Are walks given or taken?

[Bull]

In my field there is a lot of discussion about whether offense (of-FENSE as in "I'm offended") is taken or given. Did you offend me, or did I take offense? There is a developing school of thought that offense is more often taken than given.

 

As I sat in a seminar my thoughts drifted to Cubs baseball and I began to wonder whether offense (OF-fense) in baseball is taken or given.

 

I read a Muskat mailbag/inbox article today (I know--first mistake) in which she showed no concern over Colvin's anemic walk rate, but seemed very concerned about the bullpens walk rate.

 

I'm sure some of the regulars here will loathe the idea of rehashing the discussion, but there are new folks here every day. So here goes:

 

Question 1: is there a way to differentiate between offense that is given and that which is taken? Will there ever be a way? It seems to me that some of the statistical anomalies could be eliminated if we knew that X number of Sammys home-runs in 1998 were meatballs served up to him by Jose Lima (intentionally or not), or that a new guy on the scene is hitting pitchers pitches for extra bases.

 

Question 2: Is there a way to find out who is taking walks and who is being given walks, and similarly who is giving up walks vs who is being worked by elite-patience hitters?

 

Bonus: if your take on the original premise (of-FENSE taken or given and the effects on community dynamics) finds its way into my next book.

[Cubswin11]

I would say it's a combination of both without a hard definition or interpretation being able to be given to either. If a batter steps up to the plate and is issued 4 straight balls that aren't even close to the plate I would say he's given a walk (same for IBB) but if a guy battles a pitcher to say a 3-2 count and fouls off some pitches before eventually being thrown ball 4 I would say he has more or less taken a walk. I think it's a rather open ended question but it would be cool to see a statistical breakdown of players plate appearances when they walk and if they generally are only seeing 4-5 pitches (pitcher is having command issues and the BB is more given) or if they are seeing 7+ pitches and they are working the pitcher and taking a walk. Or if there is no real difference over a course of the season.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm sure some of the regulars here will loathe the idea of rehashing the discussion, but there are new folks here every day. So here goes:

 

I wouldn't say this is a re-hashed discussion. The issue is that are so many variables involved that it's hard to give a short definitive answer. It does make it a really good topic though.

 

The only thing I'll mention is high walk rates in the minors(especially the lower levels) without power(or even a high average) to support it are often unsustainable. The guy that immediately pops into my head is Dwaine Bacon. The lower the level, the easier it is to take advantage of those who don't know how to pitch yet/the Neighborgalls of the world. As those pitchers get weeded out/improve, you're left standing up there waiting for the walk, and when it doesn't come, you don't have the primary skills to do anything with it. Pitchers get the scouting report to pound the zone on you, and you're done.

[Productive Outs]

in terms of power hitters: how many walks are "given" to them? Sammy Sosa is a prime example, in my opinion. he experienced a jump in his walk rate in 1995, though he was IBB 11 times. he treaded water in 1996 and 1997 before his explosion in 1998. Sosa's 461 walks from 1998-2002 account for nearly half of his career total. if i remember correctly, Sosa changed his swing somewhat prior to the 1998 season. the question is this: did his walk rate jump because of an improved approach to hitting, or did his increased power output directly result in more walks? did opposing pitchers simply become scared of Sosa?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The easy answer to your original question and baseball-related question is both. I can offend someone with a brash statement, and that person can also be offended by an innocuous statement. Words and phrases are often quite subjective.

 

In baseball, there are obviously people with a more patient approach and keener command of the strike zone who take walks on close pitches and there are plenty of pitchers with command or control issues that will walk the Neifi Perezes of the world.

[jersey cubs fan]

The easy answer to your original question and baseball-related question is both. I can offend someone with a brash statement, and that person can also be offended by an innocuous statement. Words and phrases are often quite subjective.

 

In baseball, there are obviously people with a more patient approach and keener command of the strike zone who take walks on close pitches and there are plenty of pitchers with command or control issues that will walk the Neifi Perezes of the world.

