Walks Are Not as Good as Hits

[Redskins Rick]

Exactly! - with the caveat that walks limit baserunners' advance to one base, except for rare occasions such as a wild pitch on ball four.

rare exceptions.

I remember once, I think it was Ricky Henderson, so you know how long ago that was.

He was on first, hitter was walked, and Ricky jogged down to 2nd, and before he got there, he turned on the burners and the pitcher wasn't paying attention, and he ended up stealing 3rd.

[malkusm]

When evaluating free agents, OBP is a better indicator of future success, since walk rate is something that is generally under a hitter's control, whereas batting average can vary quite a bit from year to year based on luck. A hitter can have a high or low BABIP and that can drastically affect how you view him.

OBP, OPS, and wOBA are less affected by luck than BA. I don't think anyone would argue that in the bottom of the 9th with someone on 2nd, you wouldn't much rather have a hit - but if you're looking at the statistics of a player, you're looking at the aggregate of all situations he was in, in which case these things are more predictive.

[malkusm]

Manny Machado .283 .314 .746

or

Chase Headley .250 .347 .747

This is comparing apples to oranges. Headley walks more (10.4% career walk rate to Machado's 4.2% rate), but he strikes out a lot more (22.6% K rate to Machado's 16.6% rate). You could go even further towards the extreme and ask if I'd rather have Mark Reynolds (11.6% walk rate, 32.3% K rate). Clearly, your K rate affects your batting average. Assuming K rate is equal, though, I'll take the guy with the higher walk rate every time, regardless of what the guy's luck was that got him to a certain BA.

[DrungoHazewood]

When evaluating free agents, OBP is a better indicator of future success, since walk rate is something that is generally under a hitter's control, whereas batting average can vary quite a bit from year to year based on luck. A hitter can have a high or low BABIP and that can drastically affect how you view him.

OBP, OPS, and wOBA are less affected by luck than BA. I don't think anyone would argue that in the bottom of the 9th with someone on 2nd, you wouldn't much rather have a hit - but if you're looking at the statistics of a player, you're looking at the aggregate of all situations he was in, in which case these things are more predictive.

And when looking at a prospect be wary of a guy with a .360 OBA and a .310 BA. Few people hit .300 in the majors, and that PCL walk rate won't hold up.

[malkusm]

This is comparing apples to oranges. Headley walks more (10.4% career walk rate to Machado's 4.2% rate), but he strikes out a lot more (22.6% K rate to Machado's 16.6% rate). You could go even further towards the extreme and ask if I'd rather have Mark Reynolds (11.6% walk rate, 32.3% K rate). Clearly, your K rate affects your batting average. Assuming K rate is equal, though, I'll take the guy with the higher walk rate every time, regardless of what the guy's luck was that got him to a certain BA.

Case in point, if you had a guy with the excellent walk rate of Mark Reynolds (11.6% BB) AND the excellent K rate of Manny Machado (16.6% K), what would that look like?

Roughly: Miguel Cabrera (11.2% BB, 16.9% K)

Now that we've made the K rate equal, the question is more fair. Would you rather have Manny Machado or Miguel Cabrera?

[harp6]

Hits and walks having value depend entirely on the situation. Obviously, over the long haul of a season, hits have more value than walks. For instance, ignoring extra base hits, if two players have .360 obp and one has a .260 avg and the other has a .320 average, the player with the .320 average has probably produced more runs over the season, because hits will typically produce some better results of moving players further around the basepaths than a walk. Where it becomes more difficult to discern is when a player has a high batting average, but below average obp (Adam Jones) vs. a player that has a low batting average with a high obp (Dunn). Trying to decide which player statistically is more valuable to a team is more challenging. I myself tend to like players that work the walk and get a high obp, but a player like Reynolds starts to annoy me.

Looking at situations where a walk may be equal to or also greater than a "hit." A team has just had two walks in a row and the pitcher is wild. I want the next hitter trying to draw a walk to further the decline of the pitcher. I can not stand when the next batter up swings at the first pitch and gets an out. It bails out the pitcher in that situation. Now obviously, if the player gets a hit, I am not going to complain and the pitcher is still on the ropes, but the potential of a first swing out is high.

Another situation where a walk is as good as a hit. The ninth inning and the team is down by 3 runs, I don't care how the runner gets on. A hit or walk are equal. Now the situation changes when the team scores a couple of runs and the tying run is on second. Now the hit can be more valuable than the walk. But if the tying run is on second in the ninth and the 9th place hitter with a .220 average is up to bat and the lead off hitter with a .310 average is on deck, I am fine with the 9th place hitter working a walk and passing the torch to the lead off hitter. Now obviously, if the ninth place batter gets the hit, then that is more valuable than the walk. But you have to look at the situation at the start of that plate appearance. As a manager, I am saying I want my on deck hitter up in the situation, so I am fine with the 9th place hitter drawing a walk to get to the better hitter. My chances of getting the game-winning hit increase if I can get to the next hitter.

But the situation changes if the tying run is on second in the ninth and my best hitter is up and there is a weak hitter following. I want the better hitter trying to get the base hit in that situation because he has the better odds of getting the game winning hit. If he walks, then the odds of getting a game winning hit decrease with the next weaker batter.

[Number5]

Hits and walks having value depend entirely on the situation. Obviously, over the long haul of a season, hits have more value than walks. For instance, ignoring extra base hits, if two players have .360 obp and one has a .260 avg and the other has a .320 average, the player with the .320 average has probably produced more runs over the season, because hits will typically produce some better results of moving players further around the basepaths than a walk. Where it becomes more difficult to discern is when a player has a high batting average, but below average obp (Adam Jones) vs. a player that has a low batting average with a high obp (Dunn). Trying to decide which player statistically is more valuable to a team is more challenging. I myself tend to like players that work the walk and get a high obp, but a player like Reynolds starts to annoy me.

Looking at situations where a walk may be equal to or also greater than a "hit." A team has just had two walks in a row and the pitcher is wild. I want the next hitter trying to draw a walk to further the decline of the pitcher. I can not stand when the next batter up swings at the first pitch and gets an out. It bails out the pitcher in that situation. Now obviously, if the player gets a hit, I am not going to complain and the pitcher is still on the ropes, but the potential of a first swing out is high.

Another situation where a walk is as good as a hit. The ninth inning and the team is down by 3 runs, I don't care how the runner gets on. A hit or walk are equal. Now the situation changes when the team scores a couple of runs and the tying run is on second. Now the hit can be more valuable than the walk. But if the tying run is on second in the ninth and the 9th place hitter with a .220 average is up to bat and the lead off hitter with a .310 average is on deck, I am fine with the 9th place hitter working a walk and passing the torch to the lead off hitter. Now obviously, if the ninth place batter gets the hit, then that is more valuable than the walk. But you have to look at the situation at the start of that plate appearance. As a manager, I am saying I want my on deck hitter up in the situation, so I am fine with the 9th place hitter drawing a walk to get to the better hitter. My chances of getting the game-winning hit increase if I can get to the next hitter.

But the situation changes if the tying run is on second in the ninth and my best hitter is up and there is a weak hitter following. I want the better hitter trying to get the base hit in that situation because he has the better odds of getting the game winning hit. If he walks, then the odds of getting a game winning hit decrease with the next weaker batter.

I hear what you are saying, but there are many cases in which I'd have to disagree with you. If the pitcher has just walked two guys, I want my next hitter - especially if he has some pop - to have a "small zone" that if the pitch comes into his wheelhouse, drive it. Remember, the pitcher at that point probably really wants to throw a strike. May be the best hitter's pitch the hitter will see all night, and you've got guys on base. This is the exact reason you will see 3-run homers in these types of situations that bust the game open. When I coached, I would call time and make a little "box" with my hands to the batter to remind him that if it is "right there" drive it, but if not, let it go.

[gpolee]

I hear what you are saying, but there are many cases in which I'd have to disagree with you. If the pitcher has just walked two guys, I want my next hitter - especially if he has some pop - to have a "small zone" that if the pitch comes into his wheelhouse, drive it. Remember, the pitcher at that point probably really wants to throw a strike. May be the best hitter's pitch the hitter will see all night, and you've got guys on base. This is the exact reason you will see 3-run homers in these types of situations that bust the game open. When I coached, I would call time and make a little "box" with my hands to the batter to remind him that if it is "right there" drive it, but if not, let it go.

If the pitcher just allowed two singles, same advice, right. Except in might be first and third, so all the batter has to do is hit a flyout to score a run. Heck, if the second hit is a double, you might have already scored a run. I am not comparing walks vs. outs, mind you.

[gpolee]

Case in point, if you had a guy with the excellent walk rate of Mark Reynolds (11.6% BB) AND the excellent K rate of Manny Machado (16.6% K), what would that look like?

Roughly: Miguel Cabrera (11.2% BB, 16.9% K)

Now that we've made the K rate equal, the question is more fair. Would you rather have Manny Machado or Miguel Cabrera?

Talk about comparing apples to oranges:p

[gpolee]

Hits and walks having value depend entirely on the situation. Obviously, over the long haul of a season, hits have more value than walks. For instance, ignoring extra base hits, if two players have .360 obp and one has a .260 avg and the other has a .320 average, the player with the .320 average has probably produced more runs over the season, because hits will typically produce some better results of moving players further around the basepaths than a walk. Where it becomes more difficult to discern is when a player has a high batting average, but below average obp (Adam Jones) vs. a player that has a low batting average with a high obp (Dunn). Trying to decide which player statistically is more valuable to a team is more challenging. I myself tend to like players that work the walk and get a high obp, but a player like Reynolds starts to annoy me.

Looking at situations where a walk may be equal to or also greater than a "hit." A team has just had two walks in a row and the pitcher is wild. I want the next hitter trying to draw a walk to further the decline of the pitcher. I can not stand when the next batter up swings at the first pitch and gets an out. It bails out the pitcher in that situation. Now obviously, if the player gets a hit, I am not going to complain and the pitcher is still on the ropes, but the potential of a first swing out is high.

Another situation where a walk is as good as a hit. The ninth inning and the team is down by 3 runs, I don't care how the runner gets on. A hit or walk are equal. Now the situation changes when the team scores a couple of runs and the tying run is on second. Now the hit can be more valuable than the walk. But if the tying run is on second in the ninth and the 9th place hitter with a .220 average is up to bat and the lead off hitter with a .310 average is on deck, I am fine with the 9th place hitter working a walk and passing the torch to the lead off hitter. Now obviously, if the ninth place batter gets the hit, then that is more valuable than the walk. But you have to look at the situation at the start of that plate appearance. As a manager, I am saying I want my on deck hitter up in the situation, so I am fine with the 9th place hitter drawing a walk to get to the better hitter. My chances of getting the game-winning hit increase if I can get to the next hitter.

But the situation changes if the tying run is on second in the ninth and my best hitter is up and there is a weak hitter following. I want the better hitter trying to get the base hit in that situation because he has the better odds of getting the game winning hit. If he walks, then the odds of getting a game winning hit decrease with the next weaker batter.

Not comparing walks to outs. I don't know why this comparison continually is made.

A walk is as good as a single when nobody is on base or when a bases-loaded walk drives in the winning run in the bottom of the ninth - that's all.

[gpolee]

This is comparing apples to oranges. Headley walks more (10.4% career walk rate to Machado's 4.2% rate), but he strikes out a lot more (22.6% K rate to Machado's 16.6% rate). You could go even further towards the extreme and ask if I'd rather have Mark Reynolds (11.6% walk rate, 32.3% K rate). Clearly, your K rate affects your batting average. Assuming K rate is equal, though, I'll take the guy with the higher walk rate every time, regardless of what the guy's luck was that got him to a certain BA.

Saying that BA is a reflection of luck insults the talent of batters. Wade Boggs was luckier than Billy Ripken? Rod Carew was luckier than Gary Pettis? There is a little bit of luck involved but talent reigns supreme. Heck, with the video replays we have now, we can see luck play out sometimes in taking BBs, too.

[gpolee]

rare exceptions.

I remember once, I think it was Ricky Henderson, so you know how long ago that was.

He was on first, hitter was walked, and Ricky jogged down to 2nd, and before he got there, he turned on the burners and the pitcher wasn't paying attention, and he ended up stealing 3rd.

Sounds like every game I attended with Rickey in a Yankers uniform and McGregor on the hill.

[gpolee]

Hits definitely have the potential to do more for you than a walk at times. Especially extra base hits.

But the problem is if you walk you have a guaranteed positive outcome, whereas if you put the ball in play you do not. Also you usually make the pitcher throw more pitches........leading to him tiring more quickly, etc.

I might want that pitcher to stay on the hill if he's allowing a bunch of hits.

[gpolee]

When evaluating free agents, OBP is a better indicator of future success, since walk rate is something that is generally under a hitter's control, whereas batting average can vary quite a bit from year to year based on luck. A hitter can have a high or low BABIP and that can drastically affect how you view him.

OBP, OPS, and wOBA are less affected by luck than BA. I don't think anyone would argue that in the bottom of the 9th with someone on 2nd, you wouldn't much rather have a hit - but if you're looking at the statistics of a player, you're looking at the aggregate of all situations he was in, in which case these things are more predictive.

I originally posted this because some wanker wrote an article claiming Justin Smoak would produce more runs than Nelson Cruz...because Smoak's OBP was 7 points higher last year - despite having a BA 30 points lower in 2013 and a career OBP 13 points lower than Cruz's. I, for one, am happier with Cruz in the lineup than Smoak. And I hope for Smoak's sake his gets the eff out of Safeco so we can see whether he will ever live up to his expectations.

[malkusm]

Saying that BA is a reflection of luck insults the talent of batters.

BA reflects luck insofar as hitters are making the same type of contact. BABIP is obviously correlated with HR rate (batting average on home runs is 1.000), and line drive rate (batting average on line drives is substantially higher than on ground balls, for example). So, all of these things being equal, you'd rather have a higher walk rate.

As to whether or not you'd "rather" have a walk or a hit, it depends on the hitter and the game situation. If you have Wade Boggs at the plate with a man on second, a walk is probably not an outcome you're thrilled about. If you have Billy Ripken up with nobody on base, you'll gladly take a walk.

My point is only that walk rate is more predictive of future success than batting average, namely because batting average is affected by so many factors, one of which is luck. I did not say BA is solely dependent on luck - clearly, that would be a silly argument.