I think what you’re reading addresses the final outcome of a plate appearance. But that outcome isn’t determined on a ball in play until the play is dead. So if an out is recorded, it counts the same as a K. 1/27th closer to ending the game. Putting the ball in play is not the final outcome of a plate appearance.

Mathmatically the ledger should add up. Credit the pitcher for an out, give him extra credit for getting it by strikeout, debit the hitter for an out but NOT debit him for making it by strikeout? Doesn’t make sense to me, and yet you see it all the time in saber articles, K’s don’t matter.

I say they have to and the proof is two fold. Pitchers get additional credit and BABIP tell you what that K was valued at. If my BABIP is .333 I’ve literally left 1/3 of a hit in the batters box.

Isn’t the general idea of sabermetrics to properly value an event?

Why aren’t strikeouts considered worse since your leaving the chance of a hit on the table?

No one ever says to a hitter, “Hey, strike outs aren’t that big a deal, doesn’t matter.” Everyone endeavors to put the ball in play all the time. But at the end of the game, when your team has made 27 outs (or 24), it doesn’t make any difference what those outs were.

Think of it as the lottery. Putting the ball in play is like buying a ticket and striking out is not buying a ticket. Let’s say you buy a ticket and I don’t. You have a chance at the jackpot and I can’t and won’t win a dime. But if you don’t win, what separates you from me? Neither of us has won any money.

That work for you?

and a K has no chance?

Like I said, it’s a matter of the context.

If we were talking about OBP, then an out is an out.

If we are talking about how often a hitter makes contact, then you differentiate between them.

It’s just a matter of what you wish to talk about.

If the outcome of one event has a zero percent chance of producing a hit and the outcome of a different event has a 39% chance of producing a hit, how CAN’T the first event be 39% worse than the second?

In other words how could a K NOT be worse then giving yourself a 39% chance of getting a hit?

I get what you’re saying, you’re questioning why “an out is an out.” Outs of any kind are bad, and no one can refute that, saberhead or otherwise. If an out advances a runner, then there’s a silver lining. But no matter how productive an out is, not making an out is infinately more productive.

I can put it another way. BABIP is a resultory stat. It measures what happened in the past. It’s not a predictive stat. In this scenario, Wright has a 39% chance of getting a hit if he puts the ball in play. He has a 0% chance of getting a hit if he strikes out. But if puts the ball in play and it finds a glove, whether he weakly popped out or got robbed above the yellow line, it’s an out. Same as a strikeout.

How can a K not be at least 39% worse? and yet sabermetricians claim all outs are the same?

Because an out is an out. 61% of Wrights ground and fly balls have the same result as a strike out. In the context of OBP or batting average, they are the same thing.

Now, if you want to figure out how often he makes contact, that’s another issue.

No one stat will tell you everything you need to know. Its all context.

Now, if you want to figure out how often he makes contact, that’s another issue.

No one stat will tell you everything you need to know. Its all context.

Its all just a matter of what you are looking for in context of the discussion.

In the case of OBP, you are simply measuring a batter’s ability to not make an out. In that case a K is the same as a ground out.

Like how batting average makes no distinction between a single and home run.

How can sabermettrics espouse a K to be no different than any other out when it measurably lessens your chances by whatever the BABIP of that hitter is? AND how can sabermetrics Credit the pitcher for a K and not dock the hitter?

If he’s in a slump and not making good contact, that qualifies under bad luck.