 

As well as pitchers with control who will pitch around a guy.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The easy answer to your original question and baseball-related question is both. I can offend someone with a brash statement, and that person can also be offended by an innocuous statement. Words and phrases are often quite subjective.

 

In baseball, there are obviously people with a more patient approach and keener command of the strike zone who take walks on close pitches and there are plenty of pitchers with command or control issues that will walk the Neifi Perezes of the world.

 

As well as pitchers with control who will pitch around a guy.

Of course. I tried to keep it simple. My fingers and brain are tired today.

[flynnhicks03]

I think "offense", as in taking offense to something, is truly in the eye of the beholder. Someone can say something truly despicable, and I might not be offended by it, but others may be. I don't think words, in-and-of themselves, are offensive; it's all in the listener's perception. Therefore offense can be taken, but that doesn't mean what was said was offensive.

 

About that baseball stuff? That's over my head.

[Guest]

The easy answer to your original question and baseball-related question is both. I can offend someone with a brash statement, and that person can also be offended by an innocuous statement. Words and phrases are often quite subjective.

 

In baseball, there are obviously people with a more patient approach and keener command of the strike zone who take walks on close pitches and there are plenty of pitchers with command or control issues that will walk the Neifi Perezes of the world.

 

As well as pitchers with control who will pitch around a guy.

I think the issue is control. Control in the sense that it's the pitcher's responsibility b/c he's in control of the situation. I therefore think a walk is given in all cases.

 

I could be persuaded otherwise though.

[SouthSideRyan]

The batter has the final control on whether a pitch is called a ball or a strike. A pitcher can throw the exact same sequence of pitches to 2 batters, and one will walk and the other Ks.

[Guest]

The batter has the final control on whether a pitch is called a ball or a strike. A pitcher can throw the exact same sequence of pitches to 2 batters, and one will walk and the other Ks.

Yea I can see that side too. I just think that pitcher is in possession of the ball, so to speak, so it's his responsibility.

[Guest]

On a macro level, I think the hitter has control of walks to a certain point. After that, no matter how disciplined you are, you need to be an extra base threat in the eyes of a pitcher in order for them not to pound the zone against you and essentially put a ceiling for your IsoD. It's why Ichiro and Joe Mauer can both hit .330 and have the same amazing contact ability, but Mauer gets more walks because he can burn you for XBH more often.

[SouthSideRyan]

On a macro level, I think the hitter has control of walks to a certain point. After that, no matter how disciplined you are, you need to be an extra base threat in the eyes of a pitcher in order for them not to pound the zone against you and essentially put a ceiling for your IsoD. It's why Ichiro and Joe Mauer can both hit .330 and have the same amazing contact ability, but Mauer gets more walks because he can burn you for XBH more often.

 

Well being an power threat is also under the control of the batter, so in a roundabout way, you can say the pitcher pitching around you/being careful is under the batter's control

[Guest]

On a macro level, I think the hitter has control of walks to a certain point. After that, no matter how disciplined you are, you need to be an extra base threat in the eyes of a pitcher in order for them not to pound the zone against you and essentially put a ceiling for your IsoD. It's why Ichiro and Joe Mauer can both hit .330 and have the same amazing contact ability, but Mauer gets more walks because he can burn you for XBH more often.

 

Well being an power threat is also under the control of the batter, so in a roundabout way, you can say the pitcher pitching around you/being careful is under the batter's control

 

That's true, I didn't word it very well. I guess what I was saying is that every hitter is capable of a certain walk rate because of a baseline of pitcher wildness and a baseline of discipline and talent from hitters good enough to make it to the MLB level. After that, the hitter needs to be dangerous to force pitchers to pitch carefully to them, because no matter how awesome my batting eye is, Randy Wells is just going to pump 85 mph fastballs past me cause I can't hit them.

[TruffleShuffle]

That's true, I didn't word it very well. I guess what I was saying is that every hitter is capable of a certain walk rate because of a baseline of pitcher wildness and a baseline of discipline and talent from hitters good enough to make it to the MLB level. After that, the hitter needs to be dangerous to force pitchers to pitch carefully to them, because no matter how awesome my batting eye is, Randy Wells is just going to pump 85 mph fastballs past me cause I can't hit them.

 

i agree with you for the most part, but there are some exceptions to the rule. take chone figgins, for example - he's been around long enough for pitchers to know that he doesn't have much power, yet he walked 101 times last year. how'd he do it?

 

-swung the the 4th-fewest out-of-strike-zone pitches in mlb (14.9%)

-swung at the 12th-fewest in-the-strike-zone pitches in mlb (57.7%)

-swung at the 6th fewest pitches in mlb (36.4%)

 

he sees about 4.25 pitches per PA on average which is a lot higher than you'd expect for someone with little power - usually that's what you see from the good-power guys. his stats also show that he's good at making contact, so i suspect that he's also adept at fouling balls off and keeping ABs going. this is definitely a skill. but for the most part, low-power guys who don't have a tremendous batting eye, patience and bat skills are going to lose a lot of their walks once MLB pitchers learn to come after them.

[Banedon]

The batter has the final control on whether a pitch is called a ball or a strike. A pitcher can throw the exact same sequence of pitches to 2 batters, and one will walk and the other Ks.

 

Not to just be argumentative, but really, the umpire has final control. And that's a variable that hasn't been mentioned in this either.

 

3-2 count. Pitcher throws a ball at the outside corner, that the batter doesn't swing at. Is it a ball or a strike? Walk or strikeout? Given or taken? Maybe it's not just pitchers that are "giving" walks, but umpires too. A pitcher could throw the same pitches in the same spots with one ump and get 75% strikes, while another with a tighter zone could only call 55-60% strikes.

 

It adds another complication in the "give/take" equation.

[evv98]

The batter has the final control on whether a pitch is called a ball or a strike. A pitcher can throw the exact same sequence of pitches to 2 batters, and one will walk and the other Ks.

 

Not to just be argumentative, but really, the umpire has final control. And that's a variable that hasn't been mentioned in this either.

 

3-2 count. Pitcher throws a ball at the outside corner, that the batter doesn't swing at. Is it a ball or a strike? Walk or strikeout? Given or taken? Maybe it's not just pitchers that are "giving" walks, but umpires too. A pitcher could throw the same pitches in the same spots with one ump and get 75% strikes, while another with a tighter zone could only call 55-60% strikes.

 

It adds another complication in the "give/take" equation.

 

 

It would be a variable on a day-to-day basis, but it would even out over the course of a season or a career.

[Bull]

But this isn't about the course of a career, this is about being able to better qualify individual instances. seeking a way to say that this walk shouldn't count towards some imaginary stats like "quality OBP" because that pitcher was so wild that the hitter shouldn't get "credit" for the walk.

 

all base hits are not created equal, all walks are not created equal, and anyone who pretends they are is kidding themselves. Statistics will never be as reliable a predictor as we would like them to be as long as a "Theriot Special"/roller up the middle that anyone with decent range could get to, counts the same as a rope off the wall that is limited to a basehit, because the runner on first was afraid to advance until it dropped.

[jersey cubs fan]

The batter has the final control on whether a pitch is called a ball or a strike. A pitcher can throw the exact same sequence of pitches to 2 batters, and one will walk and the other Ks.

 

Not to just be argumentative, but really, the umpire has final control. And that's a variable that hasn't been mentioned in this either.

 

3-2 count. Pitcher throws a ball at the outside corner, that the batter doesn't swing at. Is it a ball or a strike? Walk or strikeout? Given or taken? Maybe it's not just pitchers that are "giving" walks, but umpires too. A pitcher could throw the same pitches in the same spots with one ump and get 75% strikes, while another with a tighter zone could only call 55-60% strikes.

