Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

The Walkers

By Bill James

May 31, 2019

The Walkers

Who's the greatest walker who ever lived, the greatest at extracting a walk from a pitcher? Optimally one would want to adjust that list for batter quality -- Barry Bonds is not the person I am asking about here, I don't think, pitchers were afraid to let him hit anything. Who's the greatest active walker?

Asked by: wovenstrap

Answered: 5/30/2019

Interesting question. I might do a study related to that; threat-adjusted walk percentage, or something. I don't think there is anybody now who sort of specializes in that, the way some players did in the past (Max Bishop, Ed Yost, Eddie Stanky, Gene Tenace), perhaps because the game has changed. I might study it.

The great Jim Murray once wrote about Maury Wills that there was one category Wills would never lead the league in: Walks. Murray was reflecting the normal assumption of the time, which was that a walk was an act of the pitcher. Pitchers, he was implicitly saying, have an element of choice in who they walk. They would never choose to walk Maury Wills, because of he was a threat on the base paths.

Wovenstrap’s question, when you think about it, still relies on that frame of reference. When you ask "who is best at extracting a walk from a pitcher?", you are still implicitly stating that the act belongs to the pitcher, although advancing the argument by crediting the batter with an ability rather like the ability of a farmer to extract a loan from a banker or the ability of the cop to extract a confession from a criminal.

So my data group here is all player/seasons (non-pitcher) from 1913 to 2017, using 1913 as the back border because I wanted to study the influence of strikeouts on walks, assuming that some hitters who work the pitcher for a walk are also working him for a strikeout, like Mickey Mantle, let’s say. Strikeout records are incomplete before 1913. I used 2017 as the other border because I was using a version of the data base that I haven’t completely updated for 2018.

I tried to create a formula which estimates the "expected walks" for any hitter, based on

1) His power,

2) His batting average,

3) His strikeouts,

4) His speed, referencing the Jim Murray/Maury Wills example; pitchers might avoid walking hitters who are fast, and

5) Anything else that pops up as a separator between high-walk and low-walk players.

Power

Walks for a hitter definitely increase as power increases, although this effect is not as large as I would have guessed that it was. There are many singles hitter in history who drew large numbers of walks; there are many power hitters who didn’t.

Batting Average

Batting average did not turn out to be useful as a predictor of walks drawn for a hitter, except for hitters who hit for a very high average, over .340. If a player hits for a very high average, there is some "risk avoidance" of the hitter in run situations. Otherwise, walks relate to batting average in a U-shaped curve. The center of the batting average chart for all players in the study was .267. Players with batting averages near .267 had lower walk rates than either players with very high batting averages or players with very low batting averages. However, when I tried to build "absolute distance from batting average of .267" into the walks prediction formula, I could not improve the accuracy of the predictions by the use of that information, other than making an adjustment to expected walks for players who hit over .340.

Strikeouts

Strikeouts, at least in this study, did not seem to be a meaningful predictor of walks drawn, independent of home runs. Of course strikeouts are fellow-travelers of home runs, and home runs predict walks, so there is an indirect effect of strikeouts on walks through the home run column. But when you adjust for that, strikeouts do not seem to be useful information for predicting walks, at least that I could find in my four or five hours of messing around with the data.

Speed

Speed, again, is not a useful predictor of walks, I don’t believe. "Fast" players actually walk MORE than "Slow" players, which makes sense when you understand that the batter is actually more in control of when a walk occurs than the pitcher is.

We know that the batter is more in control of when a walk occurs than the pitcher is because the standard deviation of walks per plate appearance is higher for batters than it is for pitchers. In order the model the actual outcomes, you have to leave more space for the batter to control the event than you for the pitcher to control the event. Understanding that, then, one would predict that fast players should walk more than slow players do, actually for the reason stated by Jim Murray. As a pitcher would want to avoid walking a very fast runner, so also a fast runner would have more incentive to draw a walk than a slow runner would. If the batter is more in control of the walk outcome than the pitcher is, one would expect walks to increase as speed increases, as they do. But to make this information useful in a prediction model, you’d have to put more time into it than I have available.

Anything else

There is, actually, something else that pops out of the data that pretty important: handedness. Left-handed batters, controlling for power, walk quite significantly more often than right-handed hitters do. Switch hitters walk even a little bit more often than left-handers. We’ll have to adjust for that.

Now that I think about it, I have "height" in the data base; I should have studied that. It’s probably useful. Oh, well. I’m moving on; I’m publishing this today. If you want to study it with height included as a factor, you go ahead.

Before I make the Predictive Formula

The first thing that I have to explain is that, by "home run percentage", I don’t EXACTLY mean the home run percentage, and, by batting average, I don’t EXACTLY mean the batting average. I modified the player’s expected walks by his home run rate, and by his batting average if his batting average was over .340, but I didn’t use raw home run rate or raw batting average. For home run rate, I used this:

Home Runs + 1

--------------------------

At Bats +42

And for "batting average" I used this:

Hits + 16

-----------------------------

At Bats + 60

It’s what I call ballast. I do that so that I don’t get crazy results for players who hit 2 home runs in 5 at bats. Going 9-for-25 with 3 homers doesn’t make you a .360 hitter with home run rate of 72 per 600 at bats; it makes you a .294 hitter with a home run rate of 36 per 600 at bats, which is still pretty good, but normal.

The Predictive Formula

A player’s expected walks are:

1) His home run rate,

2) Times .7,

3) Plus .069,

4) Times his plate appearances,

5) Times 1.1 if the player is a switch hitter, 1.08 if he is a left-handed hitter, and 0.92 if he is a right-handed hitter, and

6) Increased by 12% if he hit over .340.

Let’s do a couple of players for whom the formula works, to show how it works. Duke Snider in 1954 hit 40 home runs in 584 at bats, which we change to 41 in 626, figuring that he had a home run rate of .0655.

That number we multiply by .7, making .0458.

To that we add .069, making .1148.

We multiply his plate appearances (679) times .1148, making 77.98.

This we increase by 8% because Snider was a left-handed hitter, making an expectation of 84.2 walks.

Snider in 1954 hit .341, HOWEVER, because of the "ballast" adjustment, we don’t treat him as a .341 hitter, but as a .334 hitter. Therefore, we don’t make an additional adjustment for his high batting average, and his expected walks stay at 84.2.

He did in fact walk 84 times. The formula accurately predicts his walks, in that particular case.

George Springer in 2017 hit 34 homers in 548 at bats, which we interpret as a home run percentage of .0593 (35/590). Multiply that by .7, you have .0415. Add .069, you have .1105.

Multiply that by his plate appearances, 629, and you have 69.52 walks. He is, however, a right-handed hitter, so we reduce that by 8%, and his expected walks are 63.96. He actually drew 64 walks.

Chris Davis in 2017 hit 26 homers in 456 at bats, which we interpret to be a home run rate of .0542 (27/498). Multiply that by .7, you have .0380. Add .069, you have .107. Multiply that by his plate appearances, 524, and you have 56.04. He’s a left-handed hitter, so we’ll increase that by 8%; that makes 60.53. He actually drew 61 walks.

Hanley Ramirez exactly hit his expected walks drawn both in 2016 and 2017.

Let’s do somebody who has no power. Luis Polonia in 1991 hit 2 homers in 604 at bats, which we interpret as a home run rate of .00464, or 3/646. Multiply that by .7, you have .00325. Add .069, you have .07225. Multiply that by his plate appearances, 662, and you have 47.83 walks. He’s a left-handed hitter, so we increase that by 8%, he winds up with 51.66 expected walks. He actually drew 52 walks, so the formula works.

Later on, we’ll do the cases where it doesn’t work. There are lots of cases where it works perfectly, literally hundreds of them, thousands of them if you included the low-at-bat guys, and many cases where it doesn’t work. But when it doesn’t work, it is equally likely to be 50 walks too high, or 50 walks too low.

The Results

First of all, you have to just throw Barry Bonds in 2004 out the window; Barry Bonds in 2004 is just stupid data. Note what I am saying; I am not saying that you have to throw Barry Bonds’ data out the window; I am just saying Barry Bonds in 2004. We all know why this is; we don’t need to talk about it or explain it. We’re just going to throw it away and move on.

Throwing away Barry Bonds in 2004, the 25 most exceptional walk seasons of all time—that is, the 25 seasons in which the player most exceeded his expected walks—are these 25 seasons:

Rank	First	Last	YEAR	Expected	Actual
1	Eddie	Stanky	1945	48	148
2	Eddie	Yost	1956	53	151
3	Eddie	Stanky	1946	42	137
4	Eddie	Stanky	1950	51	144
5	Barry	Bonds	2002	106	198
6	Eddie	Joost	1949	62	149
7	Eddie	Yost	1950	56	141
8	Ferris	Fain	1949	54	136
9	Ted	Williams	1947	82	162
10	Jimmy	Wynn	1969	68	148
11	Rickey	Henderson	1996	46	125
12	Luke	Appling	1935	43	122
13	Max	Bishop	1929	50	128
14	Eddie	Yost	1954	53	131
15	Luke	Appling	1949	44	121
16	Jimmy	Wynn	1976	51	127
17	Max	Bishop	1926	40	116
18	Gene	Tenace	1977	49	125
19	Eddie	Yost	1959	60	135
20	Ferris	Fain	1950	59	133
21	Eddie	Stanky	1951	53	127
22	Max	Bishop	1930	54	128
23	Jack	Clark	1989	58	132
24	Rickey	Henderson	1989	52	126
25	Eddie	Yost	1960	52	125

Eddie Stanky and Eddie Yost are, by this chart, the greatest non-threat Walkers of all time. Wovenstrap said that "Barry Bonds" is not the answer he is looking for, and I agree that it isn’t, but Bonds in 2004 would have been +123 walks, if we were counting that.

Running the data for Stanky in 1945, The Brat hit 1 home run in 555 at bats, which we interpret as a home run rate of .00335. Multiply that by .7, you’ve got .00234. Add .069, you’ve got .07134. Multiply that by his plate appearances (726), you’ve got an expectation of 51.8 walks, but he’s a right-handed hitter, so we reduce that by 8%, and he’s down to 47.7, which we will call 48. He actually drew 148 walks, which I think was a National League record at the time, so he beat expectations by 100. He is the only player in history, other than Bonds in 2004, to beat his expected walk total by 100.

Ed Yost in 1956. . .Ed Yost was known as the Walking Man. Yost hit 11 homers in 515 at bats, which we interpret as a Home Run Percentage of .02154. Multiply that by .7, that’s .0151; add .069 and it is .0841. Yost had 684 plate appearances, so that’s an expectation of 57.5 walks, but he was a right-handed hitter, so we multiply that by .92, and we’re down to 52.9, or 53 walks. He actually drew 151 walks, so that’s +98.

