From: zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Overshadowed By Fate Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Hisle (walks?)
Summary: Way to go, Carl!
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:05:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucdavis.12109
Distribution: na
Organization: People Rooting For Carl Rempert, Inc. [Tate Division]

(Carl "Convert" Rempert) writes:
>Walks seem to be extremely emphasized on this newsgroup.  I have always felt
>uncomfortable with this analysis, so I decided to do some research into the
>matter.  The most prevalent idea here is that maximizing walks maximizes run
>productivity.  I think you will find the following numbers interesting.

I do find them interesting.  But there are some things I'd like to
point out.  But first - congratulations on such a fine, well-thought
out post.  I really enjoyed it, even though I consider it to be
imperfect, and hats off to you for not only questioning your own view
of the game, but that of others as well.  Most importantly, hats off
to you for doing the legwork yourself, and not believing anyone's
off-the-cuff words.  That's what makes analysis of the game work, and
what brought careful analysis to baseball.

>The numbers I'm about to give are from 1949 to 1988.  A span of 40 years.  What
>I first did take the leader in runs (AL) for each season and charted their
>position in hits and walks.  During those 40 seasons the leader in runs scored
>lead in the league in hits 18 times.   However the league leader in walks only
>lead the league in runs 9 times.  Only twice during that span did the leader
>in runs lead in walks and hits.  To take it a step further, only 7 times did
>the league leader in runs finish below 3rd in hits.  However, the leader in 
>runs finish below 3rd in walks 16 times.  The best run production team during
>this period was the 1950 Boston team, scoring 1027 runs on 1665 hits and 719
>walks.  The second best run production was the 1949 Boston team, scoring
>896 runs on 1500 hits and, get this, 835 walks.  116 more walks, 165 less hits,
>131 less runs.  This team walked more but got significantly less run 
>production.

Sure.  No one here EVER said that hits aren't important to run
scoring.  Walks are wonderful, but no one will take a walk over a well
smacked double off of the left field wall.

>In the NL, the leader in runs lead the league in hits 18 times.  They lead
>the league in walks 11 times.  4 times a team led in both walks and hits.
>Only 5 times did they finish below 3rd in hits.  15 times did the leader
>in runs finish below 3rd in walks.  The best run production was the 1953
>Brooklyn team, scoring 955 runs on 1529 hits and 655 walks.  The 2nd best
>production was the 1949 Brookly team, scoring 879 runs on 1477 hits and 
>638 walks.  Only 17 less walks but 74 less runs.

>Interesting so far?

Interesting but not really enlightening.  You're looking at the
extreme one end of a curve - those teams that scored the MOST runs in
a given season.  For that to happen, a lot of breaks are going to be
involved.  Besides, I believe what myself and several other
Kirby-bashers have been saying is that *OBP* is the key to scoring
runs, and that to get a truly great OBP, you have to take the free
bases that the pitcher is willing to give up.  It's too tough to hit
.350 every year - it's much easier to draw 80 walks and hit .280-.300.

>I did some further analysis.  I have only done the National League, but I 
>found the numbers to be interesting.
>
>The league leader in hits....
>        - lead in runs 45 % of the time.
>        - finished 1st or 2nd in runs 60% of the time.
>        - finished in the upper half of the league in runs 90% of the time.
>        - lead in OBP 50% of the time.
>        - finished 1st or 2nd in OBP 67% of the time.
>        - finished upper half of league in OBP 95% of the time.
>
>The league leader in walks....
>        - lead in runs 32% of the time.
>        - finished 1st or 2nd in runs 47% of the time.
>        - finished in the upper half in runs 82% of the time.
>        - lead in OPB 40%
>        - finished 1st or 2nd in OBP 67%.
>        - finished upper half in OBP 87% of the time.  

These numbers suggest to me that walking is about as important as I
expected - perhaps more so.  But we are still looking at the far right
of the curve.

My interest in walks versus hits is this - walks are not acquired by
hitters, in general, at the expense of hits.  Walks are acquired
instead of OUTS.  If you walk, it means pitches are out of the strike
zone.  (Or Rich Garcia is umping.)  Why make outs on those pitches,
even if you're a .350 hitter?  Hit .350, *AND* take the walks.

No one has ever suggested that a walk is superior to a hit - just that
walks are superior to sac flies, and to all other outs.

My interest in walks is in comparing players that are similar in most
areas, but walks are the main difference - say someone that hits...
.325/.360/.470 (Let's call him Kirby) and .280/.380/.480 or so.
Obviously, I'd prefer the second player.  Of course, it'd sure be nice
if he hit .325 - because then, he'd be a HOF lock.

>What this tells me is that although the ability to walk is somewhat important,
>it is far more important to be able to hit.  Hitting philosophies aside, run
>production is more directly influenced by the ability to hit than the ability
>to walk.

I don't see it as validating this premise, Carl.  Hits come in all
varieties, and this study looks at a pretty weird population - those
players that led the league in runs.  Even if further study (hint,
hint) shows your numbers to be true for say, all players within 5% of the mean
or something, I think it shows that walks are VERY important - nearly
as important as ALL hits.  

The only time I would prefer a walk to a single is with the bases
empty.  That's it.  And then, only because you KNOW the opposing
pitcher is throwing at least four pitches.




-- 
*    Gary Huckabay    * "They sent Brosius down."  "So Lansford has the job?" *
*   "A considerably   * "Yep.  And it looks like Bordick has won the 2B job." *
*  shorter fuse than  * "I guess I better make postseason plans now." "Good   *
*    Sherri Nichols." *  idea.  Call Puget Sound Airways." - GH & EG.         *