In just 148 games. Howard has 196 SO in 159 games. Mark Reynolds is legendary.

Then again, Howard had 199 last year in 144 games, so...

Then again, Howard had 199 last year in 144 games, so...

Yeah, but Citizens inflates batters' numbers....

Yeah, but Citizens inflates batters' numbers....

So we can safely conclude that Ryan Howard would strike out 347 times in a full season's worth of play at 1997 Coors Field.

Watching Reynolds bat during a cold streak is painful. He swings so hard, and at such a distance away from the ball, that one wonders if he hasn't gotten lost in some sort of very small rip in the time/space continuum. Painful.

Someone was bound to strike out 200 times sooner or later. Reynolds, Howard, and Dunn should be battling each other for this record every year for the next several seasons at least.

Way to whiff, Mark!

Myself, I think the totals put up by Howard and Dunn are more impressive than those by Bonds, Reynolds, Deer, Greg Vaughn and other RHH strikeout mavens. They're doing it while having the platoon advantage for the majority of their at-bats.

What would top them all is for a switch-hitter to lead the list.

Well, it was a different era, and the totals weren't as high....but Mickey Mantle has the following seasonal ranks in K's

Strikeouts
1951 AL-74-3
1952 AL-111-1
1953 AL-90-2
1954 AL-107-1
1955 AL-97-3
1956 AL-99-3
1958 AL-120-1
1959 AL-126-1
1960 AL-125-1
1961 AL-112-3
1967 AL-113-7
Car-1710-16

Mark Reynolds is everything that I thought Russel Branyan was going to be

Dunn's actually cut down on the K's, at least a little; 165 last year, and 160 so far this year. He's not Joe Sewell or anything, but it's still 30-35 K's short of 200.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit I had no idea Reynolds was even a candidate to break this record until yesterday.

Why didn't we see anyone striking out at these levels many years ago? I understand that the game has changed to make overall K levels higher, but one would think there would be a few individuals who just ripped away. Was the aversion to K's so great that players like that simply didn't get a chance, even if they could have been productive? Did players like Mantle who swung extremely hard still make a concerted effort to cut down their swings with 2 strikes, in a way that players today do not? Were pitchers simply unable to strike as many players out, because they didn't throw as hard or have as sharp breaking stuff (but again, one would think there'd be a few pitchers who had "modern-day" stuff and managed modern K rates)? Did pitchers not try to get as many strikeouts, because they were harder to come by?

When he retired, Mantle had a 220-K edge in career Ks (15% higher than E. Matthews). He broke Ruth's 40-year-old record when he was 32, and wasn't passed until Stargell 14 years later (and then Reggie obliterated everyone).

I didn't know about Reynolds either. He may not be good enough to keep competing for the K record.

Reynolds, Howard, and Dunn should be battling each other for this record every year for the next several seasons at least.

And Cust. He's at 192 right now, which gives an outside chance of 200 if he can manage a particularly horrid weekend.

Were pitchers simply unable to strike as many players out, because they didn't throw as hard or have as sharp breaking stuff (but again, one would think there'd be a few pitchers who had "modern-day" stuff and managed modern K rates)? Did pitchers not try to get as many strikeouts, because they were harder to come by?

I think modern bullpens have something to do with it. Pitchers back in the day had plenty of stuff, but they were expected to finish what they started, and the stuff probably wasn't quite as good in the 8th and 9th inning when the hitters were seeing it for the fourth time. Also, when every lineup had two or three hitters (plus the pitcher's spot) who really couldn't hurt you, why not let them put it in play?

Reynolds, Howard, and Dunn should be battling each other for this record every year for the next several seasons at least.


And Cust. He's at 192 right now, which gives an outside chance of 200 if he can manage a particularly horrid weekend.

Wow. I had no idea. It just seems crazy that we could have 3 players strike out 200 times this season. And none of them are even Adam Dunn! Wasn't it just five or six years ago that players were being benched (I think one of them was Jose Hernandez?) during the final weekend of the season to make sure they wouldn't break Bobby Bonds record? And now we've had four different players and six total seasons of over 190 K's in the last five years. Just wow...

I think modern bullpens have something to do with it. Pitchers back in the day had plenty of stuff, but they were expected to finish what they started, and the stuff probably wasn't quite as good in the 8th and 9th inning when the hitters were seeing it for the fourth time. Also, when every lineup had two or three hitters (plus the pitcher's spot) who really couldn't hurt you, why not let them put it in play?

This is pretty accurate.

