THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

It’s two different questions.

1. How much more harmful is a strikeout than another type of out?

2. Is a hitter optimizing the distribution of outs (and other results) he produces based on his skills?

Well said.

Batting average is the single most important component of offensive production and Ks hurt BA.

Wait, what?

How is BA the ‘single most important component of offensive production?’

Did I miss something?

Batting average constitutes the base of both on-base and slugging.  Take a look at late-model Rob Deer—or, hell, Mark McGwire—and see how useful guys with great secondary skills are when they hit under .200.

I don’t even know what Walt meant by that.  OBP is more important.

I don’t even know what Walt meant by that.  OBP is more important.

Exactly...which is what threw me off on this discussion.

I had gotten everything presented in the argument, but that had me shaking my head.

Of the three components of a slash line, BA would be considered the least important IMO.

The slash stats (AVG/OBP/SLG) overlap in what they measure.  AVG is a part of all three.  If you remove AVG from the second two, you more or less get AVG/BB%/ISO.  Of those three things, I’m pretty sure AVG is the most important.

What Walt meant is that BA is a large component of both OBA and SLG.

To me, the strikeouts are a ‘limiting factor’. Mark Reynolds cannot try to improve by swinging harder and increasing his on-contact numbers. He’s already maxed out there. The only thing he can do is cut down on his swing and hope the tradeoff works in his favor.

A batter with the same .335/.489 line but an avg K rate can go either way--higher power + higher K, or higher BA lower K. He has more options to try to improve, more chance of finding something that works for him.

I realize that the above is largely theoretical, since batters don’t seem to be able to change their styles very much.

I have done some research on this, too. I think I found the same directional results as Tom, that striking out less raises your AVG-OBP-SLG (or wOBA). But I concluded it was not a big effect. I may have to re-think that. What I did may actually indicate a large effect. Here is the link to what I posted at Beyond the Boxscore

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/28/9349/61300

I think my results showed that if you struck out 200 times in 600 ABs one year and then only 100 times in 600 ABs the next year, your average would go up .045. Now maybe that kind of change is far out of the normal range, so who knows.

But I dug up an old post I had the SABR list in 2003 where I looked at the biggest changes in SO rate from 1997-98.  The biggest 11 drops in SO rate saw an average increase in their AVG of 21 points. Of course, I don’t really know if this is all a result of trying not to strike out. Maybe they all lifted weights, generated more bat speed and were able to make more contact.

One other thing I did there was to look at the top power hitters and the weakest power hitters. Both groups had a negative correlation between striking out and their offensive winning percentage.

One other thing I looked at was the correlation between strikeout rate and offensive winning percentage by decades. In some decades it was positive and in some it was negative. When it was positive, it seems to bounce around alot.

http://cybermetric.blogspot.com/2008/11/do-best-hitters-strikeout-more-than.html

Not sure what it might mean.

You all seem to be discussing this as if the only option to high a K rate was to increase contact by swinging less hard.  For the Reynolds, Dunn, Howard family of batters, who do walk an above average amount, this may well be true.  But for batters more like Soriano who don’t walk much I would think that you might be able to convert some of the K’s to Walks, if they would swing less often at pitches outside the zone.

I agree that a guy like Soriano should stop swinging at fewer pitches outside the zone. But how well would that work for him? He might end up taking too many pitches and if he just does not have good judgement alot of the pitches he takes might be strikes, too.

I did hear one former pitcher say if the league knew a guy would go for pitches outside of the zone, that is how they would continue to pitch him.

Sky, I was just looking at some quick regressions of RPG on BA, BB%, ISO. I used all teams from 2001-2009.  I tried a bunch of different weightings for the three and compared RMSE.  The equations with the lowest RMSE’s were the ones where I gave ISO and BB a weight of one and BA a weight of two or more.  Just based on that, BA seems to be at least twice as important as BB, ISO.  The best weighting I found was 2.6 for BA, 1 for BB% and 1 for ISO.

I did hear one former pitcher say if the league knew a guy would go for pitches outside of the zone, that is how they would continue to pitch him.

Vlad says hi.

Thanks, Lee.

While AVG is really overrated and things like walks are pretty underrated, AVG is still pretty damn important.  It’s hard to be a bad hitter with a good AVG (though it certainly happens) and it’s hard to be a good hitter with a bad AVG (though it certainly happens.)

Just based on that, BA seems to be at least twice as important as BB, ISO.  The best weighting I found was 2.6 for BA, 1 for BB% and 1 for ISO.

This isn’t a surprise is it, that BA is higher than those two other components?

In any case, I would not rely on this regression, but you can use logic.

In LWTS, the gap between 2B and 1B, 3B and 2B, and HR and 3B, is about 0.30 runs. 

A walk is about 0.30 runs.

And a hit is about 0.47 runs.

So, 0.47*BA + 0.30*BB% + 0.30*ISO

But, the question isn’t BA tells us more than BB%.  I mean, d’uh, of course it would have to.  It’s the thing about it being the most important component to know.  I guess it all depends how you define component.

Here is a regression I ran a few years ago. I think it covered alot of seasons, like 1960-2000.

R/G = 21.4*BB% + 26.25*H% + 11.78*XBH% - 5.14

The % means per PA. So hit% is twice as important as extrabase%. Sort of like AVG vs. ISO except the denominator is PA, not AB. So I guess just getting a hit is the most important thing.

Again, guys, this is so not a regression problem.  It drives me bananas when I see regression (a blunt instrument) used when we have finely-sharpened tools available.

Tom, did you get the .30 for ISO from the fact that for 2Bs, 3Bs, and HRs, each base makes them about .30 higher than a single?

So if a 2B is worth .8, that is .33 higher than a single. If a 3B is worth 1.09, that is .62 more than a single, with each extra base being worth .31 and if a HR is worth 1.40, then that is .93 more than a single or .31 per base. So it looks like each extra base is just about .30. Is that how you got .30 for ISO?

Tom

Most likely I would not have posted my regression results if I had seen your post. Yours got posted just before mine. When I started typing, yours was not there and it only appeared after I hit submit.

Cy

Cy: yes, correct.

Thanks. I have tired to say thanks multiple times and it kept telling me that it could not receive my comment at this time. Yet I tried many times.

I think there’s a minimum char limit.

Okay. I guess I get it.

Here is a post I made on the BTF thread:
____________________________________

For me, the problem with Reynolds’ Ks is that they are a limiting factor.

Say we have 3 batters with Reynolds’ .335/.489 career numbers. One of them is Reynolds, one strikes out as seldom as Juan Pierre, and one is an average strikeout batter. When Reynolds tries to improve his hitting (not his BB), he cannot try to hit the ball harder to improve his on-contact numbers, because he is already maxed out in that area. All he can really do is cut down, make better contact, and hope the tradeoff works in his favor. The Pierre type hitter is similarly maxed out, because he already strikes out as seldom as a modern batter is able to. All he can do is swing harder to up his power output. If he doesn’t really have much extra pop, he is $hit outta luck.

OTOH, the guy in the middle--the avg K batter--can try it either way. He can try to hit for more power, or he can try for better contact. He has room on either side. He has has double the options, and a much better chance of finding something that works.

If you’re already Jim Thome or Tony Gwynn, than it’s fine to be at an extreme end of the strikeout rate. These guys would be stupid to mess with their success. But for lesser hitters, perhaps minor league batters who are still developing and the GMs who draft them, maybe it’s better to be in the middle of the K spectrum.

And I do realize that this is largely theoretical or moot, because there’s not much evidence that batters can/do really change their approach significantly once they are already in the Show.