Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

The Impact of Luck, K's, and BB's on Hitters in 2010

I've been helping out  a friend that works with Little League players. Part of what we've been doing is trying to better identify the true value of players and what areas each player should be working on. This is difficult given the drastically smaller N you have to work with at that level, but there's some things you can do. One thing that the analysis emphasized (and this is true at any level) is the impact of strikeouts on performance. Specifically, we looked at how decreasing each players' strikeout rate would impact their overall performance.  It got me thinking about how this would look for MLB players.  

So I decided to take those players in 2010 that had >=400 plate appearances (n=205) and see what impact a small change in their strikeout rate would have on their overall performance (measured by wOBA). First, I calculated wOBA using Matt'scustom linear weights just to make sure the comparison would be apples to apples.  Then, I took each players' strikeout rate (K%) and decreased it by 1%.  Overall, a 1% change in K% increased a hitter's on-base percentage by .003 points, slugging by .005 points, OPS by .008 points, and wOBA by .003*.  Now, the impact of change will differ by player, since the outcome of balls in play will be different by player (i.e. players with a high percentage of home runs per balls in play will see a disproportionate increase in their OPS versus less powerful hitters).  In order to get a better sense of who would benefit the most by decreasing their K% I decided to normalize each player's statistics for 2010 by incorporating their 3-year trailing average for batting average on balls in play (BABIP).  The idea here was to strip out as much bad or good luck as possible and then compare their expected 2010 to what that season could have looked like had they decreased their K%.  Here are the players that benefited the most and least due to abnormally high or low BABIP last year: 

Screenclip_medium

Star-divide


To see all players, click here.

In and of itself, this is interesting to analyze.  Josh Hamilton was certainly aided by a high BABIP last year, but even taking his 3-year average he still would have been elite.  John Buck, not so much.  His .346 wOBA drops all the way to .295.  Aaron Hill should have had a wOBA almost 100 points higher.  And the Orioles newest boom-or-bust hitter, Mark Reynolds, should have posted a wOBA of .384 last year, even while striking out 42% of the time.  It's amazing what luck can do to a hitter.

Let's stay with Reynolds.  Now that we know how much luck impacted these hitters last year, what impact could working on K's have on a player like Reynolds?  If Reynolds managed to decrease his K% by 5 percent he would still strikeout 37% of the time--which is still staggering--but if his BABIP is normal he end up with a wOBA of .403, which would have been 10th best last year in all of baseball.  Of course, with a BABIP of .343 as opposed to .257 and 5% more balls in play that have a 52% of going for extra-bases we can see how Reynolds performance would improve.  Players with relatively low BABIP will benefit from striking out less, but nowhere near as much as those whose batted balls fall for hits.  If hitters have a relatively low BABIP their big payoff comes from walking more.  If you look at the players that did better when they increased their BB% by 5% versus those that decreased their K% by the same percentage it's clearly not the sluggers.  In fact, the correlation between extra-base hit percentage and the difference in improving wOBA due to K% vs. BB% is .88 (more XBH, greater the difference in favor of lowering K's instead of increasing BB's).  Here's the top and bottom 5 (full list viewable here):

Screenclip__1__medium

This isn't to say that hitters should ignore walks and simply put the ball in play more.  Rather, it merely illustrates that in many cases decreasing K's is more advantageous than increasing BB's.  Strategically speaking, it might make the case for some hitters to be more aggressive rather than work the count.  Reynolds is a player who has increased his BB% the past four seasons (8.9%, 10.4%,11.5%, 13.9%), but he's also increased his K% (35.2%, 37.8%, 38.6%, 42.3%).  He's also among the leaders in pitches seen over that time.  The equal jumps in BB% have not countered his increase in K%.  This suggests he may want to work more on being more aggressive in the count and worrying less about increasing his walks (his OPS on the first pitch is over 1.000) so as to avoid the pitcher's counts that lead to his K's.

Food for thought.

-----

Player data via Fangraphs and Baseball Reference

*To calculate a player's expected wOBA due to changes in BABIP I simply took their balls in play, multiplied by their 3-year average BABIP, and then multiplied that by the percentage of their hits that were singles, doubles, triples, and home runs.  For K%, I subtracted the difference of their actual K% and their new K% and added that to their balls in play.  For BB%, I took the difference of their actual BB% and their new BB% and subtracted that from their balls in play.  Rough, yes, but reasonable back of the envelope stuff.

