.916 WHIP, 6.4 H/9. All of those statistics lead the league. Justin Verlander is 12-7, 2.51 ERA, 0.984 WHIP, 6.7 H/9.  So you would see these two stat lines and say clearly Jered Weaver is having the better year to this point and should win over Verlander. Then why is there an ongoing argument? Because of Strikeouts!

For some people, they can't look past strikeouts in deciding who a better pitcher is. Jered Weaver has 101 strikeouts. Justin Verlander has 168 strikeouts. Has this lead to Verlander posting better statistics in key metrics such as H/9, or WHIP? No, it hasn't, but some people can't overlook strikeouts. To them, strikeouts clearly shows that Justin MUST be the more dominant pitcher, especially since he has 67 more strikeouts this year. Surely he is the best pitcher in the game.

It's this mindset that I cannot get over. I have no idea why people actually believe this to be true. To show how strikeouts do NOT make you a great pitcher, just look at other guys on the strikeout leader board this year. Max Scherzer is number two in MLB with 160 strikeouts. Surely he's having a great season? He's 10-6 with a 4.72 ERA and 1.41 WHIP. Yu Darvish, the big name Japanese prospect for the Texas Rangers is sixth in MLB with 154 strikeouts. Surely he's on pace for AL ROY and a Cy Young candidate...wait, he's 11-8 with a 4.57 ERA and 1.46 WHIP? Oh, hmm.  Well what about James Shields, he's eighth with 151 strikeouts. Surely, oh, well you know where this is going. (10-7, 4.08 ERA, 1.33 WHIP)

Tim Lincecum is the last guy I will mention to make this point. He's having the worst statistical season in his career bar none. He's 6-11, 5.43 ERA, 1.49 WHIP, 9.1 H/9, the most wild pitches and the most earned runs allowed. So you can see he's having an atrocious season. However, he is still in the top 15 in strikeouts in MLB with 139. This to me is proof that strikeouts don't matter.

What do I think does matter the most? A great metric to me is just the stat the shows how you limit base runners (WHIP). Only three retired pitchers have a WHIP under 1.00. Low WHIP is, to me, a greater feat than high strikeout total. ERA really isn't that great of a metric because there are ways for ERA not to be affected by poor pitching: 1)Someone makes an error then you give up runs 2)You never record an out, and your ERA is infinity which can't be calculated. ERA is flawed to me. Almost all pitchers have ERAs that don't reflect the actual number of runs they allowed in their appearances. Wins I can see, it's a pitcher's job to put his team in position to win. If he does that enough times while also being the winning pitcher, that's fine. It's team dependent but it's their job.

So when we look at Jered and Justin, I just don't think strikeouts should put a guy over the top when he doesn't have better numbers at any other metric. You have to take the metrics as a whole. I get that people treat strikeouts like they treat batter home runs. It's the flashy, firework statistic that excites the crowd the most. For me, I don't care how you do it as long as you do it. If Chris Sale has two outs, bases loaded in a one run game and gets a popup, that's just as awesome as a strikeout would have been. To record strikeouts, you also have to throw more pitches. It's always better to throw less pitches in this era of glass-arms with innings limits being placed on guys around the league.

Guy A (17-9, 2.88 ERA, 127 strikeouts, 0.90 WHIP, 6.7 H/9, 177 IP) and Guy B (16-8, 3.00 ERA, 205 strikeouts, 1.01 WHIP, 7.2 H/9, 177 IP) I would definitely pick Guy A for Cy Young. I don't see where the debate is. If he keeps it up, give the Cy Young to Jered Weaver. Why is there even a debate?

A guy had more outs that were strikeouts than another guy's outs were? So what? Did the other guy have better over all production? Yeah and that's my whole point. Strikeouts don't necessarily give you better production or lead to a high rate of success on the mound. I know people will disagree with me. Conversation is healthy. What do you think?