wOBA, Walks, and Unlikely Similarities between Un-like Batters - Graph of the Day

by Justin Bopp on Sep 28, 2009 8:00 AM EDT in Graph of the Day Comment 21 comments

Beyond-the-gotd_medium

Click to enlarge.

One great success of the sabermetric approach to baseball, other than the growing division between bad sports journalists and people with brains, is the general public acceptance of the walk as a measurable skill and a valuable asset towards winning games. The general argument is that a walk is as good as a hit in most cases, unless there's a man on second and a place-hit in the alley would drive the runner home, or other minor caveats (like clogging the bases).

But has the love for the walk gone too far?

Do sabermatricians, stat geeks, and basement dwellers (I'm referring to both of us, here) value a player like Jack Cust, who is 11th in the Majors in walks but has an otherwise mundane wOBA (90 BB, .343 wOBA), more than a player like Ichiro Suzuki (31 BB, .371 wOBA), who never met a first-pitch he wouldn't swing at?

Of course not. Value is relative, and the pragmatic sabermatrician recognizes that all wOBA are not the same, and that walks are not necessarily the most valuable component of that. So, what is the relationship between walks and wOBA? Can two guys with the same wOBA have different value?

The short answer is obvious, and it is YES! Let's look at two cases from 2009 to date:

PLAYER	BB	wOBA
ICHIRO S.	31	0.371
N. SWISHER	90	0.371

H. RAMIREZ	57	0.417
P. FIELDER	101	0.418

In both cases, we have two players with the exact same wOBA (within .001), but vastly different walk totals. Which player, in each case, is more valuable to the team?

In the first, we have a slappy/rangy place hitter in Ichiro, and in Nick Swisher, a low average (.245 career), middling power (.459 career SLG), bad attitude guy (3-inch career mohawk). If you're looking for Swisher's dot on the chart, he's two dots up from Jack Cust in between the two clusters.

Ichiro's talent is swinging at the first pitch he likes and getting on base as quickly as possible. So quickly, in fact, that he's racked up nine 200-hit seasons in a row without earning more than 51 walks in the last seven. Swisher's talent, in addition to that sweet 'do, is working the count. He does have almost double Ichiro's strike out totals, but he is also almost doubling his yearly walk totals.

In the second case, we have a couple guys much closer on paper if not in physical appearance (could they be farther apart physically?). Hanley Ramirez and Prince Fielder both had their first action in the bigs in 2005, though Fielder had the greater time. Ramirez, so far, is a career .317/.387/.533 hitter while Fielder has a career line of .283/.379/.548.

Hanley hits for a higher average and a few less home runs, while Fielder is more reliable in working the count and mashing the ball. Their career lines are fairly close, and their 2009 wOBA are nearly identical. But that one difference, walks, can't be ignored.

So, in both test cases we have two guys with the same wOBA but each has a significantly different plate approach. Now, the questions, which I'll recruit you to see what your take on the issue is. Here goes:

Acknowledging that there are multiple ways of arriving at the same Weighted On Base Average, would you argue that there is a better way of arriving there?
The benefit of taking a walk is increased wear on the opposing pitcher's arm as well as showing your team more of what the pitcher has that night. On the other hand, the benefit of the high-average, low walk approach is the chance of batting in runs. Is that a fair trade-off? Is it possible to be both (non Pujols division)?
Aside from the obvious "he does about as well and is a MUCH better fielder and base-runner" arguments, which are admittedly hard to ignore, which would you rather have on your team?
The real root of all of this is not the value of the walk, but the value of the pitch. Do you agree that a 5-pitch hit is better than a 5-pitch walk (possible batted in run)? How many pitches does a batter have to take to make a walk more valuable than a hit? What's the least amount of pitches a batter has to take to make a walk more valuable than a 1-pitch hit?

0 recs | Comment 21 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My argument against the low-walks wOBA is consistency

Walks are very stable compared to singles during a season. It’s a more repeatable than depending on singles to get on base. Few hitters have the ability to get hits at the pace that Ichiro or Jeter do, so to get on base they need to complement hits with walks. So, that being the case, I’d prefer to have a player who draws more walks than gets more hits for his OBP component.

