Are strikeouts ruining baseball?

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,233
San Diego, CA
Are there more data points for young pitchers not throwing a lot of pitches than a 33 year old Johan Santana a year after he missed the entire season with an injury? Perhaps the issue was throwing that many pitches AFTER an injury to a pitching shoulder. And prior to his first injury he hadn't gone over 200 IP in a few seasons--was he overworked?
I'm sure there have been countless articles and studies that you could google as well as me. No one is definitively sure about anything, like much in life.
Just to throw it explicitly here - I think the evidence at least hints that it was more the ankle injury a few weeks later that really caused the collapse https://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/04/johan-santana-comeback-new-york-mets-no-hitter-134-pitches-terry-collins-mlb

In any case, it's certainly not the simple 'he threw 130 pitches and then immediately his arm was destroyed' story that people like to throw out
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,743
This sentence from that piece is basically what I was trying to say (in regards to me personally not wanting to see guys throw 16 innings):

"Despite tons and tons of research on the subject, no one really knows all the secrets to keeping pitchers healthy, but the general consensus suggests that 134-pitch outings aren’t a great means of doing that."
 
Just to show the evolution of the sport...

Let's look 30 years ago. 1991.

- Teams averaged 4.31 runs per game.
- Teams averaged 0.80 homers per game (130 per season).
- Teams slashed .256/.323/.385/.708
- Teams averaged 0.74 stolen bases per game (120 per season).
- Teams struck out 5.8 times a game.

Now...

- Teams average 4.35 runs per game.
- Teams average 1.14 homers per game (projects to 185 per season).
- Teams are slashing .236/.312/.393/.705
- Teams average 0.48 stolen bases per game (projects to 77 per season).
- Teams strike out 9.1 times a game.
I'm not intending to reply to this post in particular, but I'll be referencing the data so I'm just going to leave it here.

Compared to 1991, your team is going to:

  • Hit an extra home run for every three games played
  • Steal one fewer base over a four game span
  • Get one fewer hit (including home runs) per 50 at bats
  • Get on base one fewer time per 91 plate appearances
When I look at this data, the argument that the game has devolved into a "TTO only" sport falls really flat for me. There are real differences -- more HR, more walks, more Ks, fewer non-HR hits -- but those differences are still quite small with the sole exception of the ratio of outs generated by strikeout vs. outs due to balls in play.

Thus I tend to be pretty unsympathetic to the case that the game is just a parade of walks, strikeouts and 3-run homers. But if your enjoyment of the sport hinges on strikeouts vs outs on balls in play, then I'll admit that there is a real and substantial difference there.

Personally, I don't experience any real difference in enjoyment. For me a K is probably a little more exciting than a routine out and a nasty K (like a caught looking on a really well located pitch or a swing and miss on something with great movement) is significantly more exciting than a routine out. A super close or highlight reel defensive play is more exciting than almost any K. Overall it pretty much comes out in the wash.

If anything, it seems to me that if there is something sapping enjoyment from the game it's the shift as it (anecdotally) seems to result in more routine outs vs. close plays/web gems. I'd be interested to see if the data backs this up.

So overall for me extra Ks are a net netural, extra HR are a plus, lower BABIP is a net negative. Overall it's not noticeably more or less exciting than any other time that I've been a fan.

If you feel differently I respect that, but if you come at me with language like "K's are ruining baseball" or "nobody ever steals anymore" or "the base hit is dying" then I'm going to roll my eyes a bit. It's clickbait.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,231
I'm not intending to reply to this post in particular, but I'll be referencing the data so I'm just going to leave it here.

Compared to 1991, your team is going to:

  • Hit an extra home run for every three games played
  • Steal one fewer base over a four game span
  • Get one fewer hit (including home runs) per 50 at bats
  • Get on base one fewer time per 91 plate appearances
When I look at this data, the argument that the game has devolved into a "TTO only" sport falls really flat for me. There are real differences -- more HR, more walks, more Ks, fewer non-HR hits -- but those differences are still quite small with the sole exception of the ratio of outs generated by strikeout vs. outs due to balls in play.
Aren't these stats like "the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is one hit every twenty bats"? Or "the difference between a .400 and .500 slugging percentage is one base every ten at bats." These sound like minor differences, but over the course of the season, you certainly notice the difference between a guy hitting .250 and .300 or a guy slugging .400 and .500.

