Walks, Today's Game, And Strategy

by timlacy on Apr 8, 2008 8:52 PM EDT Comment 26 comments

In light of this, I would like our very own moderator, Will McDonald, to issue a public apology. ;)

But seriously, the ~five~ walks earned in today's game ought to assuage the concerns of all posters here about the Royals' ability to take pitches. Words like "hackfest" and "hacksticity" need not apply. Save 'em for your Reds postings.

Per my comment on the now infamous "117" post, the Royals are going to have to swing for stretches to be a team that'll get balls out of the strike zone. I think I recall the phrase "selective aggression" being used in ST by Mr. Hillman. - TL

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

five walks was nice

very good to see

by royalsreview on Apr 8, 2008 9:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure I agree with you...

The walks in today's game were the result of weather and the pitchers control than it was our ability to take pitches. Both pitchers today struggled with control due to the cold weather...I'm still slightly concerned by our low number of walks.

I'd rather be watching baseball.

by Sisquatch Kids on Apr 8, 2008 9:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What about our failure to draw walks during the Minnesota series

Did that have anything to do with the fact that those pitchers were throwing strikes?

I love this, when the Royals aren't getting walks, it's a wild, incompetent hackfest. And then when they do draw walks, it was all because of the pitchers and they get no credit for it.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 8, 2008 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry...

But when a pitcher goes 4 innings, throws 87 pitches and walks 4 batters...I'd say he was having control issues.

I'd rather be watching baseball.

by Sisquatch Kids on Apr 8, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There were some control issues. There was also some patience at the plate. The Royals did not display hackfest tendencies today

If we are going to complain when they don't draw walks against a string of control pitchers, shouldn't we give them credit for drawing a bunch of walks today? Of course we should...if we want to be fair and honest in our evaluation.

Of course OBP and drawing walks is a concern. But it shouldn't be a concern because of what has happened in 6 games. It should be a concern because of how they did last season. We still have very little data to go on this season to determine if they are going to improve on that or not. What we've done so far is overreact to very, very little data.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 8, 2008 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's great to see some dicipline at the plate today...

even if it was against a couple of pitches who had control issues.

We'll have to wait and see what the rest of the season holds before we know if this team has the ability to demonstrate plate discipline on a consistant basis. Simply based on last season and the begining of this season, this game would seem to be more of a statistical anomaly than anything else.

I'd rather be watching baseball.

by Sisquatch Kids on Apr 8, 2008 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As much of an anomaly as three consecutive games without a walk

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 8, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

biggest issue by far:

the ump. i was watching mlb's game widget: unless the pitch-fx data is off, the ump was regularly calling pitches an inch or two above the knees and in inch or two inside the plate as balls--as well as a lot of other miscalls. it was pretty painful.

two theories: the royals are a low-patience team, and today had bad weather and a bad ump; or the royals have mediumish patience, went through an unlucky stretch of no walks, and today just regressed to the mean.

since i think there's strong evidence that the ump and weather were highly unusual (including that the yanks walked a lot too), i think it's very warranted to continue being quite worried about our walk rate--q.e.d.!

by Sean O Se on Apr 9, 2008 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does not follow.

If the ump was calling regularly calling strikes as balls, that means the guys were drawing walks... by taking strikes. ;)

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Apr 9, 2008 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

And all of this parsing of the walks one week in is really silly. Let's look really closely at the pitcher and umpire in game 7 when we draw a bunch of walks, but let's ignore the effect of the pitchers and umpires in games 4, 5 and 6. When we didn't draw walks, it was crazy hackfest time. When we did draw walks, it was pitches so far out of the strike zone that a continually swinging robot would have drawn a walk. The problem with that half-assed analysis is that it is, quite simply, bullshit. The Twins pitchers were control guys throwing strikes. So, of course they aren't going to give up many walks. And the Royals batters showed some patience today, and actually drew some good walks.

Is OBP and walk-drawing an issue for the Royals this year? Of course. Because of 7 games worth of stats? Of course not. That is the most ludicrous analysis. It is a concern because these Royals weren't good at it last year. Will that change this year? Will they improve, stagnate or get worse? We really don't know yet.

