In Bill James' epic series on this year's Hall of Fame ballot -- today he posted the third part of the four part series (subscription required) -- he makes a statement that is a little bit different from what I had heard before. He wrote this: "500 walks, according to people who study this, have almost the same value as 325 singles."
I suppose I HAVE heard things along this line -- I have heard, for instance, that, walks are worth .6 or .7 of a hit, and this is really just a different mathematical way of showing the same thing. But I had never quite heard the conversion rate put plainly like that: 500 walks = 325 singles. When it is put plainly like that, I think it makes a lot of sense. Ask yourself this: When is a single significantly better than a walk? Or maybe it's better to first ask: When is a single NO BETTER than a walk.
I'd say a single is no better in these situations:
-- With nobody on base, a single and a walk are exactly the same -- no difference whatsoever.
-- If you have a runner on first who moves to second on a single -- no difference whatsoever.
-- If you have a runner on first and second, and a single loads the bases -- no difference.
-- If you have a runner on third, and a single somehow doesn't score him (infield single, maybe) -- no difference.
-- If you have the bases loaded, and a single scores one run -- no difference.
That seems to cover most of the scenarios. A single is more valuable when the baserunner can advance an extra base (going first to third, second to home, etc.) or when a runner can take a base that is not a FORCED base (scoring from third on a single, moving second to third on a single, etc.) People who have done the math on this figure that this makes singles about 35% more valuable than walks. I'd say that sounds like a good number. To be honest, my gut instinct would say that walks are closer in value to singles than that, but let's go with that equation: 500w = 325s.
The question then is: What if we allowed players, at the end of their career, to cash in 500 walks for 325 singles? This would do three basic things for their Hall of Fame case.
1. It would make their batting averages look better.
2. It would make their on-base percentages a bit worse.
3. It would add a bit to their slugging percentages.
Bill brings up this walks-for-singles credit swam in reference to John Olerud, who Bill believes is not only a viable Hall of Fame candidate but a strong one. Bill thinks that the voters really missed it when it comes to Olerud*, and he makes a strong point. The point is made stronger with the 500 for 325 trade. Olerud hit .295/.398/.465 for his career. So he is one of those players who, much of his offensive value was in how often he walked. We probably should be at the point in our baseball timeline where everyone can appreciate walks for what they are, but ieven now their value often gets lost.
So, if Olerud trades in 500 walks for 325 singles, and his batting average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage line suddenly looks like this: .324/.386/.487.
That line might look a lot better to you. Does a first baseman with a lifetime .324 batting average belong in the Hall of Fame? Well every single eligible player with a .320 batting average is in the Hall of Fame except one (min. 6000 plate appearances). The one who is not in the Hall? The great Babe Herman, who hit .324, and according to legend, fielded at about that same percentage.
In any case, Olerud is one of the rare players in baseball history who can spare 175 times on base and still maintain a healthy on-base percentage. Most of the guys on the ballot can't do it -- some (like Raul Mondesi, Benito Santiago and, believe it or not, Juan Gonzalez) literally can't do it because they did not walk 500 times in their entire careers. Others can't do it because their on-base percentages would drop to about league average. Yes, Don Mattingly's batting average would skyrocket to an impressive .338, but his on-base percentage would drop to an unimpressive .343. You need to be a certain kind of player to make the deal, a high-walk kind of player who could use a few extra batting average points to impress the voters.
One player on this year's ballot who would be helped by the trade, I think, is Edgar Martinez. It's not like Edgar's .312/.418/.515 line lacks Hall of Fame sparkle, but it seems like Martinez -- partly because he was a DH for much of his career, partly because he spent his career playing after a couple of time zones had called it a night, partly because he was overshadowed by some of the home run mashers of his era -- is still not exactly appreciated for being the historically great hitter that he was. Well, we'll get to him in a minute. Let's take a look at the 500 for 325 trade for a few of the more interesting players on the ballot, and also a special guest star:
-- Mark McGwire
Actual line: .263/.394/.588
After the trade: .300/.380/.609
Make the trade: Absolutely
Mark McGwire did two things remarkably well in his career.* He hit home runs. And he drew walks. The first thing everyone knows about, and it now largely discounted because of his steroid admission. The walking part, though, has been largely overlooked. McGwire -- and, hey, I've been guilty of this too -- has a low batting career average which makes him seem like a one-trick pony, a Kingman for the Selig Era. But he walked more than 1,300 times and so his .394 on-base percentage actually ranks him 10th out of the 25 players in the 500-homer club, ahead of among others: Frank Robinson, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mike Schmidt and Alex Rodriguez.
