Posted by tecwrg on 5/25/2014 6:57:00 AM (view original):
Wrong.
"Possible disaster" is not the same as "assured disaster".
20.6% of the time, a plate appearance is a potential GIDP. But only 2% of the time actually results in a GIDP. The rest of the outcomes are either neutral or "less negative" than a strikeout.
Using your logic, 100% of the time you get in your car to drive to work is a "possible disaster". You're still here and filling the forums with bad arguments and invalid assertions, so I'm assuming that these "possible disaster" scenarios in your car have never actually played out.
I guess to answer the question, we have to know what the question is.
You say: Players strikeout too much.
I say: It really doesn't matter. As long as the player is otherwise productive (OBP or SLG), an out is an out.
You say: Some outs can be productive.
I say: Yep. And some can be disasters.
At this point, to me anyway, the question becomes: Should players alter their approach to reduce strikeouts?
Ignoring a lot of very important stuff, like the possible reduction in power and BABIP from a contact oriented approach, I think it's important to look at the possibilities of more/less outs in play.
If we are going to look at what happens when more outs are made in play, we need to evaluate base/out states prior to the play. Yes, GIDP only happened on 2% of the plate appearances last season but if we're talking about a change in approach that leads to more outs in play, we need to look at total opportunities for GIDP and compare that with total opportunities for productive outs to see which approach is most beneficial.