1. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by Superdude
I have a hard time with this concept. I get that OBP/SLG is more important, but if given the choice between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450, it makes no difference? BA may not correlate perfectly with runs scored, but to say it means nothing just sounds like oversimplification to me.
Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

In your opinion Mickey Slapper is the better player. In my opinion they are equal.

Since they both have the same OBP and Mickey Slapper has a better Batting Average we can determine that Mickey Slapper gets more hits but Jack Slugger gets more walks or HBPs. Hits are better than walks. So right now it looks like Mickey Slapper is the better hitter. This is the case you are making, which is correct but incomplete.

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). The answer is that Mickey Slapper is getting fewer Total Bases per hit -- he is hitting singles instead of the more valuable doubles and home runs. Every time you give him a single instead of a walk you have to turn one of his doubles into a single (roughly speaking, because you are also giving him an extra AB because walks don't count as ABs). Or for every three hits instead of walks you have to turn one of his home runs into a single. Essentially, to turn a walk into a single you have to also turn an extra-base hit into a single. Otherwise the SLG will change. That is the tradeoff -- if you want your OBP to be driven by hits instead of walks you have to sacrifice your doubles and home runs.

This also means that even though Jack Slugger had fewer hits he still had the same number of Total Bases -- which means that Jack Slugger got a lot more extra base hits than Mickey Slapper did.

While a .300/.330/.450 line looks better on paper than a .200/.330/.450 line it is merely a mirage. Both lines show players who are equally productive in different ways. It is just another way to show that batting average is a stat that makes no useful or practical difference on the field.

In the end they are both contributing to the same degree to their teams' scoring chances. Mickey Slapper contributes with singles and doubles, while Jack Slugger contributes with walks, doubles and home runs. Both make outs at the same rate. Both contribute the same Total Bases. Their overall contribution is exactly the same in the end.

3. Re: Offseason Priorities

Guys... can we get back to the topic? Please?

4. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

In your opinion Mickey Slapper is the better player. In my opinion they are equal.

Since they both have the same OBP and Mickey Slapper has a better Batting Average we can determine that Mickey Slapper gets more hits but Jack Slugger gets more walks or HBPs. Hits are better than walks. So right now it looks like Mickey Slapper is the better hitter. This is the case you are making, which is correct but incomplete.

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). The answer is that Mickey Slapper is getting fewer Total Bases per hit -- he is hitting singles instead of the more valuable doubles and home runs. Every time you give him a single instead of a walk you have to turn one of his doubles into a single (roughly speaking, because you are also giving him an extra AB because walks don't count as ABs). Or for every three hits instead of walks you have to turn one of his home runs into a single. Essentially, to turn a walk into a single you have to also turn an extra-base hit into a single. Otherwise the SLG will change. That is the tradeoff -- if you want your OBP to be driven by hits instead of walks you have to sacrifice your doubles and home runs.

This also means that even though Jack Slugger had fewer hits he still had the same number of Total Bases -- which means that Jack Slugger got a lot more extra base hits than Mickey Slapper did.

While a .300/.330/.450 line looks better on paper than a .200/.330/.450 line it is merely a mirage. Both lines show players who are equally productive in different ways. It is just another way to show that batting average is a stat that makes no useful or practical difference on the field.

In the end they are both contributing to the same degree to their teams scoring chances. Mickey Slapper contributes with singles and doubles, while Jack Slugger contributes with walks, doubles and home runs. Both make outs at the same rate. Both contribute the same Total Bases. Their overall contribution is exactly the same in the end.
Singles on average result in .47 runs, while doubles result in .78, triples result in 1.09, HR's 1.40. BB's result in .38 runs

So 100 singles results in 47 runs, 50 doubles in 39 runs, 25 HR's 35 runs, and 100 BB's result in 38 runs.

A player who depends on BB's and extra base hits is actually less productive than one who depends on singles, if their OPS is the same.

5. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

In your opinion Mickey Slapper is the better player. In my opinion they are equal.

Since they both have the same OBP and Mickey Slapper has a better Batting Average we can determine that Mickey Slapper gets more hits but Jack Slugger gets more walks or HBPs. Hits are better than walks. So right now it looks like Mickey Slapper is the better hitter. This is the case you are making, which is correct but incomplete.

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). The answer is that Mickey Slapper is getting fewer Total Bases per hit -- he is hitting singles instead of the more valuable doubles and home runs. Every time you give him a single instead of a walk you have to turn one of his doubles into a single (roughly speaking, because you are also giving him an extra AB because walks don't count as ABs). Or for every three hits instead of walks you have to turn one of his home runs into a single. Essentially, to turn a walk into a single you have to also turn an extra-base hit into a single. Otherwise the SLG will change. That is the tradeoff -- if you want your OBP to be driven by hits instead of walks you have to sacrifice your doubles and home runs.

This also means that even though Jack Slugger had fewer hits he still had the same number of Total Bases -- which means that Jack Slugger got a lot more extra base hits than Mickey Slapper did.

While a .300/.330/.450 line looks better on paper than a .200/.330/.450 line it is merely a mirage. Both lines show players who are equally productive in different ways. It is just another way to show that batting average is a stat that makes no useful or practical difference on the field.

In the end they are both contributing to the same degree to their teams' scoring chances. Mickey Slapper contributes with singles and doubles, while Jack Slugger contributes with walks, doubles and home runs. Both make outs at the same rate. Both contribute the same Total Bases. Their overall contribution is exactly the same in the end.
That was a bad example on my part. Jack Slugger has to rack up some serious IsoP just to keep up. My main point outside of fictional characters and theoretical slash lines is that you can't conclude these players are identical production wise just because OPS correlates better to runs scored than batting average. I'd venture to say it's not that simple.

I might get around to this later, but it'd be interesting to plug Jack and Mickey's stats into a better run expectancy formula just to see what it spits out.

6. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by KittyDuran
Guys... can we get back to the topic? Please?

Topic...Topic... we don't need no stinking topic

7. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by 757690
Singles on average result in .47 runs, while doubles result in .78, triples result in 1.09, HR's 1.40. BB's result in .38 runs

So 100 singles results in 47 runs, 50 doubles in 39 runs, 25 HR's 35 runs, and 100 BB's result in 38 runs.

A player who depends on BB's and extra base hits is actually less productive than one who depends on singles, if their OPS is the same.
Maybe I am not getting your point. The players in those examples would have wildly differing OPS scores wouldn't they? Seems to be apples and oranges.

8. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by Superdude
That was a bad example on my part. Jack Slugger has to rack up some serious IsoP just to keep up. My main point outside of fictional characters and theoretical slash lines is that you can't conclude these players are identical production wise just because OPS correlates better to runs scored than batting average. I'd venture to say it's not that simple.

I might get around to this later, but it'd be interesting to plug Jack and Mickey's stats into a better run expectancy formula just to see what it spits out.
It was an interesting example! I enjoyed thinking about it.

I agree it is not really that simple. It just doesn't seem that batting average enlightens the conversation, which was really the point I was making.

Run expectancy formulas are awesome and that would be the best approach, I agree. We would need more than just the slash lines to do this right.

9. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by KittyDuran
Guys... can we get back to the topic? Please?
Isn't the topic offseason priorities? Some folks think it is a priority to improve the Reds' team batting average and that is what we are currently discussing. Feel free to chime in with any other priorities you would like to see.

10. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
It was an interesting example! I enjoyed thinking about it.

I agree it is not really that simple. It just doesn't seem that batting average enlightens the conversation, which was really the point I was making.

Run expectancy formulas are awesome and that would be the best approach, I agree. We would need more than just the slash lines to do this right.
Now we're talkin. I was gonna say we should make a new thread for this, but my offseason priority is statistical enlightenment. That kinda fits

11. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

In your opinion Mickey Slapper is the better player. In my opinion they are equal.

Since they both have the same OBP and Mickey Slapper has a better Batting Average we can determine that Mickey Slapper gets more hits but Jack Slugger gets more walks or HBPs. Hits are better than walks. So right now it looks like Mickey Slapper is the better hitter. This is the case you are making, which is correct but incomplete.

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). The answer is that Mickey Slapper is getting fewer Total Bases per hit -- he is hitting singles instead of the more valuable doubles and home runs. Every time you give him a single instead of a walk you have to turn one of his doubles into a single (roughly speaking, because you are also giving him an extra AB because walks don't count as ABs). Or for every three hits instead of walks you have to turn one of his home runs into a single. Essentially, to turn a walk into a single you have to also turn an extra-base hit into a single. Otherwise the SLG will change. That is the tradeoff -- if you want your OBP to be driven by hits instead of walks you have to sacrifice your doubles and home runs.

This also means that even though Jack Slugger had fewer hits he still had the same number of Total Bases -- which means that Jack Slugger got a lot more extra base hits than Mickey Slapper did.

While a .300/.330/.450 line looks better on paper than a .200/.330/.450 line it is merely a mirage. Both lines show players who are equally productive in different ways. It is just another way to show that batting average is a stat that makes no useful or practical difference on the field.

In the end they are both contributing to the same degree to their teams' scoring chances. Mickey Slapper contributes with singles and doubles, while Jack Slugger contributes with walks, doubles and home runs. Both make outs at the same rate. Both contribute the same Total Bases. Their overall contribution is exactly the same in the end.

Edit: OK now I went back and created one possible complete set of stats for our two players:

Code:
```Player		PA	AB	Singles	Doubles	Triples	Homers	Hits	Walks	HBP	TB	TB+*	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	wOBA
Jack Slugger	600	503	42	25	2	32	101	95	2	226	323	0.201	0.330	0.449	0.779	0.343
Mickey Slapper	600	574	112	44	6	10	172	24	2	258	284	0.300	0.330	0.449	0.779	0.339```
I was able to get very close to the slash lines proposed by SuperDude. There might be other possible stat combinations that match the proposed slash lines.

* TB+ = Total Bases plus Walks and HBP
I did this to get an idea of how many bases each hitter touched during the season as a result of their plate appearances. The Total Bases formula does not include BBs and HBPs.

Both of these players would be solid, above-average hitters in the major leagues, but they would not be anywhere near star caliber.

The OPS and wOBA scores for the two players are almost identical even though the slash lines appeared at first glance to make Mickey Slapper look like a superior hitter than Jack Slugger. Even a huge 100 point increase in Mickey Slapper's Batting Average did not improve his offensive production at all. Their overall production is the same even though they are completely different types of hitter. Jack Slugger has a slight advantage over Mickey Slapper in this analysis. I feel this helps verify my original assertion that as long as the OBP and SLG portions of a player's slash line are equal it doesn't make any difference what his Batting Average is. You don't get any extra production by raising the batting average. The OBP and SLG are what matters. As SuperDude mentioned, knowing a player's Batting Average can help you learn what style of hitter he is, but it doesn't help you identify which players are better.

A player's OBP and SLG are critical to evaluating his performance. His AVG is nothing more than trivia.

12. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by 757690
Singles on average result in .47 runs, while doubles result in .78, triples result in 1.09, HR's 1.40. BB's result in .38 runs

So 100 singles results in 47 runs, 50 doubles in 39 runs, 25 HR's 35 runs, and 100 BB's result in 38 runs.

A player who depends on BB's and extra base hits is actually less productive than one who depends on singles, if their OPS is the same.
Not so quick, I'm afraid.

I did a sample player A and Player B.

Player A has a slash line of .300/.330/.450, and in 500 PA, ends up with 21 W, 479 AB's, 97 1B, 32 2B, 5 3B and 10 HR.

Player B has a slash line of .200/.330/.450, and in 500 PA, ends up with 81 W, 419 AB, 40 1B, 11 2B, 5 3B and 28 HR.

It adds up to 102.81 runs.

FWIW

13. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
Edit: OK now I went back and created one possible complete set of stats for our two players:

Code:
```Player		PA	AB	Singles	Doubles	Triples	Homers	Hits	Walks	HBP	TB	TB+*	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	wOBA
Jack Slugger	600	503	42	25	2	32	101	95	2	226	323	0.201	0.330	0.449	0.779	0.343
Mickey Slapper	600	574	112	44	6	10	172	24	2	258	284	0.300	0.330	0.449	0.779	0.339```
I was able to get very close to the slash lines proposed by SuperDude. There might be other possible stat combinations that match the proposed slash lines.