So if McGwire traded in his 500 walks, his on-base percentage drops to .380 ... which is still middle of the pack among the 500-homer guys. But now he has a shiny .300 batting average so that people will stop calling him a one-dimensional offensive player.
*A few people also brought up after my Gil Meche column that McGwire walked away from a $30 million extension at the end of his career because he knew he was not worth it. This is absolutely true and McGwire should be recognized for that. BUT, I don't think it was quite like Meche. What happened was McGwire and the St. Louis Cardinals agreed verbally to a two-year, $30 million extension that McGwire did not sign. Then he had a miserable season -- he was clearly done. I assume the Cardinals would have stuck to their word if McGwire demanded the contract be drawn up, but frankly had McGwire signed the extension then he would have been widely ripped and it would have created quite a scene and it would have led to two years of general ugliness. He gracefully stepped off the stage, but that's not the same thing. What Meche did -- retiring with $12.4 million still DUE to him -- is, best I can tell, unique in sports history.
-- Rafael Palmeiro
Actual line: .288/.371/.515
After the trade: .310/.361/.528
Make the trade: Probably not.
Palmeiro's Hall of Fame problem is not his numbers. It is his positive steroid test and his lack of a great peak. He could make the trade and get his average over 300, but then his on-base percentage drops some, and I don't think it would change the perception of him at all. Everyone knows Palmeiro was a good hitter.
-- Fred McGriff
Actual line: .284/.377/.509
After the trade: .310/.366/.527
Make trade: Yes.
McGriff's rate numbers are almost identical to Palmeiro's. The problem with McGriff's Hall of Fame resume is that:
(1) He didn't QUITE last long to reach the magic numbers Palmeiro reached of 3,000 hits (he had 2,490) or 500 homers (he had 493).
(2) Though he has never been connected to PEDs, his numbers have sort of gotten lost in the post Selig Era jadedness.
McGriff walked more than Palmeiro and so can afford to make the trade a bit more. But more to the point, he needs something to jolt people, he needs the voters to take a harder look at him. While no one doubts Palmeiro's number case, people have never quite warmed to McGriff's number case. If he makes the trade, he has a glittery .310 batting for everyone to appreciate while his .366 on-base percentage is still better than average. I'd say he should do it.
-- Jeff Bagwell
Actual line: .297/.408/.540
After the trade: .325/.396/.558
Make the trade: Sure, why not?
Bagwell's actual .408 on-base percentage should blow away the voters ... but it really doesn't. Cash in a few walks, and his on-base percentage still stays around .400, but now his batting average is .325 and that his hard to ignore.
-- Dale Murphy
Actual line: .265/.346/.469
After the trade: .294/.333/.490
Make the trade: No.
It doesn't help the Murph's case at all.
-- Harold Baines
Actual line: .289/.356/.465
After the trade: .312/.345/.482
Make the trade: Probably
It doesn't matter how you shift Harold Baines numbers ... it keeps coming up "Professional hitter." The trade would give Baines a .300 batting average, but it would drop his on-base percentage to just above league average. Eh, make the deal.
-- Larry Walker
Actual line: .313/.400/.565
After the trade: .344/.387/.585
Make the trade: Yes.
Walker's numbers are downplayed because of Coors Field. And that's fair. But are people making TOO BIG an adjustment? His 140 OPS+ suggests he was a superior player, and OPS+ takes into account both the hitting joys of Coors Field AND the big numbers of his era. If he makes the deal his on-base percentage stays quite high. But now he's stuffing a .344 batting average at you -- that's TED WILLIAMS batting average.* Sure, cash in those 500 walks.
*Speaking of Williams, no player in baseball history is more fit to make the 500 walks for 325 hits trade than Williams. His .482 career on-base percentage, in addition to looking like a misprint, is the best in baseball history. He can easily give away a few walks to pick up a few singles, and I have little doubt that he would have loved to do that.
In fact, Williams' walk total is so high that he is actually in position to cash in ONE THOUSAND WALKS. For that, he would get 650 singles. His on-base percentage would then drop to .462, which would move him into second place behind Babe Ruth (third behind John McGraw if you want to count his 1890s numbers).
