Originally Posted by doublem23
Not neccessarily as evidenced by the fact that there is almost no correlation between the amount of times a team strikes out and how well or poorly its offense performs. Frankly speaking, teams that hit for high power and have high strike outs almost always outscore teams that hit for low power with low strikeouts.
Except in the most dire of circumstances (trailing by a run in the 9th inning, for example) any play that results in an out is less desirable than one that doesn't, regardless if a run scores or not. Outs are the most precious commodity in baseball.
Observation with a bias. Any rudimentary numerical analysis of baseball CLEARLY reveals that what's important is that teams make outs more infrequently (i.e. have a high OBP) and not how they are made.
1) Teams that hit for average power with low strikeouts are preferable to teams that hit for average power with high strikeouts, which is a more apples-to-apples comparison. Hitting for average or high power is not mutually exclusive to average-to-low strikeout rates.
2) That is absolutely not true. Trading an out for a run is always, always preferable to not making an out when a run does not score. RUNS
are the most precious commodity in baseball.
3) Making outs infrequently is not incompatible with low stikeout rates.
Team A: 6000 PAs, 1000 SOs.
Team B: 6000 PAs, 850 SOs.
Assume that the two teams played the same number of times in the same park against the same teams and faced the same pitchers. Except for run-scoring outs and total runs, all other stats (Avg, hits, 2B, SB, HR, other teams' errors made, etc.) are the same. There is no statistical model that can be produced that will show that Team A outscored or even scored the same number of runs as Team B. Team B will have scored more runs and advanced more runners via an out or walk than Team A, resulting in more runs scored total, all else being equal.