ratings preference...contact versus eye... Topic

isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
That wasn't the context of the discussion.  A .500 OBP has nothing to do with three walks in one inning.

Look, you guys know more about HD and which ratings matter, but this is the old "average is more important than OBP" argument, which is simply wrong.  As a general rule, OBP is more correlative to run scoring than average.  It's just a fact.  It's proven every year by the teams that score the most runs, and it's proven by study after study.  Obviously, there are exceptions, but the "three walks never equals a run" example simply carries no weight when comparing runs to OBP and AVG.
11/9/2010 9:20 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
And what I don't understand is why people equate OBP to walks.  The higher the AVG, the higher the OBP. 
11/9/2010 9:30 PM
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 11/9/2010 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And what I don't understand is why people equate OBP to walks.  The higher the AVG, the higher the OBP. 

isack if player A gets 600 plate appearances but is a terrible hitter and only gets 150 hits but draws 100 walks he will have an average of .250 but an OBP of .417. If player B gets 600 plate appearances and gets 180 hits and only 20 walks his average is .300 which is a good average for a ML'er but his OBP is only .333. Do you still think the higher the average the higher the OBP?

11/9/2010 9:45 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect

The context of the discussion was about batting eye versus contact.  It morphed into a discussion of extremes (very high contact / very low eye, and vice-versa).  Which does come down to which is more valuable: hits or walks. 

They both serve a purpose.  But a consensus of people are agreeing that hits are, in general, more valuable than walks.  Thus, contact may be a more valued rating than batting eye.

11/9/2010 9:46 PM
Save_Mr_X
Posts: 146 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 1 9 12 56
Prospect
just for the record...the player in questions is a 19-year old catcher...his projections are 47/81/80/70/84...and not that it is relavent to the conversation...but his range/glove/as/aa/pitch calling is...16/21/73/73/65 (pitch calling)...and what put it over the top and made me pull the trigger on the deal is his durability/health are 99/88...very rare to see a catcher who can legitimately play everyday...and hit like that...
11/9/2010 10:18 PM
Save_Mr_X
Posts: 146 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 1 9 12 56
Prospect
and his home park will be sacramento...pitchers park...but not too extreme to hold down his hitting...ive had plenty of 40/50+ homerun guys....330+ average guys at raley field...
11/9/2010 10:19 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by timf on 11/9/2010 9:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 11/9/2010 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And what I don't understand is why people equate OBP to walks.  The higher the AVG, the higher the OBP. 

isack if player A gets 600 plate appearances but is a terrible hitter and only gets 150 hits but draws 100 walks he will have an average of .250 but an OBP of .417. If player B gets 600 plate appearances and gets 180 hits and only 20 walks his average is .300 which is a good average for a ML'er but his OBP is only .333. Do you still think the higher the average the higher the OBP?

Yes, I still think my statement is correct in context.  The higher someone's average is, the higher that person's OBP will be.  I'm not comparing two random people.

11/9/2010 10:40 PM (edited)
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 11/9/2010 9:46:00 PM (view original):

The context of the discussion was about batting eye versus contact.  It morphed into a discussion of extremes (very high contact / very low eye, and vice-versa).  Which does come down to which is more valuable: hits or walks. 

They both serve a purpose.  But a consensus of people are agreeing that hits are, in general, more valuable than walks.  Thus, contact may be a more valued rating than batting eye.

You actually think the the conversation revolves around whether a hit is more valuable than a walk?

That's a pretty solid misinterpretation of the discussion.  I think everyone agrees that one hit is generally more valuable than one walk.

The discussion centers around what is the best way to score runs: .XXX AVG / .YYY OBP vs. higher AVG / lower OBP.

Or, more appropriately, at what point increased average makes up for the OBP difference (or vice versa).
11/9/2010 10:36 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I believe that there's a general agreement that you want/need a balance in your lineup of guys who get on base (OBP), and guys who can get the hits to drive them in.  I'll disregard AVG and go with SLG for the latter.

And if you really want to get down to what the single best stat is regarding run generation, I'll go with OPS.  That gives you the best of everything.
11/9/2010 10:47 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 112
Prospect
I prefer batting eye. My philosophy is based around getting guys on base... passed balls, errors, stolen bases, hits, more walks can help those players advance and score. I despise strikeouts, especially in clutch situations, and to me it seems like low be guys do that way too often. Jmo.... but plenty of low contact high splits players have solid averages.... not a lot of low be guys have more walks then strike outs. Just my preference I guess.
11/9/2010 10:58 PM (edited)
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect
Posted by isack24 on 11/9/2010 10:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by timf on 11/9/2010 9:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 11/9/2010 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And what I don't understand is why people equate OBP to walks.  The higher the AVG, the higher the OBP. 

isack if player A gets 600 plate appearances but is a terrible hitter and only gets 150 hits but draws 100 walks he will have an average of .250 but an OBP of .417. If player B gets 600 plate appearances and gets 180 hits and only 20 walks his average is .300 which is a good average for a ML'er but his OBP is only .333. Do you still think the higher the average the higher the OBP?

Yes, I still think my statement is correct in context.  The higher someone's average is, the higher that person's OBP will be.  I'm not comparing two random people.

isack that is a pretty stupid statement. Of course if a guy has a higher average he is going to have a higher OBP. He is also going to have a higher OBP if he walks more. I was actually using the topic of discussion to make my point. I don't see a point to making an obvious statement like you just did.
11/9/2010 10:53 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect

I agree with the first part, at least in HBD.  A balance is always required.  It gets a lot dicier in real life. 

As for the second, yeah, I think generally OPS is the best indicator, if you're only looking at one stat (or combo stat), but OPS isn't really that great, either.  The way it overvalues SLG doesn't lend itself to being super valuable at a detailed level. 

If you're looking for a closer indicator of run scoring, use (1.7 x OBP) + SLG.  The 1.7 number is moderately disputed, but it's generally agreed that the number falls somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0.

11/9/2010 10:54 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Posted by timf on 11/9/2010 10:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 11/9/2010 10:40:00 PM (view original):
Posted by timf on 11/9/2010 9:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by isack24 on 11/9/2010 9:30:00 PM (view original):
And what I don't understand is why people equate OBP to walks.  The higher the AVG, the higher the OBP. 

isack if player A gets 600 plate appearances but is a terrible hitter and only gets 150 hits but draws 100 walks he will have an average of .250 but an OBP of .417. If player B gets 600 plate appearances and gets 180 hits and only 20 walks his average is .300 which is a good average for a ML'er but his OBP is only .333. Do you still think the higher the average the higher the OBP?

Yes, I still think my statement is correct in context.  The higher someone's average is, the higher that person's OBP will be.  I'm not comparing two random people.

isack that is a pretty stupid statement. Of course if a guy has a higher average he is going to have a higher OBP. He is also going to have a higher OBP if he walks more. I was actually using the topic of discussion to make my point. I don't see a point to making an obvious statement like you just did.

Person A: "I like high OBP players."

Person B: "A walk isn't as good as a hit."

Isack: "High OBP doesn't necessarily mean walks."

Tim: "I'm going to misinterpret what isack says and then say his statement is stupid."

I agree, my statement is obvious, which it why it is so shocking that people equate high OBP to more walks.

11/9/2010 10:57 PM
timf
Posts: 185 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 103
Prospect

Isack are really going to argue that you don't need walks to get a high OBP? The highest single season batting average in ML history is .426. The highest OBP is .609. How did the OBP get so much higher than the batting averag. Alot of walks. In my world that means you can equate high OBP to more walks.

11/9/2010 11:03 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Unless you're Ichiro, you're generally going to have a lot of walks in your stats if you've got a high OBP.  Not sure how one can attempt to dis-correlate walks and OBP.
11/9/2010 11:05 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...7 Next ▸
ratings preference...contact versus eye... Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.