But we should definitely micro-analyze tomorrow's game. The # of walks they draw in that game will be all-important to our analysis.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 9, 2008 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

whoa

silly, bullshit, half-assed.

still, totally q.e.d.:)

i use mlb's game widget most times, and i don't recall seeing anything quite so unusual, this season or last. for example, i don't think alex gordon's early K's-looking were bad calls.

when the pitch zone gets small, pitchers don't always adjust well, and there are typically more walks--by, as jon says, taking strikes.:) in that situation, even a horrendously impatient player like tpj can take first. seriously: the fourth ball on him was three inches above the knees, right down the middle. it was only unusual in that he didn't hack at it and send a soft liner to second.

it's consistent with the numbers that even an extremely impatient team can get some walks with a 3x3" zone and a force 10 gale. and by "consistent with the numbers" i mean with an established history of the particular players of the royals' offense.

2007 (bad); 120-some no-walk-PAs (bad); 5-walks-in-bad-conditions (good). but the last factor is not much comfort, and it is in fact bad analysis to be comforted by them. if the walks continue, it will be nice. of course, i hope they'll continue. but most importantly, when exactly is it "too early to worry"? we have many of the same players as last year. it's not obvious (according to NYRoyal, and i agree) that a manager and his philosophy can make a big difference to the *actual* skill sets of players. all analysis is in fact "half-assed"--quoting a rude comment showing not even the charity a smiley-face could bestow, and i think basically lacking the civility one should show one's fellow fans. analysis is half-assed in the sense that everything is ongoing: the other half of the ass is always yet to come, week to week, and season to season, and over a career, and a baseball fan's life.

so i will gladly be a speculative half-ass, worrying and hoping and looking at the short- medium- and long-term, rather than being a non-ass, which is not being a fan, or a complete ass, which i suppose is the opposite of not being a fan, and perhaps not the worst thing one can be.

but fortunately for my argument, and unfortunately for the royals, the numbers are on my side, and the mean we regressed to even with 5 walks yesterday is still miserable: with our new grand tally of 13 BBs, we are 30th of 30 teams in MLB. the next worst is 16. i will foolishly continue worrying.

by Sean O Se on Apr 9, 2008 2:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the best, by the way,

is the cards, with 38.

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable_team_stats.jsp?statType=1&timeFrame=1&Submit=Submit&groupByTeam=true&baseballScope=mlb&timeSubFrame=2008&sortByStat=BB

by Sean O Se on Apr 9, 2008 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

looking at that sorted data more:

wow. we are 7th in avg. that's impressive. that's in fact how we manage to only be 22nd (instead of even lower) in OBP. if in fact managers could come to the rescue, and teach us a modicum of plate discipline skills, we could ideally have the 7th-ish best OBP. get on your valiant charger, knight hillman!!!

by Sean O Se on Apr 9, 2008 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

More "plate discipline" could...

...also result in more called third strikes.

I propose a new maxim for understanding plate discipline: Look at called third strikes. If yesterday's game was an anomaly, then called third strikes would be a better indicator.

Which team in the majors has the most called third strikes? After yesterday, I'd say it's the Yankees. Weren't all of ARod's strikeouts called strikes?

Since the Cards were cited, how called third strikes do they have? How many do the Royals have? - TL

by timlacy on Apr 9, 2008 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or perhaps "plate discipline" should...

...be calculated by both most walks and called third strikes. Voila! Let's see which teams have the most and the least of both combined. Perhaps this will reveal more about the Royals new commitment to plate discipline. - TL

by timlacy on Apr 9, 2008 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We might need a...

...different fanpost thread. - TL

by timlacy on Apr 9, 2008 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And let's get JoPo...

...to call Bill James on this. -TL

by timlacy on Apr 9, 2008 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the old problem is hacktasticity...

...then how do you start taking walks by taking strikes instead of swinging at them?