These are the greatest NON-Walking seasons in the data, by this method:

Rank	First	Last	YEAR	Expected	Actual
1	Garret	Anderson	2000	78	24
2	Rougned	Odor	2016	72	19
3	Alfonso	Soriano	2002	73	23
4	Bill	Terry	1932	81	32
5	Garret	Anderson	2001	74	27
6	Woody	Jensen	1936	63	16
7	Hal	Trosky	1936	83	36
8	Lou	Brock	1967	70	24
9	Joe	Pepitone	1964	70	24
10	Al	Oliver	1973	67	22
11	Cecil	Cooper	1982	77	32
12	Tony	Oliva	1964	79	34
13	Kirby	Puckett	1988	67	23
14	Joe	Pepitone	1963	67	23
15	Adam	Jones	2014	63	19
16	Garret	Anderson	2002	73	30
17	Dante	Bichette	1995	65	22
18	Willie	Davis	1966	58	15
19	Garry	Templeton	1979	60	18
20	Chuck	Klein	1930	96	54
21	Andre	Dawson	1987	74	32
22	Dave	Robertson	1916	56	14
23	A.J.	Pierzynski	2013	53	11
24	Garret	Anderson	2003	73	31
25	Bobby	Tolan	1969	68	27
26	Felipe	Alou	1966	65	24

So the greatest NON-Walker of all time is, let us say, Garrett Anderson in 2000. I’ll run the data for Garrett Anderson. Anderson hit 35 homers in 647 at bats, which we interpret as a Home Run Percentage of .0522. Multiply that by .7, that’s .0366. Add .069, that’s .1056. Multiply that by his plate appearances, 681, and he’s expected to walk 71.896 times. He’s a left-handed hitter, so we increase that by 8%, and we’re up to 78 expected walks. He actually walked only 24 times, so he is 54 walks short of expectation—the largest shortfall of all time.

People think that Barry Bonds and Babe Ruth and Ted Williams walked a tremendous amount because they were left-handed hitters and great hitters with high averages and a lot of power, so naturally they’re going to walk a lot. It’s not that simple. Garrett Anderson in 2000 was a left-handed hitter; he hit .286 with 35 homers, which is pretty good, similar to what Barry Bonds did in 1995 (.294 with 33 homers). But when Bonds did that, he drew 120 walks; when Anderson did it, he drew 24. Bill Terry in 1932 was a left-handed hitter who hit for a good average (.350) with 28 homers—but he didn’t draw walks. Hal Trosky in 1936 was a left-handed hitter who hit .343 with 42 homers—but he didn’t draw walks. Cecil Cooper in 1932 was a left-handed hitter who hit .313 with 32 homers—but he didn’t draw walks. Tony Oliva in 1964 was a left-handed hitter who hit .323 with 32 homers—but he didn’t draw walks. Chuck Klein in 1930 was a left-handed hitter who hit .386 with 40 homers, but he didn’t draw a lot of walks. Bonds, Ruth and Ted Williams didn’t draw huge numbers of walks because they were left-handed hitters who hit .350 with power; they took a large number of walks because that was part of their approach. It was an additional skill that they had.

Career Numbers

Well, before I get there, there is a point I should have made earlier.

The Point I Should have Made Earlier

Hitters walk, over time, in about 8.8% of plate appearances. The first-effort approach to predicting walks for each hitter, then, is just to predict that every hitter will walk in about 8.8% of his plate appearances.

You can improve that estimate by (1) adjusting for his power, and (2) adjusting for whether he is a left-handed hitter or a normal person, but these improvements don’t actually do a hell of a lot. You have a certain amount of error in the first effort, and then, by making these adjustments, you can remove about 20% of that error, get the estimates 20% closer to what actually happens.

And then that’s about all you can do, just remove about 20% of the error. I’m sure you could do better than I could, if you spent a week with the data rather than a few hours, but I’m also pretty confident that you couldn’t remove 40 or 50% of the error; maybe you could get to 25% or something, but not much better.

The reason that is true is that drawing walks is a strong individual skill or trait. How many walks you draw—and here again, we have to say "with the exception of Barry Bonds in 2004." But with the exception of Barry Bonds in 2004, how many walks you draw is NOT primarily a function of how much power you have or what your batting average is or whether you are fast or slow or fat or ugly or whether you hit right-handed or left-handed. It is a primarily a function of the batter’s ability to draw a walk. Because it is an independent skill of its own, it cannot be indirectly measured or independently predicted with great accuracy based on the player’s other characteristics.

Career Numbers

These are the greatest walk-drawers of all time, career totals, in terms of drawing more walks than you would expect them to draw:

First	Last	Expected	Actual	Margin
Rickey	Henderson	1078	2190	1112
Eddie	Yost	699	1614	915
Barry	Bonds	1672	2558	886
Joe	Morgan	1091	1865	774
Ted	Williams	1247	2021	774
Max	Bishop	477	1153	676
Eddie	Stanky	374	996	622
Frank	Thomas	1046	1667	621
Luke	Appling	704	1302	598
Willie	Randolph	651	1243	592
Babe	Ruth	1530	2062	532
Harmon	Killebrew	1047	1559	512
Pee Wee	Reese	701	1210	509
Eddie	Joost	538	1043	505
Lu	Blue	596	1092	496
Jimmy	Wynn	728	1224	496
Harlond	Clift	574	1070	496
Edgar	Martinez	791	1283	492
Ferris	Fain	414	904	490
Jack	Clark	776	1262	486
Mickey	Mantle	1253	1733	480
Gene	Tenace	506	984	478
Tony	Phillips	842	1319	477
Eddie	Collins	740	1213	473
Bobby	Abreu	1007	1476	469

26^th is Wade Boggs. And these are the greatest walk-drawers in terms of the ratio of expected to actual walks drawn, minimum total of 1000 between expected and actual:

First	Last	Expected	Actual	Ratio
Eddie	Stanky	374	996	2.660
Max	Bishop	477	1153	2.418
Eddie	Yost	699	1614	2.309
Ferris	Fain	414	904	2.182
Rickey	Henderson	1078	2190	2.031
Gene	Tenace	506	984	1.946
Rick	Ferrell	480	931	1.939
Eddie	Joost	538	1043	1.938
Willie	Randolph	651	1243	1.909
Lyn	Lary	378	705	1.864
Harlond	Clift	574	1070	1.863
Luke	Appling	704	1302	1.849
Lu	Blue	596	1092	1.833
Roy	Cullenbine	467	852	1.823
Elmer	Valo	518	943	1.822
Willie	Kamm	469	824	1.756
Dave	Magadan	414	718	1.733
Pee Wee	Reese	701	1210	1.726
Joe	Morgan	1091	1865	1.710
Jimmy	Wynn	728	1224	1.681
Earl	Torgeson	584	980	1.679
Mike	Hargrove	576	965	1.675
Elbie	Fletcher	510	851	1.670
Bill	North	376	627	1.669
Eddie	Collins	740	1213	1.640

These are the top 25 NON-Walkers of all time:

First	Last	Expected	Actual	Ratio
A.J.	Pierzynski	735	308	.419
Garret	Anderson	910	429	.471
Willie	Davis	882	418	.474
Bill	Buckner	892	450	.504
Garry	Templeton	688	375	.545
Cecil	Cooper	794	448	.564
Carl	Crawford	648	377	.582
Vada	Pinson	983	574	.584
Al	Oliver	908	535	.589
George	Sisler	794	472	.594
Ivan	Rodriguez	862	513	.595
Andre	Dawson	979	589	.602
Steve	Garvey	786	479	.609
Alfonso	Soriano	809	496	.613
Juan	Gonzalez	744	457	.614
Vinny	Castilla	685	423	.617
Joe	Carter	849	527	.621
Lloyd	Waner	669	420	.627
Robinson	Cano	875	550	.628
Willie	Wilson	676	425	.629
Frank	White	651	412	.633
Brandon	Phillips	651	416	.639
Willie	McGee	701	448	.639
Matt	Williams	733	469	.640
Lee	May	760	487	.641

Here is a full listing of all players whose walks + expected walks total 1,000 or more. Data for active players is a year out of date, because I haven’t updated something for 2018 yet:

