Also, another way of looking at this.... if you could have a lineup full of player A's, or a lineup full of player B's... which one would you choose? Obviously, player A... because he'd never make an out, and his team would score an infinite amount of runs (while a team of player B scores 8 or 9 runs... depending on whether they're home or away). Otherwise, if you're just looking at one individual player, you still have to take the team they play on into account. If Player A already plays on a team with a guy who hits a fair share of HR's, then his value is a huge plus. If player B plays on a team with a bunch of terrible hitters, and he's the only one consistent, then his team plays in a lot of games where they only score 1-2 runs. The bottom line... the inability to make an out is IMPORTANT... but only if you're either on a team with some semblance of extra-base power, or the ability to drive you in. (and the converse... hitting a HR every 4 AB's is great.... provided you play on a team with guys who aren't going to have a .000 OBP).
I would go with player A. 1) Gets on base and that is more important to me than anything. Since you have no other restrictions on this player I would say he attempts to steal 2nd base everytime thus he is a scoring postion almost every at bat. 2) You also said it was a COMPETATIVE team so that means other guys on this team can hit as well. So now if this guy gets 4 at bats and steals 2nd base with no outs, there is a good chance he will get batted in by one of his teammates. 3) Using logic in no 2 let's say his team is good enough to get on base before he steps up the plate. Now if the bases are loaded then it's money in the bank as you get a walkoff run. If bases have 1 or 2 players on still he can get on base and increase the chance or scoring and give you more runs. 4) He can also wear down pitchers by taking more pitches knowing he gets to walk no matter what. 6 pitches is the minimum he will take and can do more with foul balls. 5) Team of all player As will score infinitely and teams would just forfeit games because pitchers would be tired. A team of all player B's would score no more than 9 runs which is a large but yet beatable number. My decision is based on the fact that player A has much more oppurtunities to score rather than player B who has a fixed number of chances. He will only score once every game and sometimes he will get multiple runs if players are on base when he homers but that's it. I say you take the risk with player A because the reward could be greater. Yes homeruns are sexy and attract fans but in the end player A is the type that will get you to a World Series and maybe even win it.
If you are looking for the most runs over the course of a season, percentage wise, the guy that always gets on base should provide more. Statistically, a runner on first with 0 outs will score a bit over 50% of the time, so if you bat him leadoff, then you should get roughly 81 runs from him in the first inning. Assume his other three at bats (if he only bats 4 times a game) are spread out across 0 out, 1 out and 2 out situations. Again, the 0 out situation will result in 81 runs, the 1 out situation will result it about 48 runs (~30% of the time that runner scores) and the 2 out situation will result in around 19 runs (~ 12% of the time, that runner scores). These are also the worst case scenarios for the batter (i.e. no one on base). So, statistically speaking the worst case scenario would be about 230 runs. The only thing you have going for the HR guy is that it is a guarantee of 162 runs over the course of a season.
During the series vs. the M's, the 'stros had a man on third with 2 outs. It was Pence on 3rd, I think. I started thinking about the whole argument that a walk is just as valuable as a hit. What a crock of crap. Certainly in that situation, a hit MEANS a run. Getting on base isn't nearly as valuable in that situation as getting a hit. It was just a very easy illustration of how over-inflated that thinking gets.
I don't think its completely over-inflated... its just that it should never be a black and white argument... especially since in baseball, as soon as somebody reaches base (regardless of how), everything changes (ie - you can't look at an individual's OBP or Slugging in a vaccume... what they do effects what the rest of the team does). But, when you're taking into account building a team for a full season... things like a player's career OBP can definitely help you calculate the expected amount of runs you may or may not be able to score that year. There's definitely a place for using SABR for valuing one player's expected impact over another player's. But yes... if you were just looking for those stats to play out in one game (or even just one situation in that game)... most of the time, you're not going to be happy. Just like in your situation above... in that game, it may not have turned out okay if the next batter took a walk. But, over an entire season, if you have a man at the plate with 2 men on base more often than one man on base, that team will score more runs.
i agree with you entirely. i just see it presented as black and white ALL THE TIME!! and in that sense, it's over-inflated. know what i mean? i mean...on this very message board we've had the whole argument regarding Morgan Ensberg and his incredible value because he can take walks in the 5 hole but doesn't drive in runs. this particular instance i was watching was just a micro portion of why that argument fails to me.
Micro being the key word. Nobody should ever point to one particular game, or one particular situation, and say... "see, it doesn't work.. or see, it does work." But over an entire season, the stats play out... if you get on base more often, your team scores more runs. If you slug the ball more often, your team scores more runs. If you had to choose whether or not to have one more point of OBP or one more point of slugging, OBP is more valuable. But yes... I agree... its definitely overused, and is often misused in the wrong context. I miss Rob Neyer... what happened to him? He often did a good job of explaining to the moneyball fans what those values really mean, and letting the anti-moneyball people know that its not just all stats and geeky figures.
Exactly, and if it's a team that has a hard time at scoring runs. I take player B with out hesitation. Plus, think about all the $$$$$ you'd get for having a guy hitting around 162 HR's in a season! (what about extra inning games!)
with no guarantee of scoring even one run. while the other guy is absolutely positively producing AT LEAST one run a game. sorry, but if you're accountable for AT LEAST 162 runs in a season, i think you're the MVP. they keep score with runs...not total bases.
Both of these players are virtually identical in terms of value, IMO. TangoTiger, who is one of the bohemoths of the sabrmetric community, created a calculation called Linear Weights, which uses a run expectancy chart to figure the impact of various outcomes based on different situations. The run expectancy chart uses historical data to determine what the odds are that a run will be scored in a given scenario (ie, runner on 1st with 0 outs, bases loaded with 1 out, etc.). His calculations show that a HR is worth 1.4 R/PA, while a walk is, on average, worth 0.35 R/PA. Assuming the 100% BB guy gets 4 PA per game, he and the HR hitter are both worth 1.4 R/G.
really? if even ONE other runner is on, hitter B is knocking in 2 runs....hitter A never has more than one RBI on any plate appearance.
Assuming 4 plate appearrances each... Player A could possibly get 4 RBIs and 4 runs scored each game. Player A could also move a runner into scoring position who could then be driven in with a single. Player B Could possibly get 4 RBIs and 1 run scored. I would go with Player B if I had plenty of on base guys to put in front of him. I would go with Player A if I had plenty of RBI guys on team already.
RBI is irrelevant. It's team runs scored that matters. A person putting himself on base 4 times per game contributes as many scoring opportunities as one who homers once a game and does nothing else.
execpt it requires someone else to move him from 1st to 3rd. i'm telling you..if you GUARANTEE me at least one run per game out of a guy...i'm taking that guy. we're talking about opportunities vs. sure things.
But these guys aren't playing one-on-one. They're on teams. If player B is on a team that features paltry hitting up and down the lineup... that team isn't going to score many runs despite the 162 HR's from one player. If player A is on a team that features merely average hitting at just a few other places.... that team will score more runs in the long run. Yes, you're still counting on somebody else... but even the worst teams in the history of the league will score a certain number of runs, regardless of how. Having a player reach base as often as player A does makes that value go up more than a guy with just a high slugging %. If both players play on an average team... with average hitters... there is no clear-cut "better" player. Player A being on base every single time is a huge thing. Player B hitting a HR once every 4 AB's is a huge thing. The more apt scenario is: Player A - OBP - .500, Slugging - .500, OPS - 1.000 Player B - OBP - .300, Slugging - .700, OPS - 1.000 Both players have identical OPS'. And yes... player B is slugging at a Ruthian .700... but over the course of a season, player A creates far more scoring OPPORTUNITIES than player B.
you're right. but i haven't the first clue of the team either player is on. i don't know how many players are injured. i know nothing about the teams. soooo...i'm taking the guy who i know scores me a run a game, without question.
