Would you rather have Player 1 who hits .000 but walks every appearance at the plate or Player 2 who hits .500 but homers for every hit?

Player 1 would hardly ever "bat" in a run and would score only when his team mates drive him in (or he steals home).  Player 2 will score more than 300 runs and drive in more than that.  On the other hand, a whole team of Player 1's would score infinite runs while a team of Player 2's would score roughly 27 runs a game (barring tie games).

Anyway, assuming Player 1 and Player 2 were real and draftable in WIS at the same salary, I'm not entirely convinced that there are any circumstances, that I'd draft Player 1 over Player 2.  If I'm right (I may not be), then there are some things a player can do that are more valuable than not making outs.  

Id just throw my SP that never walks ppl and only Ks every batter and you lose

I don't know how to the math on this but I think OBP is equal to something like 1.7*SLG in some run scored equations.

I'd draft 'em both. Bat the 1.000 OBP guy 3rd and the 2.000 SLG 4th.

I understand the point of the question, but I think this extreme of an example is too unrealistic to get a good picture. To be simplistic, not getting an out is the most important. But if that's ALL you do, you're going to struggle. It's like asking which is more important: eating or breathing? Breathing, of course, but you're not going to do very well if you never eat. You need both. To have a good baseball team, you have to have guys that can get on base and guys who can drive them in.

There are many internet sites that explore the value of various events as they translate to runs scored. Most have homeruns valued between 1.30 and 1.45 runs and walks valued between .3 and .4 runs. So according to most simulations, in your scenario the homeruns are better by far in normal real life situations.

Wow, that breathing and eating analogy is a fantastic way to think about it. They serve different purposes, and to succeed you really need a bit of both.

This reminds me of similar debate, which centered on the value of the three true outcomes (HR, BB, K) versus hitting the ball in play all time (ground outs, fly outs, 1B, 2B, 3B). It comes down to: would you rather have a team of 9 Adam Dunn's or 9 Ichiro Suzuki's? I really like that one because both are real players, whereas I don't think we'll see a 300 HR season anytime soon.

Still, you raise a good point. I always notice it a lot when facing the onslaught of deadball pitchers. Seems like Three-Finger Brown and Joss and the rest are always putting men on first base, but they never make it past third base before the final out of the inning. In those situations, the guy who can come through with the occasional double or home run really comes in handy, while getting the walk often results in just another LOB.

According to linear weights, a walk is worth 1/3 of a run and a homerun is worth 1.4 runs.  Over the same number of bats, player 2 is worth twice as much as player 1.  Looking at it another way, player 1's OPS is 1.000 and player 2's is 2.5.  Again player 2 is over twice as valuable.  The obvious answer is that you should take the .500/.500/2.000 line over the .000/1.000/.000 line.

Any chance we could get back to a point that got missed here ? loma_prieta, in my opinion has presented us with a much more interesting question than the one about whether a pitcher that walks every batter is more valuable than one that gives up a home run every inning or whatever. 

Adam Dunn (or Dave Kingman or even Reggie Jackson) versus Ichiro Suzuki or Pete Rose, or even Don Buford in his good OBP years. 

Now, a team that has one from column A (power hitter that strikes out a LOT) and one from column B (on base hitter with high average who strikes out very little and get on base a lot or who get a lot of walks to combine with a good average) will clearly have an advantage, though of course strike outs with men on base doesn't really help a team very much. 

But let's say it is a draft and you must choose whoever will make your team most productive offensively, all other factors being equal. 

So who is more productive and valuable to your offense? Adam Dunn or Ichiro ? Reggie Jackson or Pete Rose? Dave Kingman or Don Buford?

I will take it one further: I rarely put big HR hitters batting third. I usually like two batters up front that have high OBP and especially one with at least some SB (with good SB/CS%) leading off and one batting second who rarely strikes out. Third I nearly always put whoever has the highest batting average on the team regardless of HR numbers: Moises Alou, Don Mattingly, Bug Holliday, Wade Boggs (ideal for number 2 or 3 in batting order IMO), George Brett, someone with a .320 average. THEN and only then I look for HRs in the number 4 and 5 slots, because I have already had the makings of a rally in the first three with good probability that something has already happened by the time we get to hitters 4 and 5 so if they strike out at least I am less likely to waste two base runners (Yankees fan, HATE LOB which is the perennial virus of my RL team), and there is a very high chance that someone is on base and the inning still going on when my HR guys get up, having multiplied the number of high OBP people to 3. 

After that it gets variable: I prefer another high average or OBP person number 6 and hitters with power, even if by now with lower avg. 7th and 8th so again there is a chance someone is on base for the 15-20 HR guy to knock in. 

In other words I a) value the high average with a little power and good OBP as number 3 hitter over the straight power hitter usually preferred there and again ask, Bernie Williams or Adam Dunn - I take Bernie. Wade Boggs or Don Mattingly in their good years or Sammy Sosa, Jose Conseco etc. I take the Mattingly, Boggs type - I like Moises Alou who strikes out rarely but hits for power and average, Sheffield too. 

One last thing: has anyone else noted how rarely power hitters from the 1950s and early 60s struck out ? Look at Kluszewski for example. Yogi Berra hardly ever struck out; Hank Aaron rarely struck out for a power hitter of his caliber. Then, around the mid-60s there appears to be a turn-around, everyone strikes out a lot and it seemed not to matter. OBPs are terrible for a lot of players from around 1964-70 with the Bufords being an exception. I get the feeling Earl Weaver was more of a genius than I thought, the Orioles front office too. They figured out OBP and its relation to power hitting: "Good starting pitching, defense and 3-run home runs" was a Weaver mantra. smart man. 

"One last thing: has anyone else noted how rarely power hitters from the 1950s and early 60s struck out ? Look at Kluszewski for example. Yogi Berra hardly ever struck out; Hank Aaron rarely struck out for a power hitter of his caliber. Then, around the mid-60s there appears to be a turn-around, everyone strikes out a lot and it seemed not to matter."

I think in the late 50's early 60's you see the "invention" of the slider......I remember reading somewhere that had something to do with the increased strikeouts in the 60's.

In the 80's the continued increase of the strikeout is usually attributed to the split finger fastball, the changing role of the relief pitcher and the increased speed of the average fastball.

It's a flawed question - they wouldn't have anything CLOSE to the same salary.  High-walk players are one of the biggest bargains in the sim.  I'd think player 1 might cost under $10 million and almost certainly under $12 million; player 2 would cost between $25 and $30 million at least.  At any cap under $255 million I'd probably take player 1, but only because of his price.  Obviously player 2 is better.

italyprof, Ichiro vs. Adam Dunn is a bad argument.  Dunn has a better career OBP AND better SLG.  Strikeouts and steals be damned, I'll take Dunn every time if we can avoid -2 and worse home run home parks.  And assuming I can ignore defense.