armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

Take a Walk

18
Vote

by user LouGehrig

It is so much fun to fool around with statistics because once we have the data, we can interpret them in so many ways. Let's talk about bases on balls. Every fan who ever swung at a bad pitch when she was a kid or even a grown up knows that good hitters swing at strikes and that walking hitters is usually not good.

The 1949 New York Yankees were the first of five Yankees’ teams that won the pennant and World Series each year, a feat that had never been done before and has not been accomplished since. An examination of the 1949 Yankees’ starting pitchers is fascinating. The following table lists the four pitchers who started the majority of the Yankees’ games:

Pitcher    GS    W    L     ERA     IP              BB        SO

Raschi     37    21   10     3.34   274 2/3         138      124

Reynolds   31    17    6     4.00   213 2/3         123      105

Byrne      30    15    7     3.72    196            179      129

Lopat      30    15   10     3.26   215 1/3          69       70

TOTALS     128   68   33            899 2/3         509      428

Yankees’ starters allowed 509 walks while striking out only 428 batters. Vic Raschi, Allie Reynolds, and Tommy Byrne walked more batters than they struck out, while Eddie Lopat, struck out only one more hitter than he walked. But Raschi was 21-10, Reynolds was 17-6, Byrne was 15-7, and Lopat was 15-10. These statistics lead to the conclusion that walks have little effect on a pitcher’s won-lost record.

Okay, but today it becoming widely acknowledged that a hurler’s won-lost record involves much luck, and ERA compared to league ERA is a better measure of a pitcher’s effectiveness. Raschi (3.34), Reynolds (4.00), Byrne (3.72), and Lopat (3.26) all had respectable ERAs. Only five American League pitchers had ERA’s less than 3.00 that season. The 1949 Yankees team ERA of 3.69 was second only to the Indians’ 3.36 in a league with a 4.20 ERA.

Tommy Byrne walked an incredible 179 batters in 196 innings. That is almost one hitter per inning. He struck out only 129. Tommy Byrne walked 50 more hitters than he struck out, walked almost a hitter an inning, and yet he won 15 games, lost only 7, and had a 3.72 ERA.

Allie Reynolds was better, but not much better. He walked 123 hitters in 213 2/3 innings but struck out only 105. Allie Reynolds walked 18 more hitters that he struck out, yet he won 17 games, lost only 6, and had a 4.00 ERA, which is acceptable, but which was still below the league ERA.

Vic Raschi, the ace of the staff, walked 138 hitters in 274 2/3 innings while striking out only 124. Vic Raschi walked 14 more batters than he struck out, yet he won 21 games, lost 10, and had a 3.34 ERA.

Eddie Lopat didn’t walk many and he didn’t strike out many. In 215 1/3 innings, he walked only 69, stuck out only 70, and won 15 while losing 10 with a fine 3.26 ERA.

What can we conclude. First, walks have little effect on a pitcher’s won-lost record. Second, walks do not ruin a pitcher’s ERA. Third, walks do not lead to losses for starting pitchers. Fourth, a pitcher’s walk to strikeout ratio does not reflect his effectiveness. Finally, a pitching staff that walks more hitters than it strikes out can be successful.

More conclusions can be drawn, but the above are enough. Of course, none of the conclusions is true, but based on the data, they are valid. As Mark Twain, an American who lived a long time ago once said, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
Anonymous Fanatic #1
1065 days ago
Score 3+-
These conclusions do not hold today.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
1065 days ago
Score 4+-
I would hesitate to make any sweeping conclusions from such a small sample anyway. The Yankee defense that year was exceptionally good at turning balls in play into outs (what we would call "defensive efficiency"), meaning that when opponents did put the ball in play, it would likely be an out. They also were decent at keeping the ball in the yard, and played in a park that was second only to Cleveland Stadium in terms of pitcher-friendliness. I estimate their staff forced 1,816 ground balls and 2,463 fly balls; normally this would be a bad thing, but Yankee Stadium in that day was extremely brutal for outfield flies, especially those off the bats of right-handed hitters (402 to left, 457 to left-center power alley, 461 to center). Since 61% of batters were right-handed in that day, the dimensions of Yankee Stadium coupled with that staff's fly-ball rate significantly depressed the chances of a hit in play. All of which means that NY pitchers could afford to nibble at the corners, knowing that their defense would bail them out by stranding walked runners or catching fly balls in play. But as a general rule, you gotta miss bats and hit your spots to succeed as a pitcher -- especially in today's game.
Permalink | Reply
Anonymous Fanatic #2
1065 days ago
Score 2+-
Excellent points. It illustrates how the the game has changed. The number of strikeouts today is about double what it was in 1949, and batters swing at pitches today that those sixty years ago would usually take.
Permalink | Reply
Anonymous Fanatic #3
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
They scored fewer runs in those days, so you can say that walks don't lead to runs, but they do, especially a lead off walk.
Permalink | Reply
LouGehrigRed-Shirting
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
It' more complex than just talking about walks. There were only eight teams and the philosophy was different. Teams didn't just go for the home run. Players such as Richie Ashburn and Dale Mitchell, who didn't hit home runs, were stars.
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
Nice theory, but an exception to the rule.
Permalink | Reply
LouGehrigRed-Shirting
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
That's the point. It IS an exception, but one can do as one pleases with statistics. They must be handled more carefully than a man on a tightrope handles an egg that is not hardboiled.
Permalink | Reply
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
Statistics can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true. 87% of people know that.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
Great analogy! I know the point you tried to make, and did so very well, but curiosity asks, no mention of hits allowed or WHIP?
Permalink | Reply
LouGehrigRed-Shirting
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
They all were difficult to hit, except Lopat, who gave up more hits per innings pitched, but Lopat didn't walk many, so he was tough to score against. They all had pretty high WHIPs because they walked so many. I just found it fascinating to see how the game has changed, and I think a lot of it, more than one half, is due to the fact that hitters want to "put the ball in play," instead of trying to reach base, which is caused mainly by Earl Weaver's "go for the three run home run" philosophy.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
Wait a second... Earl Weaver's whole strategy was to not put the ball in play if you didn't have to. His entire philosophy hinged around trying to reach base -- through walks, hits, or whatever means necessary. He didn't want batters to swing at pitches they couldn't handle. He didn't want to put the ball in play and waste outs with bunts and hit-and-run tomfoolery. For the reasons I outlined above, it would be in the best interest of the '49 Yankees to let opposing hitters "put the ball in play," because they had a great defense and a very forgiving home park. Weaver teams who wait for the right pitch to hit would walk and homer all day on a staff with as little command as those Yankees.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
Exactly what AF#2 said, homeruns are the state of mind of every hitter today in every situation. Even Ruth and Williams and Mantle and Aaron down the line had .300+ batting averages, and never or almost ever struck out. Nowadays a guy hits 40 HR with 172 K's and a .250 average and everyone thinks he's great. Except those of us who know better.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
"Those of us who know better" know that, from an offensive standpoint, strikeouts are no different than any other kind of out. Sure, they don't advance runners... they also can't be turned into double plays (unless a baserunner does something stupid like get thrown out trying to steal). In the end, the lack of advancement and the lack of double plays cancel out. And "those of us who know better" know that a guy who hits .250 can be more valuable than a guy who hits .300 if the former walks his ass off and hits for power, and the latter never takes a free pass and couldn't hit it out of the infield.
Permalink
Anonymous Fanatic #4
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
Not when you consider sacrifices. I think a lot more runners advance and score on sacrifices then they do stikeouts.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
Name one .300 hitter who couldn't hit it out of the infield? From an offensive standpoint, strikeouts are drastically different than any other out, the ball is not in play. So its a wasted at bat. You're reference to a potential double play is right on, but no one goes to the plate with the intention of striking out. And if that particular batter had any skill, he would know the situation called for the ball to be hit in the air as opposed to on the ground. The point was that todays players dont know or care about situational hitting, when they leave the dugout hitting a homer is all that is on their mind, and are probably disappointed with a single. And a .250 hitter who walks alot has little or no value, because in most cases they have no speed and advance only at the discretion of the hitters behind him.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
Okay, so Juan Pierre sometimes can hit it out of the infield. If it's a full moon and he's got a good tailwind. I'm guessing you think Pierre is a more valuable player than Adam Dunn. In which case there really is no point in arguing with you. You're too far gone!
Permalink
Bball3345Draft Pick
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
The "slow players w/ high OBP's just clog up the bases" argument makes zero sense. You would rather a player get out than get on because he is slow? You would rather have a speedy guy w/ a low OBP than a slow guy w/ a high OBP?

It is a rare occurence over the course of a season that a player takes an extra base that another player could not have. Clearly, Juan Pierre would be better at taking the extra-base than Jason Giambi, but such instances are too unlikely to make a difference. Any runner on base is a good runner. Give me the slow guy with the high OBP any day.

Also, why do you assume that a .250 player who walks a lot is slow?
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
Of course not, but wouldn't Adam Dunn be MORE valuable if he cut his strikeouts in half? And I would like to know your sources in reference to Earl Weaver's managerial strategy.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
How about Weaver On Strategy -- "Your most precious possessions on offense are your 27 outs"; "If you play for one run, that's all you'll get"; "The easiest way around the bases is with one swing of the bat"; etc. He hated to bunt, steal, and hit-and-run. He preached waiting for the right pitch -- the Weaver O's frequently led the AL in walks in the 1970's. Plate patience and home runs were the cornerstones of Weaver baseball. Not sure why I need to source this stuff...
Permalink
Bball3345Draft Pick
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
No Dunn probably wouldn't. If he cut his K's in half A.) He would probably ground into more double plays and B.) He would probably hit fewer HRs, which would kill his value. Dunn swings for the fences, which results in a ton of HRs. As a result, he wiffs a lot. Dunn still walks over 100 times/ year, so I wouldn't say he has a bad eye. K's are the result of hitting HRs and I would not trade a decrease in K's for a decrease in HRs. Especially since K's are not any more harmful to a team than any other out.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
In the 18 years Weaver managed the Orioles they finished in the top six teams in sacrifices eight times and had only four seasons in which they finished in the bottom three teams. The '69, '70, and '71 teams were arguably in the top teams ever and finished second, fourth and second in sacrifices. And Don Buford, the #2 hitter for those teams, was one of the best hit and run hitters in the AL. NOT stealing or using the hit and run is playing for one run, utilizing them is not. I am familiar with his book and what he said, and appreciate you bringing the subject up again but you misunderstand his point. His first 15 seasons he had 11 teams win 90 games or more and five win 100 or more, no team can win that many without utilizing all aspects of offensive strategy, bunting, stealing and hit and run included.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
"I hated playing for one run," Weaver said recently. "But I didn't always take my own advice. I never bunted with Frank Robinson or Boog Powell or Eddie Murray at the plate, of course. But I did it with [Mark] Belanger and [Paul] Blair, two real good players. I think I bunted them too much."

Every manager (even those under Billy Beane) bunts, steals, and calls the hit-and-run from time to time. If it's late in the game and you're out of choices, sometimes you have to execute those strategies. But it doesn't mean that you have to like it. :)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say: "NOT stealing or using the hit and run is playing for one run, utilizing them is not." Are you saying that waiting for 3-run homers is a one-run strategy, and that sacrifices, etc. lead to big innings? Was Weaver wrong? I promise I'm not being a smartass or anything, I sincerely want you to expand on that comment, that's all...
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
I'm not taking this as an argument or being a smart-ass, on the contrary, what makes baseball different than any other sport is its history, it complexity in how its played, and each persons beliefs and understanding of such. So I'm enjoying this topic big time.

In the years the Orioles had top three finishes they had players capable of executing these fundamentals, and in the years they had bottom three finishes they didnt. It doesnt get any simpler than that. When a runner is on first, and steals second, he can score without a hit. When a runner is on first and doesnt steal, he can't. If a runner on first moves to third on a hit and run, now its first and third. So now its conceivable TWO runs can score without a hit. Playing stationary baseball almost never results in a multiple run inning unless the batter does hit a homerun, and in any lineup there are maybe two or three guys who are legitimate homerun threats. So in the innings they dont hit, how else would a multiple inning result?