Comment 11 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Around SB Nation

Thursday Bird Droppings

May 2012 from Camden Chat - 471 comments

Woulda Coulda Shoulda

May 2012 from DRaysBay - 70 comments

Comments

Display:

I'm a little bit confused about the first chart.

Did you include minor league BABIP in the 3-year average for some players? I don’t understand how Austin Jackson’s 2010 wOBA was lower than expected.

Apart from that, this is an interesting write-up. It’ll be cool to see if Reynolds does actually change his approach at the place in Baltimore.

by SeanP on Jan 25, 2011 1:41 PM EST reply actions  

No, I didn't actually...

…should have noted this. For players that did not have at least 400 PA before the 2010 season I just used their 2010 BABIP in order to look at the effect of changes in their K% and BB%. It was only about 7 hitters if I recall.

by Bill Petti on Jan 25, 2011 2:21 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm still confused about that chart.

How did you calculate expected wOBA? Is that 2010 wOBA with 2010 BABIP replaced by 3-year average BABIP?

by SeanP on Jan 26, 2011 4:50 PM EST up reply actions  

I have to go back and look...

…since he only had a BABIP for 2010 it shouldn’t have changed.

by Bill Petti on Jan 26, 2011 5:19 PM EST up reply actions  

wow

the jays sure had some interesting stats last year

To Infinity. And BEYOND!!!

by YunelTheLazyLatino on Jan 25, 2011 3:16 PM EST reply actions  

Did you include 2010 in the three-year BABIP average?

Although I admittedly haven’t tried the calculation myself to check, it seems hard to believe that, say, Aaron Hill would have gained nearly .100 to his wOBA if you included this season’s BABIP. And if you are using 2007-2009, that doesn’t seem right, because 2010 BABIP is hardly all luck (as I’m sure you know).

by austinh on Jan 25, 2011 6:10 PM EST reply actions  

No, I didn't include 2010...

…the idea was to look for players that had a drastically different BABIP in 2010 from what we might consider their normal rate. Certainly some of it is attributable to aging, some to injury, but I would lump injury into the luck bucket. Big gaps between average BABIP and 2010 BABIP suggest that a player either aged rapidly or had a bout of bad luck. So, yes, it isn’t all luck but it’s a big portion when the difference is sizable.

by Bill Petti on Jan 25, 2011 6:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Love this article

Almost everyone on thegoodphight thinks that putting the ball in play (and getting an out) and striking out makes no difference, but that obviously undermines the luck factor that putting the ball in play assists in a player’s BA

The Jruth shall be told.

by packimop on Jan 25, 2011 7:48 PM EST reply actions  

While the point about BABIP and luck is well-taken, I think the assumption that reducing K% would result in the identical set of batted ball outcomes is tentative at best

I think it’s probably more valid (although I don’t have any evidence to back it up) that high ISO players would see their power drop if they focused on cutting down on Ks.

by Dan Turkenkopf on Jan 27, 2011 11:32 AM EST reply actions  

yeah, it's a fair point...

…which is why this is just back-of-the-envelope for now. However, I do think a number of players hurt themselves by working the count deeper, trying to get walks. So it’s a matter of how you alter your approach which results in less K’s, but also doesn’t negate your power. Reynolds comes to mind. Again, I don’t have a valid study to back me up, but there are likely some guys that won’t help themselves or the team working the pitcher.

by Bill Petti on Jan 27, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

We use numbers and stuff.
Community Guidelines
Why be a member?

Follow us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!

SaberGraphics

Yahoo_full_count

MLB Daily Dish

Get the latest MLB Trade Rumors, Transactions, and News at MLB Daily Dish!


Managing Editor:

Jbopp-kc_small Justin Bopp

Columnists:

Adam_small adarowski

Dme_small Satchel Price

Closeup4_small J-Doug

Carlosicon_small Julian Levine

Billy_and_daddy_4th_of_july_small Bill Petti

Featuring:

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

12475953_small Jacob Peterson

Recent_pic_pg_small Patrick Gordon

Btbpro_small Dave Gershman

Me_small Bryan Grosnick

229331_10150183361996591_674441590_6760167_6637860_n3_small Lewie Pollis

Img_3830_small David Fung

30472_1481067225243_1190689185_1381415_997334_n_small Glenn DuPaul

1mnvxku7_small joshuaworn

Set_small MattFilippi18

Photo0011_small Nathaniel Stoltz