Thoughts on OBP - single player vs. team

[Cubzfan64]

Over the last year or so I've seen many discussions that eventually bring up the pros and cons of OBP.

 

I'll try to make this simple, but I've felt for quite some time that a single player with a decent OBP can't make all that significant of an impact on a team overall and this is what I've come up with:

 

The difference between a leadoff hitter having an OBP of 0.350 vs. 0.300 comes out to ~ 1 more time on base every 5 games (assuming 650 plate appearances per season). Although that's quite a difference in OBP, I honestly don't feel like that comes out to such a significant advantage considering the number of times a player scores when they get on base anyways.

 

Now, take into consideration the difference between a TEAM OBP of 0.320 and 0.350. The higher OBP team will get an additional 1 guy on base every single game. I believe this is indeed a fairly significant advantage for the higher OBP team.

 

The crux of my thoughts is that as Cub fans it seems foolish to argue and nit pick over adding a leadoff hitter (or any SINGLE hitter for that matter) with a much better OBP than what we currently have. Our focus should be on the TEAM improving their overall OBP - granted, this means adding any guy with a better OBP will improve the team, but not nearly as dramatically as it would if the team as a whole would focus on improving their ability to get on base.

 

In effect, it shows how silly it is for the Cubs as a team to not pay much attention to their team OBP, while at the same time, it shows us that just adding one better OBP guy won't make this a contending team.

 

Any thoughts? Are my assumptions and conclusions sensible?

[stitchface]

sensible yes, but not correct. many people with far more time than you or I have studied the impacts and found that increasing obp increases the value of a hitter more than any other statistic. a 50 point difference would make a substantial difference in runs created and wins for a team. Team obp is of course the major goal but what better place to begin improving team obp than with the leadoff hitter who's obp most significantly impacts the teams offense?

[Cubzfan64]

sensible yes, but not correct. many people with far more time than you or I have studied the impacts and found that increasing obp increases the value of a hitter more than any other statistic. a 50 point difference would make a substantial difference in runs created and wins for a team. Team obp is of course the major goal but what better place to begin improving team obp than with the leadoff hitter who's obp most significantly impacts the teams offense?

 

I'll have to take your word for it, but I'd be really interested to read any analyses of OBP. I know math and statistics only tell part of the story, but I still find it hard to believe that if you take the exact same team and just replace the leadoff hitter with a .300 OBP with one with a .350 OBP that it would result in significantly more wins per season.

 

Take my original argument and assume that the guy with the higher OBP gets on base a total of 34 more times every season. Now take the fact that even the guys with the best OBP only score ~1/2 the time they are on base. That means this guy will score ~17 more times over an entire season - and how many of those times will actually result in the team winning a game - I can't believe it would be more than 1/4 of the time meaning an extra 4 wins.

 

As you said, I'm sure there have been lots of studies about OBP - but if anyone knows of any, I'd really like to read up on them and find out where my observations have gone wrong.

 

Thanks for the reply.

[UK1679666180]

but I still find it hard to believe that if you take the exact same team and just replace the leadoff hitter with a .300 OBP with one with a .350 OBP that it would result in significantly more wins per season.

 

It depends on the situation. I think the upgrade between Pierre and who the Cubs had in CF will be about 1.8 wins higher than last year.

 

I that difference will be higher than what the Cubs had at leadoff last year as Hairston led the team in leadoff PAs and what he did as getting on base last year. Last year, Hairston had 44.4% of the ABs leading off and had an OBP of .344, I think Pierre will likely be between .344 and .350.

 

Any offensive upgrade at leadoff will be destroyed by having Neifi hitting 2nd, if they decide to go that route.

[CuseCubFan69]

but I still find it hard to believe that if you take the exact same team and just replace the leadoff hitter with a .300 OBP with one with a .350 OBP that it would result in significantly more wins per season.

 

It depends on the situation. I think the upgrade between Pierre and who the Cubs had in CF will be about 1.8 wins higher than last year.

 

I that difference will be higher than what the Cubs had at leadoff last year as Hairston led the team in leadoff PAs and what he did as getting on base last year. Last year, Hairston had 44.4% of the ABs leading off and had an OBP of .344, I think Pierre will likely be between .344 and .350.

 

Any offensive upgrade at leadoff will be destroyed by having Neifi hitting 2nd, if they decide to go that route.

 

True but Hairston (Ramon Martinez#2) IMO doesn't seem to be an everyday player because of his injuries. This puts a bigger strain on the leadoff spot and assures Perez being in one of the 2 top spots. Pierre seems to be able to play a lot of games per season and at least gives the Cubs a constant leadoff guy.

[UK1679666180]

But, it doesn't take away the fact of what did Hairston did last year at leadoff last year.

 

In 44% of the time, the Cubs had someone who got on base at a similar ratio as to what we'll expect from Pierre.

[CuseCubFan69]

But, it doesn't take away the fact of what did Hairston did last year at leadoff last year.

 

In 44% of the time, the Cubs had someone who got on base at a similar ratio as to what we'll expect from Pierre.

 

I don't see how. Please explain to me how Hairston if he is given the leadoff would be better than Pierre?

[UK1679666180]

I'm not talking about what Hairston will do at leadoff next year, I'm talking about what he did last year.

 

I'm talking about the upgrade from leadoff hitter of '05 to the leadoff hitter of '06 (Pierre).

 

It's not about a Hairston/Pierre debate for leadoff hitter for '06.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'm not talking about what Hairston will do at leadoff next year, I'm talking about what he did last year.

 

I'm talking about the upgrade from leadoff hitter of '05 to the leadoff hitter of '06 (Pierre).

 

It's not about a Hairston/Pierre debate for leadoff hitter for '06.

 

I reread it and I see what you're saying.

[Cubzfan64]

but I still find it hard to believe that if you take the exact same team and just replace the leadoff hitter with a .300 OBP with one with a .350 OBP that it would result in significantly more wins per season.

 

It depends on the situation. I think the upgrade between Pierre and who the Cubs had in CF will be about 1.8 wins higher than last year.

 

I that difference will be higher than what the Cubs had at leadoff last year as Hairston led the team in leadoff PAs and what he did as getting on base last year. Last year, Hairston had 44.4% of the ABs leading off and had an OBP of .344, I think Pierre will likely be between .344 and .350.

 

Any offensive upgrade at leadoff will be destroyed by having Neifi hitting 2nd, if they decide to go that route.

 

Destroyed may be a bit of an overstatement, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that Perez batting second would be a mistake over a full season -that said, ever since Neifi signed that contract I've been convinced that he WILL be an everyday player (either SS or 2B) and that's been the Cubs plan all along since they plan to get rid of Walker.

 

If we went into the season with what we have (minus Walker), I would prefer seeing Murton or even Barrett hit second.

[rawaction]

I wonder how this would work.

 

Team A has OBPs in the lineup of .400, .390, .380, .370, .300, .310, .320, .330.

 

vs.

 

Team B has OBPs in the lineup of .350 from 1-8.

 

Given the exact same number of PAs in every spot in the lineup, that's .350 for each team, and assuming the exact same SLG, BA, etc. Which team would score the most runs.

[UK1679666180]

Offensively, I think the difference between what Pierre will provide over what the Cubs had last year would be about 1.8 wins.

 

Offensively, the Cubs having Walker starting at 2B and hitting 2nd compared to Perez doing the same is about 3 wins. The Cubs would likely cost themselves 3 wins having Perez hitting 2nd everyday over Walker. The defensive advantages of Perez over Walker, couldn't even come close to making up that difference.

 

I don't expect Walker to hit as well as he did last year and I don't expect Perez to hit as "well" as he did last year. I expect Walker to have an OPS in the upper 7s and Perez in the mid 6s.

[BigbadB]

This is why there are many of us who didn't get all that excited about Juan Pierre being added to this team. Other than speed and OBP, he really offers little else, and his OBP did take a big hit. In and of itself, it's not a bad addition. Considering what was given up to get Pierre's speed, it doesn't seem like that great of a deal.

 

Couple in the addition of Pierre along with Jones, re-signing Neifi, potentially going with 2 near rookies in Murton and Cedeno and you could have the makings of a disaster, and the Pierre deal just makes you go "meh".

 

I honestly believe Hendry and Baker wanted "speed" at lead off. Whether Pierre has a career .325 OBP or a .375 OBP probably never entered Hendry's mind. They see a guy who doesn't strike out much, and a guy who can make contact as often as Pierre is going to get on base, and then when he gets on base, he can get himself in scoring position. It's why they were shopping Furcal and Pierre. If they really wanted to improve OBP, they could have done it more cheaply than Furcal and Pierre. If they really recognized OBP as a serious problem on this team, they would have been looking for guys with better OBP's than Furcal and Pierre.

 

Todd Walker's career OBP is the same as Furcal's career OBP. Pierre's is only .007 better than Furcal and Walker's.

 

My offseason hopes were that the Cubs would go out and look for ways to improve the team OBP across the board. Significantly. I felt that the Cubs had the potential of putting 8 guys in the field everyday that all had the potential to post a .350+ OBP. There were cheap ways to do it, and there were expensive ways to do it. But, it could have been done. Improving the bench with guys who do better than .320 at minimum wouldn't be asking all that much either.

 

Lee, Ramirez, Barrett and Murton are 4 guys that have the potential to post .350+. Walker staying with the team or getting replaced with equal production makes 5. My offseason hopes look like this:

 

Resign Nomar, extend Walker, sign Giles, sign Lofton

 

Lofton/Hairston .370/.340 (projections with the platoon)

Walker .348

Lee .370+

Giles .400+

Ramirez .350

Nomar .360

Murton .340+

Barrett .340+

 

Now, I went low on some of these guys. But, I went with this Hairston/Lofton platoon for 1 year with the hopes that Pie would be ready in 2007. Giles locked down for 3 years with that heart of the order lefty bat is huge. Defense is a problem with this team, but the guys on the bench coming in as defensive replacements and occasional starts (Cedeno, Fontenot, Patterson, etc....) allows you to put an explosive offense on the field.

 

With the team looking at potentially making Neifi Perez a starter, going with Jacque Jones and possibly Ronny Cedeno, the OBP has the potential to be just as bad as last year.

 

Giles and Lofton were free agent signings, which allowed all of our pitching prospects to be used in trades to beef up the pitching staff and bench. It was a relatively easy direction that I believe would have made the Cubs a scary team in 2006 offensively. But, if Ramirez gets hurt, you stick Nomar over there at 3rd and move Cedeno into a starters role. If Murton isn't cutting it in LF, stick Nomar out there and move Cedeno into a starting role at SS. If Lofton would be better off the bench and Hairston is too lousy in CF, stick Patterson back in there (if he's still around), or go with Greenberg or Pie if either were showing signs of being ready.

 

Don't want Walker? Send all those prospects we sent to Florida for Luis Castillo or Juan Pierre. I'm not so fond of those prospects that I felt the Cubs got ripped off on the Pierre deal, but sticking Pierre in CF while adding Jacque Jones in left makes me feel like it was not worth it. Trading 3 prospect pitchers for a CF in the last year of his contract is the type of deal you make if you are just a player away from being as good as can possibly be to make a run at a division title. That didn't happen.

 

Anyway, Hendry sure went in some crazy tangents to get to where he is with this team right now. All that effort, and it's very arguable whether this team is any better than it was last year.

 

If Brian Giles wasn't a good direction to go because of age or because of the overall weakness it creates defensively, go after Milton Bradley, Brad Wilkerson, Luis Castillo, Cliff Floyd, etc...

 

There were several ways to get it done this offseason. Hendry focused his energy on "speed" at the top of the order and little else. I'm not sure OBP ever crossed his mind. If it did, I'd like for him to explain why Neifi received a 2 year deal. I like for him to explain Jacque Jones' 3 year deal.

 

I apologize for turning this thread into my personal rant, but it's the topic that gets my attention more than any. Juan Pierre could put up a .375 OBP next year in the lead off spot, but if Neifi Perez is hitting 2nd, the Cubs have done little to address the most glaring hole this team has had for quite some time. Only 1 team in the entire major leagues (Tampa Bay) walked to first base less than the Cubs last year. Wasn't a thing wrong with the Cubs team AVG. Not a thing at all. But, that walk rate was brutal.

[JGalt73]

I wonder how this would work.

 

Team A has OBPs in the lineup of .400, .390, .380, .370, .300, .310, .320, .330.

 

vs.

 

Team B has OBPs in the lineup of .350 from 1-8.

 

Given the exact same number of PAs in every spot in the lineup, that's .350 for each team, and assuming the exact same SLG, BA, etc. Which team would score the most runs.

 

Using slightly different numbers, but the same premise: one team with the same hitter in all nine spots vs. a "typical" lineup with the same overall team averages...BP found:

 

9 identical player lineup: mean 785 runs (range: 657-923)

"Typical" lineup: mean 801 runs (range: 665-934)

 

Not a huge difference, about 16 runs.

 

The article goes on to find minor advantages with various lineup constructions - one or two wins - with high OBP players at the top of the line-up (or at least stacked consecutively) being most effective.