Hypothetical: walked every at bat

[Snarky_Kong]

Don't fight it.

So imagine a batter. He can make contact every time the ball is anywhere near the plate, but the problem is he always hits it foul into the stands. He's got a great eye and only swings at strikes. So basically he can force a pitcher to throw to him until the pitcher gets tired or walks him. Would this guy be considered good or not?

You'd start every game with a guy on first. Guaranteed man on every time he's up. I thought it would be great, my friend disagreed, so I ask the dope.

[StusBlues]

Don't fight it.

So imagine a batter. He can make contact every time the ball is anywhere near the plate, but the problem is he always hits it foul into the stands. He's got a great eye and only swings at strikes. So basically he can force a pitcher to throw to him until the pitcher gets tired or walks him. Would this guy be considered good or not?

You'd start every game with a guy on first. Guaranteed man on every time he's up. I thought it would be great, my friend disagreed, so I ask the dope.

Bill James posed a similar question in his book on managers. He ran a reasonably sophisticated simulation with Babe Ruth batting third for a below-average team over the course of a season. Using the Babe's 1921 percentages, this extrapolates to a great season, as you might expect. Then he ran the same simulation, this time replacing Ruth with a hitter who walked every time. Even with a below-average cleanup hitter, the team scored more runs with the guy who walked exclusively.

James' conclusion was that there was, essentially, no hitter good enough to be intentionally walked every single time up. Applying the same metrics to your hypothetical, such a player would be better than "good" -- assuming that he plays on a typical team, he may well be the most valuable hitter of all time.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

He would definitely be the greatest hitter of all time.

[RickJay]

The greatest player in the history of baseball, no contest.

I can't even figure how much a player like that would be worth, because the runs created formula doesn't work for that, but I'd guess such a player would create 300 runs, at least. Maybe 350, maybe more. (The all time record is 230.)

[Skammer]

He would be incredible. An OBP of 1.000 and would never make a single out (aside from baserunning blunders, like getting picked off first). Never hit into a double play, so any runners in front of him advance.

Yeah, he'd be the most valuable player in history.

[Munch]

He would be incredible. An OBP of 1.000 and would never make a single out (aside from baserunning blunders, like getting picked off first). Never hit into a double play, so any runners in front of him advance.

Yeah, he'd be the most valuable player in history.

Not only that, but you add in the value of jacking up the number of pitches thrown by the opposing pitcher. It's not much, but assuming they don't just IBB him every time, it's not zero (err...4).

He could also be the slowest player on the planet and he'd be the most valuable offensive player of all time. I'd love to know your friend's ridiculous argument against him.

[runner pat]

The Kid Who Batted 1.000. (http://www.amazon.com/kid-who-batted-1-000/dp/B0007DWCHE)

[Troy McClure SF]

You'd start every game with a guy on first. Guaranteed man on every time he's up. I thought it would be great, my friend disagreed, so I ask the dope.

Either you forgot some relevant detail in this OP or your friend is an idiot.

[ekweizn]

Would he be so dominant as to possibly cause a rule change (like MLB changing the height of the pitcher's mound due to Bob Gibson)?

I'm also not sure that this has to be a hypothetical situation. What's stopping someone from adopting a stance that puts his shoulders in line with his knees, which would make throwing a strike almost impossible? Examples might include laying down in the batter's box or a crouch resembling that of a downhill skiier in which the shoulders and knees are at the same height. Could a pitcher reasonably hit a strike zone that size?