But his batting average would jump up to .395, and his slugging percentage would soar to .662. Yes, I think he'd make that deal.
-- Dave Parker
Actual line: .290/.339/.471
After the trade: .314/.327/.488
Make the trade: Probably
He is off the ballot, so it doesn't really matter. And making this trade would make his already suspect on-base percentage drop below league average. But Andre Dawson made it with a .323 career on-base percentage so I think Parker would make the deal and trumpet the impressive-looking .314 batting average.
-- Edgar Martinez
Actual line: .312/.418/.515
After the trade: .341/.405/.536
Make the trade: Abso-freaking-lutely.
Edgar was so good at getting on base that he could just give away 175 times on base and STILL keep his on-base percentage above .400. His batting average would soar up to .341, and people might finally realize that when it came to hitting a baseball very hard, very often there are not many people in baseball history better than Edgar.
-- Don Mattingly
Actual line: .307/.358/.471
After the trade: .338/.343/.495
Make the trade: No.
It would be nice for Mattingly to have that .338 career batting average for everyone to see. But everyone knows Mattingly was a great hitter -- the questions about his Hall of Fame candidacy come down to his longevity and positional value. Anyway, Mattingly only walked 583 times in his career. He simply doesn't half the walks to cash in.
-- Barry Larkin
Actual line: .295/.371/.444
After the trade: .323/.356/.466
Make the trade: Yes.
If Barry Larkin had a .323 batting average -- even if his on-base percentage dropped into the .350s -- he'd have been elected first ballot. And he should have been elected first ballot.
-- Alan Trammell
Actual line: .285/.352/.415
After the trade: .312/.334/.437
Make the trade: Probably not.
Bill, in his Hall of Fame breakdown, offers some statistics that suggest Trammell, while being Hall of Fame worthy, was not as good a player as Barry Larkin. Meanwhile, this WAR chart suggests that they were awfully, awfully similar. Either way, I don't think that the increase in Trammell's batting average would help his Hall of Fame case as much as it would help Larkin, especially because it would knock Trammell's on-base percentage down into barely-average levels. I do hope that when Larkin gets elected next year -- and I do believe he will get elected next year -- that people will really take a hard, hard look at Alan Trammell's career.
NOT ON THE BALLOT BONUS
-- Lou Whitaker
Actual line: .276/.363/.426
After the trade: .300/.348/.447
Make the trade: Every day and twice on Sundays.
Bill gets into some theories about why Whitaker -- who was the obvious baseball twin of his double-play partner and alter-ego Alan Trammell -- fell off the ballot his first time around while Trams has coughed and wheezed on the ballot for a few years now. He discusses and dismisses a couple of theories (the race theory, the shortstop theory) before basically settling on the fact the Whitaker was kind of a space cadet as a player. Bill's words: Space cadet.
I actually think the reason is something else. I think it simply comes down to Whitaker's .276 batting average. I am usually against oversimplifying things, but in this case I think the simple answer is probably the right one. I think a lot of people looked at Whitaker, said: "Oh, nice player, but certainly not a Hall of Famer, not hitting .276." And then they moved on. I don't think there is a more bland looking number in baseball than the .276 batting average. There are a couple of players in the Hall -- Cal Ripken and Roy Campanella -- who hit .276, but Ripken had the streak and two MVPs, and Campanella had the quote ("You gotta be a man to play baseball for a living, but you gotta have a lot of little boy in your too") and two MVPs. Mostly .276 means Richie Hebner and Greg Luzinski and Bob Cerv -- fine players but not quite Hall of Famers. And Lou Whitaker.
So, absolutely Whitaker makes this deal. It sends his batting average up to .300, his on-base percentage still stays above average, and people might come to appreciate just how good a player Lou Whitaker really was.
-- Tim Raines
Actual line: .294/.385/.425
After the trade: .319/.373/.445
Make the trade: Yes
Raines, as I and many of his other fans have written and said many times, reached base more times than Tony Gwynn in a career of almost exactly the same length. To me, that's all that really needs to be said. They are both corner outfielders and they are contemporaries. Tony Gwynn is in the Hall of Fame largely because he hit singles. Only five players since 1900 hit more singles than Gwynn. He also hit a lot of doubles (25th on the all-time list). Well, Raines mixed singles and walks and reached base even more than Gwynn ... and of course, he stole 500 more bases than Gwynn while only getting caught 21 more times. It's hard for me to see how you could think of Tony Gwynn as a Hall of Famer but not Tim Raines. And since almost EVERYBODY sees Tony Gwynn as a Hall of Famer ... well, yes, it is frustrating that it is taking people so long to appreciate just how good Tim Raines was as a player.