Also, the impact of what people are complaining about is cumulative. It's fewer hits, fewer doubles, fewer triples, fewer runners thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double or a double into a triple, fewer plays at the plate, fewer double plays, fewer steals, and so on.

Strikeouts can be exciting too, but they're more exciting with runners on second and third than with the bases empty.
 
Last edited:
Aren't these stats like "the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is one hit every twenty bats"? Or "the difference between a .400 and .500 slugging percentage is one base every ten at bats." These sound like minor differences, but over the course of the season, you certainly notice the difference between a guy hitting .250 and .300 or a guy slugging .400 and .500.

Also, the impact of what people are complaining about is cumulative. It's fewer hits, fewer doubles, fewer triples, fewer runners thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double or a double into a triple, fewer plays at the plate, fewer double plays, fewer steals, and so on.

Strikeouts can be exciting too, but they're more exciting with runners on second and third than with the bases empty.
It's a fair point, but I think there are substantial differences that render the comparison less meaningful.

For one, we are talking about enjoyment of the game as opposed to something like an evaluation of how good a player is. If the thesis were that going for power at the cost of strikeouts is making hitters less effective, then your comparison would fit better. As it is, my point is trying to illustrate that the vast majority of the events that we are witnessing over the course of a game are very similar to what they were in 1991.

I think that's a fairly small concern though. The bigger concern for me is the level of hyperbole, and I think even if we accept that the comparison between a single hitter's performance is fair the inappropriateness of the hyperbole remains. If you were saying that a hitter is "ruined" because his average dropped from .300 to .250 it would be pretty ridiculous, especially if that hitter's OPS was basically holding steady. But we're not talking about the difference between a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter. We're talking about the difference between a .300 hitter and a .280 hitter. That's the difference between variations of "good."
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
I'm not intending to reply to this post in particular, but I'll be referencing the data so I'm just going to leave it here.

Compared to 1991, your team is going to:

  • Hit an extra home run for every three games played
  • Steal one fewer base over a four game span
  • Get one fewer hit (including home runs) per 50 at bats
  • Get on base one fewer time per 91 plate appearances
When I look at this data, the argument that the game has devolved into a "TTO only" sport falls really flat for me. There are real differences -- more HR, more walks, more Ks, fewer non-HR hits -- but those differences are still quite small with the sole exception of the ratio of outs generated by strikeout vs. outs due to balls in play.

Thus I tend to be pretty unsympathetic to the case that the game is just a parade of walks, strikeouts and 3-run homers. But if your enjoyment of the sport hinges on strikeouts vs outs on balls in play, then I'll admit that there is a real and substantial difference there.

Personally, I don't experience any real difference in enjoyment. For me a K is probably a little more exciting than a routine out and a nasty K (like a caught looking on a really well located pitch or a swing and miss on something with great movement) is significantly more exciting than a routine out. A super close or highlight reel defensive play is more exciting than almost any K. Overall it pretty much comes out in the wash.

If anything, it seems to me that if there is something sapping enjoyment from the game it's the shift as it (anecdotally) seems to result in more routine outs vs. close plays/web gems. I'd be interested to see if the data backs this up.

So overall for me extra Ks are a net netural, extra HR are a plus, lower BABIP is a net negative. Overall it's not noticeably more or less exciting than any other time that I've been a fan.

If you feel differently I respect that, but if you come at me with language like "K's are ruining baseball" or "nobody ever steals anymore" or "the base hit is dying" then I'm going to roll my eyes a bit. It's clickbait.
Those stats are a pretty big difference.
The loss is a full inning of balls in play. With fewer base-runners.
Throw in the increase in homeruns and the variety of plays decreases quite a bit.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
So your argument is he was overworked long term rather than in just one game?