First	Last	Expected	Actual	Margin	Ratio
Hank	Aaron	1420	1402	-18	.988
Bobby	Abreu	1007	1476	469	1.466
Joe	Adcock	691	594	-97	.859
Edgardo	Alfonzo	495	596	101	1.203
Dick	Allen	713	894	181	1.253
Bob	Allison	562	795	233	1.415
Roberto	Alomar	976	1032	56	1.057
Felipe	Alou	643	423	-220	.657
Moises	Alou	741	737	-4	.995
Brady	Anderson	764	960	196	1.257
Garret	Anderson	910	429	-481	.471
Luis	Aparicio	779	736	-43	.944
Luke	Appling	704	1302	598	1.849
Richie	Ashburn	768	1198	430	1.559
Brad	Ausmus	514	634	120	1.233
Earl	Averill	747	775	28	1.037
Jeff	Bagwell	942	1401	459	1.487
Bob	Bailey	586	852	266	1.454
Harold	Baines	1142	1062	-80	.930
Dusty	Baker	682	762	80	1.117
Dave	Bancroft	664	827	163	1.245
Sal	Bando	707	1031	324	1.459
Ernie	Banks	1010	763	-247	.756
Jesse	Barfield	511	551	40	1.079
Dick	Bartell	619	748	129	1.208
Hank	Bauer	483	521	38	1.079
Jose	Bautista	680	965	285	1.419
Jason	Bay	494	636	142	1.288
Don	Baylor	839	805	-34	.959
Mark	Belanger	443	576	133	1.301
Buddy	Bell	781	836	55	1.071
Gus	Bell	695	470	-225	.676
Jay	Bell	686	853	167	1.244
Albert	Belle	699	683	-16	.978
Carlos	Beltran	1205	1084	-121	.899
Adrian	Beltre	1055	814	-241	.772
Johnny	Bench	823	891	68	1.082
Lance	Berkman	917	1201	284	1.309
Yogi	Berra	910	704	-206	.774
Craig	Biggio	1008	1160	152	1.151
Max	Bishop	477	1153	676	2.418
Don	Blasingame	468	552	84	1.180
Lu	Blue	596	1092	496	1.833
Ossie	Bluege	514	724	210	1.410
Bruce	Bochte	535	653	118	1.220
Wade	Boggs	949	1412	463	1.488
Barry	Bonds	1672	2558	886	1.530
Bobby	Bonds	751	914	163	1.217
Bobby	Bonilla	871	912	41	1.047
Bob	Boone	598	663	65	1.108
Bret	Boone	648	552	-96	.852
Ray	Boone	446	608	162	1.362
Jim	Bottomley	821	664	-157	.809
Lou	Boudreau	509	796	287	1.565
Larry	Bowa	715	474	-241	.663
Ken	Boyer	722	713	-9	.988
Ryan	Braun	603	511	-92	.847
George	Brett	1141	1096	-45	.961
John	Briggs	481	663	182	1.379
Lou	Brock	965	761	-204	.788
Jay	Bruce	657	528	-129	.804
Tom	Brunansky	646	770	124	1.191
Bill	Bruton	579	482	-97	.833
Bill	Buckner	892	450	-442	.504
Don	Buford	492	672	180	1.365
Jay	Buhner	599	792	193	1.322
Ellis	Burks	764	793	29	1.038
Jeromy	Burnitz	752	739	-13	.982
George J.	Burns	556	863	307	1.554
Pat	Burrell	628	932	304	1.485
Jeff	Burroughs	583	831	248	1.425
Donie	Bush	470	770	300	1.640
Brett	Butler	769	1129	360	1.468
Melky	Cabrera	632	473	-159	.748
Miguel	Cabrera	941	1065	124	1.131
Orlando	Cabrera	614	514	-100	.838
Johnny	Callison	741	650	-91	.877
Mike	Cameron	700	867	167	1.238
Dolph	Camilli	681	947	266	1.390
Ken	Caminiti	745	727	-18	.975
Roy	Campanella	475	533	58	1.122
Bert	Campaneris	675	618	-57	.916
Bruce	Campbell	492	548	56	1.113
Robinson	Cano	875	550	-325	.628
Jose	Canseco	840	906	66	1.078
Jose	Cardenal	589	608	19	1.032
Leo	Cardenas	557	522	-35	.936
Rod	Carew	904	1018	114	1.127
Max	Carey	789	933	144	1.182
Gary	Carter	802	848	46	1.058
Joe	Carter	849	527	-322	.621
Rico	Carty	551	642	91	1.164
Sean	Casey	531	477	-54	.899
Norm	Cash	920	1043	123	1.133
Vinny	Castilla	685	423	-262	.617
Luis	Castillo	602	800	198	1.330
Phil	Cavarretta	667	820	153	1.229
Cesar	Cedeno	658	664	6	1.009
Orlando	Cepeda	810	588	-222	.726
Ron	Cey	758	1012	254	1.335
Chris	Chambliss	773	632	-141	.818
Ben	Chapman	541	824	283	1.522
Sam	Chapman	482	561	79	1.163
Eric	Chavez	678	639	-39	.942
Shin-Soo	Choo	571	685	114	1.199
Jeff	Cirillo	473	563	90	1.190
Jack	Clark	776	1262	486	1.627
Tony	Clark	593	527	-66	.889
Will	Clark	857	937	80	1.093
Royce	Clayton	601	565	-36	.940
Roberto	Clemente	833	621	-212	.745
Harlond	Clift	574	1070	496	1.863
Ty	Cobb	785	963	178	1.227
Mickey	Cochrane	577	857	280	1.485
Rocky	Colavito	748	951	203	1.271
Eddie	Collins	740	1213	473	1.640
Earle	Combs	547	670	123	1.224
Dave	Concepcion	691	736	45	1.066
Jeff	Conine	646	671	25	1.038
Cecil	Cooper	794	448	-346	.564
Craig	Counsell	452	589	137	1.303
Doc	Cramer	782	571	-211	.731
Carl	Crawford	648	377	-271	.582
Coco	Crisp	617	561	-56	.910
Joe	Cronin	690	1059	369	1.534
Frankie	Crosetti	539	792	253	1.470
Jose	Cruz	808	898	90	1.111
Jose Jr.	Cruz	587	658	71	1.120
Nelson	Cruz	590	496	-94	.840
Tony	Cuccinello	508	579	71	1.140
Michael	Cuddyer	524	527	3	1.005
Roy	Cullenbine	467	852	385	1.823
Kiki	Cuyler	635	676	41	1.064
Johnny	Damon	1013	1003	-10	.990
Al	Dark	588	430	-158	.732
Jake	Daubert	556	477	-79	.858
Darren	Daulton	443	629	186	1.421
Alvin	Davis	513	685	172	1.335
Chili	Davis	1061	1194	133	1.126
Chris	Davis	569	472	-97	.829
Eric	Davis	589	740	151	1.256
Willie	Davis	882	418	-464	.474
Andre	Dawson	979	589	-390	.602
Doug	DeCinces	581	618	37	1.064
Rob	Deer	448	575	127	1.284
David	DeJesus	528	510	-18	.967
Carlos	Delgado	1051	1109	58	1.056
Rick	Dempsey	417	592	175	1.419
Delino	DeShields	570	754	184	1.324
Bill	Dickey	702	678	-24	.966
Dom	DiMaggio	478	750	272	1.569
Joe	DiMaggio	759	790	31	1.041
Larry	Doby	687	871	184	1.267
Bobby	Doerr	670	809	139	1.208
Bill	Doran	528	709	181	1.343
Brian	Downing	796	1197	401	1.504
J.D.	Drew	665	862	197	1.296
Dan	Driessen	606	761	155	1.257
Adam	Dunn	1022	1317	295	1.289
Ray	Durham	806	820	14	1.017
Jermaine	Dye	682	597	-85	.875
Jimmy	Dykes	680	958	278	1.409
Lenny	Dykstra	468	640	172	1.369
Damion	Easley	511	510	-1	.997
Jim	Edmonds	927	998	71	1.077
Bob	Elliott	647	967	320	1.495
Edwin	Encarnacion	684	766	82	1.120
Del	Ennis	702	597	-105	.850
Darin	Erstad	607	475	-132	.782
Andre	Ethier	539	519	-20	.963
Darrell	Evans	1161	1605	444	1.382
Dwight	Evans	953	1391	438	1.460
Carl	Everett	578	442	-136	.764
Ferris	Fain	414	904	490	2.182
Ron	Fairly	815	1052	237	1.290
Tony	Fernandez	754	690	-64	.915
Rick	Ferrell	480	931	451	1.939
Cecil	Fielder	601	693	92	1.153
Prince	Fielder	785	847	62	1.078
Steve	Finley	1032	844	-188	.818
Carlton	Fisk	887	849	-38	.957
Elbie	Fletcher	510	851	341	1.670
Cliff	Floyd	645	601	-44	.932
George	Foster	735	666	-69	.906
Jack	Fournier	578	583	5	1.008
Dexter	Fowler	457	617	160	1.350
Nellie	Fox	812	719	-93	.885
Jimmie	Foxx	1051	1452	401	1.382
Julio	Franco	745	917	172	1.230
Tito	Francona	543	544	1	1.002
Bill	Freehan	582	626	44	1.076
Jim	Fregosi	581	715	134	1.232
Lonny	Frey	537	752	215	1.401
Frankie	Frisch	872	728	-144	.835
Travis	Fryman	614	602	-12	.980
Rafael	Furcal	649	643	-6	.990
Carl	Furillo	580	514	-66	.886
Gary	Gaetti	870	634	-236	.729
Augie	Galan	626	979	353	1.563
Andres	Galarraga	844	583	-261	.691
Oscar	Gamble	557	610	53	1.095
Ron	Gant	690	770	80	1.116
Phil	Garner	517	564	47	1.092
Steve	Garvey	786	479	-307	.609
Lou	Gehrig	1226	1508	282	1.230
Charlie	Gehringer	950	1185	235	1.248
Jason	Giambi	1053	1366	313	1.297
Kirk	Gibson	708	718	10	1.014
Brian	Giles	837	1183	346	1.414
Jim	Gilliam	697	1036	339	1.486
Troy	Glaus	635	854	219	1.344
Adrian	Gonzalez	844	767	-77	.908
Juan	Gonzalez	744	457	-287	.614
Luis	Gonzalez	1087	1155	68	1.063
Billy	Goodman	511	669	158	1.309
Alex	Gordon	572	565	-7	.988
Joe	Gordon	595	759	164	1.276
Sid	Gordon	516	731	215	1.416
Goose	Goslin	957	949	-8	.991
Mark	Grace	845	1075	230	1.273
Curtis	Granderson	829	829	0	1.000
George	Grantham	535	717	182	1.340
Shawn	Green	865	744	-121	.861
Hank	Greenberg	627	852	225	1.359
Bobby	Grich	689	1087	398	1.577
Ken Jr.	Griffey	1366	1312	-54	.961
Ken Sr.	Griffey	729	719	-10	.987
Charlie	Grimm	726	578	-148	.796
Marquis	Grissom	725	553	-172	.762
Dick	Groat	554	490	-64	.885
Heine	Groh	470	688	218	1.463
John	Grubb	446	566	120	1.269
Pedro	Guerrero	541	609	68	1.127
Vladimir	Guerrero	885	737	-148	.833
Carlos	Guillen	507	510	3	1.005
Tony	Gwynn	924	790	-134	.855
Stan	Hack	693	1092	399	1.577
Travis	Hafner	537	598	61	1.114
Mike	Hargrove	576	965	389	1.675
Tommy	Harper	563	753	190	1.337
Toby	Harrah	706	1153	447	1.633
Bud	Harrelson	436	633	197	1.452
Gabby	Hartnett	634	703	69	1.109
Scott	Hatteberg	456	562	106	1.232
Grady	Hatton	448	646	198	1.443
Von	Hayes	576	712	136	1.235
Chase	Headley	546	568	22	1.040
Jeff	Heath	574	593	19	1.034
Richie	Hebner	693	687	-6	.991
Harry	Heilmann	742	856	114	1.154
Todd	Helton	1044	1335	291	1.279
Ken	Henderson	504	589	85	1.169
Rickey	Henderson	1078	2190	1112	2.031
George	Hendrick	680	567	-113	.833
Tommy	Henrich	560	712	152	1.270
Babe	Herman	631	520	-111	.824
Billy	Herman	590	737	147	1.249
Keith	Hernandez	781	1070	289	1.370
Tom	Herr	496	627	131	1.263
Mike	Higgins	583	800	217	1.372
Bobby	Higginson	580	649	69	1.118
Gil	Hodges	778	943	165	1.211
Matt	Holliday	724	790	66	1.091
Harry	Hooper	660	919	259	1.393
Rogers	Hornsby	888	1038	150	1.168
Willie	Horton	733	620	-113	.845
Frank	Howard	733	782	49	1.067
Ryan	Howard	802	709	-93	.884
Kent	Hrbek	778	838	60	1.078
Aubrey	Huff	704	571	-133	.811
Torii	Hunter	857	661	-196	.771
Raul	Ibanez	864	713	-151	.825
Reggie	Jackson	1323	1375	52	1.040
Charlie	Jamieson	591	748	157	1.266
Stan	Javier	494	578	84	1.170
Gregg	Jefferies	568	472	-96	.831
Jackie	Jensen	531	750	219	1.411
Derek	Jeter	998	1082	84	1.085
Bob	Johnson	720	1075	355	1.493
Davey	Johnson	446	559	113	1.252
Deron	Johnson	591	585	-6	.990
Howard	Johnson	629	692	63	1.101
Kelly	Johnson	512	516	4	1.008
Andruw	Jones	854	891	37	1.043
Chipper	Jones	1222	1512	290	1.237
Ruppert	Jones	499	534	35	1.071
Willie	Jones	565	755	190	1.337
Eddie	Joost	538	1043	505	1.938
Wally	Joyner	779	833	54	1.070
Joe	Judge	755	965	210	1.278
Billy	Jurges	483	568	85	1.175
David	Justice	749	903	154	1.205
Al	Kaline	1022	1277	255	1.249
Willie	Kamm	469	824	355	1.756
Eric	Karros	647	552	-95	.854
George	Kell	539	621	82	1.152
Charlie	Keller	507	784	277	1.546
Pat (of)	Kelly	442	588	146	1.332
Ken	Keltner	517	514	-3	.995
Matt	Kemp	576	466	-110	.809
Steve	Kemp	464	576	112	1.243
Jason	Kendall	614	721	107	1.174
Jeff	Kent	869	801	-68	.922
Don	Kessinger	670	684	14	1.020
Harmon	Killebrew	1047	1559	512	1.489
Ralph	Kiner	670	1011	341	1.509
Dave	Kingman	770	608	-162	.789
Ian	Kinsler	641	634	-7	.989
Chuck	Klein	819	601	-218	.733