That's the point I was making; it doesn't matter that the ump was calling strikes balls. A team which for the better part of 6 games was swinging at everything in sight suddenly stopped doing it, and it paid off. They weren't failing to draw walks because they were watching strikes go by them (Gordon's Detroit shenanigans notwithstanding). They were failing to draw walks because a walk requires four balls, and if you don't even see four pitches you aren't going to draw one.

Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.

by jonfmorse on Apr 9, 2008 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i suspect that hitters adjust better than pitchers.

as they take balls and strikes, hitters get a sense of the ump's zone. if it's tiny, they can just decide to swing at less, and it doesn't bite them in the ass as much--maybe? i think they can just say, "i'm only going to swing at things right down the middle," and pitchers have a much smaller zone to paint the corners of. also, the inevitable pitches that are a few inches off where the pitcher wanted it to go (esp in high winds) are suddenly balls instead of strikes on the corner. maybe?

i had always heard that, that small zones mean more walks, but i admit i haven't seen any research or anything on it. but my dad told it to me, so you can take it as gospel!!!

by Sean O Se on Apr 9, 2008 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I take it all back

Sample size is irrelevant. Just give Alberto Callaspo the MVP right now.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 9, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Man, that guy...

...seems quite the pick up. I'm going to appreciate observing his growing sample size. Wait, did that sound bad? ;) - TL

by timlacy on Apr 9, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes.

that sounded bad.

Don't Stop Believing!

by KC Chris on Apr 9, 2008 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

MLB Game Day fx system

Keep in mind that not all batters are the same height, especially in their batting stances, so the strike zone will rise and fall depending upon the hitter. The Game Day ghost batter is a standard size and does not adjust for each batter's height or stance, so while using it as a reference point is fine, it is not always going to represent the batter's knees accurately. When you compare calls from batter to batter, the umpire yesterday was relatively consistent in calling pitches at the bottom of the strike zone in regards to static points on the Game Day background. But no umpire is going to be 100% consistent, and you are going to get same the missed calls in virtually every game and against every team.

by Gopherballs on Apr 9, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just couldn't believe it was TPJ

Seriously. No one else surprised? come on!

The first thing I know about someone in a KC hat is that they're loyal.

by grantfunk on Apr 9, 2008 11:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Chances of drawing a walk

While I've read some good points about what it takes to draw a walk and how "plate discipline" should be defined, there are a lot of different factors involved in the act of "drawing a walk". One huge factor, that I do not believe anyone has mentioned yet, is how often the pitcher throws a first pitch strike. If the pitcher is consistently getting his first pitch over the plate, then one of two things is going to decrease the chance of drawing a walk. One, the batters swing and put the ball in play because it was a good pitch. Or two, the batter takes the pitch or swings and misses causing them to be in the hole 0-1 early. When you start in the hole as a batter you have to widen "your" strike zone a little, because putting the ball in play on a slightly outside pitch is always better than takin a seat with a backwards "k".

I do not have the data to back this up as I'm not that saavy with this kind of stuff, but I would be willing to put a lot of money on first pitch location being a big factor in the probability of drawing a walk.

Maybe we have faced a lot of pitchers that throw a lot of first pitch strikes, that is something pretty easy to look up probably but I will not be doing that. All in all, this discussion is much ado about nothing until this trend continues for well more than 7 games.

Disclaimer: Comments may not be suitable for young children or women who are pregnant, or women who think they may be pregnant. Side effects could include nausea, dizziness, or yelling at the monitor in disbelief.

by MileHighKCfan on Apr 9, 2008 2:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For what it is worth

the average AL team walks 3.3 time per game, so yesterday's 5 walk game was only impressive because it ended a walkless streak.

Based on prior performance and what we know about each player's skills, we have a pretty good idea that walks are a concern and the team is likely draw walks at a below average rate (last year the rate was about 2.6 per game), as walk rates are generally consistent from year to year. But walks are only one component to runs scored. Fewer walks means the team has to make up for it with some combination of more hits (higher BA)and more power (higher ISO). Of course, whether they can do that is a whole different discussion.

by Gopherballs on Apr 9, 2008 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs