Too easy.

So, someone has had to have tested this before, right? Would seem pretty straightforward.

Avg # of pitches per K vs. Avg number of pitches for other outs. Then you'd probably want to do something to account for additional runners on and scoring that comes along with it.

Anyone done this? Do you have a link?

THT did it but I can't find the article.

3: you mean this? http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-kazmir-conundrum/

Awesome, thanks guys, I'm checking that out now.

So they are important,” Righetti said. “People will want to say they’re not, but they are.”

Seriously? is there anyone out there suggesting that strikeouts are unimportant?

Lincecum will be the first Giant to lead both leagues in Ks since 1898 (Cy Seymour). However, a Giant last lead the NL in Ks in 1911 (Rube Marquard). Mathewson also lead the NL a few times, but was always behind the AL leader.

Seriously? is there anyone out there suggesting that strikeouts are unimportant?

Yeah, I think there are, especially among the hack sportswriter and olde-tyme baseball men. People who think that strikeouts are fascists.

They are always talking about how young guys need to "learn to pitch, not just throw" which usually means for them to throw softer and let your defense back you up.

Idiot Magrane often talks about Kazmir's strikeout totals as a problem, mostly ignoring his high number of pitches that are thrown out of the strike zone or fouled off, as well as the numerous occasions in the past where he struck out plenty and still went deep.

Pitchers who drop their strikeout rate do not see a corresponding fall in the number of walks they issue; in fact, their walk rate actually goes up a tick.

The quote is from the Hardball Times link.

There's a couple of Moose stories linked to here in BTF, so it's probably a good idea to mention that BOTH Mussina's K/9 and BB/9 have decreased this season (I'm comparing to 2006, his most recent good year, and his horrid 2007. Since Mussina seems to have lost some speed, it's probably not a good point of reference to go back before 2006).

Moose's K/9 in 2006 was 7.84 and his BB/9 that year was 1.59 (really, 1.60 if you round it out).

Moose's K/9 in 2007 was 5.38 (5.39 if you round) and his BB/9 that year was 2.07.

Moose's K/9 in 2008 is 6.15 (6.16 if you round out) and his BB/9 is 1.18.

So Moose has sacrificed one and a half strike out per game vs. 2006 (he's actually striking more batters than in 2007 after changing his style and getting healthy this year), but he's improved his control (Moose's K/BB is 5.19, which is very good, and slightly better than his 4.91 from 2006 and MUCH BETTER than his 2.60 from 2006).

The one proviso I'd make is that while Ks are good, not walking batters is better. However, not all pitchers have the same stuff (indeed, sometimes fireballers end up becoming control types). While you have to make lemonade out of the lemons that life gives you, you'll get better lemonade if you don't walk too many batters.....

the HT article has a serious problem...by selecting players who saw a 25% decrease in their strikeout rate, Gassko is including in his sample not just pitchers who change their approach, but also those who have declining skills.

If kazmir were to consciously try to be more pitch-efficient by pitching to contact, he would also see a decline in walks that might offset the increase in hits and HR allowed. It will be possible to measure this using pitch/fx strikezone data...but gassko's method is just plain wrong.

In kazmir's case, I'd expect that he might not benefit from throwing strikes because he is the 'effectively wild' type...being left-handed and all over the place makes him tough to make contact on. Other pitchers, like brandon webb, saw big improvements when they threw more strikes. Webb led the league in walks when younger, but gets so much movement that he can throw in the zone and still get most guys out without giving up lots of homers like a javvy vazquez or shawn marcum.

I agree with 11 on the article. I suggest maybe doing the same thing but only doing it with pitchers that were under 31(or any other desired age) at the time to weed out some of the guys that would just be declining. A couple problems with this though would be a huge decrease in sample size making the results less accurate and it still wouldn't weed out all the guys that just naturally declined.

Or maybe with more stuff like Pitch FX data out recently someone could do something with that.

Seriously? is there anyone out there suggesting that strikeouts are unimportant?

Yeah, I think there are, especially among the hack sportswriter and olde-tyme baseball men. People who think that strikeouts are fascists.

Actually, I think the hack sportswriter and "olde-tyme" baseball men usually inflate the importance of strikeouts. I think you're more likely to see sabermetric types downplay strikeouts, although this is usually to defend TTO guys like Dunn.

The inflate the importance of strikeouts as a negative for hitters, and downplay their importance as a positive for pitchers.

Speaking of which, the Angels starters' FIPS are not good, I just noticed today. What significance that has for the playoffs, I don't know; probably none at this point.

The inflate the importance of strikeouts as a negative for hitters, and downplay their importance as a positive for pitchers.

And they do more or less the opposite for walks.