Visions of Morgan Ensberg are dancing through my head. At the higher levels, the pitchers will have better command and Fontana will have to hit.
I was just countering the statement that a walk counts the same as a single. A single is better than a walk.
Only if somebody is on base. The majority of the time, if player A has 200 walks, and player B has 200 singles, player A is going to be vastly more valuable in creating runs... regardless of what player B's single % is with RISP.
How do you figure? Genuinely asking...because that doesnt make sense to me. The guy that only hits singles will drive in runs based off the singles, while the guy that walks can only drive in a run with bases loaded. Otherwise, they are equals. And Im guessing we arent talking about GIDP...since both should be capable of doing that.
Every time the ball is put into play, it creates an opportunity for an error. How does 200 walks trump 200 singles? Are you saying that you would rather have Altuve lead off every game with a walk than with a single? How is an equal number of walks vastly more valuable in creating runs?
U guys are implying that the guy who takes walks and gets on base at an elite rate will NEVER hit at any point. I'm simply saying that guys who walk more get on base more, and guys who get on base more are more valuable at creating runs. I never said player A would have only 200 walks and 0 hits. Guys who can get on base at an elite rate do so in large part for their ability to draw walks and see lots of pitches. It is a unique skill set. Its also one that seems to translate well from the minors to the big leagues.
Also, I can't remember the Bill James formula off the top of my head, but he was able to show that OBP was almost 3x more valuable in the creating runs portion of the "OPS" component. Far more important than batting average.
These past two games have really killed me, so I honestly am not in the mood to recap a thing right now. Mental break...
Well, the initial point was that, on an individual basis, a single is better than a walk...and that's when you countered with the 200 walk versus 200 single statement. In its purest form, its better to have a batter hit a single on a given at bat.
If its an alll or nothing proposition, sure.... but long-term data has shown that a player that takes more walks, and gets on base more, has more ability to create runs for his team than one who doesn't. Regardless of their ability to "hit singles".
But that's precisely why this thread is so popular... its a welcome respite from the awful MLB team, and helps fuel optimism for the future. Who cares about the big league team right now? None of these guys (none) were ever expected to be a savior.
At the same time, the 200 hit guy is going to draw walks as well. If OBP is both .400, but one hits .300, while the other hits .275, which is going to better for the team? Nobody questions OBP being more important than BA (except maybe Ed Wade).
Head over to TCB for a top 20 prospect review from Subber10: http://www.crawfishboxes.com/2012/8/8/3227195/tcb-top-20-astros-prospect-review
a .300 hitter with a .315 OBP versus a .275 hitter with a .350 OBP? Give me the guy who can take a walk. A .300 hitter versus a guy who drew a 100 walks but only hit .200? Give me the .300 hitter, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Over 600 PA, if Rodriguez gets 100 hits and 100 walks, his OBP is .333. If Gonzalez gets 175 hits and 25 walks, his OBP is .333. Give me Gonzalez, please.
Right. And all this discussion came from complaining about a guy with a .500 OBP who apparently is not hitting enough. I have seen metrics where OBP actually translates better among minor league levels than avg or slugging. Thus, if we are worried about a guy who may not get on base a much when he gets to the big leagues, we should be just as skeptical of a guy who appears to be a hitting machine. Id be most worried about a high avg/power high strikeout minor leaguer... Seems as though invariably they still strikeout when they get te callups, but now they don't hit as well.
