It's a micro versus macro thing. I've advocated ditching sacrifices and simply using a metric I would call BAO (Bases advanced on outs) but even when you look at the runs created formula you will see how little that contributes to runs created. When you are scoring between 800 and 1000 runs a season, manufactured runs matters little in the grand scheme of things, but when that becomes 600 to 700 then it takes on added significance. Mathematically, when you are accounting for one to two percent of value you can't literally say that all outs are equal, but the statistical significance is limited. When that starts bumping up against three and four percent then it becomes less negligible. Also, as you pointed out, not all strikeouts are created equal. An old-school saberemetrician (a oxymoron if there ever was one) would point out that the utility of making the starter expel more pitches outweighs the utility of the sacrifice (or BAO). The mathematically inclined would then come up with an advanced formula that would measure the utility of the BAO verus the extra pitch or two a pitcher may expend. That's well above my pay grade, but that would be my understanding of the theory behind saying a strikeout is as valuable as any other out.

For me, I look beyond the strikeouts into what I would call process data. I'm doing a series on fantasyfix.com now where I look at strikeouts to walks compared with the "process data" of percentage of swings on balls outside the zone (Oswing), contact rate, and swinging strike percentage (SwStr). I'm a lot more concerned with process in most of these cases. If you are striking out on a lot of full counts then you still may be a more disciplined hitter than someone that swings at the first pitch or two and puts it in play. If the key to pitching is keeping the hitter off-balanced then the same must be true against pitchers. If you fill your lineup with the same kind of hitter then attacking that lineup becomes less of a challenge. So, every lineup should have ultra contact guys that thrive on being aggressive on pitches in the zone and having hitters that wait for their pitch. That way, the pitcher has to stay on his toes because no two hitters will approach him the same way. When I see hitters with high Oswings I get really antsy. I think we have fewer of those guys than in the past but still have some. You will see occasional hitters that overcome bad process through sheer talent, but those are few and far between and they tend to be the type that cliff dive when they get into their early thirties. Josh Hamilton is a good example of this in recent seasons and Miguel Cabrera is a prime target to have that happen this year or next. If the Astros are as advanced as they claim to be then they are likely looking at process through their Pitch F/X data. That could explain why they are willing to take on certain high strikeout guys. Of course, it could also be a function of not wanting to pay top dollar for hitters, so they are more willing to accept certain flaws in search of the aggregate run production they are looking for.

Those that have known me on this board long enough have seen me talk about how complicated run production distribution. It's not simple enough to strive for 750 or 800 runs (or any other mythical number) and start looking at how those runs are distributed over the course of a season. The problem is that you would have to look at from the standpoint of how all 30 teams are distributing their runs. My perception is that we seem to have more games where score 0, 1, or 2 runs, but that perception might be a lazy one. The flip side is that we seem to explode a lot as well. The upshot is that a 6-4 win counts the same as a 13-4 win. However, when you simply look at the aggregate your offense is producing you can be fooled into thinking it is better than it is.

I am a senior writer at thefantasyfix.com and a staff writer at bigleaguesmag.com. The Hall of Fame Index is also still for sale and as relevant as ever.