I saw this question somewhere else and wanted to ask it here... Assume that you are the owner of a mid-market, somewhat competitive baseball team. Which player would you rather have on your team? Player A: Walks every plate appearance, no matter what. Player B: Hits a homer every fourth plate appearance but strikes out the other three times, no matter what.
Is this a trick question! I'd go player B. team is already somewhat competitive. Player B guarantees at least one run a game. Player A doesn't.
Not only does player B guarantee a run just about every game, but he guarantees your team will sell out most games, because he'll lead the league in Home Runs (as well as set Home run records for in a season, and possibly a career) and probably RBIS, thus, you as the owner, profit greatly.
Just about. If he keeps up that pace for 5 years, he'll beat the home run record easily. This question is a no brainer.
Yes, the leadoff batter will get at least 4 plate appearances every game unless they are on the home team with the lead after 8.5 innings or the opposing pitcher faces the minimum number of batters. So, I suppose technically the answer is no, but the 1 in 4 guy would need to get out in his first three plate appearances and the other 8 guys would have to all get out, either at the plate or on the base paths. The odds against the player not hitting a home run in every game are very small. Since this is only one player, "B" is the better choice, because he is a guaranteed run at least in most every game. If it was all of your players, "A" would be the better choice, because you would score an infinite number of runs in the first inning of every game and the other team would forfeit when their pitchers could not throw the ball any more.
The controversy people are probably bringing up is the argument that OBP has been shown to be 1.5 - 3x more valuable at creating runs for a team than slugging percentage... and using that to say why flat-out "OPS" stats shouldn't be the end-all be-all of a measure of a hitter (since they treat OBP and Slugging % as equal). Player A has a 1.000 OBP. Slugging percentage is undefined (because 0 AB's). Player B has a 1.000 Slugging percentage, and has a .250 OBP. But this thought experiment only works if you're comparing two players who both have had official AB's. Since player A never gets anything other than a hit, he's unable to be granted an official AB, you are never able to record a slugging % for him. Thus, the reasoning will be flawed if you simply try the OBP>Slugging argument to support player A. Player B has a higher calculated OPS, while you can't really calculate one for player A. Likewise, Player B creates more defined runs (even though player A would likely create just as much... had he simply gotten one weak single every 4 AB's, compared to the 1 HR for player B).
