Moneyballs and Strikes

Dave Paisley

Like many baseball fans, especially the so called stat geeks, I picked up a copy of Michael Lewis? Moneyball recently and only just had a chance to sit down and read it. I had read a few reviews (not least of which was David Cameron?s here on strikethree.com) and the one thing everyone agreed upon is that it is an engrossing read. Sure enough it didn?t take long to rip through it.

Initially, my expectations for the book hadn?t been that high, in part because I expected it to be a kiss-ass book on Billy Beane?s meteoric rise to GM stardom. While I?ve seen some reviewers mention this, I believe Lewis lays out the story as he sees it and leaves the reader to decide upon Beane?s character. One thing?s certain - it?s certainly no whitewash job. And I have to say I?m not terribly impressed. Beane comes across as an undiagnosed rageaholic, with a drive to succeed as a GM rooted in the desire to kick the Major League Baseball establishment in the nuts as payback for a playing career gone horribly wrong. The fact that he found a sabermetric means to that end is almost incidental.

Just one piece of advice - don?t ever invite Billy to dinner during the baseball season. Or in the off-season while a deal is brewing or maybe just don?t do it ever. If his little white beeper tells him things are going wrong with his club, your powder room may well end up as, well, powder.

The book is really fascinating, due in large part to Beane?s oddball personality. It also leaves a lot of statistical threads to be followed up. Beane and Paul DePodesta (Igor to Beane?s Frankenstein) apparently took a lot of Bill James theories and advice to heart and began to rebuild the A?s on the cheap using statistical analysis. There are, however, some quirky things in there that I?ve never heard before, and that are not borne out by any analysis I?ve ever seen, so I?ll be following them up on and off over the next few weeks.

The first one is a strange assertion about strikeouts. On page 171 we find that one of the reasons DePodesta and Beane coveted Scott Hatteberg as a replacement for Jason Giambi was not only his ability to get on base, but his low strikeout totals. There?s a long, convoluted story about having to tell A?s minor leaguers a lie that it was OK to strikeout if it meant they were willing to be patient and learn to walk, too. DePodesta believes that strikeouts are bad. Well, that?s also conventional baseball wisdom, so how can both be right? In fact, for quite a while, sabermetricians (stat geeks to you and me) have figured out that a strikeout is just a hair worse than an out where you put the ball in play. If there?s nobody on base, an out of either kind is an out. If there are guys on base, making an out by putting the ball in play may move a runner along, but it also leads to double plays, so overall it?s pretty even.

What is it about strikeouts that people hate? Is it that the batter appears helpless and is therefore presumed to be incapable of hitting? Whatever the reason, strikeouts are nothing to be afraid of in and of themselves. I?m guessing Beane?s distaste for them is more rooted in his own inadequacies as a player than anything else.

To most people, walks and strikeouts are two opposite sides of the same coin. Walks good, strikeouts bad. In the primitive years of baseball analysis even walks were usually seen as a consolation prize or substitute for a base hit rather than the solid offensive force they actually are.

Because many at bats reach a 3-2 count and are resolved as strikeouts (batter looks dumbly at called strike three or swings and misses) or walks (batter smugly looks on as pitcher fails to get the ball over), the two outcomes are even more inextricably linked. Surely guys who strikeout a lot don?t walk much, right? Or maybe it?s that guys who work the count deep get a lot of walks and strikeouts. Or something. But what?s the truth?

I took a look at this year?s data for walk and strikeout rates for qualified hitters - 183 of them to be exact. First, I checked to see if strikeout rate correlated with Beane and DePodesta's holy grail characteristic - OBP. It doesn't, at least not to any meaningful extent. Then I looked at strikeout and walk rates per plate appearance (approximated by AB+BB for this quick look). Then I took a look at how well walks and strikeouts correlate, and the answer is - they don?t. Here?s the data, normalized to major league average values of walks and strikeouts per PA. If I was getting real fancy I?d take out intentional BBs, but I?m not so I won?t.

The data are all over the map, showing a very weak positive correlation (hint: .02 R-squared is really pretty poor correlation.) For every guy that walks a lot and strikes out a lot, there?s a guy who walks a lot and doesn?t strike out much, another guy who doesn?t walk but does strike out and yet another who does neither (yes, I?m talking to you, Deivi Cruz.)

Let?s look at some interesting points. First, Barry Bonds (right side, green diamond just below the axis) is way over the top on walks (170% better than average) while striking out a little below league average rate. That?s about what I?d expect. Edgar Martinez, another power hitter with a great eye, doesn?t walk near as much - about 50% over league average, and he also strikes out just a hair below. So there are two solid premium hitters who walk a ton and strike out just about league average. That?s not a bad benchmark.

Talking of solid premium hitters, or maybe not, there?s Deivi Cruz down at the bottom left of the chart, not doing either. Not striking out much isn?t much good if it comes attached to not walking much and a .598 OPS.

There?s a really interesting comparison to be had, though, in two above average walkers, but who have diametrically opposite strikeout tendencies. I?m talking about Mike Cameron and Bernie Williams. The parallels are really quite remarkable. Both are above average fielders with power and the ability to take a walk. They diverge, though, in their strikeout tendencies. Cameron is maybe one day going to break the record for strikeouts in a season, while Williams rarely sees strike three.

Their lines for the year so far:

Player             AB   R   H 2B 3B  HR  RBI   BB   K  AVG   OBP  SLG   OPS

Bernie Williams   175  32  50  7  1   7   31   32  19  .286 .397 .457  .854

Mike Cameron      173  29  48 14  3   6   33   27  47  .277 .385 .497  .882

It?s amazing how similar their lines are, with just that odd discrepancy in strikeouts. Cameron even has more power despite playing half his games in the right handed power hitter death valley known as Safeco Field.

One final point, based on the MLB top and bottom ten walkers and strikers out.

Top ten walkers: OPS .958
Bottom ten walkers: OPS .743
Top ten strikers out: OPS .757
Bottom ten strikers out: OPS .795

Of those relationships, only the ability to walk shows a strong correlation with offense. Hardly conclusive, but just another indication.

So, Billy B. and Paul D., tell me again about the ?strikeouts bad? thing?

about the author

Read Moneyball yet? What's your favorite Billy Beane gone berserk story? Send your thoughts to Dave Paisley at drdjp@strikethree.com.