I think the distinctly more liberal reliance on short pitching stints, from both starters and relievers, is the biggest issue. A pitcher who expects to pitch a longer stint is focused on efficient disposal of plate appearances in a way that modern pitchers aren't. Along with that, my subjective observation over 40-plus years is that the typical pitcher a few decades ago relied more on offspeed stuff than the modern guys do; high-end velocity hasn't much increased, but the reliance upon it has.

Moreover, the culture of shame around strikeouts for batters has dramatically changed. Yes, just a few years ago a manager was benching his player rather than have him break the strikeout record. In previous eras, many hitters simply weren't given the opportunity to play full time unless and until they reduced their strikeout rates; there was an attention to it (almost certainly overblown and misplaced) that no longer prevails.

The thing about Cust is that's he's also drawn 108 walks. That's 300 times he's come to the plate this season and not put bat on ball. 302, actually, because he's been plunked twice.

The thing about Cust is that's he's also drawn 108 walks. That's 300 times he's come to the plate this season and not put bat on ball. 302, actually, because he's been plunked twice.

None of which makes him a bad offensive player; he's a very good run producer. As a fan, my subjective preference is for fewer walks and far fewer strikeouts that we see nowdays, but the notion that high strikeout rates are necessarily good for pitchers/bad for hitters isn't valid.

I like that Reynolds is taking it like a man, no Jose Hernandez style jaking it here.

high-end velocity hasn't much increased, but the reliance upon it has.

Depending on how you mean this, I'm not sure I agree. While there appears to be a basic physical limitation on just how high a velocity can be reached while anchoring one foot on the rubber, I think there are many more pitchers that can and often do top 95 than there were 40-50 years ago. Of course there is more reliance on this velocity because they CAN rely on it. I have nothing to back that up. Just my impression. Maybe this added velocity is just available because nobody has to pace themselves any more...either starters or relievers. But I would also guess just like everything else, where modern athletes can run faster, jump higher, etc etc....there should be MORE pitchers who can reach maximum velocity than in past decades, due to better health, conditioning, training, etc, etc.

I like that Reynolds is taking it like a man, no Jose Hernandez style jaking it here.

I said in the other thread yesterday that he has been standup the whole season. I've been a big Mark Reynolds fan since I first started following him in Lancaster. He's a frustrating guy to watch and root for as a player sometimes, but he is a quality individual who DOES have talent. I truly hope he can somehow find a way to make more contact without giving up his power. I hope he has a long career.

Reynolds also has the most errors (33) in baseball, with a huge 10 error lead on second place (Edwin Encarnacion 23).

If only he hit into more GIDP, he'd win the triple crown.

Reynolds also has the most errors (33) in baseball, with a huge 10 error lead on second place (Edwin Encarnacion 23).

If only he hit into more GIDP, he'd win the triple crown.

Hey, it got Joe Gordon an MVP.

While there appears to be a basic physical limitation on just how high a velocity can be reached while anchoring one foot on the rubber, I think there are many more pitchers that can and often do top 95 than there were 40-50 years ago.

Well, of course there are more, simply because there are more that are able to based on how they're typically deployed -- and because of the way they're typically deployed, the big-hard-thrower is more commonly deployed than he used to be. It works both ways, but still it doesn't mean that top-end fastballs are any harder now than they were 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. That a batter sees more top-end fastballs in a season nowdays, of course, no question.

Of course there is more reliance on this velocity because they CAN rely on it. I have nothing to back that up. Just my impression.

I'm not sure what you mean by "they CAN rely on it," but I don't think we disagree.

Maybe this added velocity is just available because nobody has to pace themselves any more...either starters or relievers.

That's my theory.

But I would also guess just like everything else, where modern athletes can run faster, jump higher, etc etc....there should be MORE pitchers who can reach maximum velocity than in past decades, due to better health, conditioning, training, etc, etc.

Oh, no doubt, conditioning/training/nutrition etc. (including steroid use, about which there's absolutely no reason to suppose has helped pitchers any less than it's helped batters) has increased top-end fastball velocity in recent decades. But I would put that in the category of small explanations for the increase in strikeout rates. The fact that the 90th %ile fastball might have climbed from 95 to 97, or whatever it is, over the past 30 years, is far less of an explanation for higher strikeout rates than the fact that more fastballs are being thrown, regardless of their velocity.

It also seems possible to me that more of the pitchers who threw with the highest velocity stayed in the minors decades ago, because promotion decisions were made differently. Today, there are lots of Ambiorix Burgoses and Jorge Julios, who throw hard but without much control, and get tossed into the major leagues, while some minor league control artists put up good numbers but without good peripherals; these pitchers might have made the major leagues back then, and--who knows?--might have had success. It's known (thought?) now that a pitcher must have a high strikeout rate to be successful in the major leagues, so that trumps everything else for prospects. I think that is usually true, especiall in today's style of play. It might have been less true under past styles of play.

[I changed "league" to "leagues," correcting a typo, which I mention because I considered leaving it so that someone could ask "what about the National League?"]

I think the distinctly more liberal reliance on short pitching stints, from both starters and relievers, is the biggest issue.

(in explaining higher Ks)

I don't really. There are obvious chicken-and-egg issues, but I think the change is mainly a sea-change in batter strategy -- swinging harder (and maybe loftier) to get more power at the cost of strikeouts. If anything, I'd guess that the move to short pitcher stints, probably especially for relievers, is a reaction to that -- though that is such a long-term trend I'm probably stretching it there. Anyway, a few on-contact numbers (all for the NL to avoid DH change) ... BA and SLG on-contact, AB per K:

1955 297/468 7.7
1965 302/453 5.7
1975 302/433 6.7
1985 301/446 6.2
1995 326/505 5.2
2005 324/512 5.2

That is just a huge shift in 1995. There might be a lot of reasons for that shift in batter approach -- weight training, steroids, smaller ballparks -- but if it was "better" pitching driving up Ks, why would we see substantially better production when they do hit the ball?

Anyway, in those first 4 years, we see very stable BA on-contact, some bouncing around in SLG and a lot of bouncing around in K. The 60s were a time when pitchers dominated and that's an era of high Ks without any improvement in on-contact numbers. That is probably due to the pitching. In 95 and 05, Ks increase substantially while on-contact numbers climb substantially.

As I said, it's chicken and egg at the moment -- pitchers may go for the K more because they're getting killed on-contact; or batters reacted to climbing K-rates by deciding they might as well air it out. But I'm going with a change in batter approach overall.

As to where were these guys before. You saw them occasionally -- Deer, Pedro Munoz, Dave Hostetler, a few others. Rarely could they hit well enough to keep a job because it's really hard to hit well when you K 1 per 4 AB or worse. But today's players are blowing the doors off the on-contact numbers ... but it's still hard to hit much if you're K'ing 1 per 3 (as some are these days). I'm a fairly firm believer that you can't K more than about 3 per 10 AB and be a good ML hitter -- granted, Howard is making a fool of me -- because you gotta be better than Ruth on-contact to hit well.

Anyway, the point is a lot of those guys did get some sort of chance -- they generally had prodigious power.

And then there's Gary Pettis.

Walt- if you are able, would you be willing to print that same list with BABIP and SLGBIP* instead of the numbers you presented? I'm wondering if balls are more difficult to field these days or whether they are simply more difficult to keep in the field.

*- I'm not sure this even exists but it would be interesting info if anyone knows where to dig it up.

Walt- if you are able, would you be willing to print that same list with BABIP and SLGBIP*

Much too lazy but you can do it yourself easy enough with your handy windows calculator and the bb-ref league pages. That's how I did those numbers.

I'm guessing that BIP numbers haven't changed all that much and that it's mainly lots more HRs. If we had the data (maybe we do), I suspect we'd see some shift from GB to FB (which have a lower BABIP but I assume higher SLGBIP) over time that might mask "harder hit BIP" somewhat.

I have been wondering the last couple days whether an uppercut/loft swing is more conducive to striking out. Anyone know?

I have numbers for all non-pitchers (the "DH issue" is mostly a "pitchers hitting issue" rather than a league issue, and it's easier for me to weed out pitchers given the way my DB is set up) from the released Retrosheet PBP database. In-play BA/in-play SLG/AB-per-K, note that seasons prior to 1973 may not be complete:

1955 272/338/8.5
1965 274/331/6.3
1975 280/346/7.2
1985 280/351/6.6
1995 297/376/5.6
2005 295/376/5.6

The major shift in the data occurred in the 1993-1995 time frame (EDIT: except for the strikeouts, which jumped in 1986), which (perhaps not coincidentally) included a major pitching paradigm shift (shorter relief outings, mentioned in #14 above) and a significant period of labor unrest.

-- MWE

I'm guessing that BIP numbers haven't changed all that much and that it's mainly lots more HRs. If we had the data (maybe we do), I suspect we'd see some shift from GB to FB (which have a lower BABIP but I assume higher SLGBIP) over time that might mask "harder hit BIP" somewhat.

With the new stadiums and the emphasis on a few incredibly expensive seats really close to the field, hasn't foul territory become much smaller on average than it was even in the 80s?

That should improve BABIP and SLGIP by turning flyouts into harmless fouls.