[John DiFool]

I did a study on J. D. Drew recently (in response to some knuckle-draggers who insisted that he was overrated because of his relatively poor RBI totals)-in the times when he walked with people already on base this year, his team scored oodles of runs (more than 1 run per walk), including himself on a number of occasions. The forum in question is a PITA to link to, so I'll spoilerize it:

Here we go:

First number: times Drew walked (or was HBP-tossed in for the hell of it)

Second number: times runners which were already on base scored after the walk

Third number: times Drew himself scored after his walk

Intentional walk at bats at the bottom (i.e. IBB not counted in first three instances)

Runners on, no force:

12 walks*, 4 runners scored, 1 time Drew himself scored (actually a proxy runner scored after he replaced Drew after a forceout)

Runners on, force in place:

22 walks*, 23 runners scored, Drew scored himself 10 times, had 2 RBI w/ bases loaded walks

Runners on, all situations:

34 walks, 27 runners scored, Drew scored 11 times

IBB plate appearances:

5 walks, 3 runners scored, Drew scored 2 times

[* includes one HBP in each situation]

[Troy McClure SF]

I'm also not sure that this has to be a hypothetical situation. What's stopping someone from adopting a stance that puts his shoulders in line with his knees, which would make throwing a strike almost impossible? Examples might include laying down in the batter's box or a crouch resembling that of a downhill skiier in which the shoulders and knees are at the same height. Could a pitcher reasonably hit a strike zone that size?

A pitcher probably couldn't hit a strike zone that small. So he'd probably go for an easier target, say, the batter's face.

[Chronos]

Look at it this way: Suppose you had an entire lineup of guys like this. Every single at-bat would be a walk, and after the first three, every single at-bat would also be a run scored. You'd never have any out at all, and the first inning score-fest would never end. An entire line-up of always-walkers wouldn't just be good, they'd be infinitely good.

[ekweizn]

A pitcher probably couldn't hit a strike zone that small. So he'd probably go for an easier target, say, the batter's face.

Hard to do if he's laying on his stomach.

[runner pat]

Would he be so dominant as to possibly cause a rule change (like MLB changing the height of the pitcher's mound due to Bob Gibson)?

I'm also not sure that this has to be a hypothetical situation. What's stopping someone from adopting a stance that puts his shoulders in line with his knees, which would make throwing a strike almost impossible? Examples might include laying down in the batter's box or a crouch resembling that of a downhill skiier in which the shoulders and knees are at the same height. Could a pitcher reasonably hit a strike zone that size?

I believe that in the section defining the strike zone, it says the batter must be in a natural hitting stance.

[USCDiver]

This was essentially the basis for Billy Beane's Oakland A's teams of the early 2000s (see Money Ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball:_The_Art_of_Winning_an_Unfair_Game)). Beane eschewed the standard notions of what makes a desirable player and instead focused mostly on On-Base Percentage. The premise was that the main commodity in baseball is outs. Regardless of any other part of baseball, if your players get on base without producing an out, you will score more runs.

[ekweizn]

I believe that in the section defining the strike zone, it says the batter must be in a natural hitting stance.

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

I don't think there's anything in the rules that prevents someone from minimizing the size of their strike zone to try to draw a walk in every at-bat.

[Snarky_Kong]

My friend and I didn't really discuss it at length, and I'm not much of a baseball fan so a detailed argument never really came about. More of a "what do you think about...?" followed by "eh, there'd be better."


Look at it this way: Suppose you had an entire lineup of guys like this. Every single at-bat would be a walk, and after the first three, every single at-bat would also be a run scored. You'd never have any out at all, and the first inning score-fest would never end. An entire line-up of always-walkers wouldn't just be good, they'd be infinitely good.

That's a different question though. If the metric is filling a team with clones then that team is, as you say, infinitely good. However, consider a normal team with this play on it, and one exactly the same except that the player hits a home run 99% of the time and gets an out the other 1% of the time. Clearly a team full of the latter loses to a team full of the former. I think it's also clear that the home run guy would be more productive under "normal" circumstances.

[Chronos]

I think it's also clear that the home run guy would be more productive under "normal" circumstances. I don't know about that... If I were pitching to a guy like that under "normal" circumstances (at least, as normal as they can be, with a guy that hits a home run 99% of the time), I'd give him an intentional walk every at-bat anyway, effectively turning him into the first hypothetical guy.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's impossible to get a hitter better than an always-walker, because at worst the other team can always intentionally walk him. An always-walker forces the opposing pitcher to do something that the opposing pitcher could always choose to do, anyway, which means that, in a game theory sense, the always-walker dominates over all other players.

[AppallingGael]

Either you forgot some relevant detail in this OP or your friend is an idiot.

Or maybe that's just the detail he forgot.

[RealityChuck]

The Kid Who Batted 1.000. (http://www.amazon.com/kid-who-batted-1-000/dp/B0007DWCHE)I was going to mention that.

"On a third strike bunt!"

[Colibri]

I don't think there's anything in the rules that prevents someone from minimizing the size of their strike zone to try to draw a walk in every at-bat.

There's also nothing in the rules to prevent using a batter with a strike zone so small that it's virtually impossible for a pitcher to hit it, as in Bill Veeck's famous stunt with Eddie Gaedel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel) in 1951. The problem is, you have to take him out for a pinch-runner as soon as he walks.

[Exapno Mapcase]

There's also nothing in the rules to prevent using a batter with a strike zone so small that it's virtually impossible for a pitcher to hit it, as in Bill Veeck's famous stunt with Eddie Gaedel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel) in 1951. The problem is, you have to take him out for a pinch-runner as soon as he walks.

I thought they made that illegal about five minutes after the game.

Baseball Almanac (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/deaths/eddie_gaedel_obituary.shtml)
Commissioner Happy Chandler was reported to have found the incident entertaining, but American League President Will Harridge felt different ordering Eddie Gaedel's name expunged from the daily record sheets and banning midgets from baseball.

[StusBlues]

My friend and I didn't really discuss it at length, and I'm not much of a baseball fan so a detailed argument never really came about. More of a "what do you think about...?" followed by "eh, there'd be better."




That's a different question though. If the metric is filling a team with clones then that team is, as you say, infinitely good. However, consider a normal team with this play on it, and one exactly the same except that the player hits a home run 99% of the time and gets an out the other 1% of the time. Clearly a team full of the latter loses to a team full of the former. I think it's also clear that the home run guy would be more productive under "normal" circumstances.


Well, now you're comparing hypotheticals. My intial response was to compare your hypothetical to the best real player (or at least nearly so). The hypothetical "walk every time" player is pretty clearly better than anyone who's ever played. Allowing for some margin of error in James' simulation, the automatic walker is at the very least an utterly elite player. I won't try to compare him to the 99% home run guy--I've got no basis.

[kenobi 65]

What's stopping someone from adopting a stance that puts his shoulders in line with his knees, which would make throwing a strike almost impossible?

While he wasn't quite that extreme, Rickey Henderson batted out of a very pronounced crouch:
http://www.fansedge.com/Images/Product/33-97/33-97713-F.jpg

I don't know how much the crouch had to do with it, but he *did* have the second-highest walk total in MLB history -- 2190, behind only Barry Bonds at 2558 (though, if you take out intentional walks, Henderson leads, 2129-1870).

[ekweizn]

There's also nothing in the rules to prevent using a batter with a strike zone so small that it's virtually impossible for a pitcher to hit it, as in Bill Veeck's famous stunt with Eddie Gaedel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel) in 1951. The problem is, you have to take him out for a pinch-runner as soon as he walks.

Yeah, I looked into that loophole also. Because of that incident, the commissioner has to approve all contracts now, so signing a little person probably wouldn't make it past the commissioner's desk. I think it would be harder to justify nullifying a contract for a normal-sized person--especially if they didn't reveal ahead of time that they were going to take the "batting stance" that I'm suggesting.

[Quercus]

There's also nothing in the rules to prevent using a batter with a strike zone so small that it's virtually impossible for a pitcher to hit it, as in Bill Veeck's famous stunt with Eddie Gaedel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel) in 1951. The problem is, you have to take him out for a pinch-runner as soon as he walks.
Wasn't that the incident that caused MLB to add the 'making a travesty of the game' clause? So, under current rules, the midget and the guy lying down would both be declared out and probably thrown out of the game by the umpire.
[They guy lying down would probably also be out of the batter's box, if the ump wanted something more solid to call him out for].

It's an interesting question whether umps tend to account for slightly exaggerated crouches by calling balls & strikes according to where a player's 'armpits' would be in a more upright stance.

I assume that since we don't really see many slightly exaggerated crouches, the loss of hitting ability more than balances any extra balls, but then again this is baseball, so we can't assume the traditional way has really been tested.

[muldoonthief]

The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.

I don't think there's anything in the rules that prevents someone from minimizing the size of their strike zone to try to draw a walk in every at-bat.

You can certainly make the argument that a stance where you're laying flat on the ground isn't "prepared to swing". You could even make the argument that an extreme crouch such as you're suggesting isn't prepared to swing either. In the second case though, I'd guess the umpire would just call strikes as if the batter was in a normal stance. Given that there's no recourse for reviewing balls & strikes, and complaining about them will get you ejected, such a player wouldn't last past his first at bat.

[Colibri]

I thought they made that illegal about five minutes after the game.

Baseball Almanac (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/deaths/eddie_gaedel_obituary.shtml)

Yeah, I looked into that loophole also. Because of that incident, the commissioner has to approve all contracts now, so signing a little person probably wouldn't make it past the commissioner's desk.

According to the official rules of baseball, there isn't a minimum stature for a player, so it isn't illegal. However, as ekweizn says, a contract certainly wouldn't be approved for a "player" like that today.

As the Wiki article indicates, although Gaedel's record was originally struck from the books, the following year it was reinstated, and in baseball references he is regarded as having officially participated in the game.

Wasn't that the incident that caused MLB to add the 'making a travesty of the game' clause?

No, that rule was much earlier (1920) inspired by Germany Schaefer's (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_Schaefer) "stealing" first base (from second):

Schaefer was known as both a baseball trickster and a tactician in the early years of 20th century baseball. Well liked, stories of his exploits dot both the memories of his contemporaries and the newspaper reports of the time. One of his most famous exploits was stealing first base, which was perhaps erroneously recalled in Lawrence Ritter's The Glory of Their Times by Detroit outfielder Davy Jones. With runners on first and third, a common ploy in baseball at the time was an attempted double steal, where the runner heading from first (in this case Schaefer) ran for second, hoping to draw a throw from the catcher as the runner on third tried to scamper home. The catcher did not throw the first time, inspiring Schaefer to steal first base in reverse and then attempt the double steal once more on the following pitch. It worked in Jones' recollection although factual evidence of this is lacking.

[janeslogin]

I don't follow the sport but I recall stories told by classmates, perhaps in middle school about 1950, that the Saint Louis Cardinals had a pinch hitter who was quite skilled at hitting foul balls and was used to tire out opposing pitchers.

[ekweizn]

[They guy lying down would probably also be out of the batter's box, if the ump wanted something more solid to call him out for].

Each batter's box is 6 feet by 4 feet, so it's not a problem for most people.

You can certainly make the argument that a stance where you're laying flat on the ground isn't "prepared to swing". You could even make the argument that an extreme crouch such as you're suggesting isn't prepared to swing either. In the second case though, I'd guess the umpire would just call strikes as if the batter was in a normal stance. Given that there's no recourse for reviewing balls & strikes, and complaining about them will get you ejected, such a player wouldn't last past his first at bat.

I disagree. It's not hard to imagine an adult swinging a bat while in these "stances"; heck, the first time you do it, you might take a swing at the first pitch just to prove to the umpire that you can.

[gonzomax]

A small person with some baseball talent would certainly have a successful lawsuit against the league. Then who defines what is too short. Is 5 ft 3 too short?

[John DiFool]

I don't follow the sport but I recall stories told by classmates, perhaps in middle school about 1950, that the Saint Louis Cardinals had a pinch hitter who was quite skilled at hitting foul balls and was used to tire out opposing pitchers.

Not the same player, but Hall of Famer Luke Appling (White Sox) was famous for doing so.

[gonzomax]

http://baseballguru.com/attiyeh/bbread8.html Foul balls were not kept in the olod days ,so no proof exists. I have seen 14 foul balls when I was a kid. I think it was Earl Torgeson.

[Munch]

http://baseballguru.com/attiyeh/bbread8.html Foul balls were not kept in the olod days ,so no proof exists. I have seen 14 foul balls when I was a kid. I think it was Earl Torgeson.

That link says Appling, and goes back to 1940. Not bad. I'd imagine anything in the dead ball era and it starts decreasing as walks weren't as desirable (or obtainable).

[42fish]

He could also be the slowest player on the planet and he'd be the most valuable offensive player of all time.

But what if he was so slow that he'd get thrown out at second on anything other than a home run (or the guy behind him also drawing a walk)? Just as long as we're throwing out the wacky hypotheticals and all...

[Munch]

But what if he was so slow that he'd get thrown out at second on anything other than a home run (or the guy behind him also drawing a walk)? Just as long as we're throwing out the wacky hypotheticals and all...

Well... Okay. There's a limit on slowness. In that case, he'd be the most valuable pinch hitter of all time.

[RickJay]

Some accounts of Appling's at bat say he fouled off 24 pitches, 14 of them being consecutive.

Given the heavier bats, slower pitches and greater emphasis on contact of the dead ball era I suspect the record was set back then. Roy Thomas, who was just about the purest contact hitter ever in terms of getting on base but having no power at all, is claimed to have gotten as high as 20 fouls or more on a number of occasions.

[Lute Skywatcher]

While he wasn't quite that extreme, Rickey Henderson batted out of a very pronounced crouch:
http://www.fansedge.com/Images/Product/33-97/33-97713-F.jpgI give you Bert Campaneris, circa 1970 (http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin2/attachment.php?attachmentid=7211&d=1173325055).

[ekweizn]

While he wasn't quite that extreme, Rickey Henderson batted out of a very pronounced crouch:
http://www.fansedge.com/Images/Product/33-97/33-97713-F.jpg

I give you Bert Campaneris, circa 1970 (http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin2/attachment.php?attachmentid=7211&d=1173325055).

Among power hitters, Jeff Bagwell (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3BaJMgGKAmE/Slt6xl3h28I/AAAAAAAAK-M/fLGbJN7vAXI/s400/bagwell.jpg) (449 career home runs) has to be in the tops in pronounced crouching. His wikipedia article even claims that "Bagwell's stance also allowed him to shrink his strike zone and walk more often." I seem to recall he would vary his "crouched-ness" depending on the count, but don't recall whether he used that specifically in his favor.

[Hawkeyeop]

But what if he was so slow that he'd get thrown out at second on anything other than a home run (or the guy behind him also drawing a walk)? Just as long as we're throwing out the wacky hypotheticals and all...

Man, I'd hate to bat behind that guy. The next batter would hit .050 on the season with 400 double plays. And that is only if he was really good.

I'd say that player would be of limited value. There are a few moments where he would be useful as a pinch hitter, like if the bases were loaded and you needed a run to win, but I don't know that it would be worth using a roster spot.

[Incensed]

I just added an All-Walker to an average 2008 AL team (replacing 1/9th of the team average), and according to the most popular run estimators, he'd improve the team by about 283 runs! Of that about 166 runs can be directly attributed to him getting on base, and 117 to him never getting out.

Babe Ruth's wildest season is under 125 runs above average.

Kid would have some weird stats too. At a guess, 225+Runs score <40 RBI.

The comparison to an All HR guy in terms of impact on an average team is a non starter-Homer would hit 600+ HR's at around 1.44 Runs per. That's 864 runs, well above what an average team scores in any era, not to mention 100+ runs via 'extra' outs.

[Quercus]

The comparison to an All HR guy in terms of impact on an average team is a non starter-Homer would hit 600+ HR's at around 1.44 Runs per. That's 864 runs, well above what an average team scores in any era, not to mention 100+ runs via 'extra' outs.Except, as Chronos pointed out, anyone who was remotely close to being an always home-run hitter would be quickly turned by the opposing team into the always walker.
[See Barry Bonds for the early stages of that transition]

[Sternvogel]

Roy Thomas, who was just about the purest contact hitter ever in terms of getting on base but having no power at all, is claimed to have gotten as high as 20 fouls or more on a number of occasions.

According to the Wikipedia entry on Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Thomas_(outfielder)):

He is, in fact, reported by (noted baseball analyst Bill) James to hold the unofficial consecutive foul-ball record - 22, in one plate appearance.

For what it's worth, catcher Ernie Lombardi was reputedly the slowest significant MLB player ever. His career batting average was .306 -- excellent in and of itself, and made even more remarkable by the fact he seldom if ever legged out an infield hit. However, he did manage to steal eight bases (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/l/lombaer01.shtml?redir) during his seventeen seasons in the bigs, so he was a veritable speed demon compared to our hypothetical "too slow to score on anything but a homer or bases-loaded walk/hit by pitch" guy.

[Ponch8]

As for the rule made in reaction to Eddie Gaedel, how tall is a player required to be? Having a midget on the team probably wouldn't be very advantageous anyway, because he could do almost nothing but pinch hit, taking away a precious roster spot from somebody who actually has baseball skills.

[Colibri]

As for the rule made in reaction to Eddie Gaedel, how tall is a player required to be?

As I said above, there is no specific height requirement. The rule made in reaction to Eddie Gaedel was that all player contracts had to be approved in advance by the Commissioner of Baseball. Presumably they would rule out someone like Gaedel on the grounds that they had no evident capacity for actually playing in a game.

Veeck, in protesting the voiding of Gaedel's contract, was supposed to have said something like, "Well how tall does a player have to be? Three foot seven? Four foot seven? If it's five foot seven, we can get rid of Rizzuto."

Having a midget on the team probably wouldn't be very advantageous anyway, because he could do almost nothing but pinch hit, taking away a precious roster spot from somebody who actually has baseball skills.

For a team like the Brown's, having the bases loaded so a walk would force in a run was probably so rare that it wouldn't have been worthwhile in any event.

[Snarky_Kong]

Of that about 166 runs can be directly attributed to him getting on base, and 117 to him never getting out.


What does this mean? My guess would be that he's driven in 166 times more than an average player and that somewhere later in the lineup you'd have an extra out which would lead to more runs for the other 117?

[runner pat]

As I said above, there is no specific height requirement. The rule made in reaction to Eddie Gaedel was that all player contracts had to be approved in advance by the Commissioner of Baseball. Presumably they would rule out someone like Gaedel on the grounds that they had no evident capacity for actually playing in a game.



He could be a designated hitter.

[Colibri]

He could be a designated hitter.

Gaedel could probably have run as fast as some of them.:D

[Incensed]

What does this mean? My guess would be that he's driven in 166 times more than an average player and that somewhere later in the lineup you'd have an extra out which would lead to more runs for the other 117?

You've got it.

It means if you sub out an 1/9 of a team's stats and replace it with 600-odd walks, the team would score 166 more runs.

But they would also make 400-odd fewer outs. You recalculate the teams runs per out (originally .18 or so, .25 with the Walker) and multiply that by the outs the Walker didn't make that Joe Blow would have to get 117 hidden runs. Someone might say that's high because a higher scoring team makes fewer outs than a lower scoring team (due to not batting when leading in the bottom of the 9th) but I'm not going to guess at that adjustment. I'm just offering ballpark numbers here.

I don't know if there is an accepted way to express these runs-I just call it lineup impact.

It's basically a function of high OB%, which in effect lengthens the game. For example Ted Williams OB% would net a team something like 15-20 runs a year in this manner, even if Ted were a well below average slugger.

[Lute Skywatcher]

On the subject of small batters: I just noticed that, while managing the Houston Buffaloes (http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Houston_Buffaloes), Joe Schultz used 13-year-old batboy Joe Jr. as a pinch hitter for one at bat (http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=schult002jos).

[Contrapuntal]

Veeck, in protesting the voiding of Gaedel's contract, was supposed to have said something like, "Well how tall does a player have to be? Three foot seven? Four foot seven? If it's five foot seven, we can get rid of Rizzuto."I heard it as Veeck wanting an official ruling on whether Rizzuto was a short ballplayer or a tall midget. Probably apocryphal.