I've been reading and hearing a lot in the past few days about Mark Reynolds and his strikeouts being not a big deal, which I agree with (how could you not? The guy has a 131 OPS+ and 125 runs created, so it all must be working), but it does seem counter-intuitive to me to suggest that strikeouts for batters aren't important when they are important for pitchers.
The most compelling case I heard was that his strikeouts are a result of increased bat speed, which also led to more home runs (43), so asking him to cut down on his strikeouts would cut into his homers, and then he wouldn't be that good.
If you take a look at, for example, 2008 Bobby Abreu who hit only 20 home runs but struck out only 109 times while compiling a 120 OPS+ and creating 119.5 runs, it seems to me like while Reynolds is more valuable, he isn't that much more valuable. My question then is could there or is there a "break even" point between strikeouts and home runs - that is, could you say "as long as you hit X homers per plate appearance, you can strike out Y times per plate appearance"?