All-time great hitters and strikeouts

[Angelsjunky]

@full circle has made the perhaps trolling comment several times, that Trout can't be an all-time great hitter because of how much he strikes out. This view (whether serious or not) is based on an erroneous assumption: that strikeout rates have been relatively static over the course of baseball history. This is, of course, not only un-true, but wildly untrue.

First chart: K% over MLB history:

As you can see, strikeout rates were up and down in the 19th century, then relatively stable in the first half of the 20th century, rising in the 1950s, then leveling off and rising slowly until the 2000s, when they spiked again.

To put that another way, the last sixteen seasons are the sixteen highest K% in baseball history, going back to 1871. The 17th highest is 2001, so still recent history. To get a K% not in the 1990s-present, you have to go to 30th on the list (1967).

That, in itself, takes us most of the way to disproving the basis of the "Trout can't be a great hitter because of his strikeouts" fallacy. But let's take it further.

Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle were great hitters, right? Well, let's make sure.

Babe Ruth has the highest career wRC+ (194) in baseball history (not counting the Negro Leagues; Josh Gibson was at 202). Mantle is tied with Rogers Hornsby and Mike Trout with a 170 wRC+, for 5th-7th all-time, behind only Ruth, Ted Williams (187), Barry Bonds (173), and Lou Gehrig (171).

We can look at all sorts of stats, and both Ruth and Mantle will rank among the very best of the best. Ruth is one of two players in baseball history that has an argument for greatest hitter of all time, the other being Ted Williams. But Mantle is certainly in the top 10.

Well, that must mean that Ruth and Mantle didn't strike out a lot, right? I mean, Ruth only struck out 12.5% of the time, never more than 93 times in a season. Mantle struck out at a 17.3% rate, his highest being 126. So maybe they still qualify?

But how are those rates relative to the league? Well, let's take a look. 

Here's Ruth during 1918-34, the time in which he was a full-time hitter. The green is MLB average, the black is the MLB leader, and Ruth is purple.

As you can see, Ruth was generally closer to the leader than he was to league average - and above the average in every year but one (1931), which is a strange anomaly. Furthermore, he actually led the majors twice (tied with Hack Wilson in 1933), and in two other non-qualifying years, had a higher K% than the leader.

I guess Ruth wasn't a great hitter.

Now let's look at Mantle:

As you can see, while Mantle had a higher rate (17.3) than Ruth (12.5), he was actually a bit lower relative to the leader. He only led the majors once (1954), and wa below the average twice.

Finally, let's look at Trout. I mean, with a 22.4 K% he must be close to the lead every year and be way above the average, right?

Whoops. As you can see, relative to the league leaders Trout is actually mostly lower than Ruth or Mantle. In fact, he hovered close to the average for much of his career, only going significantly above in 2014 and 2021-23. In six of his seasons--including five in a row--he was actually below league average.

Conclusion

Hopefully the above puts the silly notion to bed. Great hitters--even the truly great--come in all shapes and sizes. Some strike out a lot, others (e.g. Ted Williams) don't. But strikeouts--while they aren't pretty--don't equate with how good a hitter is. Obviously Trout would be better if he struck out less (all other factors being equal), but it may be that his high(ish) strikeout rate is the result of the approach that has made him so great. He takes a lot of pitches, goes deep into counts and waits for a ball to drive.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Angelsjunky

[Taylor]

Only a total dunce would say Trout isn't an all-time great hitter. 

[fan_since79]

Yes, he's an all-time great hitter. No question about that.

The present question though is will he continue to be great, or is the inevitable decline starting early.

[Angelsjunky]

22 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

Yes, he's an all-time great hitter. No question about that.

The present question though is will he continue to be great, or is the inevitable decline starting early.

The tragic part about the injury is that he was hitting like his old self the last couple weeks: .340/.441/.680 with a 205 wRC+ over his last 14 games (59 PA).

I think he's declining, but it at least looked like he was bouncing back somewhat.

[The Ghost of Bob Starr]

TLDR. 
as each season passes, Trout becomes less Ruthian and more Mattinglian.  

[Chuck]

8 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

@full circle has made the perhaps trolling comment several times, that Trout can't be an all-time great hitter because of how much he strikes out. This view (whether serious or not) is based on an erroneous assumption: that strikeout rates have been relatively static over the course of baseball history. This is, of course, not only un-true, but wildly untrue.

First chart: K% over MLB history:

As you can see, strikeout rates were up and down in the 19th century, then relatively stable in the first half of the 20th century, rising in the 1950s, then leveling off and rising slowly until the 2000s, when they spiked again.

To put that another way, the last sixteen seasons are the sixteen highest K% in baseball history, going back to 1871. The 17th highest is 2001, so still recent history. To get a K% not in the 1990s-present, you have to go to 30th on the list (1967).

That, in itself, takes us most of the way to disproving the basis of the "Trout can't be a great hitter because of his strikeouts" fallacy. But let's take it further.

Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle were great hitters, right? Well, let's make sure.

Babe Ruth has the highest career wRC+ (194) in baseball history (not counting the Negro Leagues; Josh Gibson was at 202). Mantle is tied with Rogers Hornsby and Mike Trout with a 170 wRC+, for 5th-7th all-time, behind only Ruth, Ted Williams (187), Barry Bonds (173), and Lou Gehrig (171).