Weaver may not have preferred to use these fundamentals, but the stats show he not only used them, he did so frequently and successfully.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
Good, I'm glad we're not in an argument here, but rather a "disussion". :)

Okay, quick, what's the MLB success rate on hit-and-run plays? 35-40%? Let's call it 37.5%. So on 37.5% of the instances a hit-and-run was called with a runner on first, the baserunner advanced and no double play occurred. That means on 62.5% of plays, either a fielder's choice resulted (no advancement) or they got doubled off. Let's say the hit-and-run cuts the expected DP% in half, so guys get doubled off only 6.5% of the time, and a FC occurs 56% of the time. Okay, so what about the advancement scenarios? Let's say managers only hit-and-run with batters who have a .285 average or better, so the odds that the runner advanced and the batter got on with a hit is 28.5%. That means the other 9 percent of successes resulted in a runner on second, but also in an out. Oh, and on what fraction of the 28.5% do runners take third base? About 33% of the times a hit lands in the outfield, so we'll say 9.4% of the time. So, to recap:

Hit-and-run results
---------------------
Double Play	 6.5%
No DP, no Adv.	56.0%
Advancement+out	 9.0%
Hit + Adv.	19.1%
Took third	 9.4%
---------------------

If our manager is calling the hit-and-run with no outs and a runner on first, we can re-write this as:

Hit-and-run results
---------------------
0 on, 2 out	 6.5%
1B, 1 out	56.0%
2B, 1 out	 9.0%
2B & 1B, 0 out	19.1%
3B & 1B, 0 out	 9.4%
---------------------

Almost there... Now, you want to know whether or not the hit-and-run is good for big innings (vs. non-intervention by the manager). At the start of an inning, the probability of scoring 2 or more runs is 13.8%. With nobody out and a man on first (our situation before the manager hits and runs), it's 26.1%. Let's assign probabilities of big (2+ run) innings to each of our scenarios after the hit-and-run:

Probability of 2+ runs
---------------------
0 on, 2 out	 2.5%
1B, 1 out	16.1%
2B, 1 out	17.5%
2B & 1B, 0 out	42.1%
3B & 1B, 0 out	45.9%
---------------------
Now we can combine the frequency of getting to each state from our hit-and-run (chart 1) with the probability of a big inning once we get to each state by multiplying the two values and adding. The resultant probability of a big inning from our hit-and-run: 23.1%. Remember, if we did nothing it would be 26.1%. It's close enough that it would make sense in late innings (or even if your batter was better than .285), but on average it seems to lower our chances of a big inning.
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
Oh, I forgot to say that you can find those probabilities of scoring each number of run in an inning by base-out situation here.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
BBall, that makes no sense at all. If Dunn cut his strikeouts in half, he would put 96 MORE balls in play. Yes, he may hit into a few more double plays, but he would hit more homers, not less. And would certainly drive in more runs. So his value would then increase. And K's are NOT a result of hitting homers, they are a result of TRYING to hit homers, and of having a poor knowledge of hitting in general. You can have a good eye but still have little understanding of HOW to hit.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
I think what he's saying is that Jerry Narron can't just come up to Dunn one day and say, "Hey, Adam? You know, Wayne Krivsky and I were talking the other day, and we both think it'd be nice if you could, oh I don't know, maybe try to strike out less... mkay? Thanks, Adam. We really appreciate it." Asking Adam Dunn to strike out less would require Adam Dunn to change his entire game. You couldn't expect him to have exactly the same (or better) production, except with 194 more balls in play. It would require a radically different approach at the dish, which might cause him to actually produce fewer runs. When you've got a guy whose got as much offensive value as Dunn, it's probably best not to mess with a good thing...
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
I mean, "who's got" as much value as Dunn. I hate that we can't edit comments. :)
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
1064 days ago
Score 0+-
And on that note, I'm calling it a night!
Permalink
Bball3345Draft Pick
1064 days ago
Score 1+-
Yes, that was what I was saying. It would be dumb to ask Dunn to change his entire approach at the plate. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
1063 days ago
Score 0+-
You are both correct. "Asking" Dunn to change his approach wouldn't be an appropriate subject for Narron or anyone else. The choice to change his approach should come from Dunn himself. And I would venture a guess if you were to ask him if he was happy or satisfied with his numbers I doubt he answer would be affirmative. And for the record, Dunn was responsible for 14.8% of the Reds runs last season, Pierre for 16.9% of the Cubs runs. So I guess each of us has their own definition of value.
Permalink | Reply
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free


Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Take_a_Walk"

This page was last modified 15:35, 27 January 2007. Content is available under the GFDL.

Contribute

ArmchairGM's pages can be edited.
Is this page incomplete? Is there anything wrong?
Change it!

Edit this page Discuss this page Page history

Recent contributors to this page

The following people recently contributed to this article.

Embed this on your site

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise