PDA

View Full Version : OBP - from the ORG



BLEEDS
08-16-2008, 01:03 PM
first, read this thread for the details:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71129

but an interesting tidbit:
"""
I always have been interested in the correlation between OBP and runs scored. OBP has a 0.8340 correlation with runs scored, and batting average has a 0.7244 correlation to runs scored.

These numbers are from JinAZ's web site: http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2008/...using-ops.html

Right now, the Reds are 13th in the NL in OBP, and 12th in runs scored.

The Cards are 2nd in the NL in OBP, and 3rd in runs scored. There is clearly a strong correlation.

Until the Reds, and their fans, learn this, we will not properly evaluate players. That is why it is troubling to lose Dunn, Ross, and Griffey. These guys were 3 of our top 4 OBP guys. Look at THIS LIST of the Reds on the Baseball Reference web site.
"""

Anyone who uncervalues OBP, and overvalues BA - really has no clue how to create runs in this day and age.

There are also some good Dusty quotes on there.

One thing's for sure, we have plenty of fans who think the same way as Dusty, and they are surely getting what they asked for. Call it "small ball" if you will, but I call it "small scores"...

PEACE

-BLEEDS

kpresidente
08-16-2008, 06:33 PM
I look at batting average as a substat of SLG%, not as a substat of OBP.

So a high SLG combined with a high BA means you will be a better, more consistant run producer than somebody with high-SLG, low BA, IMO. For example, a guy with a line of .300/.350/.500 will drive in more runs than a guy with a .250/.350/.500, even though many people with just throw out the OPS and say they're equal hitters.

I want a team full of guys with high OBPs, high SLG, and high BA. What I don't care about is HRs. To me, that's what "small-ball" means. It means you score your runs by stringing hits together, not by sitting around waiting for a 3-run dinger.

Some people seem to see batting average as a remnant of baseballs past....something people valued before they knew better. That's not really true. OBP has always been imporant, especially at the top of the order. There's a reason why people thought of Rickey Henderson as the greatest leadoff hitter ever when he played, and Vince Coleman as just a fast player. When Minnesota won the WS in the 90s, people liked Chuck Knoblauch's batting average, but they loved him for his OBP, etc., etc.

Another point here is that "...this day and age," as you put it, has changed. The steroid era is over. Scoring is decreasing throughout the leauge, and the way you look at stats has to adjust for that.

4-28
08-16-2008, 06:40 PM
I look at batting average as a substat of SLG%, not as a substat of OBP.

So a high SLG combined with a high BA means you will be a better, more consistant run producer than somebody with high-SLG, low BA.

I want a team full of guys with high OBPs, high SLG, and high BA. What I don't care about is HRs. To me, that's what "small-ball" means. It means you score your runs by stringing hits together, not sitting around waiting for a 3-run dinger.

But why look at BA? OBP contains BA. BA is such an imperfect and somewhat arbitrary stat, and you have an easier to compute and much better stat in OBP. And with OBP your statement still holds true, and high SLG combined with high OBP is going to out produce someone with a high SLG and low OBP.

And why wouldn't you like homers? It's a true outcome. It's the one type of batter ball that can't be turned into an out. You can hit a ball solidly, but as long as its in the field of play you're looking to "luck" to not allow it to find a glove. No such worries with a homerun.

In short, I don't understand the preference for way runs are scored. Three run homers, 5 consecutive singles, I don't care how they score (as long as an out isn't made) I love them all. I guess I don't understand having a preference in the way the runner crosses the plate, I just want the Reds runners to cross more often than the other teams.

BLEEDS
08-16-2008, 06:58 PM
Well one thing's for sure, the Reds won't be hitting many 3 run homers anymore - there will be WAY WAY less people on base these days.

The Reds had 5 HR"s in the Pittsburgh Series, with only ONE of them non-solo. They scored 4 other runs the "small ball" way. Luckily, those 5 hits WERE homers, or we wouldn't have been able to score hardly anything at all...

Maybe if CFP had hit it over the fence instead of getting one of those Cherished "Sacrifice Flys" we could have beat St. Louis?

PEACE

-BLEEDS

kpresidente
08-16-2008, 07:01 PM
But why look at BA? OBP contains BA. BA is such an imperfect and somewhat arbitrary stat, and you have an easier to compute and much better stat in OBP. And with OBP your statement still holds true, and high SLG combined with high OBP is going to out produce someone with a high SLG and low OBP.

It's not exactly contained in OBP. OBP values a single and a walk equally, but a single will often drive in a run, and a walk won't. Somehow that has to be accounted for. There are sabermetric stats that account for it, but they're usually a pain to get ahold of, so for quick reference I look at BA to account for it.


And why wouldn't you like homers?
Home runs are inconsistent. You'll get 3 home runs one game, none the next.

OBP is overrated as well, if you ignore SLG, because high-OBP/low-SLG = high LOB. But I think SLG is flawed, in that it overvalues HRs and undervalues singles. So I look at BA as a secondary stat to SLG, to correct what I think is a flaw in the stat.

Griffey012
08-16-2008, 07:51 PM
I look at batting average as a substat of SLG%, not as a substat of OBP.

So a high SLG combined with a high BA means you will be a better, more consistant run producer than somebody with high-SLG, low BA, IMO. For example, a guy with a line of .300/.350/.500 will drive in more runs than a guy with a .250/.350/.500, even though many people with just throw out the OPS and say they're equal hitters.

I want a team full of guys with high OBPs, high SLG, and high BA. What I don't care about is HRs. To me, that's what "small-ball" means. It means you score your runs by stringing hits together, not by sitting around waiting for a 3-run dinger.

Some people seem to see batting average as a remnant of baseballs past....something people valued before they knew better. That's not really true. OBP has always been imporant, especially at the top of the order. There's a reason why people thought of Rickey Henderson as the greatest leadoff hitter ever when he played, and Vince Coleman as just a fast player. When Minnesota won the WS in the 90s, people liked Chuck Knoblauch's batting average, but they loved him for his OBP, etc., etc.

Another point here is that "...this day and age," as you put it, has changed. The steroid era is over. Scoring is decreasing throughout the leauge, and the way you look at stats has to adjust for that.

The problem is we can't afford a team of those guys, we will be lucky to have 1 or 2 in our lineup, so we have to find other ways to score runs beside having a bunch of stud hitters. Ultimately it would be nice in our current situation moneywise to have 2 guys with high numbers in BA, AVG, and SLG in the 3 and 4 spot, hopefully Bruce will be one of these and Yonder the other. Then we have Phillips with a fairly high BA, low obp, and good slg hit in the 5 or 6 spot. EdE has a solid OBP, but weak BA, good SLG. Based off these right now the lineup should be constructed something of the following:

1st - Dickerson
2nd - EdE - not very good with RISP, decent at getting on
3rd- Votto - best pure hitter right now, hits against L/R well
4th - Bruce - him and BPhill are free swingers with low OBP's, get them up with runners on so they can hack and make something happen
5th - BPhil - Flip with Bruce against Lefties

At this point the rest of the lineup doesn't matter because none should be in our starting lineup next year. Except maybe Hanigan.

The rest of the lineup needs to be guys who have a good balance of OBP and Defense in LF, SS, and C Because if they have a high BA also, they are going to be 8-10 million players that we can't afford, especially if we get the one bopper in the 4 spot who can do it all. Bruce and BPhil should be 5th and 6th until they learn how to hit .310 or take a walk.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-16-2008, 08:57 PM
But why look at BA? OBP contains BA. BA is such an imperfect and somewhat arbitrary stat, and you have an easier to compute and much better stat in OBP. And with OBP your statement still holds true, and high SLG combined with high OBP is going to out produce someone with a high SLG and low OBP.

And why wouldn't you like homers? It's a true outcome. It's the one type of batter ball that can't be turned into an out. You can hit a ball solidly, but as long as its in the field of play you're looking to "luck" to not allow it to find a glove. No such worries with a homerun.

In short, I don't understand the preference for way runs are scored. Three run homers, 5 consecutive singles, I don't care how they score (as long as an out isn't made) I love them all. I guess I don't understand having a preference in the way the runner crosses the plate, I just want the Reds runners to cross more often than the other teams.


OBP is just as arbitrary. I would like to see more situational stats on walks. If Dunn comes up with 2 out, and you're behind the count 2-0, 2-1, and the bases are empty and you have someone like Paul Bako, Javier Valentine, Encarnacion, etc behind him - what are you going to do? Why do they give much fo a crap if they walk Dunn in that situation? I mean, most pitchers probably figure, well we got a guy with a high K rate here, just throw him some off the plate stuff and if he goes fishing, then fine. If not, fine too, because the Reds don't have any hitters worth a crap to protect him.

I can see the point in you would rather get an extra base hit than a HR in a rally situation. Down 3 in the ninth, you start off with a solo shot, great. You cut it to 2, its the best one AB result you can have. But also, you don't put much pressure on the pitcher, and you don't string hits together. He gives up a mistake HR, no biggie, he comes back out, doesn't have to worry about a runner on base, doesn't have to worry about putting two on and then being in a REAL tight spot.

I think thats one of the psychological aspects of it, get momentum going your way by filling the basepads and putting more and more pressure on the batter. I think its all about momentum. The same reason why in basketball when another team goes on a significant run, the coach calls timeout to put a stop to the momentum. A leadoff homerun doesn't tend to build momentum when you're down several runs. I think thats the philosophy behind it.

kpresidente
08-16-2008, 10:07 PM
The problem is we can't afford a team of those guys, we will be lucky to have 1 or 2 in our lineup, so we have to find other ways to score runs beside having a bunch of stud hitters.

I'm not saying you have to have all-stars at every position, I'm talking about an approach to team building. It's how you look at things.

For example: Do you see EE as having a better year at the plate this year or last year? His OPS is about the same, but his HRs are up and his BA is down. I'd rather have the EE from 2007, all else being equal.

Or who do you see as a better prospect: Danny Dorn with his power or Chris Dickerson with his speed and defense? Both of them have good OBP skills, but I want a Dickerson type. That's not a perfect example because Dorn is a lot younger and has a better OPS, but it illustrates the point.

kpresidente
08-16-2008, 10:57 PM
I think thats one of the psychological aspects of it, get momentum going your way by filling the basepads and putting more and more pressure on the batter. I think its all about momentum. The same reason why in basketball when another team goes on a significant run, the coach calls timeout to put a stop to the momentum. A leadoff homerun doesn't tend to build momentum when you're down several runs. I think thats the philosophy behind it.

Bringing the psychology into it adds a whole other dimension. For most players, if you go up to bat looking for a walk you probably won't get a walk or a hit, you'll probably strike out. That's not to say you should always be aggressive. Lot's of guys want to work deep in the count. But they don't go deep because they're trying to get walked, they do it because they want to put the pitcher in a position where he has to throw a strike. You get a lot of mistake pitches that you can really rip that way.

Another example where the mental aspect seems to contradict the numbers on the surface is this: Suppose you're up against a guy who's had the whole team's number all game. You maybe get a slider outside and a little off the plate that you really lock on to, get really good wood on, but try to pull it because you got ahead of yourself and hit a routine grounder to the shortstop. Now, the sabermetric people will say you failed because you made an out, and you did, but you can't wait until the next at-bat because you "saw it," it's your pitch now and the next time you see it you know that all you have to do is be a little more patient and drive it the other way. So the next at-bat you hit a homerun to right-center. The stats don't tell you that that homerun was predicated on the fact that you swung at a pitch the previous at-bat maybe you should have layed off of....that is, if you were looking for a walk.

I guess my point is, just because the numbers tell you X or Y is going to win more games, that doesn't mean you go up to bat with that outcome in mind. People say Brandon Phillips should be more selective, but maybe if he tried to be more selective he wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn. You just can't always know what's going to work from player to player and situation to situation.

4-28
08-16-2008, 11:55 PM
It's not exactly contained in OBP. OBP values a single and a walk equally, but a single will often drive in a run, and a walk won't. Somehow that has to be accounted for. There are sabermetric stats that account for it, but they're usually a pain to get ahold of, so for quick reference I look at BA to account for it.


Home runs are inconsistent. You'll get 3 home runs one game, none the next.

OBP is overrated as well, if you ignore SLG, because high-OBP/low-SLG = high LOB. But I think SLG is flawed, in that it overvalues HRs and undervalues singles. So I look at BA as a secondary stat to SLG, to correct what I think is a flaw in the stat.

For your first point, that's what SLG is for. It gives you the difference in the value of a walk, single, double, etc. I have more problems with the stat that values a sac bunt or a sac fly the same amount as a walk.

And the second argument doesn't hold water, while they may be inconsistent, there still the best hit there is. And the same could be said for singles, doubles, and triples. Hell, hits in general. A player will get 4 one night and none the next.

Finally, in no way is OBP overrated. It tells you how many outs a person makes, that's it. And the point of the game is to not make outs. I'm still trying to figure out how SLG overrates homers compared to singles. It takes three singles to score a run under the best case, when you only have a 30% probability of getting a hit, stringing three together without 3 outs first occurs about the same amount of times as hitting a homerun does.

4-28
08-17-2008, 12:07 AM
OBP is just as arbitrary. I would like to see more situational stats on walks. If Dunn comes up with 2 out, and you're behind the count 2-0, 2-1, and the bases are empty and you have someone like Paul Bako, Javier Valentine, Encarnacion, etc behind him - what are you going to do? Why do they give much fo a crap if they walk Dunn in that situation? I mean, most pitchers probably figure, well we got a guy with a high K rate here, just throw him some off the plate stuff and if he goes fishing, then fine. If not, fine too, because the Reds don't have any hitters worth a crap to protect him.

I can see the point in you would rather get an extra base hit than a HR in a rally situation. Down 3 in the ninth, you start off with a solo shot, great. You cut it to 2, its the best one AB result you can have. But also, you don't put much pressure on the pitcher, and you don't string hits together. He gives up a mistake HR, no biggie, he comes back out, doesn't have to worry about a runner on base, doesn't have to worry about putting two on and then being in a REAL tight spot.

I think thats one of the psychological aspects of it, get momentum going your way by filling the basepads and putting more and more pressure on the batter. I think its all about momentum. The same reason why in basketball when another team goes on a significant run, the coach calls timeout to put a stop to the momentum. A leadoff homerun doesn't tend to build momentum when you're down several runs. I think thats the philosophy behind it.

How is OBP arbitrary? It measures the amount of times you come to the plate and get on-base, excluding instances that a batter gets on through a fielding error. That's it, no arbitrary measures. BA on the other hand doesn't count walks, or flyouts that advance a runner from third, but it does count flyouts that advance a runner from second to third. But if you turn the bat sideways, it doesn't count that PA as long as the runner advances. But it does count a swinging groundout that advances the runner. Where is there any logic in there?

As for Dunn, this wasn't about him, but in you're case, how's that Dunn's fault? Blame Dusty's awful lineups, inept general managers for not surrounding him with talent, or the baseball gods for not decreeing you cannot pitch around a player, but it's anyone but Adam Dunn's fault in your hypothetical.

And as for momentum building in your situation, you've just got a run in!!! In your hypothetical case, you're in exactly the same situation you were in, except you're down one less run. Are you actually telling me you'd prefer a single to a homerun in this situation?

Griffey012
08-17-2008, 03:54 AM
Bringing the psychology into it adds a whole other dimension. For most players, if you go up to bat looking for a walk you probably won't get a walk or a hit, you'll probably strike out. That's not to say you should always be aggressive. Lot's of guys want to work deep in the count. But they don't go deep because they're trying to get walked, they do it because they want to put the pitcher in a position where he has to throw a strike. You get a lot of mistake pitches that you can really rip that way.

Another example where the mental aspect seems to contradict the numbers on the surface is this: Suppose you're up against a guy who's had the whole team's number all game. You maybe get a slider outside and a little off the plate that you really lock on to, get really good wood on, but try to pull it because you got ahead of yourself and hit a routine grounder to the shortstop. Now, the sabermetric people will say you failed because you made an out, and you did, but you can't wait until the next at-bat because you "saw it," it's your pitch now and the next time you see it you know that all you have to do is be a little more patient and drive it the other way. So the next at-bat you hit a homerun to right-center. The stats don't tell you that that homerun was predicated on the fact that you swung at a pitch the previous at-bat maybe you should have layed off of....that is, if you were looking for a walk.

I guess my point is, just because the numbers tell you X or Y is going to win more games, that doesn't mean you go up to bat with that outcome in mind. People say Brandon Phillips should be more selective, but maybe if he tried to be more selective he wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn. You just can't always know what's going to work from player to player and situation to situation.

I think there is a huge difference in Brandon Phillips in the 4 spot because he feels as if he has to come up big. The Phillips in 2007 was a lot different hitter than this year. That is a big issue with the order and our current team.

As far as the point you consider...if you were looking for a walk in the situation, you may have layed off the pitch. But most of the time, the player is not going to hit the right center bomb, even if he gets good wood on it. Look at how many line outs Kepp has because his power is so weak. The thing is, if player X gets on base at a .410 clip, and player Y gets on base at a .360 clip, throughout the year, player X will be more beneficial than player Y. I am not a complete moneyball theorist, but in the end...as long as the player is not an extremist (ala Dunn as much as I love him) he will come get the run in more often through the course of the season.

Griffey012
08-17-2008, 04:02 AM
I'm not saying you have to have all-stars at every position, I'm talking about an approach to team building. It's how you look at things.

For example: Do you see EE as having a better year at the plate this year or last year? His OPS is about the same, but his HRs are up and his BA is down. I'd rather have the EE from 2007, all else being equal.

Or who do you see as a better prospect: Danny Dorn with his power or Chris Dickerson with his speed and defense? Both of them have good OBP skills, but I want a Dickerson type. That's not a perfect example because Dorn is a lot younger and has a better OPS, but it illustrates the point.

Easily last year, much better OBP and better RBI's. Also, with out someone telling the team to hack at every pitch. With our ballpark, we do not need all guys who hit for power. We need 1 or 2 guys who can just mash. we need some guys who are just a b**ch to get out but can't hit a homer for their lives. We need some guys who just "clog" the bases and get knocked in. But we need 6 or 7 guys who play good D.

Dickerson is great if he can manage to cut down on the K's(free outs) and at least make the defense work for an out. In the field he is good, and we definitely need the defense more than anything right now.

I don't know much about Dorn to be honest, but based on team needs, I would decide whether we needed a guy with OBP more or we needed someone to hit in the middle a knock people in.

OUReds
08-17-2008, 07:05 AM
Easily last year, much better OBP and better RBI's. Also, with out someone telling the team to hack at every pitch. With our ballpark, we do not need all guys who hit for power. We need 1 or 2 guys who can just mash.

All respect to your opinion, but I'll never understand this line of thinking. Power (AKA aquiring as many bases as possible per plate appearance) always helps score runs, you can never too much or even enough power, no matter where you play. There is no point of diminishing returns on the correlation between SLG and runs scored that I am aware of.

Besides, the other team is playing in the same ballpark as you are. GABP increases our HR power the same as it increases theirs. GABP grants no power advantage to Reds players relative to visiting players.

There is also a very dangerous misconception in that assumption; namely that GABP increases all offense equally. It doesn't. The total park factor numbers for GABP since it's opening are below, with 1.00 being average, anything above 1.00 benefiting the hitter, anything below benefiting the pitcher.

All Hits - 0.99
Doubles - 1.01
Triples - 0.51
Home Runs - 1.23

In short, GABP greatly benefits batters with home run power, but actually ever so slightly hurts singles hitters and those with gap power. The more home run power you have in GABP the better off you are.

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 11:37 AM
I'm still trying to figure out how SLG overrates homers compared to singles. It takes three singles to score a run under the best case, when you only have a 30% probability of getting a hit, stringing three together without 3 outs first occurs about the same amount of times as hitting a homerun does.

Three singles scores a run. A homerun scores a run. But SLG gives only 3 TB for the singles, and 4 TB for the homerun, so it's giving more credit to the homerun despite the fact that both cases put one run on the scoreboard.

Plus, the three singles leave two men on base to be driven in by other players.


Finally, in no way is OBP overrated...And the point of the game is to not make outs.
Perfect example of OBP being overrated. The point of the game is to score runs, not to "not make outs." You're ignoring LOB, just like I said a lot of people do. That's why OBP has to be looked at alongside SLG (and to some degree, by BA, since SLG overrates HRs). The guys that get on base have to be driven in.

OUReds
08-17-2008, 11:49 AM
Three singles scores a run. A homerun scores a run. But SLG gives only 3 TB for the singles, and 4 TB for the homerun, so it's giving more credit to the homerun despite the fact that both cases put one run on the scoreboard.

Plus, the three singles leave two men on base to be driven in by other players.

Eh? It gives more value to the Home Run because it is more valuable. The single with two men on scores only 1 or 2, the home run scores 3. If anything, bases aquired after the first in a single at bat are more valuable in scoring runs, thus overvaluing the single, as each base counts the same in SLG.

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 12:02 PM
Eh? It gives more value to the Home Run because it is more valuable. The single with two men on scores only 1 or 2, the home run scores 3. If anything, bases aquired after the first in a single at bat are more valuable in scoring runs, thus overvaluing the single, as each base counts the same in SLG.

Of course a HR is more valuable than a single. I never said they should be credited equally. That's ridiculous.

But even in your example, you prove my point. The single scores 1 or 2 runs (let's make it 1.5 runs for the sake of the math), but is only gets credited 1 TB. The homerun scores twice as many runs (1.5 vs. 3), yet gets 4 times as many TBs. So the HR is again overrated by SLG. It should only be credited twice the single.

The reason is because the HR is getting credited 1 TB for "acquiring" 3B, but 3B is largely an irrelevant base in baseball. There's very little difference between having a runner on second and having one on third. That's why nobody steals 3rd, despite the fact that it's the easiest base to steal.

OUReds
08-17-2008, 12:26 PM
That's an interesting take, but I just don't see it. Doubles triples and homers have a greater chance to score a runner from first (or at the plate obviously in a homer), yet each base aquired is weighted the same in SLG. That factor more then makes up for any deficiency in aquiring third base.


Of course a HR is more valuable than a single. I never said they should be credited equally. That's ridiculous.

Yet the first base aquired by a single and the first base aquired via home run are credited equally in SLG, evn though the homer run is guarenteed to result in a run.

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 12:29 PM
That's an interesting take, but I just don't see it. Doubles triples and homers have a greater chance to score a runner from first (or at the plate obviously in a homer), yet each base aquired is weighted the same in SLG. That factor more then makes up for any deficiency in aquiring third base.

That's fine. I just want to note that following my logic, doubles are also undervalued, while triples would be overvalued by SLG.

Griffey012
08-17-2008, 01:42 PM
All respect to your opinion, but I'll never understand this line of thinking. Power (AKA aquiring as many bases as possible per plate appearance) always helps score runs, you can never too much or even enough power, no matter where you play. There is no point of diminishing returns on the correlation between SLG and runs scored that I am aware of.

Besides, the other team is playing in the same ballpark as you are. GABP increases our HR power the same as it increases theirs. GABP grants no power advantage to Reds players relative to visiting players.

There is also a very dangerous misconception in that assumption; namely that GABP increases all offense equally. It doesn't. The total park factor numbers for GABP since it's opening are below, with 1.00 being average, anything above 1.00 benefiting the hitter, anything below benefiting the pitcher.

All Hits - 0.99
Doubles - 1.01
Triples - 0.51
Home Runs - 1.23

In short, GABP greatly benefits batters with home run power, but actually ever so slightly hurts singles hitters and those with gap power. The more home run power you have in GABP the better off you are.

2007 or 2008 EdE is going to have the home run power. But it seems this year Edwin has developed a lot more HR Power at the expense of his overall hitting ability. If he got the same 502 AB's he would hit 29 HR's this year, which is definitely a plus, don't get me wrong. But look at the 2007 Edwin with runners on and RISP and compare him to 2008. It is night and day, one looks like a run producer and one looks like a hacker. And his slg. with RISP this year is abysmal.

I see that park factor as making a big benefit to the guy who is a good all around hitter with some power into a good all aorund hitter with good power. When I speak of a guy who hits for power, I am talking about the Edwin of 2008 who is hitting 25% of his hits as home runs, but is not going to be a 45 home run hitter.

OUReds
08-17-2008, 02:03 PM
GAB is going to take a guy with average power (say 20ish HRs) and add between 2-3 home runs a year to his total. I'll leave it up to you to decide if that makes him a "good" power hitter.

4-28
08-17-2008, 02:20 PM
Three singles scores a run. A homerun scores a run. But SLG gives only 3 TB for the singles, and 4 TB for the homerun, so it's giving more credit to the homerun despite the fact that both cases put one run on the scoreboard.

Plus, the three singles leave two men on base to be driven in by other players.


Perfect example of OBP being overrated. The point of the game is to score runs, not to "not make outs." You're ignoring LOB, just like I said a lot of people do. That's why OBP has to be looked at alongside SLG (and to some degree, by BA, since SLG overrates HRs). The guys that get on base have to be driven in.

Firstly, it's a best case that 3 singles score a run. I can think of plenty of situations, especially given our overall team speed in recent history, where it would take 4. Secondly, those 3 bases get spread out over 3 different hitters, so the impact of the one hitters single is more like a third of a run in the best case, and in most cases it's not even that. A home run always leads to a run. ALWAYS. If anything, I'd say the value of a homerun given by SLG is less than it should be compared to a single, given that the result of a homerun is a certain outcome, where the outcome of singles are completely dependent on the rest of the team's work.

As for the OBP being overrated, if you don't make outs, you're going to score runs. I don't care how you don't make outs, but as long as you're not making them, you're going to score. I agree that OBP and SLG need to be looked at in tandem since no one is ever not going to make an out, but the point stands, the objective of any at bat is to not make an out. Scoring runs is the by-product of not making outs.

Griffey012
08-17-2008, 02:22 PM
GAB is going to take a guy with average power (say 20ish HRs) and add between 2-3 home runs a year to his total. I'll leave it up to you to decide if that makes him a "good" power hitter.

The park factor is going to play in differently to different types of hitters. And also is attributed partially to the pitchers that throw for the home team, unless you are using a different stat than I am thinking of. But let's say we take a guy from the Marlins who hits 20 home runs with the Marlins park factor of .798 and bring him to the reds with the GABP park factor of 1.182, according the the ratings on ESPN's website. In a stadium with a factor of 1.000 the 20 home run guy would hit about 25, and then move him to GABP would hit 29-30 hr's. I understand not every guy who hits 20 is going to hit 30, but there are some who are going to turn from average power stats to good power stats. But there are a lot of guys being affected the same way by playing in big parks, and adding it to the equation you have average power to good power.

On another note: Would you rather have the 2007 Edwin with 16 hr's or the 2008 Edwin with 30 home runs? I am interested to hear your opinion on this.

OUReds
08-17-2008, 02:42 PM
2007 OPS - .794
2008 OPS - .807

About the same, but the here's the difference

2007 OBP - .356
2008 OBP - .333

The major problem with OPS is that point for point, OBP is more valuable then SLG. I'd take 2007 and the 23 points of OBP every time.

As far your Marlins HR example, a 20 HR guy there can only be expected to hit between 2-3 more HRs in a neutral park, because only 1/2 of his games are played at home of course. Add in another 3 or so home runs from playing in GABP and you have a 6 HR swing from changing from the worst HR park in the NL to the best. Obviously most players are not going to see that kind of shift.

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 02:42 PM
Firstly, it's a best case that 3 singles score a run. I can think of plenty of situations, especially given our overall team speed in recent history, where it would take 4.

So? 4 singles is the worst-case scenario for the singles method (an astronomical rarity at that, you're talking 4 infield hits in an row. Three singles in a row will score a run 99% of the time). That means it takes an absurd worst-case scenario for the TB from singles and HRs to even out.

Also, 3 singles isn't the best-case scenario. Stolen bases can reduce that to 2 singles. But the value of a stolen base is completely wiped out by the homerun. Which means you've negated a possible way producing runs (assuming you meet Bill James's 70% CS%).


Secondly, those 3 bases get spread out over 3 different hitters, so the impact of the one hitters single is more like a third of a run

Exactly. That's why HRs get more credit in SLG than singles. I'm not arguing that, although you guys keep trying to say that I am. What I'm arguing is that a HR should count 3 times a single at most, not 4 times a single. 4 times a single is too much. It's overvalued.


As for the OBP being overrated, if you don't make outs, you're going to score runs. I don't care how you don't make outs, but as long as you're not making them, you're going to score.

That's just not true. You're ignoring LOB, a very real part of the equation. OBP does not equal runs at a 1:1 ratio. It takes somebody driving that run in. Three walks in a row followed by 3 Ks makes for an amazing OBP, but it doesn't score a run.

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 02:46 PM
The major problem with OPS is that point for point, OBP is more valuable then SLG. I'd take 2007 and the 23 points of OBP every time.

I'm definately on board with that. I hate OPS. RC is much better, but you still may be giving too much credit to SLG.

OUReds
08-17-2008, 02:56 PM
Exactly. That's why HRs get more credit in SLG than singles. I'm not arguing that, although you guys keep trying to say that I am. What I'm arguing is that a HR should count 3 times a single at most, not 4 times a single. 4 times a single is too much. It's overvalued.

Any proof at all for this? If this were true then weighting HR bases less then singles would yield a better correlation in runs scored then using straight slugging.

Since I have never heard of such a weighting (and make no mistake, there are people who use this in their work), I very much doubt it would be the case.

Griffey012
08-17-2008, 03:02 PM
2007 OPS - .794
2008 OPS - .807

About the same, but the here's the difference

2007 OBP - .356
2008 OBP - .333

The major problem with OPS is that point for point, OBP is more valuable then SLG. I'd take 2007 and the 23 points of OBP every time.

As far your Marlins HR example, a 20 HR guy there can only be expected to hit between 2-3 more HRs in a neutral park, because only 1/2 of his games are played at home of course. Add in another 3 or so home runs from playing in GABP and you have a 6 HR swing from changing from the worst HR park in the NL to the best. Obviously most players are not going to see that kind of shift.

I forgot to factor that part in, thanks for the heads up.

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 03:05 PM
Since I have never heard of such a weighting (and make no mistake, there are people who use this in their work), I very much doubt it would be the case.

No proof, but you don't have proof to the contrary. But my logic is flawless, which outweighs your assumption that "I would have heard about it."

I've had this argument before and another guy pointed me to a sabermetric stat that did, in fact, account for what I am saying. Their solution was to measure, more or less, how many runs each type of hit generated on average. And yes, homerun hitters proved to be overvalued as run producers and singles hitters undervalued. The point that drove that home was that (at the time), the stat showed that Jerry Hairston was producing more runs (all else being equal) with his hits than Adam Dunn.

I want to say here that I'm not trying to compare BA to OBP and SLG as a measure of a hitter. What I'm saying is when you look at a player, look at his OBP and his SLG, and when you look at his SLG, give a nod to his BA (INOW - if you have two guys with equal SLG, take the guy with the higher BA).

OUReds
08-17-2008, 03:34 PM
No proof, but you don't have proof to the contrary. But my logic is flawless, which outweighs your assumption that "I would have heard about it."

I'm hardly the one with a burden of proof here. You're claiming that home runs are overvalued relative to singles in determining runs scored by at least 25%. SLG is a stat used in the foundation for essentially every sabermetric process EVER, and if such a huge discrepancy were true, I think it unresonable to say that sabermetricians would overlook or or just go "ehhh, so what".

Advanced RC formulas includes adjustments for player speed, the effect of strikeouts on offensive production, a global adjustment for exceptional OPS player to counteract the effect of RC placing a player in an offensive context of players equal to himself, and clutch hitting statistics. Why on earth wouldn't they include an adjustment for your contention? In the absence of any objective data on your part whatsoever, My position is a bit more convincing then "I think I would have heard about it"


I've had this argument before and another guy pointed me to a sabermetric stat that did, in fact, account for what I am saying.

Source?


I want to say here that I'm not trying to compare BA to OBP and SLG as a measure of a hitter. What I'm saying is when you look at a player, look at his OBP and his SLG, and when you look at his SLG, give a nod to his BA (INOW - if you have two guys with equal SLG, take the guy with the higher BA).

Obviously by using OPS we are looking at his OBP and SLG, but you seem to imply you prefer SLG plus BA, and there's where you lose me. OBP clearly more closely correlates with actual runs scored.

Offensive correlation from Redszone (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45245)

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 03:55 PM
Advanced RC formulas includes adjustments for player speed, the effect of strikeouts on offensive production, a global adjustment for exceptional OPS player to counteract the effect of RC placing a player in an offensive context of players equal to himself, and clutch hitting statistics.
I understand that and would always prefer those numbers. But in general people tend to go with what what's available, i.e., OPS or a basic RC formula, which are flawed.


Why on earth wouldn't they include an adjustment for your contention? In the absence of any objective data on your part whatsoever, My position is a bit more convincing then "I think I would have heard about it"

Because the flaw in sabermetrics is that the internal logic of the theories are not subject to consistency. The data is usually used as the sole determining factor as to the validity of the claims being made. A real scientific theory requires both a mathematically consistant (or internally logical) theory combined with convincing data.

So while sabermetrics are general called "scientific," most wouldn't stand up to a rigorous scientific analysis. A physicist would laugh in Bill James's face when he says RC is a model of scoring, because the logic behind the correlation is vague at best. You can tell that OBP*SLG generally correlates to runs scored, but what's vague is "why" that's the case. And if the logic is vague, that leaves room for misrepresented constants. For example, RC may correlate with scoring simply because teams have traditionally built their lineups in a given way, and if those lineups were re-arranged, the correlation might break down. So long as there's unclear logic behind it, you can never know.

Another point here is that if a theory is shown to have flaw in it's internal logic, then the theory is flawed, regardless of the data. At that point, the data is merely circumstantial or coincidental.

Those advanced RC formulas are attempts to correct for inconsistencies, (the source of which could very well be SLG%) and that's good enough for me. I won't bring this up if somebody is using those numbers. I don't even bring it up when they're using basic RC, because it's close enough. I'll only bring it up if they're using SLG alone, or OPS alone, to measure a run producer.



Source?You'll have to believe (or not) that I'm not flat out lying to you. I'm not prepared to dig up a thread from months ago just to convince you.

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 04:04 PM
Obviously by using OPS we are looking at his OBP and SLG, but you seem to imply you prefer SLG plus BA, and there's where you lose me. OBP clearly more closely correlates with actual runs scored.

I'm aware of that correlation. But if it were enough, we wouldn't look at SLG at all. But nobody will say a line of .300/.350/.400 is as good as a line of .300/.350/.500. OBP is more important than SLG, I agree with that. But that doesn't mean SLG isn't important, especially in the middle of the order. And I'm contending that SLG has a flaw in it. How much does it matter, even if I'm right? I don't know. I'm not saying it means Keppinger is a better run producer than Dunn because he has a higher batting average and hits more singles. I'm just pointing out a preference where all else is equal.

OUReds
08-17-2008, 04:16 PM
Another point here is that if a theory is shown to have flaw in it's internal logic, then the theory is flawed, regardless of the data. At that point, the data is merely circumstantial or coincidental.

The "internal logic" of what? SLG does not presume to do anything other then what it does, measure total bases accumulated. Your contention is that the bases accumulated via singles are more valuable (by a rather large amount) relative to bases accumulated via triple or home run. This is a testable hypothesis for those with the know how and inclination. I'm not saying you are wrong, but your logic consists of you saying "it's true because I said so", and I'm just not prepared to accept that in the absence of actual objective data.

Edit: The above sounded nastier then I intended it. Even if I think you are wrong, it is an interesting idea, I just wish you had something to support it.
It's fine if you don't though, I need to remember that the sun deck isn't a doctorate defense sometimes!

BLEEDS
08-17-2008, 05:39 PM
Firstly, it's a best case that 3 singles score a run.

Not to mention, the odds of getting 3 hits in a row is less than 1.75% given our current lineup. 2 hits in a row is about 6.7% chance. I believe Adam Dunn gave us about a 7.2% chance that he would hit one OVER THE FENCE.

You've got enough factors in between - such as certain folks who like to hit ground balls to the SS/2nd baseman quite often - that actually Strikeouts are preferable in some cases with this team.

Right now, we are good enough to win 1 out of every 3 games, almost, if Volquez or Arroyo are on their game to ensure our opponents can't outscore our feable offense.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 05:48 PM
but your logic consists of you saying "it's true because I said so", and I'm just not prepared to accept that in the absence of actual objective data.
My logic is a little better than that. The basis of the idea is that 3rd base is not an important base because most (not all) of the runs scored from 3rd could just as easily be scored from 2nd, and so any stat that measures them equally is flawed. It's a very common sense idea.

Certainly you can see that 3 singles in an inning will score the same one run as one home run in an inning, and yet are counted less in SLG. That I think is certain (assuming nobody gets thrown out on the bases). If there's a reason why that fact wouldn't project out over the course of a game or the course of a season I haven't found it.

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 06:05 PM
Not to mention, the odds of getting 3 hits in a row is less than 1.75% given our current lineup. 2 hits in a row is about 6.7% chance. I believe Adam Dunn gave us about a 7.2% chance that he would hit one OVER THE FENCE.

They don't have to be in a row, they have to be over the course of an inning. Beyond that, you have to account for the fact the singles leave two men on base, one of whom is in scoring position.

And the Adam Dunn thing assumes that Dunn bats once per inning, which he doesn't.

kpresidente
08-17-2008, 06:07 PM
[I]Edit: The above sounded nastier then I intended it.

It's all fine. I'm only defending the idea because I think it's true. If it's not, it's not and I'll move on to something else!

OUReds
08-17-2008, 06:09 PM
A single situation among many possible situations which offset it. What if the three singles come in consecutive innings and result in zero runs? What if during a game, one team scores 1 run on 6 singles (.181 SLG) opposed to the other team hitting one Home Run (.143 SLG)? In this scenario how is the Home Run overvalued relative to the singles? If EVERY 3 singles scored a run you'd be right, but that isn't the case. Too many entangling variables.

BLEEDS
08-17-2008, 06:43 PM
They don't have to be in a row, they have to be over the course of an inning. Beyond that, you have to account for the fact the singles leave two men on base, one of whom is in scoring position.

And the Adam Dunn thing assumes that Dunn bats once per inning, which he doesn't.

Right, my point is we need more Adam Dunn's than Norris Hoppers.

WHENEVER an "Adam Dunn" comes to the plate, you have a 7.2% chance of scoring a run, with ONE batter. That's better than the chances of two singles in a row - with a stolen base in between.
And, again, this is WITHOUT giving up outs - or getting Double Plays, etc - within in inning.

You are forgetting that after an "Adam Dunn" goes deep, you still have 3 more outs left - but darnit, NOBODY on base...

all this talk of "leaving men on base" with your signals, sure sounds anti to your point - HomeRuns leave NOBODY on. I guess that's a Dusty-ism in it's purest form:
Those Pesky Homeruns - they are RALLY killers... :thumbdown

PEACE

-BLEEDS

LouisvilleCARDS
08-17-2008, 06:53 PM
How is OBP arbitrary? It measures the amount of times you come to the plate and get on-base, excluding instances that a batter gets on through a fielding error. That's it, no arbitrary measures. BA on the other hand doesn't count walks, or flyouts that advance a runner from third, but it does count flyouts that advance a runner from second to third. But if you turn the bat sideways, it doesn't count that PA as long as the runner advances. But it does count a swinging groundout that advances the runner. Where is there any logic in there?

As for Dunn, this wasn't about him, but in you're case, how's that Dunn's fault? Blame Dusty's awful lineups, inept general managers for not surrounding him with talent, or the baseball gods for not decreeing you cannot pitch around a player, but it's anyone but Adam Dunn's fault in your hypothetical.

And as for momentum building in your situation, you've just got a run in!!! In your hypothetical case, you're in exactly the same situation you were in, except you're down one less run. Are you actually telling me you'd prefer a single to a homerun in this situation?

- OBP is arbitrary as much as anything else, because batters often come up in situations where the pitcher doesn't care much if they issue a walk. Batting AVG isn't perfect, but neither is OBP either. Too many people act like OBP is the perfect black and white stat. My point is, there IS no perfect black and white.

- As for Dunn, I didn't blame Dunn for anything, so I have no clue what tangent you're gonig on there.

- Yes, and I explained its the same situation, and explained the entire point was momentum to rattle the opposing pticher to put more pressure on. I even pointed out a HR is the best result in scoring, in one AB. So, you completely missed the entire point. It's no different than in basketball and a team is starting to make a run, and they get a fast break - do you foul a good FT shooter where he'll like hit both anyway, or just go ahead and let him get the dunk? It's the same result, but letting someone slam it down on you during a big run is just going to build more momentum.

OUReds
08-17-2008, 07:05 PM
- OBP is arbitrary as much as anything else, because batters often come up in situations where the pitcher doesn't care much if they issue a walk. Batting AVG isn't perfect, but neither is OBP either. Too many people act like OBP is the perfect black and white stat. My point is, there IS no perfect black and white.

OBP is demonstratively better then BA. It better corresponds with actual runs scored then BA. No, it's not perfect, but perfection is not the goal here, being as accurate as possible is. Combine OBP with SLG and you get an easy to understand and calculate measure of a player's offensive value. No, it isn't perfect, but it is very, VERY good, and other metrics (RC for example) add a ton of complexity for a very marginal gain in accuracy.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-17-2008, 08:08 PM
OBP is demonstratively better then BA. It better corresponds with actual runs scored then BA. No, it's not perfect, but perfection is not the goal here, being as accurate as possible is. Combine OBP with SLG and you get an easy to understand and calculate measure of a player's offensive value. No, it isn't perfect, but it is very, VERY good, and other metrics (RC for example) add a ton of complexity for a very marginal gain in accuracy.


Maybe, but some of you guys play MVP Baseball with stats constantly. Lemme ask, its the bottom of the ninth, you have runners at second and third, two outs. Would you rather have a guy with a better OBP up and a high K rate, or a guy with better BA and a low K rate? A walk there doesn't drive you in a run.

Just one example, but most people act like OBP is the end all be all. I think you have to understand first WHY there's a higher ratio of walks for one guy over another, what the situation is, and so on. Not saying I want a Juan Pierre with a .300 BA and a .310 OBP or whatever, but people here act like theres several hundred managers in waiting here.

OUReds
08-18-2008, 04:08 AM
Lemme ask, its the bottom of the ninth, you have runners at second and third, two outs. Would you rather have a guy with a better OBP up and a high K rate, or a guy with better BA and a low K rate? A walk there doesn't drive you in a run.

I want a guy up who is least likely to make an out to end the game. That's simply what OBP measures.

Given the choice, I would want a guy who's OBP is driven by BA in this situation, but that's not a knock on OBP. It's understanding what each stat measures and how to apply them intelligently in different situations. What it doesn't do, no matter how many specialized situations you concoct, is make BA a better (or equally imperfect, however you want to word it) overall measure of a hitters ability then OBP/OPS.


Maybe
There is no maybe about it. Check my link earlier in the post.


Some of you guys play MVP Baseball with stats constantly.

Some of us enjoy baseball more when we better understand how it works. For the record I have never played MVP Baseball, though I do enjoy MLB 08: The Show. First baseball game I've owned since the first High Heat Baseball!

Ahhhorsepoo
08-18-2008, 11:26 AM
A high OBP does not always mean they will have the best chance to not get an out to end the game..

You all agree Dunn has a high OBP because he is walked alot, because pitchers "pitch" around him.. well if it is late in the game.. and the pitchers team is up by 4.. they will pitch it to him alot more frequently than they do normally.. so his PA to AB ratio goes down.. which means ALOT more outs because his B.A. is so low..

I am by no means saying he will get an out more likely 9 times out of 10.. but I would rather have a guy who has a high OBP driven by a high average in that situation.. even an obp above .350 with an average close to .290 or .300...

think about it.. a guy who has an average close to .300, there are more of those in the league than guys who hit 40 homers... only have to get 65 to 70 walks to get an OBP above .360..

BLEEDS
08-18-2008, 11:49 AM
think about it.. a guy who has an average close to .300, there are more of those in the league than guys who hit 40 homers... only have to get 65 to 70 walks to get an OBP above .360..

Should be simple then. I'm guessing there's less than 30 guys in all of baseball who can put up those numbers - a .50 or more spread between BA and OBP, batting .300 or less - and more than half of those are because they are above average Power guys.

You have this theory that speed is the big differentiator, when it's not, it's clearly Power.

The majority of these guys are also probably top tier FA/MVP/All-Star type guys. Again, you are going to have to pay MORE for their services.
Dunn is a cheaper way - perhaps THE cheapest over his first 7 years - to get 100 RC (Runs Created). Isn't that what small-market teams should be on the lookout for?



PEACE

-BLEEDS

Ahhhorsepoo
08-18-2008, 12:56 PM
they should be looking out for cheap talent.. not 120 million dollar man who creates runs at an average clip.. according to his OBI..

If dunn made 7 or 8 mil a year he would be fine.. but like i have ALWAYS SAID.. he is not worth the top player money people want to give him just because he hits 40 homers..

you want a couple guys who can steal 30 or 40 bases.. and a couple guys who can hit 25-35 homers a year.. or if you can get ones who can do both you give them the big contract... but to get those guys who can do one or the other without defense.. and pay them even the same as their counterparts.. is ignorant..

btw the reds have 4/5 players who have a .050 higher OBP than B.A. while batting below .300..

EE .251/.337
Bako .215/.291
Votto .281/.346
Hairston .338/.388
Valentin hasn't played enough this year.. but lifetime has a .252/.308 split..

and if you include Ross, Dunn, and griff that number went to 7
Ross .231/.381
Dunn .233/.373
Griff .245/.355

There are others.. but i stopped at the more than 50 games played.. because that is when streaks usually are mirrored by slumps.. its pretty ungodly to have a 2 month hot streak..

All in all I like the votto type hitter alot more than the Dunn type hitter.. also votto has a ton of off the wall doubles.. he should develop into a great .280-.290 hitter with some 25-35 homer pop..

redsbuckeye
08-18-2008, 01:18 PM
A high OBP does not always mean they will have the best chance to not get an out to end the game..

Huh? Isn't OBP a measure of non-out %?


You all agree Dunn has a high OBP because he is walked alot,

Yes...


because pitchers "pitch" around him..

Maybe...


well if it is late in the game.. and the pitchers team is up by 4.. they will pitch it to him alot more frequently than they do normally..

Do they? References please.


so his PA to AB ratio goes down.. which means ALOT more outs because his B.A. is so low..

Dunn's OBP in close/late situations is .378, compared to .380 for his career. The difference isn't even statistically significant (1 out per 500 plate appearances).

Within 4 runs, regardless of inning, it's .385. 3 runs, .386, 2 runs .389, 1 run .382, and tied is .394.

Seems pretty damning that his OBP goes down and that he'd make more outs because, well, he doesn't.


I am by no means saying he will get an out more likely 9 times out of 10.. but I would rather have a guy who has a high OBP driven by a high average in that situation.. even an obp above .350 with an average close to .290 or .300...

An out is an out. If you want the guy who's less likely to make an out, you want the guy with the highest OBP (isn't that painfully obvious?).


think about it.. a guy who has an average close to .300, there are more of those in the league than guys who hit 40 homers... only have to get 65 to 70 walks to get an OBP above .360..

What does that even mean? There are currently 35 players with .300 or better averages, 61 with OBPs over .360, and none with 40 homers (maybe 3 on pace for it). But I don't even see a conclusion trying to be drawn from that.

OUReds
08-18-2008, 01:23 PM
A high OBP does not always mean they will have the best chance to not get an out to end the game..

Yes it does, that is what OBP measures.


You all agree Dunn has a high OBP because he is walked alot, because pitchers "pitch" around him.. well if it is late in the game.. and the pitchers team is up by 4.. they will pitch it to him alot more frequently than they do normally.. so his PA to AB ratio goes down.. which means ALOT more outs because his B.A. is so low..

I don't agree with that. Dunn has a high OBP primarily because he has excellent plate discipline and pitch recognition, not because the pitchers pitch around him.

Career OBP - .380
Career OBP close and late - .378
Career OBP >4 run margin - .356

Dunn avoids making outs no matter what the situation.


I am by no means saying he will get an out more likely 9 times out of 10.. but I would rather have a guy who has a high OBP driven by a high average in that situation..

So would we all. OBP driven by hits (especially extra base hits) are more valuable then those driven by walks. Nobody should contest that point. That's not a fault of OBP though. OBP is simply a measure of how well a player avoids outs, it's not really meant to measure the fine gradation of value between a single and a walk, or the very large difference of value between a single and a triple. There are other tools for that. When we do measure the difference in value between a single and a walk, the difference is absolutely dwarfed when you consider the difference between a walk and an out.

Incidently, OBP is not a good tool to determine a a player's overall offensive value. It just happens to be far superior to BA. You have to add in SLG to fully account for a players value.

Edit: Redsbuckeye made many of my points first. DARN YOU REDSBUCKEYE! I must be typing slower in my old age.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-18-2008, 01:24 PM
Quit trying to disagree with everything i say..
What Loon honestly thinks that dunn will get pitched to the same in a 4 run game in the 9th inning with bases empty the same as when the bases are loaded and in the 4th inning with 1 out down by 1..?! Just doesnt happen..

even looking at his greater than 4 run margin totals you see a swing toward less walks.. but if you honestly looked at it late in games i would almost promise that gap gets closer to ..05 or .06 than it does to .1....


btw how bout them bucks?

Ahhhorsepoo
08-18-2008, 01:27 PM
Yes it does, that is what OBP measures.



I don't agree with that. Dunn has a high OBP primarily because he has excellent plate discipline and pitch recognition, not because the pitchers pitch around him.

Career OBP - .380
Career OBP close and late - .378
Career OBP >4 run margin - .356

Dunn avoids making outs no matter what the situation.



So would we all. OBP driven by hits (especially extra base hits) are more valuable then those driven by walks. Nobody should contest that point. That's not a fault of OBP though. OBP is simply a measure of how well a player avoids outs, it's not really meant to measure the fine gradation of value between a single and a walk, or a single and a triple. There are other tools for that.

Incidently, OBP is not a good tool to determine a a player's overall offensive value. It just happens to be far superior to BA. You have to add in SLG to fully account for a players value.

Excellent plate discipline? what part of striking out 190 times a year is excellent about plate discipline.. I watch him game in and game out.. he just waits for pitches he thinks he can hit.. and 50% of the time he strikes out instead of getting a hit..

Sorry but people with EXCELLENT plate discipline get 100 walks and no more than 100ks.. dunn might be above average.. but excellent..

redsbuckeye
08-18-2008, 01:39 PM
Quit trying to disagree with everything i say..

I'm not, it's just some of it needs to be talked about.


What Loon honestly thinks that dunn will get pitched to the same in a 4 run game in the 9th inning with bases empty the same as when the bases are loaded and in the 4th inning with 1 out down by 1..?! Just doesnt happen..

I gave the situations above, which are considered "clutch" situations (clutch possibly being BS nonwithstanding). Looking for situations where it's the 9th down by 4 with 3 runners on is hard to look for sortable stats for and would be such a small sample size as to be useless anyway. In those situations I gave Dunns OBP was about the same as his regular career.

In the 9th inning alone, regardless of situation, his OBP is .368. That's not bad but is below his career regular, but without the situations one can't draw any conclusions from it.

Interesting, but in extra innings (uber clutch times) his career OBP is .519!


even looking at his greater than 4 run margin totals you see a swing toward less walks.. but if you honestly looked at it late in games i would almost promise that gap gets closer to ..05 or .06 than it does to .1....

The greater than 4 run margin is regardless of inning, which you just disparaged as being able to draw conclusions from. So can we use those margins to draw conclusions or not? I leave it up to you.

4 runs would hardly be considered "clutch" by those who believe it anyway.



btw how bout them bucks?

They've got the big road test at USC in the third week and I'm not so sure they can win that one. If they can get to the young QBs of USC, then they'll have a good chance at winning it. Take away the run, make USC pass at possibly the best corner tandem in the country and they'll make them pay.

Win that game and they should be on the road to another BCS title game (hopefully against someone not from the SEC).

OUReds
08-18-2008, 01:42 PM
I don't view plate discipline as having much to do with a player's strikeout rate.

Strikeouts coupled with a high walk rate to me indicate a problem with making contact with pitches, not recognizing balls and strikes.

Aren't you tired of complaining about Dunn? He isn't even on the team anymore.

redsbuckeye
08-18-2008, 01:47 PM
he just waits for pitches he thinks he can hit..

You want him swinging at pitches he thinks he can't hit?


and 50% of the time he strikes out instead of getting a hit..

27% but who's counting.

BLEEDS
08-18-2008, 01:58 PM
btw the reds have 4/5 players who have a .050 higher OBP than B.A. while batting below .300..

EE .251/.337
Bako .215/.291
Votto .281/.346
Hairston .338/.388
Valentin hasn't played enough this year.. but lifetime has a .252/.308 split..

and if you include Ross, Dunn, and griff that number went to 7
Ross .231/.381
Dunn .233/.373
Griff .245/.355


Right. The point YOU were making was you wanted .290 to "close to .300" hitters with .050 higher OBP. Nice try Floppy McFlopperstein.
We have ZERO of those.

We need guys with .350+ OBP, and we just shipped out our top two in that regard, and have Jerry Hairston's Career Year outlier to fall back on - oh, and the catcher who bats in front of the Pitcher.





All in all I like the votto type hitter alot more than the Dunn type hitter.. also votto has a ton of off the wall doubles.. he should develop into a great .280-.290 hitter with some 25-35 homer pop..

I think Votto is the best pure hitter on the team, outside of Bruce's potential.
I agree that he should be a .280/290 guy, and HISTORICALLY has had a .350-ish OBP.
Now that the Dust-meister has gotten ahold of him, he's taken away those walks for "aggressive outs" instead.
I doubt he'll get to 25-35 HR power though, he looks to have a Sean Casey-like power surge. Maybe as he gets older and into his prime years he'll get some more power, but I wouldn't hang my hat on it. MAYBE if he swung for the fences more like BP, but then that would lower his BA and OBP even more - but maybe that is what you'd prefer?

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Ahhhorsepoo
08-18-2008, 02:08 PM
I'm not, it's just some of it needs to be talked about.



I gave the situations above, which are considered "clutch" situations (clutch possibly being BS nonwithstanding). Looking for situations where it's the 9th down by 4 with 3 runners on is hard to look for sortable stats for and would be such a small sample size as to be useless anyway. In those situations I gave Dunns OBP was about the same as his regular career.

In the 9th inning alone, regardless of situation, his OBP is .368. That's not bad but is below his career regular, but without the situations one can't draw any conclusions from it.

Interesting, but in extra innings (uber clutch times) his career OBP is .519!



The greater than 4 run margin is regardless of inning, which you just disparaged as being able to draw conclusions from. So can we use those margins to draw conclusions or not? I leave it up to you.

4 runs would hardly be considered "clutch" by those who believe it anyway.




They've got the big road test at USC in the third week and I'm not so sure they can win that one. If they can get to the young QBs of USC, then they'll have a good chance at winning it. Take away the run, make USC pass at possibly the best corner tandem in the country and they'll make them pay.

Win that game and they should be on the road to another BCS title game (hopefully against someone not from the SEC).

I think it is OSU's defense that will keep them in it... but we shall see if todd, and Beanie can do well against a much faster and harder hitting defense than the Big 10 has..

to be honest tho I think unless Sanchez has the game of his life too date, this game could get ugly early because their offense simply has alot of inexperience..

btw I would say between OSU and UC.. Ohio has the best BCS Cb's in the country..

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 12:11 AM
Right, my point is we need more Adam Dunn's than Norris Hoppers.


You're comparing Adam Dunn, the most prolific "power only" hitter in the game to a backup centerfielder and claiming that shoots down my argument.

If you want to make a fair comparison, ask yourself will a team full of Adam Dunn's produce more runs than a team full of Ichiro Suzuki's in his prime? Then it would be a more fair comparison than Hopper. But even then I'm giving up 50-75 points of OPS, so I take that back, that's not really fair at all.

A fair comparison from my point of view (and a very clear example of what I'm trying to say) is Ian Kinsler vs. Adam Dunn this season. Here you have two equal OBP (.378 vs .375) and two equal SLG (.520 vs. .517). But Kinsler has a much better BA (.319 vs .236) and Dunn has significantly more HRs (32 vs 18).

Kinsler is a "hitter" and Dunn is a "slugger." What I'm saying here is give me a team full of "hitters."

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 08:59 AM
You're comparing Adam Dunn, the most prolific "power only" hitter in the game to a backup centerfielder and claiming that shoots down my argument.

If you want to make a fair comparison, ask yourself will a team full of Adam Dunn's produce more runs than a team full of Ichiro Suzuki's in his prime? Then it would be a more fair comparison than Hopper. But even then I'm giving up 50-75 points of OPS, so I take that back, that's not really fair at all.

A fair comparison from my point of view (and a very clear example of what I'm trying to say) is Ian Kinsler vs. Adam Dunn this season. Here you have two equal OBP (.378 vs .375) and two equal SLG (.520 vs. .517). But Kinsler has a much better BA (.319 vs .236) and Dunn has significantly more HRs (32 vs 18).

Kinsler is a "hitter" and Dunn is a "slugger." What I'm saying here is give me a team full of "hitters."

Using career numbers, A team full of Ichiros would average 6.6 runs a game. A team full of Dunns would average 7.3. A team full of this year's Kinsler would score 7.4.

Kinsler might be having a bit of an abberration year though, seeing as his BA, OBP and SLG are all noticeably higher than his career averages including minors work. He's having a year reminiscent of Felipe Lopez circa 2005 (although he's still significantly better than Lopez).

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 09:41 AM
Using career numbers, A team full of Ichiros would average 6.6 runs a game. A team full of Dunns would average 7.3. A team full of this year's Kinsler would score 7.4.

I disagree. I think a team full of Kinsler's would score more.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 09:45 AM
I disagree. I think a team full of Kinsler's would score more.

Um, what's to disagree with? That's his RC/G this year.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kinslia01.shtml

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 10:54 AM
but a team of ichiros would also give up less runs than a team of dunns.. by at least 2 or 3..

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 11:00 AM
but a team of ichiros would also give up less runs than a team of dunns.. by at least 2 or 3..

We're talking about purely offensive numbers which are easy to measure.

When you start talking about offense and defense you have to look at other numbers that adjust for positional differences and positional defensive impacts.

And a team of Ichiros (or Dunns for that matter) fielding would be rather, well, absurd.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 11:37 AM
just saying.. you cant say the 7.3 runs would win more games than the 6.6 when you look at the defense of them..

i know this is an extreme example.. but its a perfect example of why better offense without any defense wouldnt work..

OUReds
08-19-2008, 11:57 AM
I'm looking at his posts and don't really see where redsbuckeye or anyone else in the thread, is claiming that a lineup full of Dunns would win more games then a lineup full of Ichiros.

I do, however, see the disclaimer that he is talking purely about offensive production.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 12:29 PM
just saying.. you cant say the 7.3 runs would win more games than the 6.6 when you look at the defense of them..

i know this is an extreme example.. but its a perfect example of why better offense without any defense wouldnt work..

I don't think that's an example to be made though. If all your hitters did what Dunn did, which is possible (if improbable), then the team averages 7.3 runs. You can say that because all plate appearances have the same set of events that can happen. Essentially meaning all plate appearances are mechanically the same (the only variance is what actually happens)

But you can't do that for fielding purposes. A team of Dunns can't exist for fielding purposes since LF is only one position and each position is unique on the field. The set of events that can happen at each position is different (although for all intents and purposes, the corner outfield positions are the same). So saying that the fielding makes up for the hitting is a non-sequitor.

You look at it in terms of differences from averages. In 1242 career games Ichiro has made a positive impact of 71 (FRAA) runs allowed compared to average defenders. That's .057 runs per game saved for having him playing. It's a bit off since he's split time at CF and RF and it's per game instead of per defensive inning, but probably close enough.

In 1093 career games Dunn has made a negative impact of 79 (FRAA) runs allowed compared to average defenders. That's .072 runs per game given up for having him playing. Again, considering split time between LF and 1st and it's games played an not defensive innings, but still probably close enough.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 12:35 PM
If you makes you feel better, Ichiro's WARP number has been consitently higher than Dunn's throughout the years. But WARP is positionally adjusted and since Ichiro's offense when playing CF is much higher above replacement than when he's playing RF, he gets a big bump from that. If Dunn played center, even if very poorly, his WARP would also go up just because his offense is much more valuable in CF than in LF.

BLEEDS
08-19-2008, 12:38 PM
just saying.. you cant say the 7.3 runs would win more games than the 6.6 when you look at the defense of them..

i know this is an extreme example.. but its a perfect example of why better offense without any defense wouldnt work..

As I've suggested, shown, and linked, and pointed you in the direction of many many times, it's just not even close for Defense to make up such a difference.

RC's, WinShares, etc, etc... show that you can make up MAYBE 20 PLAYS (not runs) Defensively compared to 30 or more RUNS Offensively.

And, by the way, that's .7 runs PER GAME difference.
You can't possibly think that 20 PLAYS per year - that's .1235 plays per game - results in 2-3 runs, PER GAME?!?!
I take that back, I know never to underestimate your brilliance.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 02:14 PM
Um, what's to disagree with? That's his RC/G this year.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kinslia01.shtml

RC is this: (H + BB) * TB / PA. It's called "runs created" but that doesn't mean it's a count of how many runs he's actually created, it's just a name. If, like I was arguing, the TB is overvaluing HRs, the RC stat is going to carry that flaw.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 02:20 PM
As I've suggested, shown, and linked, and pointed you in the direction of many many times, it's just not even close for Defense to make up such a difference.

RC's, WinShares, etc, etc... show that you can make up MAYBE 20 PLAYS (not runs) Defensively compared to 30 or more RUNS Offensively.

And, by the way, that's .7 runs PER GAME difference.
You can't possibly think that 20 PLAYS per year - that's .1235 plays per game - results in 2-3 runs, PER GAME?!?!
I take that back, I know never to underestimate your brilliance.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

your math by the way.. AMAZING.. because you would have to multiply that by 9.. but since you also only think ichiro makes an extra 20 plays a year i can see you don't watch much baseball either..

also ichiro accounts for 173 runs-9(avg number of home runs)=162 runs a year.. on average..
Dunn 196 runs-40... 156 runs a year..

that alone tells me ichiro score more than dunn on offense anyway.....

my brilliance.. yes.. you honestly think a defense of 9 ichiros wouldnt cut down 2 or 3 runs a game more than a defense of dunns?! you are absolutely smoking something.. I know its completely different for each position.. but honestly.. you my friend are saying something that is completely laughable.. an outfield of 3 adam dunns alone compared to all ichiros is more than a run a game.. think about it.. 2 doubles saved by a quick guy should save on average a little less than a run.. and with a high OBP and speed guy like ichiro it could potentially bring that alone to a little more than one run.. 2 doubles with at least one guy on base easily scores ichiro twice..

these are all hypothetical.. but honestly if you think adam dunn playing third base would get to even half the balls an ichiro would.. you my friend are on something extra illegal..

BLEEDS
08-19-2008, 02:36 PM
Not my math, it's from a conglomerate of people, who are way more Sabermetric than myself. It's all stats you can touch and feel - as opposed to your "20/15 eyeball" tests which nobody gives any credence too.

You read and replied to that post already, don't try to RE-twist it here for your hypotheticals.

The 20 plays reference was to LF - and was the difference between THE BEST standard in LF (Crawford - who BTW, is better than Ichiro) and THE WORST (Dunn) and this was in 2007, not this year where Dunn has shown to be much improved.
It would be much less in 2008.

There's a WHOLE other discussion(s) on Ichiro-Dunn, which has already been discussed ad nauseum and proven to be not even close for Ichiro.

Why you try to compare speedy-no bat lead-off guys to middle of the order Power guys is ridiculous in and of itself, but it is amusing to watch you squirm and flip-flop after you've gotten yourself all tangled up in your own strawmen.

I think the guy who called you Dusty Junior was dead-on. Perhaps you could change your name to Dustypoo?

PEACE

-BLEEDS

OUReds
08-19-2008, 02:42 PM
RC is this: (H + BB) * TB / PA. It's called "runs created" but that doesn't mean it's a count of how many runs he's actually created, it's just a name. If, like I was arguing, the TB is overvaluing HRs, the RC stat is going to carry that flaw.

No, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the stat. RC aims to ACTUALLY measure the amount of runs contributed by a player, it is not an abstract number. RC/G divides the raw RC total by the number of outs in a game (RC/27) to show how many runs per game a batting line-up of that player would score on average during a game.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#rc

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 02:43 PM
RC is this: (H + BB) * TB / PA. It's called "runs created" but that doesn't mean it's a count of how many runs he's actually created, it's just a name. If, like I was arguing, the TB is overvaluing HRs, the RC stat is going to carry that flaw.

That's the ooooooooooooooold way to calculate RC. Seriously, like circa 1978.

The newer formulas account for a whole bunch of other things. I'm not sure which version baseball-reference is using, but I'm sure it's not that one.

I summed the RC for the reds and it was 572 compared to their actual of 533, about a 7% error (which is a bit high). RC's only problem is that players who produce 0 runs (pitchers) created might actually be worth negative runs but that isn't accounted for. It's also always rounded up, so the summation could explain that too.

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 03:03 PM
No, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the stat. RC aims to ACTUALLY measure the amount of runs contributed by a player, it is not an abstract number. RC/G divides the raw RC total by the number of outs in a game (RC/27) to show how many runs per game a batting line-up of that player would score on average during a game.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#rc

I'm not misunderstanding anything. The raw RC total is also not a direct measure of real "runs created." It is an attempt, like you said. We can't really know exactly how many runs a guy is creating because we can never fully seperate him from his teammates.

But look at these two teams: The Reds and the Angels (i.e, the notorious "small ball" team)

Total RC (according to the formula)
Reds - 546
Angels - 548

Pretty much even, right? Now look at this:

Actual Runs Scored
Reds - 533
Angels - 580

It's no coincidence or outlier to me that the Angels have hit 101 more singles than the Reds, and 26 fewer homeruns. That's my entire argument.

Now, when you average it all out, RC comes through as a shining metric. It comes up with 547 "runs created" and actual runs is 556. Pretty close...on average. But the fact, the reality, is that the Angels have scored significantly more runs.

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 03:05 PM
That's the ooooooooooooooold way to calculate RC. Seriously, like circa 1978.

I know that, but that's what BR was using.

OUReds
08-19-2008, 03:06 PM
That's the ooooooooooooooold way to calculate RC. Seriously, like circa 1978.

The newer formulas account for a whole bunch of other things. I'm not sure which version baseball-reference is using, but I'm sure it's not that one.

From Baseball-Reference.com

RC - Runs Created - A runs estimator created by Bill James. A runs estimator attempts to quantify the entire contribution of a player's statistics to a team's total runs scored. It typically involves some positive value for things like hits, walks, steals, home runs, etc. and negative values for outs, caught stealing and GIDP. There are 24 different versions of RC depending on the stats you have. In general, I am using the tech version which incorporates baserunning, HBP and other offensive events. When those aren't available I use the SB version, and when those aren't available, I use the basic version, (H + BB) * (TB)/ (AB + BB)
RC/G - Runs Created per Game - Typically the average game has around 27 outs, but this can vary by the size of the homefield advantage and the number of extra-inning games. We use the seasonal average outs/game.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml#RC

So if possible they are using

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/8/b/98bc528ce261f60c3efcf6a4a5b3d9c3.png

OUReds
08-19-2008, 03:18 PM
I'm not misunderstanding anything. The raw RC total is also not a direct measure of real "runs created."

The definition of the stat is an attempt to measure the actual amount of runs a player contributed to the team. It is an attempt to directly measure real runs created. That it only succeeds in being accurate to within 5-2% of actual runs scored (depending on the formula) doesn't change what it is attempting to measure.


It is an attempt, like you said. We can't really know exactly how many runs a guy is creating because we can never fully seperate him from his teammates.

It is true that RC places a player in the context of himself, but modern RC formulas include a global adjustment to correct for this. For 99.9% of players this global adjustment is so small to be essentially meaningless.


But look at these two teams: The Reds and the Angels

Total RC (according to the formula)
Reds - 546
Angels - 548

Pretty much even, right? Now look at this:

Actual Runs Scored
Reds - 533
Angels - 580

It's no coincidence or outlier to me that the Angels have hit 101 more singles than the Reds, and 26 fewer homeruns. That's my entire argument.

All that tells me is that, given the small sample size, the Angels have been lucky and the Reds have not.

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 03:21 PM
From Baseball-Reference.com

So if possible they are using...
...and if not possible they're using (H+BB) * TB/PA.

Regardless of how they're measuring it, if it's based heavily on TB, then it's still subject to overvaluing homeruns.

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 03:23 PM
Angels have been lucky and the Reds have not.

That's fine, but you have no reason to believe that and I've presented an argument saying it has nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with what's driving their SLG% (i.e. singles as opposed to HRs).

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 03:28 PM
From Baseball-Reference.com

RC - Runs Created - A runs estimator created by Bill James. A runs estimator attempts to quantify the entire contribution of a player's statistics to a team's total runs scored. It typically involves some positive value for things like hits, walks, steals, home runs, etc. and negative values for outs, caught stealing and GIDP. There are 24 different versions of RC depending on the stats you have. In general, I am using the tech version which incorporates baserunning, HBP and other offensive events. When those aren't available I use the SB version, and when those aren't available, I use the basic version, (H + BB) * (TB)/ (AB + BB)
RC/G - Runs Created per Game - Typically the average game has around 27 outs, but this can vary by the size of the homefield advantage and the number of extra-inning games. We use the seasonal average outs/game.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml#RC

So if possible they are using

Took the liberty of bolding the important part. Those numbers have been available for some time, everything we've been talking about can effectively use those numbers.

So what we're looking at is using the up to date version. Maybe if you're looking at Honus Wagner's RC would there be a discord.

Edit: that's a strawman logical fallacy anyway.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 03:30 PM
...and if not possible they're using (H+BB) * TB/PA.

Regardless of how they're measuring it, if it's based heavily on TB, then it's still subject to overvaluing homeruns.

That's been accounted for too. The problem with home runs is that they were essentially counting a player as being on base when the home run was hit, which clearly isn't true. They've modified it now.

OUReds
08-19-2008, 03:31 PM
Yes, but you have no reason to believe that and I've presented an argument saying it has nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with what's driving their SLG%.

My reason in believing that is, obviously, that they are outperforming their RC stat, which has proven to be extremely accurate in determining their what offensive output should be given average luck.

I addressed your SLG argument earlier in the thread. It's repeated for your convenience.

A single situation among many possible situations which offset it. What if the three singles come in consecutive innings and result in zero runs? What if during a game, one team scores 1 run on 6 singles (.181 SLG) opposed to the other team hitting one Home Run (.143 SLG)? In this scenario how is the Home Run overvalued relative to the singles? If EVERY 3 singles scored a run you'd be right, but that isn't the case. Too many entangling variables.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 03:32 PM
I'm not misunderstanding anything. The raw RC total is also not a direct measure of real "runs created." It is an attempt, like you said. We can't really know exactly how many runs a guy is creating because we can never fully seperate him from his teammates.

But look at these two teams: The Reds and the Angels (i.e, the notorious "small ball" team)

Total RC (according to the formula)
Reds - 546
Angels - 548

Pretty much even, right? Now look at this:

Actual Runs Scored
Reds - 533
Angels - 580

It's no coincidence or outlier to me that the Angels have hit 101 more singles than the Reds, and 26 fewer homeruns. That's my entire argument.

Now, when you average it all out, RC comes through as a shining metric. It comes up with 547 "runs created" and actual runs is 556. Pretty close...on average. But the fact, the reality, is that the Angels have scored significantly more runs.

Which RC formula are you using?

And aren't all stats you're looking at averages? That's a funny thing to say. RC has valuable predictive power that other stats just don't have.

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 03:35 PM
That's been accounted for too. The problem with home runs is that they were essentially counting a player as being on base when the home run was hit, which clearly isn't true. They've modified it now.

Well, my problem, in this thread at least, with home runs has been that they get credited 4 TBs where 3 singles only gets 3 TB. In reality, the outcome of both situations is one run scored.

I want to note, there are other situations where this is evident: A double and a single scores a run (3 TB); a single, SB, and another single (2 TB) scores a run, etc. etc.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 03:37 PM
Well, my problem, in this thread at least, with home runs has been that they get credited 4 TBs where 3 singles only gets 3 TB. In reality, the outcome of both situations is one run scored.

Like OUreds said, it's not always 3 singles that scores a run. It could be four. It also could be 2 singles that don't score any runs. It could be 5 singles with baserunning mistakes that result in no runs.

You're simplifying way to much and using a strawman.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 03:39 PM
soo you told me that ichiro v dunn is not even close.. I would like to see what proof you have of this.. Ichiro saves far more runs on defense.. and he actually scored and is the basis of creation of more runs than dunn.....

Nasty_Boy
08-19-2008, 03:40 PM
Well, my problem, in this thread at least, with home runs has been that they get credited 4 TBs where 3 singles (or a double and a single, etc. There are various other situations) only gets 3 TB. In reality, the outcome of both situations is one run scored.


Unless there is a DP, a CS, or a FC in between the 3 singles. Even then there is the possibility of 3 infield singles that don't score a run or a player being thrown out at the plate. The HR scores a run EVERY time.

OUReds
08-19-2008, 03:41 PM
Well, my problem, in this thread at least, with home runs has been that they get credited 4 TBs where 3 singles only gets 3 TB. In reality, the outcome of both situations is one run scored.

I want to note, there are other situations where this is evident: A double and a single scores a run (3 TB); a single, SB, and another single (2 TB) scores a run, etc. etc.

Is there any reason, other then the fact it suites your argument, that those three singles, or any of your other examples, should be placed within the context of one inning?

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 03:45 PM
Which RC formula are you using?

I'm using the simple one. If the more complex one's show the Angels outscoring the Reds significantly, and for the reasons I mentioned, I wouldn't have a problem with them at all.

It's mostly SLG% that I have a problem with, especially when it's used to measure a players ability to drive in runs, but in general also.

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 03:49 PM
Is there any reason, other then the fact it suites your argument, that those three singles, or any of your other examples, should be placed within the context of one inning?

Well, if they don't happen in one inning you end up with LOB.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the HR/single weighting should be exactly 3-1, either. I don't know what the weighting should be. All I know is that the method used to come up with the current 4-1 ratio is flawed because all bases are not equal. First and second are far more important in baseball than 3rd. That, I think, is inarguable. Yet HRs are getting an equal TB for 3rd base. Singles and doubles don't have this flaw because they don't involve 3B.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 03:49 PM
I'm using the simple one. If the more complex one's show the Angels outscoring the Reds significantly, and for the reasons I mentioned, I wouldn't have a problem with them at all.

It's mostly SLG% that I have a problem with, especially when it's used to measure a players ability to drive in runs, but in general also.

Well then your argument is fallacious, sorry. The stats are available so BR is using the best forumula for anything past probably 1990.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 03:51 PM
Well, if they don't happen in one inning you end up with LOB.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the single/HR weight should be exactly 3-1, either. I don't know what the weighting should be. All I know is that the method used to come up with the current 4-1 ratio is flawed.

How so? How is 3 singles a gauranteed run? A single home run is always in the context of one inning. 3 singles aren't. The LOB doesn't matter.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 03:55 PM
This is also getting off track of the original idea.

If OBP is a better predictor (correlates better) than BA to runs scored, and if OPS is even better than OBP, then why on earth would you not look for players who have good OBP, all other things being equal?

Since 2000, BA has a correlation coefficient of .79. Pretty damn good. OBP is .88. Much beter. OPS is .94. That's incredible. And for the record, SLG is .89.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 03:56 PM
for the record if you break your leg rounding the bases.. you also aren't guaranteed a run..

i am just clarifying because i have seen a homer end up being a long base hit.. in the wierdest play i have seen a player tripped over second severely sprained the ankle and broke their arm completely as they fell on it.. soo they couldnt even crawl around the bases..

I am just saying.. they might be awarded 4 bases.. but no a guaranteed run every time.. maybe 99.99999% of the time.. but not 100......

sorry redsbuckeye.. just had to clarify..

OUReds
08-19-2008, 03:57 PM
This is also getting off track of the original idea.

If OBP is a better predictor (correlates better) than BA to runs scored, and if OPS is even better than OBP, then why on earth would you not look for players who have good OBP, all other things being equal?

You wouldn't! :beerme:

OUReds
08-19-2008, 03:58 PM
for the record if you break your leg rounding the bases.. you also aren't guaranteed a run..

i am just clarifying because i have seen a homer end up being a long base hit.. in the wierdest play i have seen a player tripped over second severely sprained the ankle and broke their arm completely as they fell on it.. soo they couldnt even crawl around the bases..

I am just saying.. they might be awarded 4 bases.. but no a guaranteed run every time.. maybe 99.99999% of the time.. but not 100......

sorry redsbuckeye.. just had to clarify..

You could also pass another baserunner!

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 03:59 PM
thats correct OU.. good call.. make that 99.99995%

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 04:01 PM
thats correct OU.. good call.. make that 99.99995%

Ok so something that's happened twice in baseball history. :)

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 04:04 PM
Well then your argument is fallacious, sorry. The stats are available so BR is using the best forumula for anything past probably 1990.
Regardless of whether you're using the new or old, if they are based heavily on TB, then my point applies.

OUReds
08-19-2008, 04:06 PM
First and second are far more important in baseball than 3rd. That, I think, is inarguable. Yet HRs are getting an equal TB for 3rd base. Singles and doubles don't have this flaw because they don't involve 3B.

I would say that home base is more important then any of them, since crossing it results in a run. Thus...

Home Runs are undervalued compared to singles and doubles since they do not usually result in acquisition of the most important base.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 04:06 PM
that means it is bound to happen again.... heck look at our reds bat out of turn.. on that first pitch had he hit a homer that wouldn't have counted either.. and it would have been a home run out..

or if there is more than 18 inches of pine tar on the bat from the handle...... automatic out..

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 04:10 PM
Ugh. I don't think you've been following this all that well.

Regardless of whether you're using the new or old, if they are based heavily on TB, then my point applies.

No, I'm fine. Your argument attempted to show that RC didn't accurately predict the Angels runs scored. But you were using an out of date formula that was only used if BR didn't have all needed variables that shouldn't be the case for some time now. Hence, your argument was a strawman.

Your point about TB being overvalued (a separate point) is also, as OUReds and myself are showing, wrong because of it being applied in only one very specific situation that isn't always (in fact rather rarely) true.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 04:11 PM
that means it is bound to happen again.... heck look at our reds bat out of turn.. on that first pitch had he hit a homer that wouldn't have counted either.. and it would have been a home run out..

Umm, ok?

OUReds
08-19-2008, 04:12 PM
that means it is bound to happen again.... heck look at our reds bat out of turn.. on that first pitch had he hit a homer that wouldn't have counted either.. and it would have been a home run out..

We don't usually see eye to eye, but that made me LOL.

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 04:14 PM
Home Runs are undervalued compared to singles and doubles since they do not usually result in acquisition of the most important base.

That's not what I mean when I talk about value of a base.

For instance, I think 1B (as a single base) should be valued a little more than 2B, even though a runner on 2nd has a greater chance to score.

As an accumulation of bases, obviously 2nd is more important (and home is more important than all of them). But, as an accumulation, 2nd IS credited more (2-1), and home base more than all (4-1).

You might say, by "value", I mean "how much does acquiring a base increase the ease of scoring," not "what is easiest base to score from" (where obviously home plate is the best because you've already scored).

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 04:15 PM
just saying.. on an extreme level.. EVERY homerun doesn't count for a run..

trying to bring some hella sarcastic humor to this argument since many people take arguing on here way too seriously..

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 04:18 PM
No, I'm fine. Your argument attempted to show that RC didn't accurately predict the Angels runs scored. But you were using an out of date formula that was only used if BR didn't have all needed variables that shouldn't be the case for some time now. Hence, your argument was a strawman.
Gotcha. I did make a strawman. But that doesn't mean my second point about TBs doesn't apply to the advanced RCs, either. I don't necessarily need the strawman for my point to be valid, so long as they're including TB and not accounted for overvalued HRs.


Your point about TB being overvalued (a separate point) is also, as OUReds and myself are showing, wrong because of it being applied in only one very specific situation that isn't always (in fact rather rarely) true.
The one situation is a rarity, but all the situations combined where a run can be scored with fewer than 4 TB is not a rarity at all.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 04:18 PM
just saying.. on an extreme level.. EVERY homerun doesn't count for a run..

trying to bring some hella sarcastic humor to this argument since many people take arguing on here way too seriously..

I could do all my posts in n00b speak if you like. Or lolcat speak.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 04:21 PM
sometimes that would be fine.. except for some of the old guys.. they just wont get any 1337 5p34k..

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 04:21 PM
The one situation is a rarity, but all the situations combined where a run can be scored with fewer than 4 TB is not a rarity at all.

I'm at a loss for what to say anymore.

Bar none, I don't think slugging is overvalued because of it's predictive power.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 04:22 PM
sometimes that would be fine.. except for some of the old guys.. they just wont get any 1337 5p34k..

lolcat:

hoomans dat has lotz of years jus don' unnastand tha lolcats!!1

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 04:26 PM
Anyway...this is all off-topic and I've got work to do so I'm going to have to leave the forum. Been real!

OUReds
08-19-2008, 04:27 PM
The one situation is a rarity, but all the situations combined where a run can be scored with fewer than 4 TB is not a rarity at all.

Not rare, but your contention is that the situations where it takes less then 4 bases to score a run is significantly more common then situations where it takes more then 4 bases.

Anything to back that up at all?

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 04:29 PM
i think he is saying it happens where a guy gets a single.. then a double drives him on.. or vice versa.. or a guy gets a single.. steals second.. and then scores on another single.. those are not rarities..

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 04:34 PM
Not rare, but your contention is that the situations where it takes less then 4 bases to score a run is significantly more common then situations where it takes more then 4 bases.

Anything to back that up at all?

I don't necessarily need anything, because there are zero situations where it takes more than 4 TB to score (unless you get thrown out on the basepaths, but that's baserunning, not hitting). Any combination of hits that equal 4 or more TB will necessarily score a run. So using that logic, HRs are being given the absolute maximum value possible in any situation. If I can show even one situation that a run can score with fewer than 4 TB, then HRs are necessarily overvalued.

Now, whether those "under 4 TB" run-scoring situations add up to anything significant, I'd have to present evidence to show that, meaning I'd have to go back through all of baseball history and look at these trends, which I'm not going to do.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 04:36 PM
i think he is saying it happens where a guy gets a single.. then a double drives him on.. or vice versa.. or a guy gets a single.. steals second.. and then scores on another single.. those are not rarities..

We're not contending that. But 3 singles in a row to score a run is different from 3 singles in 3 separate innings. The first situation scores a run, the second doesn't. The events of those 3 plate appearances were identical but the valuation of them is different. Given that, you have to fall back to just what was accomplished in the context of the one plate appearance. Not all singles score runs, all home runs do.

I think it's contentious (nary absurd) anyway to say in the context of baseball that 3*1 = 4.

OUReds
08-19-2008, 04:37 PM
so if I hit a triple in the 1st inning, a double in the 2nd, and another triple in the 3rd, I've automatically scored at least 2 runs?

If a team hits 9 singles, one in each inning, they have by necessity have scored 2.25 runs?

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 04:41 PM
no.. but a sac fly with both of those triples.. and a single with that double would score 3 runs.. and that isnt a rarity to score that way..

and that would be 3 runs scored with 9 total bases..

kpresidente
08-19-2008, 04:42 PM
Bar none, I don't think slugging is overvalued because of it's predictive power.
Right, but it's predictive power is based on averages, and most teams are made up of a relatively similar ratio of singles hitters and power hitters, so the difference between the two will average out. That doesn't mean there's no difference between the two.

Anyway, I'm not trying to get the last word and run, but I really need to do some work so I'm signing off. For real this time.

OUReds
08-19-2008, 04:44 PM
no.. but a sac fly with both of those triples.. and a single with that double would score 3 runs.. and that isnt a rarity to score that way..

and that would be 3 runs scored with 9 total bases..

But what if it were the REDS who did that, then wouldn't it be a rarity?

Edit: Just for you Horse, what if it were the Reds before they traded Dunn? :)

Ahhhorsepoo
08-19-2008, 04:45 PM
the reds yes.. a real major league ball club.. no.. the reds cant do the fundamentals to save their lives.. thank god the stowes take care of the locker rooms.. or they might try to wear the cubs unis...

Edit just for you.. might get one run out of that.. if dunn is up next.. he'll most likely get a walk and a strike out and an out of another type.. soo 1 out of 3 times with dunn he might get a run in.. just for you..

and no for everyone else.. this isnt a bro-mance..

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 04:49 PM
Right, but it's predictive power is based on averages, and most teams are made up of a relatively similar ratio of singles hitters and power hitters, so the difference between the two will average out. That doesn't mean there's no difference between the two.

Anyway, I'm not trying to get the last word and run, but I really need to do some work so I'm signing off. For real this time.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense and I don't see the relevance.

OUReds
08-19-2008, 05:15 PM
I ran the numbers for the Reds, 1998-2008

The Reds accumulated 31474 bases including walks

They scored 8213 Runs

That's a run for every 3.8 bases.

Too small a sample to be definative, but it's close enough to 4 bases = 1 run for me.

BLEEDS
08-19-2008, 05:44 PM
i think he is saying it happens where a guy gets a single.. then a double drives him on.. or vice versa.. or a guy gets a single.. steals second.. and then scores on another single.. those are not rarities..

How about a Runner get OB, then gets doubled-off by some GUY from a GIDP.

or how about a GUY hits a single, gets over to 2nd on a ground-out, then gets picked off trying to steal 3rd - by the pitcher. 2 hits follow - a double and a single - he doesn't score?!?! WHAT GIVES?!?!?

How about a hitter gets a double, then gets out at 3rd on a fielder's choice. Then another hitter follows with a single. OH, what in the world of Small Ball should we do? Bunt? Sacrifice fly to opposite field?
Why, wouldn't it be novel if this GUY just came up and knocked one over the fence?!?!?

Gee - didn't all of this happen to Brandon Phillips just this past week?!?! :D:D:D

Again, this is no rarity of a week!

PEACE

-BLEEDS

LouisvilleCARDS
08-19-2008, 09:06 PM
I want a guy up who is least likely to make an out to end the game. That's simply what OBP measures.


Awalk doesn't drive in a run in that situation, I rather leave it up to a guy who has a better chance to knock in a run than a higher OBP.

redsbuckeye
08-19-2008, 10:43 PM
Awalk doesn't drive in a run in that situation, I rather leave it up to a guy who has a better chance to knock in a run than a higher OBP.

That's a guy who's more likely "lose" the game. The walk may not win the game, but it won't lose it either.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-19-2008, 10:56 PM
That's a guy who's more likely "lose" the game. The walk may not win the game, but it won't lose it either.

Then again, its situational. I want the BETTER HITTER up in that situation. Also add this to the scenerio - the player batting behind you in that situation, and any pinch hitter off the bench are only players with under .300 OBP. THEN how does a walk help you?

Just because you have a higher OBP percentage doesn't mean you control every single instance that made up those statistics. When you get a hit, you get a hit. You have to swing the bat and put it in the field, and thats all up to the hitter. Maybe the pitcher makes a mistake pitch to allow that opportunity, but the hitter is doing the work.

A walk, however, also depends just as much on whether or not a pitcher actually gives a crap about putting you on base. Maybe they don't care if they load the bases. Maybe they care, but not too much and pitch around you.

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that a walk = a single in all instances. Nothing is going to change my mind on that. In a clutch situation and a team has their closer up, if that pitcher is actually ON, you can pretty much throw out the entire walk statistic to me, because if he actually has some balls, he's not going to walk in a run. Period.

OUReds
08-20-2008, 07:52 AM
Soooo, 9th inning, two outs. Men on 2nd and 3rd. An elite closer is on the mound with excellent control. Nobody is left on the bench except Cory Patterson.

Congrats! you have constructed a situation where batting average, by a small amount, is superior to OBP in determining the outcome of the game. The other 99.9% of the time gimmie OBP.

Batting average is a useful stat, you just have to understand what exactly it measures and what its limitations are. The same goes for OBP for that matter. If you are looking for an overall snapshot of a player's ability, OBP is simply better. Combining OBP with SLG is better still, as together they measure the two most important factors in scoring runs.

Even in your contrived situation, a walk increases your chances of winning the game by about 3% on average. You are almost certainly better off taking the walk then chasing pitches out of the zone to try and get a hit.(source) (http://www.tangotiger.net/welist.html)



I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that a walk = a single in all instances. Nothing is going to change my mind on that. In a clutch situation and a team has their closer up, if that pitcher is actually ON, you can pretty much throw out the entire walk statistic to me, because if he actually has some balls, he's not going to walk in a run. Period.

The concept that a walk=single in all instance is a strawman, and a not very convincing one at that.

NOBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS SABERMETRICS THINKS A SINGLE IS EQUAL TO WALK IN RELATIVE VALUE. Sorry for yelling but this is the single most common misconception about people who dare to use stats in their posts.

What's more, I know what the relative value of a walk is compared to a single, do you? Hint (http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/RuaneT/valueadd_art.htm)

redsbuckeye
08-20-2008, 09:11 AM
Then again, its situational. I want the BETTER HITTER up in that situation. Also add this to the scenerio - the player batting behind you in that situation, and any pinch hitter off the bench are only players with under .300 OBP. THEN how does a walk help you?

It is situational. If the guy gets a walk the game hasn't ended. The next batter though is a new situation. You're treating the situation as two batters when in fact the first batter has no control over what the next batter does. It's two separate situations. You pulled a bait and switch on us. In either situation (since it's two) I want the batter with the highest OBP.

And no matter what, a walk still increases your chances for scoring.

The least likely out scenario is the best, end of story. If they can hit for average that's even better but it's not worth it if the out probability is higher.


Just because you have a higher OBP percentage doesn't mean you control every single instance that made up those statistics. When you get a hit, you get a hit. You have to swing the bat and put it in the field, and thats all up to the hitter. Maybe the pitcher makes a mistake pitch to allow that opportunity, but the hitter is doing the work.

Umm, ok? I'm not seeing a relevant point.


A walk, however, also depends just as much on whether or not a pitcher actually gives a crap about putting you on base. Maybe they don't care if they load the bases. Maybe they care, but not too much and pitch around you.

So, if the batter's getting pitched around, you'd have them swing at pitches they can't hit? Again, not seeing your point.


I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that a walk = a single in all instances. Nothing is going to change my mind on that. In a clutch situation and a team has their closer up, if that pitcher is actually ON, you can pretty much throw out the entire walk statistic to me, because if he actually has some balls, he's not going to walk in a run. Period.

OUReds has already pointed out that the walk=single statement isn't the case anyway.

You can throw it out if you want, I'm going to throw out the entire hit statistic because if a pitcher with balls isn't going to allow you to get a hit. Period. What an absurd statement.

And what is clutch anyway? Define that.

improbus
08-20-2008, 10:15 AM
OBP works best when you have guys that can capitalize on it and you know how to implement it.
1) Dunn should have hit 3rd or 4th (preferably 3rd). Phillips and Junior were decent run producers and would have taken better advantage of Dunn's OBP than EE or any of the 7 or 8 hitters. Dunn was wasted in the 5 spot.
2) OBP is cumulative. Think about the '98 Yanks. No one hit 30 home runs. They didn't overpower you. Instead, they got on base relentlessly. Look at these numbers.
OBP's
Posada: .350
Tino: .355
Knoblauch: .361
Brosius: .371
Jeter: .384
Chad Curtis: .355
Bernie: .422
Paul O'Neill: .372
Darryl: .354.

There was always someone on base. There was always pressure on the pitcher. That's how to play offense.

improbus
08-20-2008, 10:23 AM
The Reds are currently 25th in Team OBP (.319). If you remove Dunn, they would be last in MLB, worse than the Nats, worse than the Giants, and worse than the Royals. Yikes. Also, my guess is that if you tease out the ballpark factor, the Reds would be in the bottom three in runs scored. If it weren't for the brilliance of Volquez and the occasional brilliance of Cueto, this team would be on par with the Padres and Nats.

OUReds
08-20-2008, 11:02 AM
The Reds are currently 25th in Team OBP (.319). If you remove Dunn, they would be last in MLB, worse than the Nats, worse than the Giants, and worse than the Royals. Yikes. Also, my guess is that if you tease out the ballpark factor, the Reds would be in the bottom three in runs scored. If it weren't for the brilliance of Volquez and the occasional brilliance of Cueto, this team would be on par with the Padres and Nats.

Both the Washington and Cincinnati Parks have been essentially neutral in their Runs park factor this year (1.058 Washington, .977 Cincinnati). Petco on the other hand, is its typical run suppressing self (PF for runs, .762). Normalize for runs scored at home and you get...

Washington - 453 Runs Scored
Cincinnati - 539 Runs Scored
San Diego - 548 Runs Scored

Washington is in a league of its own bad when it comes to offense, but don't worry, there's always next year.

BLEEDS
08-20-2008, 12:32 PM
Washington is in a league of its own bad when it comes to offense, but don't worry, there's always next year.

You mean that same Washington team that swept us a few weeks back?

UGH!

Yeah, maybe next year we can NOT be the only 6th place team in baseball.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

LouisvilleCARDS
08-20-2008, 08:36 PM
Soooo, 9th inning, two outs. Men on 2nd and 3rd. An elite closer is on the mound with excellent control. Nobody is left on the bench except Cory Patterson.

Congrats! you have constructed a situation where batting average, by a small amount, is superior to OBP in determining the outcome of the game. The other 99.9% of the time gimmie OBP.

Batting average is a useful stat, you just have to understand what exactly it measures and what its limitations are. The same goes for OBP for that matter. If you are looking for an overall snapshot of a player's ability, OBP is simply better. Combining OBP with SLG is better still, as together they measure the two most important factors in scoring runs.

Even in your contrived situation, a walk increases your chances of winning the game by about 3% on average. You are almost certainly better off taking the walk then chasing pitches out of the zone to try and get a hit.(source) (http://www.tangotiger.net/welist.html)




The concept that a walk=single in all instance is a strawman, and a not very convincing one at that.

NOBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS SABERMETRICS THINKS A SINGLE IS EQUAL TO WALK IN RELATIVE VALUE. Sorry for yelling but this is the single most common misconception about people who dare to use stats in their posts.

What's more, I know what the relative value of a walk is compared to a single, do you? Hint (http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/RuaneT/valueadd_art.htm)

You're missing the point. You act like OBP is infallible. I just shows you that I don't consider a walk=single, but in OBP it IS equal in the stats. That's my whole point. Then you go on a tangent about how thats not what you think, so stop defending OBP as the end all be all of stats.

As for your "situation", you just generalize someone with a high batting average as someone who chases out of the zone. Well, thank God we don't have a Tony Gywnn up in those situation. Man, that high batting average, he's sure to strike out!

OUReds
08-20-2008, 08:45 PM
You're missing the point. You act like OBP is infallible. I just shows you that I don't consider a walk=single, but in OBP it IS equal in the stats. That's my whole point. Then you go on a tangent about how thats not what you think, so stop defending OBP as the end all be all of stats!

In my post I specifically say that you must understand what OBP is trying to measure and it's limitations. That would be much different then claiming it is infallible. I also mention that OPS needs to be combined with SLG to present a true picture of offensive worth. That would be much different then claiming that OBP is the end all be all of stats.

Of course singles and walks are equal in OBP. So are singles and home runs. OBP does not claim to measure the difference in value between them. It claims only to measure a batter's ability to avoid making outs. This would also be where the part of my post about understanding what a stat is actually trying to measure is important.


As for your "situation", you just generalize someone with a high batting average as someone who chases out of the zone. Well, thank God we don't have a Tony Gywnn up in those situation. Man, that high batting average, he's sure to strike out!

What? I gave no specific situation, I used win expectency tables to show that taking a walk on average raises your chance of victory. My point was that a walk in the situation you described is a good thing, even if, of course, a hit would be better.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-20-2008, 08:54 PM
It is situational. If the guy gets a walk the game hasn't ended. The next batter though is a new situation. You're treating the situation as two batters when in fact the first batter has no control over what the next batter does. It's two separate situations. You pulled a bait and switch on us. In either situation (since it's two) I want the batter with the highest OBP.

And no matter what, a walk still increases your chances for scoring.

The least likely out scenario is the best, end of story. If they can hit for average that's even better but it's not worth it if the out probability is higher.



Umm, ok? I'm not seeing a relevant point.



So, if the batter's getting pitched around, you'd have them swing at pitches they can't hit? Again, not seeing your point.



OUReds has already pointed out that the walk=single statement isn't the case anyway.

You can throw it out if you want, I'm going to throw out the entire hit statistic because if a pitcher with balls isn't going to allow you to get a hit. Period. What an absurd statement.

And what is clutch anyway? Define that.

My problem is, in OBP, there's no differentiating a walk. Maybe you get pitched around because a base is open. Or maybe doesn't care about putting you on because they rather take their chances with a weaker batter on deck than give up a HR. Stuff like that.

When you're in a certain situation, you can often throw out a lot of those possible outcomes of walks. In a situation where the game is on the line and the opposing pitcher NEEDS to get a batter out, why is a pitcher going to pitch around you to the point of walking you?

If he actually is TRYING to get an out, what do all the instances where an opposing pitcher just was indifferent about putting you on matter? In the end, each stat has their own problems.

redsbuckeye
08-21-2008, 09:16 AM
My problem is, in OBP, there's no differentiating a walk. Maybe you get pitched around because a base is open. Or maybe doesn't care about putting you on because they rather take their chances with a weaker batter on deck than give up a HR. Stuff like that.

So what? Bottom line, the potential for ending the game is still lower, am I not clear in that? It's also not like guys with high OBP do so exclusively through walks.

And if a guy is getting pitched around because the guy behind him is weaker then that isn't a problem with the guy getting pitched around but a problem with the guy on deck! Batters have no control over what the next guy does. You're trying to discredit a batter for stuff he can't do anything about.


When you're in a certain situation, you can often throw out a lot of those possible outcomes of walks. In a situation where the game is on the line and the opposing pitcher NEEDS to get a batter out, why is a pitcher going to pitch around you to the point of walking you?

I disagree wholeheartedly. If he needs to get you out, he needs to throw pitches that you can't hit but will try. Walks show that a batter isn't going to swing at junk, so he either needs to throw pitches that you can hit (bad idea) or throw pitches that you can't but also run the risk of not being strikes.

Maybe there's the odd zone that a batter will have that is a strike and can't hit, but those are very hard to consitently pitch to.


If he actually is TRYING to get an out, what do all the instances where an opposing pitcher just was indifferent about putting you on matter? In the end, each stat has their own problems.

How many times to you think a pitcher is really indifferent to baserunners? Intentional walks yes, but being indifferent otherwise is just stupid.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-21-2008, 05:47 PM
So what? Bottom line, the potential for ending the game is still lower, am I not clear in that? It's also not like guys with high OBP do so exclusively through walks.

And if a guy is getting pitched around because the guy behind him is weaker then that isn't a problem with the guy getting pitched around but a problem with the guy on deck! Batters have no control over what the next guy does. You're trying to discredit a batter for stuff he can't do anything about.



I disagree wholeheartedly. If he needs to get you out, he needs to throw pitches that you can't hit but will try. Walks show that a batter isn't going to swing at junk, so he either needs to throw pitches that you can hit (bad idea) or throw pitches that you can't but also run the risk of not being strikes.

Maybe there's the odd zone that a batter will have that is a strike and can't hit, but those are very hard to consitently pitch to.



How many times to you think a pitcher is really indifferent to baserunners? Intentional walks yes, but being indifferent otherwise is just stupid.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think there are situations where OBP is not the most important stat. I disagree with the general OBP being the end all be all of every situation. You also could look at LHP vs. RHP splits. You could look at how a batter has done versus that particular pitcher. Maybe OBP is more effective when a batter is up against a closer they have had several AB's against. What if a guy like Dunn is 0 for 20 lifetime versus say, Billy Wagner, and javier Valentine is 12 for 20? One has much better stats in general, one has much better stats versus that pitcher. What then?

I'm just tired of the cut and dry, this is so easy to do mentality. There's a lot more to managing than stacking OBP sequentially in the lineup every night.