That’s pretty much what ESPN tells me, day after day.

I don’t know. Walks put that guy on base at a 60% clip in 2004. That’s pretty freaking ridiculous, and I don’t know how much the not-walking extra-base hits he would have had if they pitched to him would have changed the value of simply not making outs over 60% of the time.

When he was getting on base over 50% of the time, they were most certainly not hurting us.

that I read through the list of players above and said to myself, “Rowand isn’t that much of a hacker.” Then I looked up his career BB%. 6.6%. And that looks good compared to most of our hitters.

/weeps softly

And then there is the SSS explosion of the new Eugenio Velez.

Singlez.

BUT HEZ BETAR THEN KFRED

That’s what it seems to be. The ridiculous thing is that Lansford is the HITTING COACH and Dunston is not, so you’d think (or hope, even), that what the hitting coach says should have some influence on the players.

Here’s what gets me – professional athletes or not, these guys are being paid by someone to do something. Seems to me that if the folks who are paying you tell you that you need to work the count a little, you should work the goddamn count a little. Just because you want to do it a different way doesn’t mean you should get to, especially when (a) it isn’t working and (2) it’s to the detriment of the team.

It doesn’t seem like such a difficult concept, and yet. . .

(10 different Giants players have swung on the first pitch and either popped up or grounded out in the time it took me to write this).

Oh – and also: if there’s obvious discord on what coaches are telling the players (and it’s even being reported in national magazines), then maybe the manager or a team exec needs to step up and remove one of the dissenting voices from his position.

Should be noted you said this on August 11 at 10:19 AM, some 7-8 hours before Velez went CLANK.

Defensively, he might be. He’s a second baseman for a reason (Obviously, the slick-fielding jack wilson was ss in pittsburgh, but still). And then there’s superk1ng’s point, that the infield would be full of failplays. And once velez comes back to earth, his hitting wouldn’t make up for the CLANK.

their OBP was 9 points higher.

Now, an April’s worth of sample size, even for a whole team (is it even mostly the same team?… April seemed kinda Burriss-y) isn’t worth much, but to say they tried it and it didn’t work – even though their offensive numbers were BETTER seems a little disingenious.

Not to mention PaulThomas’ awesome post below which makes the whole comparison invalid anyway.

First of all, like PT said, patience =/= taking the first pitch. Patience is a skill, not a conscience decision, and whether or not we did take more first pitches in April, we were not, in any way, shape, or form, a patient team during that month.

Secondly, while we technically did average fewer runs per game in April than we did the rest of the year, the difference is completely meaningless. We averaged 3.85 runs per game in April, and 4.02 the rest of the year. That may sound like a substantial difference, but think about it this way: we scored 77 runs in 20 games in April – if we had scored a mere four runs more, if we had turned one bases loaded fly out into a HR, at some point during these 20 games, our April runs per game would have jumped to 4.05 (81 runs in 20 games), higher than the rest of the year. If one swing of the bat can completely change the conclusions of your study, then there is no point in trying to reach a conclusion.

Thirdly (can you say thirdly? Sounds weird), like I showed before, we didn’t actually hit worse in April. So the very slight difference in runs scored is because of other factors – baserunning, opposing team’s fielding, clutch hitting – non of which really have anything to do with patience.

The final score almost never lets walks determine wins? Well, walk-off plays are really the only ones that could be accurately said to “determine” a win, but are you really saying that walks almost never affect wins and losses?

In the 6th inning of our last game, with runners on first and third, back-to-back walks from Travis Ishikawa and Fred Lewis drove in Freddy Sanchez, extending our lead to 2 runs. Lincecum gave up two runs in the next 3 innings – if it hadn’t been for those two walks, we probably would have lost the game.

Two games before that, Jonathan Sanchez issued back-to-back walks to Casey Blake and Orlando Hudson in the 4th inning. Both of them scored that inning. We lost the game by two runs.

Three games before that, we came into the 8th inning with a 5-3 lead. Jeremy Affeldt walked Joey Votto to lead off the inning. Votto scored that inning, making it 5-4. In the 9th inning, with one out and a runner on first, Wilson blew the lead by walking three Reds hitters in a row. All three hitters scored that inning, and we lost the game.

11 games before that, in the third inning, Ryan Sadowski walked Seth Smith to lead off the inning. Smith scored later that inning In the inning, with Todd Helton at 1st base, Sadowski walked Hawpe, moving Helton to 2nd base. Helton scored from second that inning on a 2 out single. Without the walk, Helton wouldn’t have scored (the next batter made an out). We lost the game by two runs.

And 4 games before that, with a runner on first and two outs, Lincecum walked Garret Anderson. Next batter hit a 3-run HR, which wouldn’t have happened without the walk. We lost by two runs.

So, in the last 20 games, I count 5 games (which translate to 40 games determined by walks over a full season) in which walks had a clear, direct impact on whether we won or lost. I’m not talking about games were walks were worth three runs and we lost by five, games where walks may or may not have tired the pitcher, etc. Clear, direct impact. And this on a team that averages fewer walks per game than almost any other team (hackiest offense in the majors, pitching is 15th in BB/9, so I’m guessing we’re around 25th in total walks per game).

Now, I don’t know if the last 20 games are a good example. Maybe in all of the other 90 games we’ve played, walks were a bit more meaningful, affecting a win every 3 games, which translates to a total of 35 games determined by walks in a 110 game period – or about 50 in a 162 games. Or maybe walks were less meaningful, resulting in a win only once every 6 games, which would result in a total of 20 games determined by walks – or about 30 over a full season. And even if walks were way, way less meaningful in the 90 games I haven’t looked at – determining a win only once every 10 games – even then, you’d get 14 games determined by walks in the 110 games we’ve played, or 20 games over a full season. In any case, I think it’s pretty clear that saying that “the final score almost never lets walks determine wins” is utterly and inarguably wrong. The final score, unlike most baseball fans, does not underrate the walk.