Pitchers used to go 300+ innings. I'm guessing Santana would have been done long before age 33 if he were allowed to go 300. Pitch counts were high and IP totals were high. Neither are true today.
My question is why Santana's body breaking down after 230 IP is a data point when Steve Carlton throwing 280 at age 32 and then averaging 35 starts until he was 39 isn't.

Maybe Santana's breakdown is because him specifically couldn't handle it and not that other pitchers couldn't.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
My question is why Santana's body breaking down after 230 IP is a data point when Steve Carlton throwing 280 at age 32 and then averaging 35 starts until he was 39 isn't.

Maybe Santana's breakdown is because him specifically couldn't handle it and not that other pitchers couldn't.
I think it's the flip but fair enough.

I think it's more because Steve Carlton's body could handle it. I'm not very familiar with MLB prior to the late 80s so I'm not sure how many J.R. Richards there are.

Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan were really big dudes too while someone like Pedro was slight of frame. I'm sure that plays into it a lot, that and PEDs. I always heard growing up it was all about the tree trunk legs.

I'm also guessing Johan Santana threw closer to max capacity every pitch than Steven Carlton did too. Rightly or wrongly, knuckleballers were always considered to have rubber arms who could pitch whenever because they aren't throwing it 96 mph every pitch.

edit: Long story short, I'm sure there are some SP who could go out there and have a 150 PC every game and never get injured. I'm not sure it's possible to identify those pitchers though.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
It's clear that a sizable number of pitchers are using a foreign substance to increase their spin rates. If MLB told the umps tomorrow to inspect every pitcher's glove, strikeouts would drop precipitously. But there is a risk to doing this, as pitchers' control likely would suffer if they can only use rosin going forward.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
It's clear that a sizable number of pitchers are using a foreign substance to increase their spin rates. If MLB told the umps tomorrow to inspect every pitcher's glove, strikeouts would drop precipitously. But there is a risk to doing this, as pitchers' control likely would suffer if they can only use rosin going forward.
This is interesting to me. Do you have examples? I know a pitcher had his hat removed last week, but that is all I have heard
 

amRadio

New Member
Feb 7, 2019
798
Gerrit Cole, Justin Verlander named in alleged doctored baseballs lawsuit - Sports Illustrated

I have a hard time believing that was a unique circumstance with that club house attendant LA. I bet a few cities have guys like that helping players out on the side and going to the same lengths as this fella. I vaguely remember Bauer being investigated and the players union stating they would challenge any discipline. It looks like the league never followed up after the umpires confiscated a few of his baseballs. All the articles about it at the top of google are from back on April 9th, doesn't look like there is any news there.

I'd be surprised if foreign substances were an isolated problem with just a few guys here and there.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
Didn’t see the mentioned here yet (apologies if it was), but according to this, strikeouts aren’t up nearly as much over last year as they appear if you take pitchers’ at-bats out of the equation (pitchers didn’t hit last year, as you might remember). The universal DH isn’t a panacea, but it could be a decent starting point.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
It's clear that a sizable number of pitchers are using a foreign substance to increase their spin rates. If MLB told the umps tomorrow to inspect every pitcher's glove, strikeouts would drop precipitously. But there is a risk to doing this, as pitchers' control likely would suffer if they can only use rosin going forward.
HBPs are also way up this year, so I think hitters would be cool with banning sticky substances now.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,539
Seems like better policing of this will do away with the need to change all the rules of the game and whatnot.
This just seems like a giant can of worms with selective enforcement as a likely outcome. Trusting the MLB to police Gerrit Cole and a random JAG like Brandon Workman the same...ehhh.
 

OfTheCarmen

Cow Humper
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2007
5,208
Do catchers normally put stickum or something similar on their equipment to help with blocking balls?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Do catchers normally put stickum or something similar on their equipment to help with blocking balls?
Per some it's to help apply it to the ball because while hardly anyone really checks the pitcher, no one checks the catcher.