A Walk Is As Good As A Hit

[Wolf Hopper]

We've always heard this as kids...........
...........I would like to suggest that a walk, to the team on the field, is worse than a hit...........because:

1. It may be more taxing on the pitcher - you need 4 pitches to issue a walk and in theory, only need 1 to give up a hit; and
2. You can still get an out on a hit (ie, runner thrown out trying to advance) whereas it's almost impossible to get an out on a play where a walk is issued.

Any thoughts on this?

[Jim Rice]

I think a walk is worse than a hit pretty much anyway you look at it.

Fielder - Gets bored watching the pitcher miss the strike zone all night, becomes less attentive and starts missing plays he should have made when the ball finally is put in play.

Pitcher - Tires out from throwing extra pitches and eliminates the possibility of getting that batter out.

Hitter - A good thing, but not as good as a hit because it eliminates the possibility of putting a man in scoring position with one swing, and it eliminates the possibility of driving in a run (unless the bases are loaded). It does reduce the chances of making an out, obviously, and it increases the possibility that the next hitter will knock in a run, so it's still a pretty good thing to get, just not as good, IMO, as a hit.

[Wolf Hopper]

But, we're agreed, on defense/pitching, a walk is more damaging, in certain ways, than just the generic hit, no?

[hopbitters]

Pitcher - Tires out from throwing extra pitches and eliminates the possibility of getting that batter out.

More pitches thrown also means more pitches seen by the other team's batters.

[Wolf Hopper]

More pitches thrown also means more pitches seen by the other team's batters.

Which is good for the batters and therefore more damaging to the pitcher/defense, no?

[gyb13]

i don't see how you can say that a hit is better than a walk for both the offense and the defense.

[Wolf Hopper]

i don't see how you can say that a hit is better than a walk for both the offense and the defense. Did I say that?

[RedSeat]

My personal opinion has been that a single is slightly better than a walk.

A single is more likely to result in an out than is a walk. However a sinlge will occasionally allow runners to advance more than one base, or can advance unforced runners. Also, a single forces a fielder to make a play, creating the possibility of further advance on an error. Wthout looking at a single stat, my impression is that the positive (offensively) scenarios would outnumber the negative ones. The effect on the pitcher or the team in the field might swing things a little the other way, but I'll still take the single most days.

I'm specifically saying single, rather than hit. If extra base hits are included in the mix, it becomes clearer that the average hit is better than the average walk.

I'll repeat that I've looked at no data and this is nothing more than my own hunch.

[JamesI]

for the offense, a hit is better. Chance of moving runners 2 bases (1st to third, 2nd home.) Also with runner on second or third a hit can score a run while a walk only will with bases loaded.
Walks good, hits better.

[Craig S.]

Tough to evaluate without hard data. All we've got are different theories about what can go right or wrong, and it's difficult to make a decision based on what's been written so far. I'm not sure which is better, but my guess is that any measurement would prove them close.

[sweaver]

You yell that at a kid to get him (or her) to be choosy about the pitches he (or she) swings at, and not swing at balls over their head. Or that bounce. This transfers to the majors, because very few major leaguers can get a lot of hits on bad balls (see exceptions, Yogi Berra, Roberto Clemente).

Technically, a walk is not as good as a hit. But it sure beats an out.

[gyb13]

Also, a single forces a fielder to make a play, creating the possibility of further advance on an error.a single cannot increase the chance of an error. it's an either/or proposition.

[gyb13]

i don't see how you can say that a hit is better than a walk for both the offense and the defense.correct me if i'm wrong, but i see you as saying the following:

"a walk may be worse for the defense than a hit. "

if that were true, it would also mean that a walk is better for the offense than a hit, which is debatable.

[Skip]

a single cannot increase the chance of an error. it's an either/or proposition.Huh? Surely the minimal chance of an error in throwing the ball back to the pitcher on ball four is eclipsed by the chance of an error throwing a live ball back into the infield on a routine single. Maybe not a big chance, but certainly big-ger. Throw in the errors on hard stabs of IF shots and subsequent bad throws to first, and I'm sure it's measurably different for singles and walks.

[TGwynn19]

Throw in the errors on hard stabs of IF shots and subsequent bad throws to first, and I'm sure it's measurably different for singles and walks.



I think what Gyb is trying to establish is that if there is an error on a play then a base hit (single) is not awarded.

[Skip]

But that's not true. There are numerous occasions where a single is awarded and then the batter is either out trying to stretch the hit, or an error is awarded on play after the single is 'fact'. Even on the example given, the batter gets a single and advances to second on the error.

This doesnt even take into account errors affecting other extant baserunners.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

If ever a stat was "situational", this is it.

Bases empty, a single and a walk are essentially the same offensively, if the runner isn't thrown out trying for extra bases.

Defensively? Well, which is worse: a pitcher who can't throw strikes, or a pitcher who throws strikes that the batters are hitting squarely?

In the long term, I would say that a pitcher who gives up more singles but limits the number of walks and home runs will be successful more often than the pitcher who limits the number of singles and gives up more walks and home runs. That's easily verified.

That's why Babe Ruth was a more effective batter than Pete Rose.

But that's walks AND homers.

Would anyone say that Eddie Yost was a better batter than Pete Rose?

[Skip]

Would anyone say that Eddie Yost was a better batter than Pete Rose?Smed would, but he's just bitter! :D

[pwdennis]

Smed would, but he's just bitter! :D

I wouldn't but Rose's advantage was very small

[Rajah]

kind of advancing Gyb's point, barring a runner getting out for trying to stretch a single into 2 bases, the likelihood of an out is pretty much eliminated if a batter gets a hit.

On the other hand, a ball in play....