Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 2:08:00 PM (view original):
BTW, 700 PA is roughly 20 games.   So, essentially, you're saying that one extra baserunner is more important than one extra base per game.

Absolutely.  You disagree?  You can't score if you're not on base.

Situational(which I said about 20 pages ago).   Sometimes the walk works, sometimes the extra base is better.    Runner on first, two out.    Would you rather have two walks or a double before the third out is made?

using a simple universal linear weight also works well regarding the u.s. dollar. simple premise stopping at one hundred and easily divides into increments of coins to make change. since batting average alone is the single largest proportion of the slugging percentage dollar then u could not possibly create a better dollar to weigh its own worth. batting average is the sole simple number that charts the success ratios of every batter/pitcher confrontation. it tells us in a simple dollar-like manner that pitchers succeed seven to eight chances out of ten at the general time tested rate. there is no universally simple number that compares then states that the pitcher out rate is seventy five percent. batting average like einsteins theory of relativity has simplicity in it's concise finality of complex mathematical equations and how to sum them up in its simplest terms. i have seen rickey henderson steal 5 bases in a game that his team lost after 27 outs only produced one run. total bases and batting average added together is similar to mixing alchoholic recipes and maybe good for a few moments of unhibited play in the fields of numbers but all eventually comes down to E equals M C squared. the simple batting average, on the scale of a dollar. 

In that specific scenario, the double.  Unless it's Mattingly on first and can't score on a double like Rickey could.

Overall, getting from home to first is more important than getting from first to second.

And getting from third to home is more important than either of those.

Honestly, this is where new school statnerds and old school baseball fall apart.   It's also why the RBI is still viewed as important by some.    Let's say it took 70 hits from Mattingly to get those 140+ RBI.  Would the Yanks have been better served if he worked 50 walks and 20 hits instead?   Of course not.

More specifically, players have different "jobs" depending on the situation.   Leading off an inning, you need to get on base.   Take the walk.   Nobody on with 2 out, you need to be in scoring position.   A double or a walk/steal would be fantastic.   Runner on 2nd/two out, you need to drive in the run not pass it to the next guy.

And it's what I mean when I say "generally." Obviously baseball is a situational game. But that guy isn't on 3rd base if he doesn't touch 1st first.

I do think you're putting too much emphasis on walks. The guy with the .400 OBP doesn't have a .200 BA.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
And getting from third to home is more important than either of those.

Honestly, this is where new school statnerds and old school baseball fall apart.   It's also why the RBI is still viewed as important by some.    Let's say it took 70 hits from Mattingly to get those 140+ RBI.  Would the Yanks have been better served if he worked 50 walks and 20 hits instead?   Of course not.

Actually, it isn't. Once you're on third, the likelihood is fairly high that you will score. Getting from home to first is by far the largest run value.

Regarding Mattingly, he gets credit for the 70 hits. Why give him extra credit because someone in front of him got on base?

I know none of us think badluck has ever watched a game but you really have to.   It's nice to look at a boxscore and see that Player A had two hits and a walk in 5 AB.   That's a pretty good game.   Except he may have struck out twice with the bases loaded in a 1 run loss.   He's not going to feel like he had a good game.   

And this applies to looking at stats 28 years later.  Mattingly got 23 of 28 votes and Rickey got 0.  And even I agree that, looking at the numbers, a case could be made.    But why the landslide?    Is there something else that the numbers, especially the precious WAR!!!!!, don't show? 

Posted by bad_luck on 8/26/2013 2:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
And getting from third to home is more important than either of those.

Honestly, this is where new school statnerds and old school baseball fall apart.   It's also why the RBI is still viewed as important by some.    Let's say it took 70 hits from Mattingly to get those 140+ RBI.  Would the Yanks have been better served if he worked 50 walks and 20 hits instead?   Of course not.

Actually, it isn't. Once you're on third, the likelihood is fairly high that you will score. Getting from home to first is by far the largest run value.

Regarding Mattingly, he gets credit for the 70 hits. Why give him extra credit because someone in front of him got on base?

Save your likelihood for the blackjack table.    If you're standing on third when the innings over, you didn't help your team win. 

We're dealing in rates and probabilities. That's what BA and OBP are. How do you think run values are derived?

It's like you're being stupid on purpose. Are you biz?

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
And it's what I mean when I say "generally." Obviously baseball is a situational game. But that guy isn't on 3rd base if he doesn't touch 1st first.

I do think you're putting too much emphasis on walks. The guy with the .400 OBP doesn't have a .200 BA.

Of the 4 players listed for 85 MVP, they have 40+ more walks than Mattingly.   Do you think their teams might have been better served with a few of them being hits?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/26/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):
We're dealing in rates and probabilities. That's what BA and OBP are. How do you think run values are derived?

It's like you're being stupid on purpose. Are you biz?

Huh?  I thought we were talking about baseball.

But, if nothing else, I think I see where we differ.   I'm talking about a game played on a field while you're talking about number crunching. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
And it's what I mean when I say "generally." Obviously baseball is a situational game. But that guy isn't on 3rd base if he doesn't touch 1st first.

I do think you're putting too much emphasis on walks. The guy with the .400 OBP doesn't have a .200 BA.

Of the 4 players listed for 85 MVP, they have 40+ more walks than Mattingly.   Do you think their teams might have been better served with a few of them being hits?

You're assuming that they would have turned those walks into hits instead of outs. 

It's significantly better walk instead of making an out. It's only slightly better to get a hit instead of a walk.

Rickey's OBP was 50 points higher than Mattingly's. That 50 points of OBP is worth about 100 points of SLG.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/26/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):
We're dealing in rates and probabilities. That's what BA and OBP are. How do you think run values are derived?

It's like you're being stupid on purpose. Are you biz?

Huh?  I thought we were talking about baseball.

But, if nothing else, I think I see where we differ.   I'm talking about a game played on a field while you're talking about number crunching. 

We're analyzing the numbers from the games. How would you suggest we separate the two?

I'm suggesting the numbers from the games don't tell the entire story.

THIS: