Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

Several years ago, [b:64195abeec]luckyman [/b:64195abeec]made the following point:

[i:64195abeec][color=darkblue:64195abeec]In an high-offense environment, OBP and walks, in particular, have much higher value. As a thought experiment, consider a game where 100 runs are scored. In that sort of a game, hitting a homerun doesn't make much difference, but every out is critical.

Thus if you were building a team for Coors Field, you are better off paying for walks that extra ballpark homeruns.[/color:64195abeec][/i:64195abeec]

The flip side of that argument, is that in a low-run environment, walks are worth a lot less. Here's a team that tested that argument:

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=247593

My team gave away 768 walks, but most of those runners were stranded as my pitching staff held opponents to a measly .221 BA.

This was a no-DH league where teams averaged only [b:64195abeec]663 [/b:64195abeec]runs scored for the entire season. In a higher scoring environment, I suspect this team would not have been nearly as successful.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Nice team Riggo.

What can't be overlooked on this team is the # of strikeouts. Sure your pitchers gave away free passes with the BB's, but the K's also stop the bleeding.

I wonder what would have happened with this squad if u didn't rack up over 1,300 K's?

visick

Hey Riggo, you're giving me too much credit. Your team was just very good period.

I don't deny what I have written in the past, but when I wrote this, I was thinking on a principle level. When I sat down and calculate the real effect of walks as relative to the environment they were produced, the difference of values came out actually pretty small­.

Compare for example a 3-run environment to a 7-run environment (per game, per team). The relative value of walks compared to homeruns will increase from 19% to 26%. A team like Riggo's who has a net benefit of 220 walks over the course of the season will produce (or save) 27 more runs by playing in the right environment. So roughly a 3 win upgrade.

That 3-win upgrade might sound impressive. But if I do the same exercise with singles, I get a roughly similar result, somewhat less, closer to a 2 win upgrade over the course of a season.

So the real net effect of selecting among players with similar on-base or among pitchers with similar whip those who will correctly maximize your walk vs hit ratio in the right environment will yield roughly a 1 win upgrade.

And this simulation is perfomed in pretty extreme conditions. If I rather compare a 4-run environment to a 6-run environment, you're basically down to half a win-effect.

Lucky - do you believe the flip-side of Riggo's team example is true as well - in small-ball ballparks, should you pay more to have more natural HR/doubles power rather than paying for BB or AVG?

Absolutely. Actually, I would oppose natural HR/doubles/singles to walks, TB vs Onbase, if you wish.

But again, to emphasize, this is one decision among many others that might have more impact on your team

A: who will maximize the lefty/righty ratio of my stadium and vs the pitchers of my divisional opponents
B: who will maximize the homerun ratio of my stadium.
C: what players should I select to maximize lineup effects (good onbase at the top slot; gold gloves at the bottom part of the lineup; etc)
D: who should I select to maximize platoon effects combined with injury risk.
E: who are the bargains (last year: injury-prone players; this year: speedsters, dh with very bad defensive cards, particularly for the middle infield ---Weeks, Uggla)