Assuming  a neutral park with average defense, would you rather have a pitcher with low OAV or BB/9?

 I don't know if the #'s work right but let's say:

Guy A:  
WHIP 1.3
OAV .260
BB/9 2.0

Guy B:
WHIP 1.3
OAV  .230
BB/9 4

In an OL?  I'd probably opt for the low OAV guy, since so many teams build around singles rather than walks.

In the theme or a prog, it depends a lot on what the rules are and what competitions I'm likely facing.

Depends on the park, too.  In Safeco or the A-Dome I'd take the low walks guy every time in every league because the park's going to help with the singles and won't touch the walks.  In Coors it would be hard to ever give up .30 points of OAV.  In general though I try to balance both.  I've actually found that a slightly higher WHIP composed of two solid components is at the very least a safer bet than a slightly better WHIP who is a risk to either walk himself to death or be hit to death.  In general I think I lean towards lower walks because it's cheaper and allowing a few hits doesn't drive up the pitch count nearly as quickly as allowing a few walks does.

Yep. Pitch count.

In theory low avg is always better. In the sim that's usually the case too but not always. pitchers with low avg and high walks tend to underperform for some reason they give up too many hits.
fatigue not much of a factor here. pitchers with more walks are allotted more pitches per inning.

This would make for an interesting theme if we could get the rules defined right.

I dunno guys, my guess is in all but the extreme negative 1B parks, putting a pitcher in an OL with an OAV of .260 is going to get you eaten alive by the proliferation of Roberts, Boggs, Castillo, Dilone, Coleman, etc.  I would predict he'd end up with an OAV of .300 or worse.  Maybe if he normalized really well...

I've had great success with high (even very high) BB pitchers with low OAV.  Before the last update, Tommy Byrne was a real cookie.

 Unless I were in an extreme negative hit park, I'd take the low OAV every time...

I'd take the low oav# because at most, a walk will advance a baserunner only one base, whereas a hit can be anything from a single to a HR.

Did I really say that?  I must have had about 14 beers in me.  Drunken-previous-me was wrong and current-me would like to correct that dummy.

Neutral park, average defense... yeah, low OAV.  There are many more teams built around high-average, walks-are-just-a-bonus offenses.  Also, Mr. 923's point about pitch counts is apt.

I like ERC#

Right, there was two choices for dinner: chicken or fish.  I had lasagna.

I would've preferred the fish!!!! lol

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/13/2011 7:26:00 PM (view original):
Assuming  a neutral park with average defense, would you rather have a pitcher with low OAV or BB/9?

 I don't know if the #'s work right but let's say:

Guy A:  
WHIP 1.3
OAV .260
BB/9 2.0

Guy B:
WHIP 1.3
OAV  .230
BB/9 4

Are those the expected stats?  If not, are they # stats?  Also what are the two players HR/9?  Give me that info and I can tell you their expected ERA. 

Well, if you're offering.....

Lets say those are the # stats and both have hr/9# of .5.  

I assume the higher the hr/9#, the more the low OAV pitcher is better right?  (there has to be a better way to word that but you get the point right?)

Posted by Trentonjoe on 10/18/2011 2:12:00 PM (view original):
Well, if you're offering.....

Lets say those are the # stats and both have hr/9# of .5.  

I assume the higher the hr/9#, the more the low OAV pitcher is better right?  (there has to be a better way to word that but you get the point right?)

I am not sure.  My think that you'd allow fewer homeruns (with a lower oavg) but each of those home runs would be worth more runs.