* TB+ = Total Bases plus Walks and HBP
I did this to get an idea of how many bases each hitter touched during the season as a result of their plate appearances. The Total Bases formula does not include BBs and HBPs.

Both of these players would be solid, above-average hitters in the major leagues, but they would not be anywhere near star caliber.

The OPS and wOBA scores for the two players are almost identical even though the slash lines appeared at first glance to make Mickey Slapper look like a superior hitter than Jack Slugger. Even a huge 100 point increase in Mickey Slapper's Batting Average did not improve his offensive production at all. Their overall production is the same even though they are completely different types of hitter. Jack Slugger has a slight advantage over Mickey Slapper in this analysis. I feel this helps verify my original assertion that as long as the OBP and SLG portions of a player's slash line are equal it doesn't make any difference what his Batting Average is. You don't get any extra production by raising the batting average. The OBP and SLG are what matters. As SuperDude mentioned, knowing a player's Batting Average can help you learn what style of hitter he is, but it doesn't help you identify which players are better.

A player's OBP and SLG are critical to evaluating his performance. His AVG is trivia.
Interesting...the only issue, like you said earlier, is the fact that the difference in hits has to be counterbalanced by a massive increase in power for Mr. Slugger just to make the SLG and OPS match up. Have to wonder how that factors in. I can't think of any way to truly isolate batting average as a variable though.

Another thing (which is probably a much smaller factor in reality considering the difference in player's offensive makeup is rarely this radical), but how would this play out on a game by game basis? Seems like with Mickey Slapper racking up eleven or twelve hits on a nightly basis, that team's gonna be tough to shut down. Jack on the other hand has just as many men on base, but only has six or seven hits to cash in on. Is there a chance the aggregate data is glossing over the fact that Jack's run distribution throughout the season may be a little more volatile than Mickey? Especially in a short series like that tragedy with San Francisco, I know I'd rather have team that could scratch out around 4 runs a night than a team that can blow up or get shutout based on how the wind's blowing.

14. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by Superdude
Interesting...the only issue, like you said earlier, is the fact that the difference in hits has to be counterbalanced by a massive increase in power for Mr. Slugger just to make the SLG and OPS match up. Have to wonder how that factors in. I can't think of any way to truly isolate batting average as a variable though.

Another thing (which is probably a much smaller factor in reality considering the difference in player's offensive makeup is rarely this radical), but how would this play out on a game by game basis? Seems like with Mickey Slapper racking up eleven or twelve hits on a nightly basis, that team's gonna be tough to shut down. Jack on the other hand has just as many men on base, but only has six or seven hits to cash in on. Is there a chance the aggregate data is glossing over the fact that Jack's run distribution throughout the season may be a little more volatile than Mickey? Especially in a short series like that tragedy with San Francisco, I know I'd rather have team that could scratch out around 4 runs a night than a team that can blow up or get shutout based on how the wind's blowing.
I would imagine there is something to the volatility issue. Another factor in the opposite direction is that Jack doesn't rely as much as Mickey does on having men on base in order to drive in a run. Secondly, they are both equally likely to get on base and be driven in by the hitters behind them, but again Jack is not as reliant on his teammates because he can drive himself in with a home run. Possibly Mickey would be better than Jack on a team that had several other high-OBP hitters ahead of him in the lineup, whereas Jack would fare better than Mickey on a team with fewer good hitters in the lineup. They are both good but not great players.

15. Re: Offseason Priorities

Why is the assumption the hitter would replace walks with hits? Isn't the idea to replace strikeouts with balls in play, leading to more hits in place of some of the strikeouts?

16. Re: Offseason Priorities

Originally Posted by VR
Why is the assumption the hitter would replace walks with hits? Isn't the idea to replace strikeouts with balls in play, leading to more hits in place of some of the strikeouts?
We are discussing this question:

If given the choice between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450 which player would you choose?

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•

 Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball

Contact us: Boss | GIK | cumberlandreds | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | RedsfaninMT | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25