Strikeouts are good for the game

I stumbled upon an article how strikeouts are taking over baseball. Good, I thought. The game always can use an uptick in strikeouts. Pitchers dominating the game, which generally results in a good number of strikeouts, is a good thing.

As I started reading, I found this wasn't a pro-strikeout article at all. I could have figured when it started with a stale, tired movie reference from Bull Durham, a movie usually reserved as a "favorite" for people who have never played baseball with any type of success.

This article talks about how boring strikeouts are for the game. How they result in fewer balls in play, more pitches, less diving catches, more replays of guys walking back to the dugout, etc.

Now, if you think because I'm a former pitcher, who liked strikeouts as much as any stat, I'm biased here - you're half right. But here's the point: A pitcher dominating the game with 10+ strikeouts is just as exciting as a home run or diving catch.

The games I want to see on ESPN Classic are Roger Clemens and Kerry Wood striking out 20 batters in a game. That's boring? How about a closer coming in with the bases loaded and no outs and striking out the side? That's not exciting?

To use an analogy: Basketball players are shooting too high of a percentage. If there were more missed shots, there would be more rebounds, more fastbreak opportunities, not as many replays of a guy running down the court after a make. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Are hitters striking out too often these days? Perhaps. There's some pretty alarming stats presented in the article I'm referring to. But it's not making the game "boring." It's a compliment to the pitchers. Pitcher dominance and more strikeouts also make a game go faster, something Major League Baseball desperately needs. This article is just another example of pro-hitter propaganda by people who wouldn't know good baseball if it bit them in the backside.