We can look at all sorts of stats, and both Ruth and Mantle will rank among the very best of the best. Ruth is one of two players in baseball history that has an argument for greatest hitter of all time, the other being Ted Williams. But Mantle is certainly in the top 10.

Well, that must mean that Ruth and Mantle didn't strike out a lot, right? I mean, Ruth only struck out 12.5% of the time, never more than 93 times in a season. Mantle struck out at a 17.3% rate, his highest being 126. So maybe they still qualify?

But how are those rates relative to the league? Well, let's take a look. 

Here's Ruth during 1918-34, the time in which he was a full-time hitter. The green is MLB average, the black is the MLB leader, and Ruth is purple.

As you can see, Ruth was generally closer to the leader than he was to league average - and above the average in every year but one (1931), which is a strange anomaly. Furthermore, he actually led the majors twice (tied with Hack Wilson in 1933), and in two other non-qualifying years, had a higher K% than the leader.

I guess Ruth wasn't a great hitter.

Now let's look at Mantle:

As you can see, while Mantle had a higher rate (17.3) than Ruth (12.5), he was actually a bit lower relative to the leader. He only led the majors once (1954), and wa below the average twice.

Finally, let's look at Trout. I mean, with a 22.4 K% he must be close to the lead every year and be way above the average, right?

Whoops. As you can see, relative to the league leaders Trout is actually mostly lower than Ruth or Mantle. In fact, he hovered close to the average for much of his career, only going significantly above in 2014 and 2021-23. In six of his seasons--including five in a row--he was actually below league average.

Conclusion

Hopefully the above puts the silly notion to bed. Great hitters--even the truly great--come in all shapes and sizes. Some strike out a lot, others (e.g. Ted Williams) don't. But strikeouts--while they aren't pretty--don't equate with how good a hitter is. Obviously Trout would be better if he struck out less (all other factors being equal), but it may be that his high(ish) strikeout rate is the result of the approach that has made him so great. He takes a lot of pitches, goes deep into counts and waits for a ball to drive.  

Good breakdown, @Angelsjunky

[Swordsman78]

7 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

The tragic part about the injury is that he was hitting like his old self the last couple weeks: .340/.441/.680 with a 205 wRC+ over his last 14 games (59 PA).

I think he's declining, but it at least looked like he was bouncing back somewhat.

Story of our lives

[REDneck]

How do you do this shit?

Good work!

 

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by REDneck

[Dtwncbad]

Strikeouts are a problem only if they prevent the hitter from being productive overall.

The game has changed.  Many of the most productive hitters make many of their outs by strikeout.  That doesn’t make them not great.

Here is the proof.  Do you want the Angels to develop a contemporary hitter that strikes out 170 times a year?

The ONLY rational answer is “I don’t know because in todays game, there is literally no way I can know just by that number of strikeouts whether the guy stinks or would be the runaway MVP.”

[Angelsjunky]

7 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Strikeouts are a problem only if they prevent the hitter from being productive overall.

The game has changed.  Many of the most productive hitters make many of their outs by strikeout.  That doesn’t make them not great.

Here is the proof.  Do you want the Angels to develop a contemporary hitter that strikes out 170 times a year?

The ONLY rational answer is “I don’t know because in todays game, there is literally no way I can know just by that number of strikeouts whether the guy stinks or would be the runaway MVP.”

A case in point: Aaron Judge had a 25.1 K% last year, leading to 175 strikeouts. But...207 wRC+.

[Duren, Duren]

Let's look at this from a completely different angle. 

Strikeouts have had a mystique about them when they come from a great power hitter. They are somewhat expected. Part of the equation of 'swinging for the fences.' After all, a  poem about 'Mighty Casey striking out' is embedded in folklore. 

Strength against strength in the confrontation between a feared/respected hitter and the pitcher. 

But when they come from pedestrian and worse hitters strikeouts are boring for the fans. Unless you are a fan of power/savvy pitching. They slow the game down, and turn it static. 

You can tolerate strikeouts coming from hitters who have proven they are established or reputed power producers because you know that they have the best chances of hitting the long ball. Up to a point. 

In critical game situations it may be smarter to make contact and try for any kind of hit that advances the cause. Unless a home run with men on base late in a game  can quickly change the score. 

There's also a point where stubbornness and selfishness are factors. But that's the job of the manager to deal with. 

The players mentioned, Ruth, Mantle, Trout have all been worth suffering the strikeouts because they all have been successful hitting the long ball as effectively as the best in history. And even their swings and misses draw more attention from fans than from mere mortals. 

With Trout it's been tough because he's been swinging and missing pitches he's handled or taken in the past. But it's only been for half a season and he still was on a respectable power pace. So time will tell where the next phase of his career takes him. 

[Dtwncbad]

In 1974, 18 players stuck out 100 times or more.

Last year, 93 hitters stuck out 100 times or more.

It’s fine to say you don’t like watching so many strikeouts.

But it is just silly to complain that lots of strikeouts for a player is an indication of the player not being “great.”

 

[Angelsjunky]

Still waiting for @full circle's rebuttal.