[nit]None of Chipper's value comes from having more BB than SO, just having a lot of BB[/nit]

yea really, I didnt know there was any doubt

This is wrong. Striking out is bad.

Yes, but it's about the same as a regular out. If he put up the exact same numbers except he had a BABIP of 1.000 and struck out every time he made an out, his value would be pretty much the same because it's the high OBP that gives value, not the fact that he keeps his SO down.

Chipper should for sure be in..mvp caliber player on a team with 14 straight division titles is a talking point...he and smoltz were the only ones to be on most of those teams.

Its so minute its immaterial.

Still, his ability not to strike out is why his BA(and thus OBP and SLG) is so high.

Not striking out is most definitely a positive skill, people just use it incorrectly(for example : comparing 2 people with similar obp/slg and saying guy who strikes out less is better - incorrect)

I think his point was this reflects well on his plate discipline.

I think I recall that he had a cat named Shea before he had the kid, which is lol if true.

No it's not - he's not trading groudouts for strikeouts one for one. When he's "not striking out" relative to hitters with the same BB but more K, he's putting the ball in play. The value of putting the ball in play in way higher than strikeing out.

You guys are comparing SOs to other outs, but the point is that if you don't strikeout you don't make an out every time.

id vote him in

But sometimes you have a worse outcome, like GIDP or other things.

It's situational. With a guy on third and less than 2 out, a strikeout really sucks. But overall it more or less evens out.

Also, not all balls in play are made equal. There isn't much benefit to putting a ball in play if it isn't well hit. This is why actively avoiding strikeouts to make contact is bad. While you might put more balls in play, you might actually be less successful.

OK, to go back to the original comparison (Soriano vs Chipper), how much impact do you think 50 less Ks in 162 games has? Now compare that to the 50 BBs?

Besides, Chipper strikes out 92 times every 162 games. That's never going to lead the league, and it's certainly nothing to be proud of. Furthermore, he only averages 6 more walks than strikeouts. Pujols averages 21 more. Yet, Chipper averages more walks. Is Pujols better at controlling the strike zone? Well, no, not really.

Also, keep in mind that I don't thionk any advanced stats even take into account hitter strikeouts. These stats are designed to maximize correlation to team RS (and future team RS) so if including strikeouts would actually make it more predictable it would.

Yes, but the metrics do include things like singles, doubles, triples, and homeruns. These are all things that happen when you don't strikeout. What you are saying is that A roughly equals B where:

A: .307/.404/.546 with 98 BB, 92 K
B: .307/.404/.546 with 98 BB, 132 K

which is true. But if hitter A starts striking out 50 more times season he's not just going to exchange 50 fly outs and grounds outs for 50 SOs. He's going to be putting the ball in play 50 fewer times, and losing about 15 hits. Even if you assume that none of those lost hits are HR, the new player B will look something like:

A: .307/.404/.546 with 98 BB, 92 K
B: .281/.384/.513 with 98 BB, 132 K

50 points of OPS is not trivial.

No, you're assuming that the 50 balls in play are all of equal quality. This is far from true. If Player A starts swinging harder, he might strikeout 50 more times, but he also might increase the quality of his balls in play. This is how guys like Adam Dunn and Ryan Howard survive - they hit the ball harder than anyone else, and in order to do so, they swing and miss a ton. Every hitter would benefit from decreasing strikeouts and keeping the quality of every BIP, but it's not very easy to do.

let's also not forget that putting the ball in play more causes more potential errors - things that aren't reflected in the stat line.

This is a stupid ass conversation. Obv it'd be great if you could hit every ball in play or out of the yard. But its not realistic. The above adjustments to the batting line are pointless and not realistic.

I agree it's stupid, but I think it's mostly because my point isn't getting across.

I'm not saying SOs are significantly worse than other outs.

I'm not saying a hitter who strikes out a lot is a bad hitter because of course many power hitters get great returns on their aggressive approach even though it results in a lot of SOs.

I'm not saying that Chipper Jones would be a bad hitter if he swung for the fences a little more and picked up some more SOs and some more HRs.

What I am saying is that it's a mistake to look at someone like Chipper Jones and say "his K rate doesn't matter, it doesn't add to his value". It does matter because his other stats (including his ability to avoid outs) come partially from his ability to maintain power hitting stats without striking a lot. This is noteworthy. It's a skill to hit for good power and maintain a high contact rate, and it makes you better than someone who generates similar power but with more SOs and a lower OBP. This should be obvious, but I think that when someone says "strikeouts are bad" you see visions of Dusty Baker in your head and think "this guy is stupid".

absolutely he is arguably the second best switchhitter of all time behind mickey mantle his career numbers are definitely Hall of fame worthy