Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Is it?   Isn't the object to move around the stations?    Would you rather have one walk or one double?

People have studied teams that win.  They found that the .380/.520 guy is a little more valuable than the .350/.550 guy.  You want to poo-poo their research, fine.  But the general idea is "don't get out."  The players that avoid getting out more than others are the most successful to helping their team win.  Not necessarily the players that hit the most doubles.

Obviously not getting out is a good thing.  But we've done this before.   If you get three walks in an inning, you don't score if you only send 6 batters to the plate.   If you get three singles, you might actually score despite sending only 6 batter to the plate.    The objective is to score more than the other team, right? 

Posted by tecwrg on 8/26/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
OBP also doesn't account for the difference between a walk and a single.

Walks only advance runners if they are forced.  A single can score a guy from second or third, and can advance a runner from first to third.

Since BL has never actually watched a baseball game, I can see how he wouldn't know or understand that.

No one is saying that OBP and SLG are flawless. They both have issues. OBP, as you point out, treats walks the same as home runs. Slugging uses AB in the denominator and we know that a home run isn't four times as valuable as a single, etc.

But, with their flaws, 1 point of OBP is worth about 2 points of SLG.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Obviously not getting out is a good thing.  But we've done this before.   If you get three walks in an inning, you don't score if you only send 6 batters to the plate.   If you get three singles, you might actually score despite sending only 6 batter to the plate.    The objective is to score more than the other team, right? 

You realize that singles are included in OBP, right?

I think everyone understands that you can't win games by just walking.

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 11:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Is it?   Isn't the object to move around the stations?    Would you rather have one walk or one double?

People have studied teams that win.  They found that the .380/.520 guy is a little more valuable than the .350/.550 guy.  You want to poo-poo their research, fine.  But the general idea is "don't get out."  The players that avoid getting out more than others are the most successful to helping their team win.  Not necessarily the players that hit the most doubles.

The guy who gets on base 3% of the time more often is generally more valuable than the guy with 18 extra bases over the course of a year, if it's 600 atbats.  An extra triple a month, essentially.  If it's 700 PAs, its 21 more times on base.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/26/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Obviously not getting out is a good thing.  But we've done this before.   If you get three walks in an inning, you don't score if you only send 6 batters to the plate.   If you get three singles, you might actually score despite sending only 6 batter to the plate.    The objective is to score more than the other team, right? 

You realize that singles are included in OBP, right?

And???

Oh, I get it.  You jumped in without knowing what was being discussed.  What a shocker!!!

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 11:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Is it?   Isn't the object to move around the stations?    Would you rather have one walk or one double?

People have studied teams that win.  They found that the .380/.520 guy is a little more valuable than the .350/.550 guy.  You want to poo-poo their research, fine.  But the general idea is "don't get out."  The players that avoid getting out more than others are the most successful to helping their team win.  Not necessarily the players that hit the most doubles.

The guy who gets on base 3% of the time more often is generally more valuable than the guy with 18 extra bases over the course of a year, if it's 600 atbats.  An extra triple a month, essentially.  If it's 700 PAs, its 21 more times on base.

Is he?

He is. 3% is 21 less outs over 700 PA.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/26/2013 11:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Obviously not getting out is a good thing.  But we've done this before.   If you get three walks in an inning, you don't score if you only send 6 batters to the plate.   If you get three singles, you might actually score despite sending only 6 batter to the plate.    The objective is to score more than the other team, right? 

You realize that singles are included in OBP, right?

And???

Oh, I get it.  You jumped in without knowing what was being discussed.  What a shocker!!!

And, we aren't talking about one inning.
And, guys with high OBPs also tend to get a good amount of hits.
And, you are focusing on walks while everyone else is talking about OBP.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 11:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Is it?   Isn't the object to move around the stations?    Would you rather have one walk or one double?

People have studied teams that win.  They found that the .380/.520 guy is a little more valuable than the .350/.550 guy.  You want to poo-poo their research, fine.  But the general idea is "don't get out."  The players that avoid getting out more than others are the most successful to helping their team win.  Not necessarily the players that hit the most doubles.

The guy who gets on base 3% of the time more often is generally more valuable than the guy with 18 extra bases over the course of a year, if it's 600 atbats.  An extra triple a month, essentially.  If it's 700 PAs, its 21 more times on base.

Is he?

The people who study this **** for a living say yes, generally.

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 12:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 8/26/2013 11:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/26/2013 10:54:00 AM (view original):
Is it?   Isn't the object to move around the stations?    Would you rather have one walk or one double?

People have studied teams that win.  They found that the .380/.520 guy is a little more valuable than the .350/.550 guy.  You want to poo-poo their research, fine.  But the general idea is "don't get out."  The players that avoid getting out more than others are the most successful to helping their team win.  Not necessarily the players that hit the most doubles.

The guy who gets on base 3% of the time more often is generally more valuable than the guy with 18 extra bases over the course of a year, if it's 600 atbats.  An extra triple a month, essentially.  If it's 700 PAs, its 21 more times on base.

Is he?

The people who study this **** for a living say yes, generally.

Well, generally is pretty goddam definitive, isn't it?

I mean, it's mostly true about 57% of the time on average, right?

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.

Nothing is 100% definitive. The run value of going from home to first is a lot higher than the run value of going from first to second.

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.