 

It adds another complication in the "give/take" equation.

 

 

It would be a variable on a day-to-day basis, but it would even out over the course of a season or a career.

 

That's not necessarily true at all. You think over the course of his career, Greg Maddux had an even amount of undeserving balls called as undeserving strikes?

[Guest]

But this isn't about the course of a career, this is about being able to better qualify individual instances. seeking a way to say that this walk shouldn't count towards some imaginary stats like "quality OBP" because that pitcher was so wild that the hitter shouldn't get "credit" for the walk.

 

all base hits are not created equal, all walks are not created equal, and anyone who pretends they are is kidding themselves. Statistics will never be as reliable a predictor as we would like them to be as long as a "Theriot Special"/roller up the middle that anyone with decent range could get to, counts the same as a rope off the wall that is limited to a basehit, because the runner on first was afraid to advance until it dropped.

 

This is where additional metrics help more than an elaborate way of refining current ones. In the same way that LD% w/ BABIP(and hopefully hit f/x someday) show the differences between the dribbler that gets through and the rope off the wall, all the different Swing and contact percentages help differentiate between the truly disciplined hitter and one who simply saw the right pitches at the right time.

[Bull]

But this isn't about the course of a career, this is about being able to better qualify individual instances. seeking a way to say that this walk shouldn't count towards some imaginary stats like "quality OBP" because that pitcher was so wild that the hitter shouldn't get "credit" for the walk.

 

all base hits are not created equal, all walks are not created equal, and anyone who pretends they are is kidding themselves. Statistics will never be as reliable a predictor as we would like them to be as long as a "Theriot Special"/roller up the middle that anyone with decent range could get to, counts the same as a rope off the wall that is limited to a basehit, because the runner on first was afraid to advance until it dropped.

 

This is where additional metrics help more than an elaborate way of refining current ones. In the same way that LD% w/ BABIP(and hopefully hit f/x someday) show the differences between the dribbler that gets through and the rope off the wall, all the different Swing and contact percentages help differentiate between the truly disciplined hitter and one who simply saw the right pitches at the right time.

 

why not just do it right the first time, instead of an endless string of "yeah, but"s?

[jersey cubs fan]

why not just do it right the first time, instead of an endless string of "yeah, but"s?

 

What the hell does that even mean?

[Guest]

But this isn't about the course of a career, this is about being able to better qualify individual instances. seeking a way to say that this walk shouldn't count towards some imaginary stats like "quality OBP" because that pitcher was so wild that the hitter shouldn't get "credit" for the walk.

 

all base hits are not created equal, all walks are not created equal, and anyone who pretends they are is kidding themselves. Statistics will never be as reliable a predictor as we would like them to be as long as a "Theriot Special"/roller up the middle that anyone with decent range could get to, counts the same as a rope off the wall that is limited to a basehit, because the runner on first was afraid to advance until it dropped.

 

This is where additional metrics help more than an elaborate way of refining current ones. In the same way that LD% w/ BABIP(and hopefully hit f/x someday) show the differences between the dribbler that gets through and the rope off the wall, all the different Swing and contact percentages help differentiate between the truly disciplined hitter and one who simply saw the right pitches at the right time.

 

why not just do it right the first time, instead of an endless string of "yeah, but"s?

 

Because what you're asking for is too complex to accurately explain with one number. You'll just end up with different factors giving you the same problem you started with.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

That's not necessarily true at all. You think over the course of his career, Greg Maddux had an even amount of undeserving balls called as undeserving strikes?

 

If he's getting the strike calls because of who he is, and not because he's lucky, then that's part of his ability as a pitcher, fair or not.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's not necessarily true at all. You think over the course of his career, Greg Maddux had an even amount of undeserving balls called as undeserving strikes?

 

If he's getting the strike calls because of who he is, and not because he's lucky, then that's part of his ability as a pitcher, fair or not.

 

No it is not.