An interesting statistical fact, at least to me, that tends to go unnoticed by statistically oriented baseball analysts is that there are benefits to hacking that at least partially offset the lower OBP that generally results. Think of it in the same vein as Opportunity Cost in the business world. Each time a batter draws a walk, he avoids making an out, but he also sacrifices the opportunity to do something better than a walk, namely, get a base hit, and more importantly, extra base hits. Let's take a look at two hypothetical players:
These two players have identical batting averages of .300 and identical rates for doubles, triples and HR's per Hit. They both make 600 Plate Appearances in a season. The only difference is player A walks 100 times and Player B does not draw any walks. We will arbitrarily assign a doubles rate of 20%, triples 2% and HR's 10% of hits.
Player A ends up with a slash line of .300/.417/.462. Player B with a slash line of .300/.300/.463(the .001 difference in SLG% is due to rounding).
Player A, of course, draws 100 walks while Player B draws 0. But look at the breakdown of hits:
Player A: Hits- 150, Doubles- 30, Triples- 3 and HR's- 15, Total Bases- 231.
Player B: Hits- 180, Doubles- 36, Triples- 4, HR's- 18, Total Bases- 278.
Now, before you jump all over me on this, I am not suggesting that I would prefer Player B in my lineup. All I'm pointing out here is that the difference in offensive value here may not be a great as a lot of the less educated sabermetric enthusiasts would like you to believe.
Now, if you plug these numbers into a Runs Created formula, Player A will still come out significantly more valuable at creating runs, but consider a few other byproducts of hacking vs selectivity that may make the difference smaller:
1. Players who take more pitches and go deep into counts, tend to strike out significantly more often than players who hack for a very simple reason: You can't get to strike 3 without getting to strike 1 and strike 2 first. Strikeouts take away even more opportunity for hits and XBH's, so for an equal BABIP, you end up with a lower BA.
2. Runs Created formulas are based on the assumption that every batter in the lineup is identical, but we know they are not. AL lineups are more similar top to bottom than NL lineups, so RC formulas will tend to be more accurate in the the AL. Walks from the 7'th and 8'th spots in an NL lineup tend to die on the basepaths because the #8 and #9 hitters are less capable of advancing baserunners and/or driving them in.
3. Game situations create different values to different outcomes. A walk is less valuable with 2 outs than none. It's less valuable with runners on base than with the bases empty due to the opportunity cost of driving those runners in with a base hit or XBH. It's the reason there is such a thing as IBB's and why some RC formulas subtract for IBB's(I do not believe there is any way to account for "pitching around" a batter or an intentional unintentional walk, if you will).
Given a choice of Player A or Player B with equally effective defense, yeah, I think you have to choose Player A, but maybe there is a place for both players in a good MLB lineup. I'd just make sure Player A hits near the top of the lineup and Player B bats 6'th or 7'th.
Fantasy Tip: If you are drafting a fantasy roster, draft Player B!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice insights, DocB. Also would comment in the context of the Giants strategy and strengths:
ReplyDelete1. The Giants pitching staff strength (starters and bullpen) keeps games close. Thus scoring one or two runs early in the game is huge. Playing for a tie or one run lead late is huge. Being able to "manufacture" runs is huge. This places an emphasis on the offense to getting a runner on base, moving the runner along and bringing that one run home. Lead-off walks = critical. Big innings (XBH/HR) = less critical.
2. Speed on the bases. Walks turn into doubles. The Giants speed players have been very effective this year at stealing the base and sacrificing the runner along to score.
3. Moving the runner along/taking the extra base. Goes hand in hand with speed, but the Giants have been above average in the Bochy era (see OGC's study) in the "smart base running" category.
So overall Player A especially leading off innings (whichever inning) is very important to the Giants success.
Well, the moving along part is where player A might come up a bit short. If you have 3 batters draw walks but nobody to get a hit to drive them in, you end up with a great looking OBP but no runs to show for it.
DeleteI left out the calculations for "productive outs" and SB's for simplicity.
The Giants have always been pretty good with "productive outs", especially sac flies, and quite good at taking extra bases and avoiding getting thrown out on the basepaths, but terrible at SB's. They have been much better with SB's this year with Pagan, Blanco, Theriot...ahem....Melky and even Belt has stolen a few. The key with SB's is to get the SB's while minimizing CS, so it may be better strategy to accept fewer SB's, like in the 20-30 range but with only 2-3 CS rather than going for 40+ SB's at the cost of 20 or so CS. Pagan, in particular, has been very efficient on the basepaths.
This is EXACTLY something that I pointed out regarding Gary Brown in his last college season. I used linear weights to measure how much 5 PA of his batting line would be worth, and then compared that with 5 walks linear weights, and found that Brown did the logical things, assuming he could weight what to do: skip the walks when you can hit that well.
ReplyDeleteThese saber-wannabes forget that hits are worth a lot more than a walk, and if you hit well enough, walks are not as important.
Not that it isn't important. Ideally, you want a hitter capable of walking more than he strike outs, and more ideally, don't strike out much while walking at an above average rate. Those hitters are usually capable of getting a lot of hits.
But people forget (just like in economics), things are never ideal. Reality is a whole lot different. Sure, you want a guy who can take walks, but there are guys who hit for a lot and don't walk much (see Pablo). But he usually hits well enough to make up for that weakness on his part.
For just because a hitter don't walk does not mean that he's not a good hitter. It is that much harder for him, but there are good hitters who just can't walk much, because he's a hacker. Most teams can use hackers like that, if you spit on any hitter who isn't ideal, you shouldn't really watch baseball, you will mostly be disappointed.