Marlin Maniac, a Florida Marlins blog
Check me out at Beyond the Box Score as well.

by SFiercex4 on Sep 28, 2009 9:28 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Definitely what I was going to say

I think that’s the real value of a guy who’s going to walk a lot; by and large, even when he isn’t having hits fall in (i.e., is having bad BABIP luck), he’ll still be getting on base. Swisher in 2008 is a perfect example of that, of course; hit only .251 on BIP, good for a .219 avg, but still got on base at a .332 clip, which is roughly league average. So even when he has a bad year, he isn’t killing you too much.

Brewers Baseball and other assorted nonsense (mostly the assorted nonsense) at my blog, What's a Tararrel?

by Lefti on Sep 28, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm confused

The graph says “wOBA without walks”. What does that mean exactly? Did you mean to say wOBA vs. walks?

And what does this mean: “and that walks are not necessarily the most valuable component of that.” Well, the equation itself specifically notes that each walk is the least valuable component. Or are you talking about removing walks from both the numerator and denominator?

As for the “working the count” value, the suggestion is that a player who likes to walk alot might see 4.0 pitches per at bat, while one who doesn’t will face 3.5 pitches. And so, those extra 2 pitches for the 4 at bats is enough to tire the pitcher and get the bullpen early. I suppose if you had 9 such hitters, you might be able to sell that.

by tangotiger on Sep 28, 2009 11:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The title of the graph

…is in reference to how a player like Ichiro can build the same wOBA as a player like Nick Swisher, with 60 less walks. It could be better, but should read, Same “wOBA [but] Without [the] Walks.”

"What we do in life, echoes in eternity!"

by Justin Bopp on Sep 28, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Regarding the working the count discussion:

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m suggesting. Theoretical, yes. Silly? Probably.

Read: if there was a guy who always either got on base or created an out on the first pitch he saw and we compared him with a guy that worked the count but had a much lower average, and both guys had the same wOBA, which would be more valuable?

The crux is the potential RBI vs. the additional pitches taken by a walking batter. At what point are they equal, and can they ever be? Certainly a 20-pitch walk is almost worth a run?

"What we do in life, echoes in eternity!"

by Justin Bopp on Sep 28, 2009 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

2008 Cubs are a great example of a team where everyone took a ton of pitches and you could tell just by watching how big an impact it made. They scored so many runs against 5th and 6th inning middle relievers it was crazy.

by cubsforever on Sep 28, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's also not forget that the effect is cumulative.

If a team can get to the MRs early in the first game, it changes the outlook of games 2 and 3 as well.

"What we do in life, echoes in eternity!"

by Justin Bopp on Sep 28, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the 2009 Rockies are a good example of this as well

FREE CHRIS IANNETTA

At least against LHP, I mean COME ON

by RockiesMagicNumber on Oct 9, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The question is simple, the data is there… so, speculation should take a back seat to actual answers, no?

by tangotiger on Sep 28, 2009 2:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

All Relative

I don’t know if you can make a blanket statement that holds true across the board. I think you’d have to dig into the math and quantify the relative value of a base hit .vs. a walk as well as the value of each pitch seen/taken.
As far as which one I want, I can’t really say. I’m inclined to choose the high-average players, because I don’t know that pitches seen can outweigh the value of advancing base runners plus the chance of an error. But it’s hard to speak in absolutes. It’s kind of like asking if you prefer an on-base guy or a power guy. It’s really hard to say unless you have more specifics.

Aaron Whitehead
http://whizball.blogspot.com
http://blogcritics.org

by AaronHR on Sep 28, 2009 2:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I think alot of it is team dependent. Every team should have a mix of both kinds of players. A team like the Angels that was mostly high avg has loved having a player like Abreu this year to work the count. A team like the Red Sox love having a player like Ellsbury to help balance the draw walk mentality of the Sox.

I think any good team is going to need a mix of both. Yeah you need to get players on base but a walk is not as devastating to the opposing pitcher as a line drive base hit up the gap.

by drabidea on Sep 28, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ichiro does actually see quite a few pitches-

around the same P/PA as albert pujols.

"Of course Kolby Rasmus was going deep! That’s what Kolby Rasmus does! You don’t give Kolby Rasmus second chances!" -Kolby Rasmus

by hazel on Sep 28, 2009 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

He even saw all three of these pitches:

"Of course Kolby Rasmus was going deep! That’s what Kolby Rasmus does! You don’t give Kolby Rasmus second chances!" -Kolby Rasmus

by hazel on Sep 28, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think there is a need for balance in everything

You have to get guys who will get on base and draw walks to wear the pitcher down, but you also need guys who won’t go down looking with a full count with the bases loaded. I understand the mental power of patience, but there is also a certain merit to the idea of overwhelming a pitcher/staff with the ability to strike without letting them get their head clear. If I’m looking down at Ichiro and I don’t sport a fastball in the high nineties, I know he can hit any pitch I throw in any spot in any direction. Obviously he is an exception, but with someone like Swisher, the pitcher can take solace in the fact that they can get him out with sliders and such while pitchers usually go with the fastball against Ichiro. With a hitter like Ichiro, you have to take his speed into consideration, just as you have to take Swisher’s power into consideration. Likewise with Hanley and Fielder.

