I think there is a greater appreciation for the walk these days as it does something good for you (i.e., not get an out), but I don't think we should ever view the walk to be as good as a single. A walk only advances runners that are backed up to first base, and they can only move one base ahead. A walk never turns into a double due to defensive error. A walk can only score a max of one run, where a hit can score up to four. I think back in the day a walk was viewed more as a bad thing -- i.e., you left the runner sitting on second when you could have tried to get him home -- or at the very least, a neutral thing. Nobody really had done studies on what effect one batting event had on the rest of the inning and/or game.
If baseball had these advanced statistics back in the 1910s and we grew up knowing what our favorite shortstop's zone rating was, it would be interesting to see how it viewed perception of these players. I suspect if someone presented the concepts of WAR or OPS+ back then, they would be laughed out of town and told to go back working in their science lab on that moving pictures box idea.
_________________ "All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas
|