Ryan	Klesko	718	817	99	1.139
Ted	Kluszewski	706	492	-214	.697
Chuck	Knoblauch	545	804	259	1.474
Paul	Konerko	912	921	9	1.010
Mark	Kotsay	639	554	-85	.868
Ed	Kranepool	547	454	-93	.830
John	Kruk	432	649	217	1.502
Harvey	Kuenn	556	594	38	1.068
Joe	Kuhel	795	980	185	1.232
Ray	Lankford	700	828	128	1.183
Carney	Lansford	610	553	-57	.906
Barry	Larkin	722	939	217	1.301
Adam	LaRoche	682	649	-33	.952
Lyn	Lary	378	705	327	1.864
Matt	Lawton	536	681	145	1.271
Tony	Lazzeri	601	870	269	1.448
Carlos	Lee	804	655	-149	.815
Derrek	Lee	741	874	133	1.179
Chet	Lemon	656	749	93	1.142
Buddy	Lewis	507	573	66	1.130
Whitey	Lockman	589	552	-37	.937
Kenny	Lofton	805	945	140	1.174
Sherm	Lollar	510	671	161	1.316
Evan	Longoria	573	569	-4	.992
Davey	Lopes	581	833	252	1.433
Al	Lopez	464	556	92	1.199
Mark	Loretta	476	555	79	1.166
Mike	Lowell	569	548	-21	.963
Greg	Luzinski	698	845	147	1.211
Fred	Lynn	844	857	13	1.015
Bill	Madlock	590	605	15	1.025
Dave	Magadan	414	718	304	1.733
Mickey	Mantle	1253	1733	480	1.383
Heinie	Manush	757	506	-251	.668
Rabbit	Maranville	740	830	90	1.121
Roger	Maris	664	652	-12	.982
Nick	Markakis	737	762	25	1.034
Russell	Martin	511	706	195	1.381
Dave	Martinez	564	567	3	1.005
Edgar	Martinez	791	1283	492	1.621
Tino	Martinez	878	780	-98	.888
Victor	Martinez	782	698	-84	.892
Eddie	Mathews	1191	1444	253	1.212
Hideki	Matsui	524	547	23	1.044
Gary	Matthews	688	940	252	1.366
Don	Mattingly	768	588	-180	.766
Joe	Mauer	681	888	207	1.304
Lee	May	760	487	-273	.641
John	Mayberry	699	881	182	1.260
Willie	Mays	1259	1463	204	1.162
Bill	Mazeroski	631	447	-184	.708
Lee	Mazzilli	452	642	190	1.422
Dick	McAuliffe	703	882	179	1.254
Brian	McCann	686	590	-96	.861
Tim	McCarver	549	548	-1	.998
Willie	McCovey	1163	1345	182	1.156
Andrew	McCutchen	517	685	168	1.324
Willie	McGee	701	448	-253	.639
Fred	McGriff	1173	1305	132	1.113
Mark	McGwire	923	1317	394	1.427
Mark	McLemore	607	875	268	1.442
Marty	McManus	570	675	105	1.184
Roy	McMillan	541	665	124	1.228
George	McQuinn	609	712	103	1.169
Brian	McRae	527	488	-39	.927
Hal	McRae	647	648	1	1.002
Kevin	McReynolds	530	522	-8	.984
Joe	Medwick	678	437	-241	.644
Denis	Menke	455	698	243	1.535
Kevin	Millar	463	564	101	1.217
Don	Mincher	518	606	88	1.170
Minnie	Minoso	628	814	186	1.296
Johnny	Mize	862	856	-6	.993
Paul	Molitor	949	1094	145	1.153
Rick	Monday	737	924	187	1.253
Raul	Mondesi	589	475	-114	.807
Don	Money	570	600	30	1.052
Willie	Montanez	594	465	-129	.782
Wally	Moon	537	644	107	1.199
Melvin	Mora	515	520	5	1.010
Joe	Morgan	1091	1865	774	1.710
Justin	Morneau	679	573	-106	.844
Lloyd	Moseby	633	616	-17	.974
Wally	Moses	697	821	124	1.178
Bobby	Murcer	787	862	75	1.096
Dale	Murphy	857	986	129	1.151
Dwayne	Murphy	536	747	211	1.393
Eddie	Murray	1398	1333	-65	.954
Stan	Musial	1393	1599	206	1.148
Buddy	Myer	661	965	304	1.460
Mike	Napoli	527	650	123	1.234
Graig	Nettles	1085	1088	3	1.003
Bill	Nicholson	675	800	125	1.184
Otis	Nixon	460	585	125	1.271
Bill	North	376	627	251	1.669
Pete	O'Brien	601	641	40	1.066
Jose	Offerman	557	772	215	1.386
Ben	Oglivie	684	560	-124	.818
John	Olerud	917	1275	358	1.390
Tony	Oliva	691	448	-243	.649
Al	Oliver	908	535	-373	.589
Paul	O'Neill	862	892	30	1.035
Magglio	Ordonez	702	651	-51	.927
Jorge	Orta	590	500	-90	.847
David	Ortiz	1208	1319	111	1.092
Amos	Otis	664	757	93	1.139
Mel	Ott	1300	1708	408	1.314
Lyle	Overbay	561	638	77	1.138
Spike	Owen	473	569	96	1.203
Andy	Pafko	597	561	-36	.939
Rafael	Palmeiro	1172	1353	181	1.154
Dean	Palmer	540	502	-38	.930
Dave	Parker	1032	683	-349	.662
Lance	Parrish	715	612	-103	.856
Larry	Parrish	649	529	-120	.815
Roger	Peckinpaugh	555	797	242	1.435
Dustin	Pedroia	530	621	91	1.173
Carlos	Pena	685	817	132	1.193
Hunter	Pence	556	480	-76	.863
Terry	Pendleton	699	486	-213	.695
Jhonny	Peralta	607	606	-1	.998
Tony	Perez	954	925	-29	.969
Johnny	Pesky	433	662	229	1.530
Rico	Petrocelli	543	661	118	1.217
Dave	Philley	609	594	-15	.975
Brandon	Phillips	651	416	-235	.639
Tony	Phillips	842	1319	477	1.567
Mike	Piazza	793	759	-34	.957
Juan	Pierre	641	464	-177	.723
Jimmy	Piersall	497	524	27	1.055
A.J.	Pierzynski	735	308	-427	.419
Vada	Pinson	983	574	-409	.584
Wally	Pipp	665	596	-69	.896
Placido	Polanco	578	429	-149	.742
Darrell	Porter	652	905	253	1.387
Jorge	Posada	782	936	154	1.197
Boog (J.W.)	Powell	869	1001	132	1.152
Jerry	Priddy	394	624	230	1.585
Kirby	Puckett	647	450	-197	.695
Albert	Pujols	1165	1251	86	1.073
Doug	Rader	481	528	47	1.097
Tim	Raines	942	1330	388	1.411
Aramis	Ramirez	835	633	-202	.758
Hanley	Ramirez	620	638	18	1.029
Manny	Ramirez	1031	1329	298	1.289
Willie	Randolph	651	1243	592	1.909
Pee Wee	Reese	701	1210	509	1.726
Edgar	Renteria	679	718	39	1.057
Jose	Reyes	727	567	-160	.780
Mark	Reynolds	570	661	91	1.160
Jim	Rice	837	670	-167	.800
Sam	Rice	816	709	-107	.869
Cal	Ripken	1120	1129	9	1.008
Phil	Rizzuto	461	650	189	1.411
Brian	Roberts	562	609	47	1.083
Brooks	Robinson	939	860	-79	.916
Eddie	Robinson	507	521	14	1.028
Frank	Robinson	1168	1420	252	1.216
Jackie	Robinson	472	740	268	1.567
Alex	Rodriguez	1280	1338	58	1.045
Ivan	Rodriguez	862	513	-349	.595
Billy	Rogell	493	649	156	1.315
Scott	Rolen	768	899	131	1.170
Jimmy	Rollins	973	813	-160	.835
Pete	Rose	1361	1566	205	1.150
John	Roseboro	503	547	44	1.088
Al	Rosen	418	587	169	1.405
Edd	Roush	684	484	-200	.708
Pete	Runnels	596	844	248	1.415
Bill	Russell	550	483	-67	.878
Babe	Ruth	1530	2062	532	1.348
Tim	Salmon	666	970	304	1.456
Ryne	Sandberg	787	761	-26	.967
Reggie	Sanders	658	674	16	1.024
Carlos	Santana	518	726	208	1.402
Benito	Santiago	625	430	-195	.688
Ron	Santo	844	1108	264	1.312
Hank	Sauer	542	561	19	1.035
Steve	Sax	528	556	28	1.052
Ray	Schalk	407	635	228	1.559
Wally	Schang	550	849	299	1.543
Mike	Schmidt	1044	1507	463	1.443
Red	Schoendienst	778	606	-172	.779
Mike	Scioscia	440	567	127	1.289
George	Scott	715	699	-16	.978
David	Segui	533	524	-9	.983
Kevin	Seitzer	443	669	226	1.511
Joe	Sewell	679	844	165	1.244
Richie	Sexson	568	588	20	1.035
Gary	Sheffield	1069	1475	406	1.380
Norm	Siebern	509	708	199	1.391
Ruben	Sierra	915	610	-305	.666
Roy	Sievers	693	841	148	1.213
Al	Simmons	853	615	-238	.721
Ted	Simmons	947	855	-92	.903
Ken	Singleton	871	1263	392	1.450
George	Sisler	794	472	-322	.594
Enos	Slaughter	824	1018	194	1.235
Roy Jr.	Smalley	644	771	127	1.197
Al	Smith	511	674	163	1.318
Lonnie	Smith	453	623	170	1.374
Ozzie	Smith	856	1072	216	1.252
Reggie	Smith	878	890	12	1.013
Duke	Snider	953	971	18	1.018
J.T.	Snow	663	760	97	1.146
Alfonso	Soriano	809	496	-313	.613
Sammy	Sosa	1052	929	-123	.883
Tris	Speaker	832	1145	313	1.377
Chris	Speier	604	847	243	1.402
Matt	Stairs	668	717	49	1.073
Eddie	Stanky	374	996	622	2.660
Mike	Stanley	453	652	199	1.440
Willie	Stargell	1062	937	-125	.882
Rusty	Staub	1089	1255	166	1.152
Vern	Stephens	633	692	59	1.094
Darryl	Strawberry	750	816	66	1.088
Gus	Suhr	522	718	196	1.376
Jim	Sundberg	511	699	188	1.368
B.J.	Surhoff	836	640	-196	.765
Ichiro	Suzuki	928	643	-285	.693
Mike	Sweeney	522	522	0	1.001
Nick	Swisher	693	817	124	1.179
Danny	Tartabull	558	768	210	1.375
Tony	Taylor	600	613	13	1.022
Mark	Teixeira	958	918	-40	.958
Miguel	Tejada	796	553	-243	.694
Johnny	Temple	406	648	242	1.597
Garry	Templeton	688	375	-313	.545
Gene	Tenace	506	984	478	1.946
Bill	Terry	697	537	-160	.770
Mickey	Tettleton	656	949	293	1.447
Frank	Thomas	1046	1667	621	1.593
Frank J.	Thomas	635	484	-151	.762
Gorman	Thomas	541	697	156	1.288
Jim	Thome	1305	1747	442	1.339
Jason	Thompson	603	816	213	1.353
Bobby	Thomson	623	559	-64	.897
Andre	Thornton	586	876	290	1.494
Jack	Tobin	578	498	-80	.861
Earl	Torgeson	584	980	396	1.679
Joe	Torre	745	779	34	1.046
Alan	Trammell	732	850	118	1.162
Pie	Traynor	585	472	-113	.807
Tom	Tresh	504	550	46	1.091
Hal	Trosky	614	545	-69	.888
Troy	Tulowitzki	500	509	9	1.019
Dan	Uggla	519	626	107	1.207
Justin	Upton	574	633	59	1.103
Melvin Jr.	Upton	489	589	100	1.204
Chase	Utley	790	707	-83	.895
Jose	Valentin	689	630	-59	.914
Elmer	Valo	518	943	425	1.822
Andy	Van Slyke	622	667	45	1.073
Jason	Varitek	607	614	7	1.012
Arky	Vaughan	673	937	264	1.393
Greg	Vaughn	701	865	164	1.235
Mo	Vaughn	752	725	-27	.963
Bobby	Veach	624	566	-58	.907
Robin	Ventura	868	1075	207	1.238
Mickey	Vernon	889	955	66	1.074
Jose	Vidro	543	478	-65	.880
Bill	Virdon	564	442	-122	.784
Omar	Vizquel	996	1028	32	1.033
Joey	Votto	684	996	312	1.457
Curt	Walker	475	535	60	1.127
Dixie	Walker	673	817	144	1.214
Larry	Walker	954	913	-41	.957
Tim	Wallach	746	649	-97	.870
Lloyd	Waner	669	420	-249	.627
Paul	Waner	949	1091	142	1.150
Claudell	Washington	684	468	-216	.684
Bob	Watson	573	653	80	1.140
Walt	Weiss	450	658	208	1.463
Vernon	Wells	642	472	-170	.736
Bill	Werber	432	701	269	1.621
Jayson	Werth	569	764	195	1.342
Vic	Wertz	745	828	83	1.112
Sammy	West	590	696	106	1.179
Zack	Wheat	725	529	-196	.730
Lou	Whitaker	955	1197	242	1.254
Bill	White	665	596	-69	.896
Devon	White	788	541	-247	.687
Frank	White	651	412	-239	.633
Roy	White	731	934	203	1.277
Bernie	Williams	936	1069	133	1.142
Billy	Williams	1135	1045	-90	.921
Cy	Williams	780	684	-96	.876
Ken	Williams	594	566	-28	.953
Matt	Williams	733	469	-264	.640
Ted	Williams	1247	2021	774	1.621
Maury	Wills	657	552	-105	.840
Hack	Wilson	540	674	134	1.247
Willie	Wilson	676	425	-251	.629
Dave	Winfield	1110	1216	106	1.095
Randy	Winn	619	526	-93	.849
Gene	Woodling	624	920	296	1.475
David	Wright	609	761	152	1.250
Butch	Wynegar	447	626	179	1.400
Jimmy	Wynn	728	1224	496	1.681
Carl	Yastrzemski	1433	1845	412	1.288
Rudy	York	623	791	168	1.269
Eddie	Yost	699	1614	915	2.309
Eric	Young	507	660	153	1.303
Michael	Young	677	575	-102	.850
Ross	Youngs	452	550	98	1.216
Robin	Yount	959	966	7	1.008
Todd	Zeile	731	945	214	1.292
Ryan	Zimmerman	595	583	-12	.980
Richie	Zisk	508	533	25	1.049
Ben	Zobrist	605	754	149	1.246

COMMENTS (59 Comments, most recent shown first)

Brock Hanke
jdw - Thanks for the response. And the typo correct is a fine thing you have done for me. As for the name, just because you've been putting in work and deserve some humor, my last name, Hanke, is the German word for "Haunch." My first name, Brock, is the Old English / Anglo-Saxon word for "badger." So, my entire name, converted to English, is "Badger Butt." I NEVER complain when someone has my name wrong.
10:45 PM Jun 11th

jdw
#2 - yes, copy & paste typo. Correct number is 13435 actual non-pitcher BB. Math matches the 56.3 BB/650 PA.

#1 - my apologies on the name error. Should have stuck with the easier Brock. :)
8:03 PM Jun 10th

Brock Hanke
jaw - Thanks for the quick check. I appreciate it. Two tiny gripes: 1) My last name is Hanke, not Henke. I am not at all related to the pitcher. 2) You have actual BB of 12944 for 1969. You ALSO have 12944 for 1979. This is possible, of course, but one hell of a coincidence if true. Since the rate numbers are very close, while the raw numbers of AB are not, my guess is that you have a typo in 1979 that didn't affect the calculations, but is just a typo on your comment.
3:03 AM Jun 8th

jdw
1969 MLB Non-Pitchers
121649 AB
12164 BB Henke quick est
12944 BB Actual
57.6 BB/650 PA Henke quick est
61.3 BB/650 PA Actual

1979 MLB Non-Pitchers
138260 AB
13826 BB Henke quick est
12944 BB Actual
57.9 BB/650 PA Henke quick est
56.3 BB/650 PA Actual

Hmmm... that is kinda interesting. :-)
8:31 PM Jun 7th

Brock Hanke
I loved this analysis; THANKS! For over 50 years, since I was a teenager, I have used the following off-the-cuff estimate of how many walks the average batter will have, so you can easily compare individual hitters to the norm:

Take the player's AB. Throw out the last digit. That's how many walks the normal hitter will have against that number of AB, NOT Plate Appearances.

That was it. Very simple. Doing this involves pretending that you can safely throw away the last digit of AB, which is false, but not by much. Anyway, expressed as a numerical formula, this amounts to 1 walk per 11 plate appearances. 1/11 = 9.1%.In other words, it's actually pretty close to your well-examined 8.8%. If you decide to include the last digit in your PA estimates, assuming that the normal last digit will be 5, you get 1/11.5 = 8.7%. I admit to being VERY surprised that this off-the-cuff estimate is that accurate. It's been VERY useful in estimating whether a hitter's walks are low, normal, or high, when just looking at newspaper stats. Thanks, again, for the very helpful confirmation.
6:47 AM Jun 7th

smbakeresq
Good work. I am happy that this study shows another thing Brett Butler was good at.
12:27 PM Jun 6th

jdw
So, if you got all the way through that and got to the punch line on expectations, let's go in an entirely different direction...

Moneyball was published in 2003.

.918 - combined MLB 2004-2017

That trend might have started a couple of seasons earlier:

.919 - 2001
.963 - 2002
.933 - 2003

The numbers had fluctuated in the post-expansion, post-Deadball-2.0 period starting in 1969. Yet they formula still was reasonably close collectively over 1969-2000:

1.008 - 1969-2000

To be clearer on how radical the change has been, here are the Bottom 25 seasons in the 106 seasons in the sample:

2015 - 0.854 <--
2014 - 0.879 <--
2016 - 0.882 <--
1966 - 0.886
2012 - 0.888 <--
2013 - 0.893 <--
2017 - 0.901 <--
1964 - 0.904
2005 - 0.906 <--
1963 - 0.909
2011 - 0.919 <--
2001 - 0.919 <--
2006 - 0.921 <--
1968 - 0.926
2003 - 0.933 <--
1921 - 0.933
2004 - 0.937 <--
1967 - 0.947
1965 - 0.949
2007 - 0.951 <--
2010 - 0.961 <--
1988 - 0.963
2002 - 0.963 <--
1930 - 0.964
1982 - 0.967

2001-2017 is of course 17 seasons.

15 of those 17 seasons made the Bottom 25.

One of the others just missed, while the other is also way down the list.

2008 - 0.973 (#29)
2009 - 0.984 (#37)

Cutting to the chase:

1.026 - 1913-2000
0.922 - 2001-2017

5:13 PM Jun 5th

jdw
Using the data for the entire MLB in the seasons in Bill's sample (not down to the player level), you get interesting result. If you have no patience, cut to the end where you'll find the result one probably should have expected from the start.

1913 - 1.082
1914 - 1.097
1915 - 1.107
1916 - 1.058
1917 - 1.037
1918 - 1.058
1919 - 0.973
1920 - 0.970
1921 - 0.933
1922 - 0.971
1923 - 1.020
1924 - 1.010
1925 - 1.024
1926 - 1.062
1927 - 1.016
1928 - 1.027
1929 - 1.036
1930 - 0.964
1931 - 1.029
1932 - 0.978
1933 - 0.998
1934 - 1.028
1935 - 1.021
1936 - 1.076
1937 - 1.089
1938 - 1.115
1939 - 1.092
1940 - 1.055
1941 - 1.153
1942 - 1.146
1943 - 1.149
1944 - 1.070
1945 - 1.132
1946 - 1.170
1947 - 1.179
1948 - 1.226
1949 - 1.254
1950 - 1.198
1951 - 1.142
1952 - 1.113
1953 - 1.057
1954 - 1.110
1955 - 1.086
1956 - 1.072
1957 - 0.982
1958 - 0.984
1959 - 0.985
1960 - 1.020
1961 - 1.018
1962 - 0.998
1963 - 0.909
1964 - 0.904
1965 - 0.949
1966 - 0.886
1967 - 0.947
1968 - 0.926
1969 - 1.058
1970 - 1.055
1971 - 1.013
1972 - 1.007
1973 - 1.031
1974 - 1.049
1975 - 1.082
1976 - 1.038
1977 - 0.982
1978 - 1.019
1979 - 0.988
1980 - 0.974
1981 - 1.019
1982 - 0.967
1983 - 0.989
1984 - 0.978
1985 - 0.996
1986 - 1.009
1987 - 0.980
1988 - 0.963
1989 - 1.005
1990 - 1.013
1991 - 1.017
1992 - 1.016
1993 - 0.993
1994 - 0.994
1995 - 1.014
1996 - 0.996
1997 - 0.993
1998 - 0.968
1999 - 1.023
2000 - 1.033
2001 - 0.919
2002 - 0.963
2003 - 0.933
2004 - 0.937
2005 - 0.906
2006 - 0.921
2007 - 0.951
2008 - 0.973
2009 - 0.984
2010 - 0.961
2011 - 0.919
2012 - 0.888
2013 - 0.893
2014 - 0.879
2015 - 0.854
2016 - 0.882
2017 - 0.901
--------------
Total - 1.001
4:46 PM Jun 5th

jdw
shthar wrote:
Is the walk ratio for the entire league in a given season 1?

-----------------

Ran 1974 including everyone, even pitchers:

12294 - Ex BB
12963 - Act BB
+669 - ?
1.054 - Ratio

Note again that includes pitchers.

If you run the entire MLB data set, rather than individual players, you get:

12358 - Ex BB
12963 - Act BB
+605 - ?
1.049 - Ratio

That of course removes the adjustments for handednes and the two .340+ bonuses (Carew and Madlock).

The numbers aren't wildly far off given almost 13,000 BB and 149K PA.

I'd invite others to run other league to see what they get.
4:24 PM Jun 5th

shthar
Is the walk ratio for the entire league in a given season 1?
10:17 PM Jun 4th

MarisFan61
JDW: Thanks for all that.
Useful info.

Indeed the overall average "ratio" for the players on that last chart is higher than in my sample.
(a little -- 1.115 vs. 1.088)
The proportions of 'above 1' to 'below 1' in each group -- i.e. how many in each group are above average -- are just about equal.
10:10 PM Jun 4th

jdw
One add:

BB/PA %
6.46% Gaetti
6.42% Campaneris

Exp BB Ratio
0.916 Campaneris
0.729 Gaetti

Wild.

There are a variety of comps one can do like that. Brooks is an interesting comp to Gaetti, as Brooks didn't BB at a high rate but has an Exp BB Ratio right next to Campy.
9:41 PM Jun 4th

jdw
bearbyz wrote:
Maris there is a bias in Bill's sample and consequently yours. Bill showed only those who had a total of 1,000 or morel expected and actual walks. That leaves the below average players, who would most likely have negative ratios.

- - - - -

Yes, this. Would think it would be obvious - the first thing any of us would think to do is dump the last chart into a spreadsheet and have some sorting and summing fun.

There were 619 players in the last chart. Sum them up:

435827 Approximate Expected Walks
485802 Actual Walks
+49975 Approximate Margin
1.115 Approximate Ratio

"Approximate" used because Bill's numbers for Expected are rounded.

Anyway, players on the list are above the expectation.

Coming at it in another direction:

209 - Players sub-1.000 ratio
410 - Players at or above 1.000
9:24 PM Jun 4th

jdw
Boatload of fun article. A lot of the Usual Suspects at both the top end and the bottom end. The Top 25 Non-Walkers... just a ton of fun to see a slew of the guys we've talked about in that regards over the past 35+ years.
9:16 PM Jun 4th

MarisFan61
I do take it all back.
Bearbyz's point does it.

Sorry, folks, and especially, sorry to Bill. I made the mistake (besides just thinking that you could have been off to any such extent in your weighting of anything!) ....of thinking that "1" would be the average ratio of all the players in the study. If I had looked at that last chart with an eye to checking on that, I would have seen quickly that it probably wasn't so. BTW, I would have seen it more readily if you had pointed out what Bearbyz did, either in the article or in that reply where you gave that list of high-HR players who show with 'minus.' Maybe you just wanted to leave it for us to see for ourselves.

It does seem like a logical thing that most players with such long careers would be better than average at 'walking' (or in fact at anything). As I said, I tried to somewhat bias my group toward not being greater walkers, i.e. I picked players that we wouldn't readily have any reason to think they were good walkers. And maybe indeed they weren't good walkers by long-career standards -- maybe a ratio around 1.088 is pretty pedestrian for someone with a long career.

Anyway, I think it would be good to note explicitly that most of these long-career players show as above average; I think that their overall ratio is well over 1, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than the average for those guys I picked. Not that this is an excuse for my mistake (it isn't), but I think this in itself is an important and interesting finding of the study: Even guys that we might think weren't particularly good at drawing walks probably were, if they had a long career -- and I think it's worth highlighting.
10:18 AM Jun 4th

MarisFan61
Good point -- and in that case, the 'bar' for what I looked at isn't "1," but the average 'ratio' of all the players shown in that last chart above -- i.e. it's only meaningful if that average "ratio" for those 74 players (1.088) is significantly higher than the average of all the players shown in that chart.

I'd welcome anyone to get that figure.
Maybe Bill has it......

It does look like a majority of the players in the chart (a good majority) are over 1, and quite a few are way over. It appears that the overall average is easily greater than 1.

I may have to go back to where I took it all back....
1:36 AM Jun 4th

bearbyz
Maris there is a bias in Bill's sample and consequently yours. Bill showed only those who had a total of 1,000 or morel expected and actual walks. That leaves the below average players, who would most likely have negative ratios.
7:24 PM Jun 3rd

Robinsong
I love this study. It reminds me of the comment in the Historical Abstract about walk rates in the late 40s and 50s which called attention to the Eddies (Stanky, Yost, and Joost). I believe that it suggested that managers started looking for pitchers with better control to neutralize this strategy. It is fascinating that 8 of the 9 greatest seasons were between 1946 and 1956.
5:16 PM Jun 3rd

Guy123
Correction on my comment below: The data confirms that the relationship between power and BB rate is NOW stronger than it used to be.
10:20 AM Jun 3rd

nettles9
I didn’t say it wasn’t legitimate, Maris. I thought that, based on all your criticisms and vague correction suggestions, as some others have done on other studies in the past at this site, that anyone questioning a study actually make specific suggestions to correct the study. And I will put a smiley here to show I’m not being mean or anything. :-) I’ve always wanted to ask this of someone here and I have done so. Carry on, sir. :-)
9:17 AM Jun 3rd

Guy123
Very interesting analysis. I think it's notable that Ricky is the most recent great walk over-achiever, and that it's apparently become much less common to exceed one's projection in the 21st century. The data confirms that the relationship between power and BB rate is not stronger than in used to be. The correlation between HR/AB and BB at the career level was about .38 from 1913 to 1999, but has increased to about .50 since 2000.

I'd guess that's mostly pitchers getting smarter about not walking guys who can't hit HRs, but perhaps power hitters have also become more willing (on average) to take a walk. The standard deviation for BB rate has shrunk among players with average or little power, but has actually increased a bit for HR hitters. I think the way to think about the relationship is that power increasingly impacts a player's ceiling for drawing walks, but not his floor. So a power hitter has the potential for a high BB rate, but his approach may still result in very few walks. But non-power hitters have a lower ceiling, since pitchers aren't afraid to throw in the zone (any maybe a higher floor, since a guy without HR or BB has trouble keeping a job), so there is less variation.

Going forward, I think this means we're unlikely to see many players like Yost, Bishop, or Stanky -- sub-.400 SLG hitters who greatly over-achieve at drawing walks.

9:10 AM Jun 3rd

MarisFan61
P.S. Possible inadvertent selection bias in my sample that may have tilted it toward a positive ratio:
(BTW, if so, I think this would be a new thing, not known before; I think it's not so, and then there isn't any new thing, and then I think my finding stands)

The guys I picked are somewhat in the direction of low-ish batting average power hitters. I don't mean low-low, just 'somewhat in the direction of low-ish.' That's because I eliminated most of the high average hitters, on the basis that their offensive game was more varied and therefore didn't give such a pure look at power.

So......

It's possible that in order for low-ish batting average power hitters to do well enough/be good enough to have long enough careers to come into Bill's chart here.....well, if they had low-ish batting averages, they needed to have somewhat high walk rates.
Or, the related but slightly different thing, similar to what I said in the "backtracking my backtrack" post: that a key aspect of how a lowish-average hitter can be an effective power hitter is to have good strike-zone judgment and selectivity.

I do think any of these things would be a thing we didn't know before.

As with all the things I say, "stupid shit" and otherwise :-) ......I appreciate any comments, corrections, challenges.
6:14 PM Jun 2nd

MarisFan61
Come on. :-)

It's legitimate to offer observations without needing to make ourselves into authors, experts, or creators.
3:00 PM Jun 2nd

nettles9
So, Maris, how should it be tweaked? Would you please formulate and present to us an article that shows all the numerical tweaks/corrections, etc., that you think should be made? Can you do your own study on this, please? And we here at the site would appreciate you showing your work (your mathematical computations to support your results). Thank you.
2:29 PM Jun 2nd

MarisFan61
The average ratio for the 74 players is 1.088.
2:17 PM Jun 2nd

MarisFan61
(sorry, I left out something in the "not cherry picking" pgph. I meant, I left out guys who had other prominent aspects to their offensive game that would pollute what we're looking at)

2:01 PM Jun 2nd

MarisFan61
Bill: There was a time I would have been fairly crushed by what you just said, not that many years ago.
I don't know why, but now, what you said has no effect.

You're rejecting this too out-of-hand.
For one thing, that list you gave shows that you weren't (maybe still aren't) looking purely enough at what I'm talking about. You diluted it.

The method does not adjust sufficiently for power. It might not be way off, but it could do it better.

Don't get me wrong: THIS THING IS TERRIFIC. THE METHOD IS GREAT. THE RESULTS ARE EXTREMELY INTERESTING. I LOVE IT.
But, doesn't mean it couldn't be tweaked.

----------------------------------------

I looked at that final list up there fully through the letter M.

I found 74 players that I quickly identified as players who are good to look at for this.
Criterion: Relatively pure power hitter.
If we want to see if power is or isn't sufficiently adjusted for in the method, we'd better restrict the field to "relatively pure power hitter."

I promise that I did not "cherry pick."
I'm not picking guys purposely who will up the number of + ratios.
It's the opposite, sort of: I'm picking guys who we have no particular a priori reason to think were great walkers, or who had other prominent aspects to their offensive game that would pollute what we're looking at.

We could quibble about who I picked and left out. I could quibble with who I picked and left out, including because I didn't look up the records of most of the guys to be sure about exactly how much power they had and how prominent the rest of their offensive game was. But hey, I think it'll be clear exactly what kind of player I'm trying to pick (and leave out), and I hope it will make sense to most readers. If you feel there are several guys up to letter M that should have been included who weren't, or a few that I included who shouldn't be, that's fine -- and I don't think it would lessen my point.
In any event, I did an honest, honest job here.

Of the 74 players, if I'm counting right, 48 show with ratios above 1.
I didn't do an average of the ratios. I'd be interested to know what it would be. It would surely be well over 1.

Here's the complete list, with some comments about my selections.
I didn't comment on each and every 'tough' pick, just some of them.

BTW the spacings don't mean anything. They're just a thing I did to help me count the players.
For convenience I left out the decimal points.

=======================

Adcock 859
D. Allen 1253
Allison 1415
Banks 756
Bautista 1419
Belle 978
Bench 1082
Berra 774
Barry Bonds 1530
Bobby Bonds 1217
Braun 847
J. Bruce 804
Buhner 1322
Burroughs 1425
Mig. Cabrera 1131
Camilli 1390
Campanella 1122
Canseco 1078
G. Carter 1058
Cepeda 726

J. Clark 1627
Colavito 1271
Chris Davis 829
Dawson 602
Deer 1284
Delgado 1056
Doby 1267
Dunn 1289
Encarnacion 1120
Ennis 850
(BTW, Darrell Evans and such other players omitted because he was clearly a "walker": I'm talking about looking at guys who we have no big reason to feel WAS/IS much of a walker, to make the results, such as there may be, as bold as possible)
C. Fielder 1153
P. Fielder 1078
Floyd 932
Foster 906
Foxx 1382
Gamble 1095
Gehrig 1230 (BTW he's borderline in terms of my including him here; it's a little complicated; Foxx was borderline too -- IMO his offensive game was more varied and so [IMO] he doesn't give as pure a look)
Giambi 1297
Glaus 1344
Juan Gonzalez 614

Greenberg 1359
Griffey Jr. 961
Vlad G. 833
Hodges 1211
Horton 845
F. Howard 1067
R. Howard 884
Hrbek 1078
Huff 811
Ibanez 825
Reggie J. 1040
Jensen 1411
Deron J. 990
Andruw 1043
Justice 1205
Karros 854
(I omitted Keller even though he's bolster 'my point,' because I don't consider him the kind of hitter that it would be fair to use for looking at this 'like a laser beam'; many others similarly)
Killebrew 1489
Kiner 1509
Kingman 789
Klein 733

Klesko 1139
Klu 697
Konerko 1010
Luzinski 1211
(Mantle omitted -- more complete offensive game than who I think it's most relevant to look at; obviously if I included him he's bolster 'my point')
Maris 982
E. Mathews 1212
Lee May 641
Mayberry 1260
(Mays omitted, for reasons that are obvious, per my prior comments; he'd also bolster the point if I included him. I'm not cherry-picking; if anything the opposite -- omitting kinds of players who have high ratios on this but involving factors that are so clearly outside of what I'm looking at)
McCovey 1156
McGriff 1113
McGwire 1427
Mincher 1170
Mize 993
Dale Murphy 1151

1:58 PM Jun 2nd

garywmaloney
Also very helpful for Our Kansas Friend to give us another index to help answer questions that get posed all the time --

For example, McGwire (1.427 lifetime) vs. Sosa (.883). Or Kaline (1.249) vs. Clemente (.745). Or Cey (1.335) vs. Garvey (.609).

Love this new knowledge, new tools -- the Big Game study was like that too. (Now pitching . . . Roy Oswalt . . .)

Thanks Bill.
1:45 PM Jun 2nd

bjames
What would be quite a bit better, Maris, is if you would just stop posting stupid shit and wasting my time. You're not capable of doing an analysis to see what the balance of increases and decreases would be, and that's fine; it's not your job, it's my job. But you're PRETENDING that you're doing an intuitive analysis that doesn't mean shit to a tree. Stop it.
1:32 PM Jun 2nd

MarisFan61
Well, you're showing just the minuses.
Granted, it's a lot, more than I would have thought.

I'll put together a [i]general[i] sampling and show it.
(If it shows nothing like what I thought, I won't necessarily take up more space by showing it, but I'll say it showed nothing like what I thought.)

BTW, not that important for the bottom line of we're talking about, but I didn't mean and wouldn't (and won't) include guys like George Brett, Roberto Clemente, Cecil Cooper, Richie Hebner, Evan Longoria, and quite a few of the other guys you included, because they were more-varied kinds of hitters and therefore don't so purely reflect how the method adjusts for power. Including guys like that dilutes what we're trying to see on this.
I don't do much, but when I do, I try to focus hard on what I'm looking at.
1:13 PM Jun 2nd

garywmaloney
I wonder what Bill has to say about the CONCENTRATIONS of some of these extreme players.
Not many concentrations of high-walk guys -- late 60s / early 70s Astros had two (Wynn and Morgan), mid-70s A's had Tenace and North. The late-40s Dodgers (briefly) had Reese and Stanky.
But the early 80s are fascinating here in the low-walk group -- two on Bill's fabled Royals (Willie Wilson and Frank White). In 1985 that team defeated the Jays (fearsome non-walker Al Oliver) and Cards (Willie McGee).
The early 70s Dodgers had three non-walk leaders -- Willie Davis, Bill Buckner, and Buck's replacement at 1st, Steve Garvey.

1:09 PM Jun 2nd

bjames
From the list above: Hank Aaron (755 home runs), -18 walks; Joe Adcock (336 home runs), -97 walks; Felipe Alou (206 home runs), -220 walks; Garrett Anderson (287 home runs), -481 walks; Ernie Banks (512 home runs), -247 walks; Don Baylor (338 home runs), -34 walks; Gus Bell (206 home runs), -225 walks; Carlos Beltran (435 home runs), -121 walks; Adrian Beltre (477 home runs), -241 walks; Yogi Berra (358 home runs), -206 walks; Jim Bottomley (219 home runs), -157 walks; George Brett (317 home runs), -45 walks; Jay Bruce (just hit his 300th home run), -129 walks; Robinson Cano (325 home runs), -325 walks; Joe Carter (396 home runs), -322 walks; Vinny Castilla (320 home runs), -262 walks; Orlando Cepeda (379 home runs), -222 walks; Roberto Clemente (240 home runs), -212 walks: Cecil Cooper (241 home runs), -346 walks; Nelson Cruz (367 homers), -94 walks; Chris Davis (288 home runs), -97 walks; Andre Dawson (438 home runs), -390 walks; Bill Dickey (202 home runs), -24 walks; Jermaine Dye (325 home runs), -85 walks; Del Ennis (288 home runs), -105 walks; Steve Finley (304 home runs), -188 walks; Carlton Fisk (376 home runs), -38 walks; Cliff Floyd (233 home runs), -44 walks; George Foster (348 home runs), -69 walks; Gary Gaetti (360 home runs), -236 walks; Andres Galarraga (399 home runs), -261 walks; Steve Garvey (272 home runs), -307 walks; Juan Gonzalez (434 home runs), -287 walks; Goose Goslin (248 home runs), -8 walks; Shawn Green (328 home runs), -121 walks; Ken Griffey Jr. (630 home runs (-54 walks); Vladimir Guerrero Sr. (449 home runs), -148 walks; George Hendrick (267 home runs), -113 walks; Richie Hebner (203 home runs), -6 walks; Willie Horton (325 home runs), -113 walks; Aubrey Huff (242 home runs), -242 walks; Torii Hunter (353 home runs), -196 walks; Raul Ibanez (305 home runs), -151 walks; Deron Johnson (245 home runs), -6 walks; Matt Kemp (281 home runs), -241 walks; Jeff Kent (377 home runs), -68 walks; Dave Kingman (442 home runs), -162 walks; Chuck Klein (300 home runs), -218 walks; Ted Kluszewski (279 home runs), -214 walks; Adam LaRoche (255 home runs), -38 walks; Carlos Lee (358 home runs), -149 walks; Evan Longoria (283 home runs) -4 walks; Mike Lowell (223 home runs), -21 walks; Victor Martinez (246 home runs), -84 walks; Don Mattingly (222 home runs), -180 walks; Lee May (354 home runs), -273 walks; Brian McCann (273 home runs), -96 walks; Johnny Mize (359 home runs), -6 walks; Raul Mondesi (247 home runs) -114 walks; Justin Morneau (247 home runs) -106 walks; Eddie Murray (504 home runs), -65 walks; Ben Oglivie (235 home runs) -124 walks; Tony Oliva (220 home runs), -243 walks; Al Oliver (219 home runs), -373 walks; Andy Pafko (213 home runs) -36 walks; Dean Palmer (275 home runs), --38 walks; Dave Parker (339 home runs),-349 walks; Lance Parrish (324 home runs), -103 walks; Larry Parrish (256 walks), -120 walks; Hunter Pence (235 home runs), -76 walks; Tony Perez (379 home runs), -29 walks; Brandon Phillips, (211 home runs), -235 walks; Vada Pinson (256 homers), -409 walks; Kirby Puckett (207 homers) -197 walks; Aramis Ramirez (386 homers), -202 walks; Jim Rice (382 homers), -167 walks; Brooks Robinson (268 homers), -79 walks; Jimmy Rollins (231 homers), -160 walks; Ryne Sandberg (282 homers), -26 walks; Benito Santiago (217 homers), -195 walks; George (Boomer) Scott (271 homers), -16 walks, Ruben Sierra (306 homers), -305 walks; Alfonso Soriano (414 homers), -313 walks; Sammie Sosa (609 homers), -123 walks; Willie Stargell (475 homers) -125 walks; Mark Teixeira (409 homers), -40 walks; Miguel Tejada (307 homers), -243 walks, Frank Thomas from the 1950s (286 homers), -151 walks; Bobby Thomson (264 homers), -64 walks; Hal Trosky (228 homers), -69 walks; Chase Utley (259 homers), -83 walks; Jose Valentin (249 homers), -59; Mo Vaughn (328 homers), -27 walks; Larry Walker (383 homers), -41 walks; Vernon Wells (270 homers), -170 walks; Devon White (208 homers), -247 walks; Billy Williams (426 homers), -90 walks; Cy Williams (251 homers), -96 walks; Matt Williams (378 homers), -264 walks, Ryan Zimmerman (267 homers), -12 walks.

Of course, many people would not consider Johnny Mize, Jim Rice, Billy Williams, Andre Dawson, Vladimir Guerrero, Orlando Cepeda, Tony Perez, Dave Kingman, Juan Gonzalez, Willie Stargell, Eddie Murray, Ernie Banks, Sammy Sosa, Henry Aaron and Ken Griffey Jr. to be “true” power hitters, but I would think that they should be included.
All of these hitters are ALREADY projected for more walks than they actually drew. If we increase the impact of walks on expected walks, all of these players go to even higher numbers of expected walks, thus further off target. In addition to that, many other players who are currently borderline, like Albert Pujols, fall into the “projections are too high” category.
Worse than that, if you increase the expected walks for power hitters, you have to DECREASE the expected walks for singles hitters. The list of singles hitters who are already projected for way too many walks is three times this long—Dom DiMaggio and Richie Ashburn and Eddie Stanky and Pete Rose and Phil Rizzuto, and on and on and on.

12:38 PM Jun 2nd

wdr1946
One minor curiosity on this list is Rick Ferrell, generally regarded as one of the least deserving players ever elected to the HofF. Have a look at his ratio. Ferrell, I believe, actually had a higher On Base Percentage than Hank Aaron. If he had had any power at all, he might have deserved his plaque.
Several questions also come to mind: do scouts and general managers now take batter's walks into account in assessing a player? It is often said that years ago they didn't, because a walk is caused by the pitcher. Secondly, do these ratios change as a player gets older? He probably gets more walks in the second half of his career as he becomes more patient- or does he?
5:25 AM Jun 2nd

MarisFan61
(C'mon folks, some help on that!
Let me know if there's some obvious fallacy. That kind of thing usually has some.
And if it looks right, cast your votes.) :-)
9:54 PM Jun 1st

MarisFan61
I'm backtracking my backtrack. :-)

Recognizing that I'm almost always wrong and almost certainly lead our league in "take-backs":

The method doesn't adjust sufficiently for power.

I took it back before because I noticed that Ruth's "ratio" was only 'good' not outstanding -- and if it's not outstanding, that's not enough in itself to make uys start questioning anything about the method. It was still higher than I would have imagined, but no big deal.

HOWEVER: Anybody, try this exercise.

Pick a bunch of sluggers that you have no reason to believe were particularly good at walking.
In fact, if you want to make it even more persuasive to yourself, do what I just did, in order to do my best to make sure about it:
Pick a bunch of sluggers that you feel pretty confident WEREN'T particularly good at walking.

I think you'll find that in your non-random sample -- your sample of players that you are creating who if anything should tend to be below average on this -- I think you'll find that almost all the players have a ratio greater than 1.

(When I did this, there was just 1 player out of about 10 who wasn't over 1, and he was outlyingly way under: Ruben Sierra, 0.666.)

I think there are two and only two ways to explain it: Either the method doesn't adjust sufficiently for power, or (and this next thing would be very interesting and even revealing, but I doubt it's so) .....or a big and hidden reason that sluggers are able to be sluggers is that they have outlyingly great strike zone judgment and discipline, which among other things gets translated into more-than-expected walks, independent of pitchers' fear of them -- even almost all the sluggers who seem sort of opposite.
5:39 PM Jun 1st

bjames
Some walkers are also wankers.
3:24 PM Jun 1st

MarisFan61
Sorry! Just that the other post looked that way.
10:42 AM Jun 1st

bearbyz
Maris, I did understand what Bill was doing. I just didn't explain why I bought up Gehrig and Griffey well enough for you to understand. Sorry.

Years ago, before internet. I used the Baseball Encyclopedia to try to identify all the players who had 100 RBIs and 100 walks in the same season. I was trying to see who had gotten a significant number of RBIs with enough walks for patience at the plate. I chose 100, not only was it a goal of most players it was easy to see in the Encyclopedia. I then used Bill's power speed number for walks and RBIs. Ruth and Williams dominated the category. I think Harmon Killebrew in 1969 was the only other player in the top 10. He had 140 RBIs and over 140 walks that year. Basically, none of Bill's results surprised me. Dolph Camilli surprised me in my earlier study as he had 100 walks and RBIs in the same season 4 times if I recall correctly. I didn't think much of him as a player before then.
9:57 AM Jun 1st

CharlesSaeger
How much does the league walk rate play into this? Obviously it was different before 1920, though with fewer home runs.
9:47 AM Jun 1st

MarisFan61
.....ON FURTHER REVIEW (and thought, which never hurts) :-)

I take it all back.

Not because I think it's likely that Ruth was different from his likely image in that way, but because:
He doesn't really rank that high on this.

He ranks well, but, I now think, not so well that I'd doubt anything about it.

I made the mistake of thinking that since he shows quite well on the 'absolute margin' chart, it must mean he did super well on this.

I failed to take the extra little step of looking at what his ratio would be -- i.e. where he'd sit in relation to that next chart.

We can figure out his ratio from that 'absolute margin' chart, or just get it from the last chart.
It's 1.348, which is good. Anything above 1 is good (since "1" means "equals expectation." It's not 'great.'
4:51 AM Jun 1st

wovenstrap
That's pretty cool. Thanks, Bill.
12:43 AM Jun 1st

raincheck
I misunderstood and thought this was going to be about “wankers’ not “walkers”

This is a great topic. How well do we think the average fan understands the hitter’s role in walking?

I don’t find Ruth’s score surprising at all. He’s wasn’t Dave Kingman. He was epically great at every aspect of hitting. The idea that he would have a good eye and be a selective hitter fits with everything we know about him as a hitter.

It may also be true that, as an outlier and an innovator and a legend in his time, he saw less good pitches that a typical hitter of his caliber (if there were such a thing). But he didn’t swing at the bad ones.

It is also true that an outlier like Ruth will break a lot of models like this.
12:03 AM Jun 1st

MarisFan61
How are "the Eddies" a surprise?
Was there any doubt that they were great 'walkers'?
9:21 PM May 31st

MarisFan61
Bearbyz: I think you're somewhat misunderstanding what this is. The fact that Ruth outwalks Gehrig (or anyone else) doesn't at all mean he would (or should) come out ahead of him on this.

About Griffey: I don't think there's any reason to have assumed he'd come out high on it, i.e. that he necessarily had any noteworthy 'ability' to draw walks.
9:19 PM May 31st

shthar
A whole league for a whole season I mean.

Oh what the hell, what was the greatest walking team?

9:12 PM May 31st

shthar
What if you did this for a whole season?

Does it even out?

Are guys walking more or less now? or then?

9:11 PM May 31st

shthar
The Eddie's were a suprise, but not Garret Anderson.

The list of guys with 25+ homers and fewer walks than homers in the same season, probably aint a long one. But Anderson has two, and he almost had 4. All in a row!

9:10 PM May 31st

MarisFan61
Steve: I mentioned that as a possible thing that would explain and justify it.

But no, I don't at all in the least altogether at all in the least whatsoever at all think it's equally likely. :-)
9:06 PM May 31st

meandean
Whoa... fancy fonts.
8:27 PM May 31st

steve161
Maris, isn't it just as possible that our image of Ruth, especially his selectivity, is wrong? (And yes, that possessive adjective should probebly be neither first person nor plural.)

Bill, I don't think it's a surprise to any of your long-time readers (i.e. us) that drawing walks is a skill. But it's really interesting to have a selectivity metric. Maybe the formula could use some tweaking, but even as it is, I think it's informative enough to merit a chapter of the handbook, with a list of all hitters above some threshold of plate appearances.
5:01 PM May 31st

OwenH
RICKEY!

Well, talk about a skill; everyone knows Rickey leaned way back and crouched way down to shrink his strike zone, for this exact purpose. To me the real skill he had was to be able to be an excellent major league hitter (batting over .300 several times in his career, .279 career average over his 25-year career, and of course with very good power) while batting in that extreme leaning-and-crouching stance. Since very few other major leaguers have used such an extremely leaned-back stance regularly (there were a few - Pete Rose, Oscar Gamble), I'm going to assume it's damn hard to hit that way. But by doing so, and of course by being extremely selective, Rickey forced pitchers to walk Rickey all the time, even though Rickey was the greatest base stealer ever.

Rickey approves this message about Rickey, because Rickey loves to walk.
4:43 PM May 31st

bearbyz
If there isn't enough adjustment for power, how did Ken Griffey Junior end up Griffey Jr. end up on the short end of walks. Also, Ruth outwalked Gehrig according to this formula. No matter what formula someone devices, Ruth will outwalk Gehrig.
4:17 PM May 31st

3for3
Love that the Evans’ are within 6 of each other.
3:49 PM May 31st

arnewcs
"If a player hits for a very high average, there is some "risk avoidance" of the hitter in run situations."
Ichiro, especially in his first few seasons, seemed to get intentionally walked fairly routinely when there were two or three runners on base. He did lead the A.L. in intentional walks three times, and got more than 10 in all but one year from 2002 through 2011. Intentionals were 28 percent of Ichiro's walks.
3:39 PM May 31st

MarisFan61
OK, enough of that. :-)

About the content: I think most would feel that the method fails to adjust sufficiently for power.

You point out that for hitters like Bonds, Ruth and Ted Williams, it was "part of their approach," "an additional skill" that made their walks quite so high. Doesn't RUTH negate this? Doesn't it go against anything we know and can really imagine about him? (I guess I should have made that first-person-singular rather than plural.)

Williams -- well, of course. We know that he had a thing about hot-and-cold zones, and not swinging at balls out of the strike zone. Bonds, that's easy to see also. I marveled at his strike zone discipline. But Ruth? If you're right, I think it means the basic image we have of him is importantly wrong. I don't mean that I've thought he was a wild swinger, just that it's not easy to imagine him having been happy with walks and being that picky about what he swung at -- and additionally, it's hard to imagine pitchers not throwing him an awful awful lot of really bad pitches which he'd have little choice but to let go by.

I don't mean just that I think Ruth ranks too high; I mean that it seems that the fact of his ranking so high suggests strongly that the method doesn't adjust enough for power.
3:15 PM May 31st

MarisFan61
I discovered your secret: You have a team of hamsters working for you.

There is no other explanation. :-)

You got this question yesterday! Well OK, maybe you got it a couple days earlier and didn't put it on the site yet, but, same thing.
This looks like a couple weeks worth of work. The writing alone looks like at least a few days worth. For me this would be a month's worth of work.

How did you do this so fast?

Need I say, of course you can treat this as rhetorical -- I'm mostly just marveling at it. But if you feel like saying something, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be interested to know how you can possibly do something like this as you did....
3:01 PM May 31st

The Walkers

COMMENTS (59 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: