Alan Schwarz in the New York Times writes about David Neft's "on base advantage", a measurement where a walk is valued by subtracting a player's slugging percentage from 1.
However jarring to those riding the modern walk bandwagon, Neft's refinement makes perfect sense. From the pitcher's standpoint, a batter expected to slug 1.000, on average, should always be walked because his average hit is more damaging than a walk.
Meanwhile, walking a player with a .000 slugging percentage is grounds for an early shower, because he is no threat in the first place. The higher the slugging percentage, the less costly the walk.
Walking a player with a .000 slugging percentage is sometimes referred to by those of us on the West Coast as "The Grabowski Principle." You can get something of an explanation of it here.
Hmmm...so, should the value of single be downweighted because it wasn't a double, triple or HR? Aren't singles less valuable to players who hit a lot of extra-base hits than to players who hit few extra-base hits? Where does this line of thinking stop?
I agree with D4P. While it is worse to walk a pitcher than a hitter, no hitter has ever come close to averaging one base an at bat, meaning that the walk puts them in a better position to score.
The best way to do this is look at runs scored on average when a player like Pujols walks or doesn't walk. I'm guessing the walk category will win out.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.
The best way to do this is look at runs scored on average when a player like Pujols walks or doesn't walk. I'm guessing the walk category will win out.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.