Maybe if he cashed in a few of his walks, he could get people to see it. Would Raines be a more viable Hall of Fame candidate with a .319 batting average even if it meant giving up some on-base percentage points? I think for many people, yes, he would be more viable. Raines, in fact, might have more to gain with the trade than anyone else on the ballot. I wish we could make this trade for him just so people could see him a bit more clearly.
Reading "Richie Hebner" in this column made me chuckle...
ReplyDeleteThis sees like an interesting exercise, and I don't disagree that a walk may be worth 0.65 singles, but...
ReplyDeletePerhaps I missed it, but if you swap 500 walks for 325 hits, shouldn't you have to account for those other 175 plate appearances somewhere?
Maybe a guy like Mattingly could just swap 100 walks for 65 singles.
ReplyDeleteI think Tim Raines is still on the ballot...
ReplyDeleteWouldn't the trade also give Baines 3,000 hits? He might benefit the most of all.
ReplyDeleteGiven the stat line differences, I think EVERY player on the list would benefit (perceptually) from this trade. Don Mattingly, for instance, is very likely in the Hall of Fame with a .338 batting average.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see a ratio of "No Difference" walks to "Difference" walks for some of these guys.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see how these guys' career OPS+ is affected. They gain more in SLG than they lose in OBP, giving them a higher overall OPS.
ReplyDeleteI'm a pretty big baseball fan, and I've never heard that quote from Roy Campanella, so I have to question how much it contributed to his candidacy. I can tell you though, that he had three MVP's, not just two (though there was some controversy over the third one). That third MVP is probably what sets him apart from the Dale Murphys and Juan Gonzalezes of the world.
@Ian: OPS+ weights OBP more than SLG, so their overall OPS+ would go down, too.
ReplyDeleteAs FBC Stephens says, the most important consideration for most voters - thus the way in which these trades may help even more than improving slash stats, is the counting stats. Whitaker gets to 2700 hits, and Williams gets to over 3,000.
ReplyDeleteTracy wrote, "Perhaps I missed it, but if you swap 500 walks for 325 hits, shouldn't you have to account for those other 175 plate appearances somewhere?"
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly certain that Bill and Joe are taking those 500 walks and trading them in for 325 singles and 175 outs. Thus why the OBP decreases with the new stat line.
As far as the singles goes - the only qualm I see is the 'error' factor. A single is usually just a single - but what about a ball that should be a single, but someone boots the ball and it ends up being a double, or scoring a run from 2nd that wouldn't normally
ReplyDeleteI think this entire line of reasoning is off the mark. It takes far more skill to actually hit the ball than it does to see four pitches out of the zone. Swapping walks for hits is ludacris. You are equating the skill of hitting to the skill of walking. Hitting should carry more accolades because it is far more difficult to do.
ReplyDeleteWhile walks have enormous benefit to a team, entry to the HOF is all about individual accomplishment. In this very article you mention that everyone (with 6000 at bats) who ever hit over .320 is in the HOF. A .320 hitter fails to get a hit 68% of the time. Hitting a baseball is one of the most difficult tasks in all of sports and those who can do it are worthy of entrance to the hall. Walking is among the easiest tasks in sports. Anybody can take a walk and conversely nobody wants to walk through the HOF see the great 'walkers' of all time.
Given the exchange of 500 BB for 325 1B + 175 outs, one's baseruns decreases.
ReplyDeleteThe equation I'm using is BR = .47H + .38D + .55T + .93HR + .33(W + HB) - ABF*(AB - H), and I'm going to use an ABF of 0.3. This was grabbed from http://www.tangotiger.net/wiki/index.php?title=Batting_Runs
I can ignore the D, T, and HR part of the equation for this scenario. The equation is now BR = 0.47H + 0.33W - 0.3(AB-H).
For 500 walks, BR = 165(0.33 * 500, AB=0 of course).
For 325 singles + 175 outs, BR = .47*325 - 0.3(500-325) = 100.25.
It is no contest, of course.
However, if Joe means that one can trade 500 walks for 325 singles without the outs, then ignore this entire post.
Murphy definitely gets better, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteInteresting what if for sure, but sadly, only a what if.
And still, to me, who is on base ahead of a batter is beyond his control, as is what happens after he hits. So for the batter alone, what he can control, a single and a walk are identical.
And, yes, based on his old lines vs. new lines, Joe is just exchanging 500 walks for 325 singles (and also AB), but not accounting the 175 missing PA. I suppose they just walked up the plate 175 times less in the alternate universe.
ReplyDelete@Ian: The Roy Campanella quote of "... and needing to have a lot of boy in you too" was mentioned quite a lot (by Joe Garagiola?) 3-4+ decades ago. Many current MLB broadcasters are more likely to quote Ozzie Smith or Kirby Puckett or that era player and think that they are going way back in time. It's just that us old farts remember stuff much better from when we were kids than what happened only 20 years ago!
ReplyDeleteYou think Eddie Gaedel would trade his walk for a hit?
ReplyDeleterman33 wrote:
ReplyDelete"Walking is among the easiest tasks in sports. Anybody can take a walk and conversely nobody wants to walk through the HOF see the great 'walkers' of all time."
I know many guys out on the softball fields who feel the same way. I just pitch junk to them, and they swing their way to easy outs.
Could this post be renamed, "Vast majority of Hall voters don't understand baseball"? Given that walks have existed for 125 years or so, you would think those in charge of enshrinement would have a better grasp of things.
ReplyDeleteHopefully a few of the borderline Hall cases will use Joe's information to help educate those that need it.
I haven't read the Bill James stuff, but let's say I grant you that an in-depth look at the numbers will show that John Olerud's stats are as good as those of some Hall members. One way to interpret this is to say (a la James) that Olerud should be in the Hall. Another is to say that there are those who are already there who shouldn't be.
ReplyDeleteOlerud was a really good player and I'm sure a great guy. He was not a Hall of Famer.
It seems like there's a big disconnect between Whitaker's choice and Murphy's choice.
ReplyDeleteWhitaker makes the trade to rebut the notion of "Oh, nice player, but certainly not a Hall of Famer, not hitting .276."
But Murphy isn't helped at all by the trade, even though his batting average jumps from .265 to .294.
In my eyes, it seems that Murphy, perhaps even more than Whitaker, would be an enormous beneficiary if you assume that voters weigh batting average heavily.
Paul T - I think you are on to something. Putting a batted ball in play opens up the realms of possibilities on the basepaths. Maybe that factors into Joe's equation, but I think there is more to it. The main reason people walk is that pitchers are afraid to throw the ball down the middle because the ball will be HIT - hard maybe. And the better your reputation for hitting it hard and often, the less you get pitched to. Except for bunts, hitters don't usually go up there swinging for singles - they are trying to drive it. They will still get singles (and even outs) a disproportionate amount of the time, but if you don't swing, you never will get a hit.
ReplyDeleteI also think there is something to the addage that hitting is contagious, as well. Walking is contagious if the pitcher is wild or the ump stinks.
You should look at Ichiro making the trade in the other direction...
ReplyDeletepaul t,
ReplyDeleteYes, a single could lead to an error, but it could also lead to a runner getting out trying to advance an extra base. No idea how often the fielding error vs. baserunning error comes into play, but it's important to remember that hits can also lead to bad outcomes for the offense.
I should also add that walks require 4 pitches, which may tire the opposing pitcher more. Additionally runners are more likely to injure themselves going from standing still to sprinting and sliding around the bases on a hit than they are just trotting from base to base on a walk.
ReplyDelete@FBC Stephens: not only Baines -- Parker, too. I think that changes them both from "Probably" to "in a heartbeat", since it makes them both first-ballot HOFers (maybe second-ballot in Baines' case, since he might've been pushed aside by Ripken/Gywnn in his first year on the ballot).
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that hitting is a refined skill, I don't necessarily agree with rman33 above when he says "anyone can take a walk". If anyone could take a walk, you would see every skinny middle infielder (or pitcher) never taking the bat off their shoulder and ringing up a .450OBA. You need to have enough talent as a hitter to keep the pitcher from throwing BP fastballs down the center of the plate. I think it's fair to say that many of the great sluggers take walks because a) pitchers are afraid to come in to them, and b) they are willing to wait to get a pitch they can drive, and c) they have enough confidence in their talent so they aren't intimidated by a two strike count. That makes their approach vastly different than the player who walks 40-50 times a year-leadoff hitter or power hitter. So, while Bill James' conversion number is interesting (and presumably statistically back-tested from a macro basis), I wonder if it accounts as well for individual players. The leadoff hitter's job is to get on base, ideally at 40% of the time. Walking is not an incidental skill, it's a key skill-it's a active pursuit rather than something passive, and, for those players, I might be inclined to give it even higher value. For the power hitter, particularly with men on base, he may be coming in to the match-up with a small bias in favor of the walk-the pitcher really doesn't want to give him anything good to hit. That leads to deeper counts, which become higher risk counts for both pitcher and batter-more three outcome counts. It also highlights just how ridiculously good a hitter like Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, and more recently Frank Thomas (in his prime), Bonds and Pujols were/are. Put a different way, if you were a leadoff man, would you trade 500 walks for 325 hits? Almost certainly not. A power hitter might-if he could guarantee that his isolated power numbers wouldn't decline (not the scenario posited here, where he would just get more singles). But the choice is more than just theoretical-it's probably a false one. A leadoff guy is looking to get on through the walk, or being able to put something in play. The selective power hitter wants to swing only when he can drive the ball. His job is to hit it hard, so he wouldn't make the trade either. If you tell both these types they must swing until they either get a hit, make an out, or strike out, it isn't clear that either of them would increase their net productivity to the team.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you claiming that other (very rare) good things can happen on a single that aren't factored in here (like errors that cause more bases to be attained), please remember that other (very rare) bad things can also happen (like baserunning errors that cause outs to occur on your single). I would think those things probably cancel each other out.
ReplyDeleteThis opens up a small can of worms. If nearly every player on the HOF ballot would look better by doing the exchange, it follows that most players already enshrined would look better as well (like Ted Williams). Doing that would effectively raise the bar as the players on the ballot would look worse by comparison. You can't give the guys on the ballot a chance to look better without giving the guys already in the same chance.
ReplyDelete{Circle me, Eddie Yost.}
ReplyDeleteSo here's what happens when you apply Joe's referenced formula (add 325 ABs, add 325 one-base-hits, and subtract 500 BBs from the players' career totals and then re-compute AVG, OBP, and SLG), to The Walking Man's totals:
Actual line: .254/.394/.371
After the 1st trade of 500 BBs: .285/.382/.398
After the 2nd trade of 500 BBs: .314/.370/.423
After the 3rd trade of 500 BBs: .341/.357/.445
In short, Yost starts to resemble a Hall-of-Famer after trading the 1st 1000 BBs for 650 singles (or a little before then).
I think most people down on McGwire because of the steroids are savvy enough to realize that 'roids inflated his walk rate and not just his homers.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, if he was hitting warning track fly balls instead of clearing the stadium, pitchers wouldn't have been so petrified of throwing to him.
He did one thing well: it just showed up in two different places.
I think walks are under appreciated in part because many times, if not most times, a walk is blamed on the pitcher. It's only when a batter battles back from 0-2 to draw a walk, or if he fouls off 5 straight pitches with 2 strikes, does he get praised for drawing a walk.
ReplyDeleteWalks seem to be more appreciated in the grand scheme of things. It's impressive if a guy walked 100 times, for example. But any given walk is not necessarily impressive because the pitcher is wild, the umpire stinks, the pitcher is pitching around the batter, and so on.
Two final points on this. Since the definition of the strike zone has changed over time, you would have to normalize the trade-off between eras, or demonstrate that the number of walks remained static (which does not appear to be true). Second, while a larger strike zone would presumably lead to fewer hits and walks, the 500/325 ratio would presumably be even less true, because the hitter would probably have to swing at more pitches at the margins of the (enlarged" strike zone). Those probably aren't very good pitches to hit.
ReplyDeleteI think the speedster/slugger value difference in walks factors into people's thinking a lot when discounting, say McGwire's walks. A McGwire walk just feels more like a tie, where a Rickey H. walk feels like a win. Also, I think nearly every player benefits from the 500-325 trade perception-wise, because batting average is still just a lot shinier than OBA.
ReplyDeleteAs for actual relative value, I think the one thing that walks have over swinging the bat is a degree of certainty. A not-particularly-close ball 4 is the most sure thing a batter can. Granted, that doesn't happen too often, but probably more often than a major league pitcher offering up a pitch you can "almost definitely" get a hit off of. You still have to hit it where they ain't.
I would say most power hitters (like McGwire) draw walks more often because they're being pitched-around, rather than them having a superior eye (not that McGwire didn't have a superior eye, just that most of his walks were due to being pitched around). So, what if he weren't pitched around? What if we neutralized all hitters to average plate discipline? The average walks per 500 official at-bats last year was 48. Then, if we took their double rate, triple rate, and HR rate they would've had, that might be a better judge of how good they were.
ReplyDeleteIf we do this for McGwire, his 1317 walks would turn into 720. In those extra 597 at-bats, we could expect his AVG to be the same (.263). He would have 157 extra hits, 24 doubles, 1 triple, and 56 more HR, boosting him to 639 HR. Essentially, it would add another great season to his career. This wouldn't alter his AVG (.263) or SLG (.588) at all, but it would significantly boost his counting stats, though he would still 'only' have 1783 career hits.
It would be interesting to see if someone could do this to everyone's careers. You'd have to think it would have a big effect on a guy like Ted Williams.
rman33, it's important to note that Joe is not swapping hits for walks directly, but rather at an exchange rate of 500 walks for 375 singles. There's no question that a single is more valuable than a walk, and indeed Bill James (and others) can tell you with a great deal of precision exactly how much more valuable it is.
ReplyDeleteAs others have pointed out, also, drawing walks actually does take a considerable amount of skill, or else punch-and-judy middle infielders would all have .400 OBPs. A player like Ricky Henderson or Todd Helton, on the other hand, is skilled at drawing walks - at fouling pitches off, at reading the ball quickly so he could decide whether to swing or not, at being patient enough to work the count. Those skills are related to being a good hitter, period, but they're also particularly important to someone trying to draw a walk. Not every player has that skill.
The point of Joe's post (it seems to me, anyway) isn't to discuss whether walks or singles are better, but rather to point out that walks are still, in many ways, undervalued. Why? Because we forget how walks and hits show up in statistics, because we're still more wowed by .323/.356/.466 than we are by .295/.371/.444, even though those two lines are pretty close to identical in terms of value.
If you want to keep the PA constant, then you trade 500 walks for 400 singles and 100 outs. In both cases, you are at +160 runs.
ReplyDeleteKeeping PA constant, here's the tradeoffs:
ReplyDelete500 walks
400 singles
290 doubles
230 triples
180 homeruns
You have to consider how a "swap" like this can do to the HOF standards. If this same opportunity was given to those already in the HOF, then perhaps a .300 BA is no longer impressive and it would take a .320 BA to even be considered.
ReplyDeleteWillie Randolph would become a 316 hitter and still have a 354 OBP that looks ok, certainly a hall of famer.
ReplyDelete1) I'd like to see the same swap of stolen bases for doubles. Methinks that would help illuminate Raines' greatness.
ReplyDelete2) Is failure to understand the walks/singles tradeoff (rather than steroid suspicion)the decisive factor in the voters' treatment of take-and-rake players like Bagwell and Edgar? If so, we would expect Frank Thomas to fare poorly when he is eligible.
It may also explain the historical underappreciation of high walk guys like Joe Morgan and Barry Bonds, neither of whom made the 1999 All Century Team.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it would be better to trade in 325 hits for 500 walks, but it sure would be a lot more boring.
ReplyDeleteTracy's comment at top made me think about this too long this morning. I finally understood that what Joe is talking about is "relative value to the team." That's why you think about swapping 500 walks for 325 singles without adding 175 outs. What Tracy made me think about was reality for a player, who decides to get more aggressive at the plate, achieves thouse 325 singles, but at the cost of 175 outs. It's a different question, one that seems to get at whether a given player has made the optimal choice between aggressiveness and selectivity. But we can't change a player's makeup to decide if he belongs in the HOF. What we can do is examine the value he added based on the career he chose to lead. All Joe (and Bill) is trying to do is illustrate value in a different format, one that might make the traditional BWs take better note.
ReplyDeleteSorry if this was obvious to everyone else . . .
i thought people brought this up in the previous post, but Ryne Sandberg walked away from $16 million for his mid-career retirement. And the $16 for 2 years was either the highest or close to the highest salary in baseball at the time.
ReplyDeleteYou know - as much as I like Tony Gwynn, I've always had this feeling that Tim Raines was just a bit better.... nice to see that it appears someone agrees with me.
ReplyDeleteYou could do the same play on a seasonal level, but cut it somewhere... say you have the trade of 25 walks for 16 hits - yes, this undervalues the walk some.. but that's ok....
Do this with a few...
Let's take John Olerud (1993)
.363/.473/.599
trade in 100 walks for 65 hits (he gets the exact rate of exchange mentioned because he had so many)... he also gets 35 more outs...
.407/.421/.606
Of course, there'd be one season that might stand out BIG...
Barry Bonds (2004)
.362/.609/.812
trade in 225 walks for 146 singles and 79 outs
.470/.481/.751
LOL - his SLG DROPS!!! This is because the value of the trade: 146/225 is lower than his regular SLG!
I believe a walk is more valuable than a single in several situations. In a DH league where grinding the pitch count upward and getting to the soft part of the bullpen early is a significant strategy, walks with the bases empty are great, especially on the road when it helps take the fans out of the game as they lose confidence in their pitcher. On the other hand, batting in the lower part of the order and working a walk before a very poor hitter seems significantly less valuable than 0.7. Obviously, very few Hall candidates are batting in the lower part of the order, though, so this argument doesn't have as much punch in this context. It would be neat to have a stat like Fangraphs' WPA/RE24 that accounted for historical position within the lineup (#1-#9) and not just the runners/outs involved. And to consider average pitches/PA and individual achievements in different pitching eras when having the BB-for-singles value conversation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI had assumed that Joe meant he was trading 500 walks for 325 singles and 175 outs, but if that's the case I don't see how he gets to his career numbers... In my computations I was explicitly keeping plate appearances the same so the obp was straight out plummeting - in his it appears he was not.
ReplyDeleteof course - if the exchange is made while GIVING an out that explicitly devalues the walk to a value much, much lower than 65% of a single.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I missed this in the comments...but does the trade-off affect the players OPS+? Because the OPS does increase when you make the trade. And the concept may ignore the fact that Whitaker had a good eye, and people were afraid to pitch to McGwire, resulting in two separate reasons why the walks were drawn in the first place. That being said, I love playing with the numbers and enjoy the hypotheticals...like "normalizing" Babe Ruths statistics on Baseball Reference as if he played on the 1994 Rockies.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I think there's another point that can add to your argument: guys who walk more tend to see more pitches, which wears out pitchers and helps teams win ballgames. Exhibit A is the 1996-2001 Yanks, who were a collectively patient ballclub and if I remember correctly they achieved a small amount of success.
ReplyDeleteAnd just for the record I'm a Mets fan, so if I'm saying anything nice about the Yanks then it's not out of bias.
Please check out my quick-hits sports blog, http://thekossblog.blogspot.com
Go Joe
I think Whitaker's problem was that he was a late bloomer. Whitaker took it up a notch or two in his late 20's/early '30s, but by then folks had already decided he was about the same as Willie Randolph. Dwight Evans is another example of this, whereas Jim Rice is the exact reverse.
ReplyDeleteLoren said.. "If nearly every player on the HOF ballot would look better by doing the exchange, it follows that most players already enshrined would look better as well (like Ted Williams). Doing that would effectively raise the bar as the players on the ballot would look worse by comparison. You can't give the guys on the ballot a chance to look better without giving the guys already in the same chance."
ReplyDelete...I think you might be missing Joe's point here. The 500w for 325s exchange is being made under the assumption that 500w = 325s. Joe's example of the exchange isn't to say the players are somehow all the sudden better in comparison to players already in the Hall, it's to give us (and the voters, hopefully) some new perspective on just how valuable these players were. Now, perception of value and actual value are two separate things. I think what Joe is saying is that our perception of how valuable Raines, Olerud, etc. is off, and our perception of some current HOFs may be off, and this is because of statistical misconceptions that are, somehow, still going on in baseball today. In all actuality, guys like Raines and Olerud are much more equal in value to some members of the Hall, and therefore deserve serious consideration.
-The KC Eye
I can say that this is a very interesting post because there are lots of people who comment including me. I read the whole article and it is very informative. Thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeletefutures trading training