I guess a huge factor is how little a player strikes out, too. Fouling pitches off has become sort of a skill, and it’s very valuable to have an Ichiro or Polanco that can foul five or six off in certain at-bats. With a guy like Cust or Dunn, the pitcher knows he can get him out if he hits his spots, despite the danger of making a mistake. I’m saying that maybe with a contact hitter that can take an offspeed pitch out of the zone and dunk it over the infielder’s heads, it’s flustering. Frankly, I’d like to have both of those types of guys in my lineup.

by Daniel Berlyn on Sep 28, 2009 4:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Just noticed that Mauer's dot was in a strange place...

and realized that its because of his lack of playing time. This might make more sense if it was wOBA vs. walk rate, or Batting Runs vs. walks. Graphing a rate against a counting stat can lead to some problems.

by lookatthosetwins on Sep 28, 2009 5:40 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs

Thanks

for labeling Yuniesky Betancourt.

by Tommy Bennett on Sep 28, 2009 11:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's really the least I could do for my Royal's Brotherhood.

"What we do in life, echoes in eternity!"

by Justin Bopp on Sep 29, 2009 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Value of a walk?

It’s implied in wOBA that the walk is the least valuable outcome of the positive outcomes in a plate appearance. (W < 1B < 2B < 3B < HR)

Isn’t the point to determine how many walks equals a single equals a double equals a triple with relation to the batter himself?

wOBA is an evaluation of individual performance, correct? Perhaps what you’re looking for is a measure of variance in performance based on BABIP and the expected impact on any other runners / RBI, GIDP, SH.

I don’t think wOBA vs walks will give you any real insight here, as a single with a man on second is clearly better than a walk with a man on second; however, wOBA captures some of that value within the expected run contribution of each walk vs the contribution of each single.

So, if you walk twice, is that equivalent to 1 single? it would take an .800 OBP to have an 800 OPS without any hits, while it would take a 400 OBP without any walks to reach an 800 OPS with only singles. Over 1000 PAs, that’s 400 singles vs 800 walks.

Based off of that simple math, you could argue that each single is worth two walks in terms of value; however, it is something less than this as wOBA captures through linear weights.

Probably the only real effect that is not measured at all would be the impact on additional pitches thrown by the pitcher.

by Trickman on Sep 29, 2009 3:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Shouldn’t the effect of additional pitches be included in wOBA somewhat, too? I’m under the impression a huge data set was used to get linear weights for each component – that is, over the course of a game, the net effect of any extra pitches are included in the runs scored in that data set. All those little factors should be included in the data that originally went into calculating linear weights, so I don’t see why a wOBA in one fashion is better or worse than a wOBA in another fashion. Maybe some team specific stuff – like if everyone on the team took a lot of walks it could potentially compound the effect from the number of pitches and get to the bullpen even faster, resulting in more runs, but again at least the average of this effect across all teams should be included in the equation.

I do think the argument that walks have less variance is interesting, though. Over 162 games with 8 or 9 regular position players that wouldn’t really bother me one way or another, but I’d be curious if that had any effect on playoff success…

by Missing Barry on Sep 29, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There would be some average impact due to that...

However, it would be a compounding effect that linear weights would not accurately be able to represent because the implication would be that multiple patient batters in a lineup would have a heavier effect than a single patient batter.

The weights simply capture how much of a run a single provides compared to a walk or a double (on average). The impact of getting to the relievers and such would be captured implicitly; however, it would not take into account the type of compounding nature that this would have for projection purposes.

Based on that, each individual would have a higher wOBA but it would be percieved as better performance from the batter rather than being attributable to additional walks from the lineup as a whole creating a better batting situation.

I wonder if including the opposing pitcher’s wOBA-against for each plate appearance might show some type of difference with relation to this to account for pitching and fielding ability of the opposing team?

by Trickman on Oct 1, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs