ARod.....

[goonys evil twin]

I would have killed to have a GM comes anywhere close to the results Beane has had with the A's. What he has done with that situation is pretty amazing, especially when you compare it to the crap people like Hendry do with twice the resources. It's baffling to me how Cubs fans can look at Beane and say he really hasn't done anything as a GM, and especially to pretend that he's got it so much easier over there. Cubs fans are notoriously receptive to losing. They went bonkers in celebration of such meaningless crap as a wild card victory (98) and back to back .500 seasons. Beane would have Cubs fans eating out of his hand if he got the team to accomplish 25% of what the A's have done under his watch. His worst season the past 6 years resulted in 88 wins. Most Cubs fans were ready to give Hendry their first born for that total. 5 straight 90+ win totals? Are you kidding me? Do you know how he'd be treated in Chicago for that accomplishment?

 

I can only laugh when Cubs fans try to pretend Beane isn't anything to write home about as a GM.

[soccer10k]

He signed Esteban Loiaza to a 3 year, 21 million dollar dea.

 

I certainly agree that that was a questionable signing.

 

I agree it was a questionable signing but everybody makes mistakes. Billy Beane is not immune to this. But tell me, what is worse, Beane signing Loiaza or Hendry signing Perez and Rusch?

[badgercub]

 

In what way has Beane been exposed? His team is in first place with a bottom third payroll (below every team in the division). The Mets are doing it right because they can go out and spend spend spend. Oakland has to be efficient, which is where the true genius of Beane lies. Bigger market teams can take risk and be less efficient by spending on extras. But Beane has had to get by on the bare essentials, and he's absolutely blown away teams like the Mets and Cubs in terms of stable winning over the past several years.

 

I think "exposed" is the wrong word with loaded connotations, but as I said on the previous page, I think he deserves some criticism from all points of view. yes, he has a low payroll, but a large chunk of it is taken up with two players who suck, not an efficient use of resources. the young guys who have come to the ML level are not the diamond in the rough/Moneyball type draft picks, they are players that any GM would have taken, so yes he's drafted players that came to the major leagues, but at no greater clip as any other GM who would have had 10-12 first round draft picks in two years. he does keep his teams competitive, but in a division that has fallen off precipitously in the past few years, and the strength of his team is generally NOT derived from the strength of the offense, it has generally been pitching, by pitchers who, again, any GM would have taken. his good signs and trades have been equalized by his bad signs and trades.

 

and I think one thing that always gets left out of the discussion of Beane is the position he is in. doesn't really matter what the team is doing, they generally draw the same number of fans in Oakland...not alot. he doesn't have to deal with the sort of 'win now' mentality of the fan base and local sports journalists as in Anaheim, Arlington, Seattle, New York, Chicago (northside). that allows him to sit back and cherry pick, where other GMs could not.

 

where I think he may have been "exposed" is the weakness of preaching patience. as I alluded to in a couple of other threads, patience makes no difference if the players OBP sucks. patience is a means to an end, not an end. the point of patience is getting a good pitch to hit and then hitting said pitch, and if said pitch does not come, getting on base anyway. a .80 difference between ave and obp is of little value if the player is batting .225. that is what Beane is experiencing right now. guys who can draw all the BB/PA you want, but who can't hit.

 

edit for one more criticism - his payroll has risen significantly the past couple years, both in terms of amount and relative to other teams, yet he has not been able to parlay that into success on the field. still operating lower than most teams

 

also, I think he is a fine GM, but not the boy genius he's been made out to be.

 

The A's have not been successful on the field? What are you smoking, they win year in and year out what more do you want? Beane puts a product on the field that gives them the capacity to win, now they haven't won a W.S. but as a fan I would take a legit opportunity to be in the playoffs every year. I don't know how you can make some of your comments with a straight face.

[CubColtPacer]

I would have killed to have a GM comes anywhere close to the results Beane has had with the A's. What he has done with that situation is pretty amazing, especially when you compare it to the crap people like Hendry do with twice the resources. It's baffling to me how Cubs fans can look at Beane and say he really hasn't done anything as a GM, and especially to pretend that he's got it so much easier over there. Cubs fans are notoriously receptive to losing. They went bonkers in celebration of such meaningless crap as a wild card victory (98) and back to back .500 seasons. Beane would have Cubs fans eating out of his hand if he got the team to accomplish 25% of what the A's have done under his watch. His worst season the past 6 years resulted in 88 wins. Most Cubs fans were ready to give Hendry their first born for that total. 5 straight 90+ win totals? Are you kidding me? Do you know how he'd be treated in Chicago for that accomplishment?

 

I can only laugh when Cubs fans try to pretend Beane isn't anything to write home about as a GM.

 

I don't think that most people would claim that Beane is a bad GM. I think 2 problems arise though when looking at following his offensive philosophy. 1) Yes, Beane has a much smaller payroll. Do you think his offensive philosophy might change with a larger payroll? As some have said, Beane values efficiency because he has to. Most efficient does not always equal ideal. The Yankees are not efficient whatsoever, but yet they have very good offensive numbers. The Cubs could easily do somewhat of the same thing.

2)Many times, Oakland's offense has kept them from advancing further in the playoffs. They simply have not had enough offense to get past the first round even when they had their big 3.

I think even Beane would say that he might value different types of hitters if he had the flexibility that the Cubs have.

[goonys evil twin]

Beane's win totals (65 the year before he was hired)

 

74

87

91

102

103

96

91

88

 

Man. I'm all about wanting the World Series, but I'd have a lot less to complain about if that was the Cubs record the past 8 years. Even if that wasn't with a payroll in the bottom third of all teams that would be impressive.

 

A lot of people like to point out the 5-6 good moves Hendy has made as evidence that fans can't complain about him. And some people like to point out the bad moves by Beane to justify criticizing him. But none of those things matter. What matters is the record, and Beane's record speaks for itself.

[badgercub]

I would have killed to have a GM comes anywhere close to the results Beane has had with the A's. What he has done with that situation is pretty amazing, especially when you compare it to the crap people like Hendry do with twice the resources. It's baffling to me how Cubs fans can look at Beane and say he really hasn't done anything as a GM, and especially to pretend that he's got it so much easier over there. Cubs fans are notoriously receptive to losing. They went bonkers in celebration of such meaningless crap as a wild card victory (98) and back to back .500 seasons. Beane would have Cubs fans eating out of his hand if he got the team to accomplish 25% of what the A's have done under his watch. His worst season the past 6 years resulted in 88 wins. Most Cubs fans were ready to give Hendry their first born for that total. 5 straight 90+ win totals? Are you kidding me? Do you know how he'd be treated in Chicago for that accomplishment?

 

I can only laugh when Cubs fans try to pretend Beane isn't anything to write home about as a GM.

 

I don't think that most people would claim that Beane is a bad GM. I think 2 problems arise though when looking at following his offensive philosophy. 1) Yes, Beane has a much smaller payroll. Do you think his offensive philosophy might change with a larger payroll? As some have said, Beane values efficiency because he has to. Most efficient does not always equal ideal. The Yankees are not efficient whatsoever, but yet they have very good offensive numbers. The Cubs could easily do somewhat of the same thing.

2)Many times, Oakland's offense has kept them from advancing further in the playoffs. They simply have not had enough offense to get past the first round even when they had their big 3.

I think even Beane would say that he might value different types of hitters if he had the flexibility that the Cubs have.

 

If Beane had a bigger payroll to play with I think he would absolutely put together some dominant teams. The guy is smart, he would've been able to hold onto guys like Tejada or Giambi or some of his pitching and still exploited inefficiencies to fill in around them, what would lead you to believe he would stray from his area of expertise?

[goonys evil twin]

1) Yes, Beane has a much smaller payroll. Do you think his offensive philosophy might change with a larger payroll? As some have said, Beane values efficiency because he has to. Most efficient does not always equal ideal. The Yankees are not efficient whatsoever, but yet they have very good offensive numbers. The Cubs could easily do somewhat of the same thing.

 

Sounds like something Dusty would say. The Yankees have been doing the walk/obp/slg thing for years. They can just pay for better versions of that stuff. They have good offensive numbers because they get the most talented players who have the best plate discipline.

 

If the Cubs were smart they'd do a scaled down version of the same thing. You don't need to go after every big time free agent, and there's no need to throw huge money after problems that can be fixed with minimal effort.

 

 

 

Are people still arguing that the lack of walks isn't behind the Cubs lack of runs and lack of wins for the past several years? Are we still debating whether or not the Cubs should take more walks?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Beane's win totals (65 the year before he was hired)

 

74

87

91

102

103

96

91

88

 

Man. I'm all about wanting the World Series, but I'd have a lot less to complain about if that was the Cubs record the past 8 years. Even if that wasn't with a payroll in the bottom third of all teams that would be impressive.

 

A lot of people like to point out the 5-6 good moves Hendy has made as evidence that fans can't complain about him. And some people like to point out the bad moves by Beane to justify criticizing him. But none of those things matter. What matters is the record, and Beane's record speaks for itself.

 

Excellent post, goony. Whether anyone loves Beane or hates him, his record with the payroll he has received speaks for itself.

 

The only thing he lacks is the WS championships. And while that is the ultimate goal, like the Braves at least Beane puts his teams in a place to have a chance for the WS.

[badgercub]

1) Yes, Beane has a much smaller payroll. Do you think his offensive philosophy might change with a larger payroll? As some have said, Beane values efficiency because he has to. Most efficient does not always equal ideal. The Yankees are not efficient whatsoever, but yet they have very good offensive numbers. The Cubs could easily do somewhat of the same thing.

 

Sounds like something Dusty would say. The Yankees have been doing the walk/obp/slg thing for years. They can just pay for better versions of that stuff. They have good offensive numbers because they get the most talented players who have the best plate discipline.

 

If the Cubs were smart they'd do a scaled down version of the same thing. You don't need to go after every big time free agent, and there's no need to throw huge money after problems that can be fixed with minimal effort.

 

 

 

Are people still arguing that the lack of walks isn't behind the Cubs lack of runs and lack of wins for the past several years? Are we still debating whether or not the Cubs should take more walks?

 

I agree, nothing wrong with spending money on great hitters, the problem is the Cubs don't do that they over pay for crap.

[CubColtPacer]

1) Yes, Beane has a much smaller payroll. Do you think his offensive philosophy might change with a larger payroll? As some have said, Beane values efficiency because he has to. Most efficient does not always equal ideal. The Yankees are not efficient whatsoever, but yet they have very good offensive numbers. The Cubs could easily do somewhat of the same thing.

 

Sounds like something Dusty would say. The Yankees have been doing the walk/obp/slg thing for years. They can just pay for better versions of that stuff. They have good offensive numbers because they get the most talented players who have the best plate discipline.

 

If the Cubs were smart they'd do a scaled down version of the same thing. You don't need to go after every big time free agent, and there's no need to throw huge money after problems that can be fixed with minimal effort.

 

 

 

Are people still arguing that the lack of walks isn't behind the Cubs lack of runs and lack of wins for the past several years? Are we still debating whether or not the Cubs should take more walks?

 

Yes, we should take more walks. Do you need to be anywhere near a leader in walks to win the WS? Absolutely not. The White Sox last year-25th out of 30 teams in walks. The Astros? 20th out of 30 teams. 3 of the top teams in walks last year finished in the bottom 10 team of runs. There is simply no clear evidence that walks have more than a slight effect on runs scored. OBP, yes-it adds the high effect of average and the slight effect of walks. Walking a great deal is not a great indicator of scoring runs or having success on the field.

[badgercub]

1) Yes, Beane has a much smaller payroll. Do you think his offensive philosophy might change with a larger payroll? As some have said, Beane values efficiency because he has to. Most efficient does not always equal ideal. The Yankees are not efficient whatsoever, but yet they have very good offensive numbers. The Cubs could easily do somewhat of the same thing.

 

Sounds like something Dusty would say. The Yankees have been doing the walk/obp/slg thing for years. They can just pay for better versions of that stuff. They have good offensive numbers because they get the most talented players who have the best plate discipline.

 

If the Cubs were smart they'd do a scaled down version of the same thing. You don't need to go after every big time free agent, and there's no need to throw huge money after problems that can be fixed with minimal effort.

 

 

 

Are people still arguing that the lack of walks isn't behind the Cubs lack of runs and lack of wins for the past several years? Are we still debating whether or not the Cubs should take more walks?

 

Yes, we should take more walks. Do you need to be anywhere near a leader in walks to win the WS? Absolutely not. The White Sox last year-25th out of 30 teams in walks. The Astros? 20th out of 30 teams. 3 of the top teams in walks last year finished in the bottom 10 team of runs. There is simply no clear evidence that walks have more than a slight effect on runs scored. OBP, yes-it adds the high effect of average and the slight effect of walks. Walking a great deal is not a great indicator of scoring runs or having success on the field.

 

Jim, is that you?

[fromthestretch]

He signed Esteban Loiaza to a 3 year, 21 million dollar dea.

 

I certainly agree that that was a questionable signing.

 

I agree it was a questionable signing but everybody makes mistakes. Billy Beane is not immune to this. But tell me, what is worse, Beane signing Loiaza or Hendry signing Perez and Rusch?

 

I think we all know the answer to that. Beane's signing is only wasting one roster spot, not two.

 

I'm not criticizing Beane. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, his team wins. I'll certainly question some of his moves (like the Loaiza signing), but his team wins, and that's a fact that can't be questioned.

[fromthestretch]

1) Yes, Beane has a much smaller payroll. Do you think his offensive philosophy might change with a larger payroll? As some have said, Beane values efficiency because he has to. Most efficient does not always equal ideal. The Yankees are not efficient whatsoever, but yet they have very good offensive numbers. The Cubs could easily do somewhat of the same thing.

 

Sounds like something Dusty would say. The Yankees have been doing the walk/obp/slg thing for years. They can just pay for better versions of that stuff. They have good offensive numbers because they get the most talented players who have the best plate discipline.

 

If the Cubs were smart they'd do a scaled down version of the same thing. You don't need to go after every big time free agent, and there's no need to throw huge money after problems that can be fixed with minimal effort.

 

 

 

Are people still arguing that the lack of walks isn't behind the Cubs lack of runs and lack of wins for the past several years? Are we still debating whether or not the Cubs should take more walks?

 

Yes, we should take more walks. Do you need to be anywhere near a leader in walks to win the WS? Absolutely not. The White Sox last year-25th out of 30 teams in walks. The Astros? 20th out of 30 teams. 3 of the top teams in walks last year finished in the bottom 10 team of runs. There is simply no clear evidence that walks have more than a slight effect on runs scored. OBP, yes-it adds the high effect of average and the slight effect of walks. Walking a great deal is not a great indicator of scoring runs or having success on the field.

 

And both the Astros and Sox hit for power and got phenomenal seasons from their pitching staffs to make up for their weakness in OBP.

 

A team can certainly win with an average/below-average OBP. But in order to do it, you need to be exceptionally strong in other areas and stay healthy.

[soccer10k]

He signed Esteban Loiaza to a 3 year, 21 million dollar dea.

 

I certainly agree that that was a questionable signing.

 

I agree it was a questionable signing but everybody makes mistakes. Billy Beane is not immune to this. But tell me, what is worse, Beane signing Loiaza or Hendry signing Perez and Rusch?

 

I think we all know the answer to that. Beane's signing is only wasting one roster spot, not two.

 

I'm not criticizing Beane. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, his team wins. I'll certainly question some of his moves (like the Loaiza signing), but his team wins, and that's a fact that can't be questioned.

 

Fair enough.

[goonys evil twin]

There is simply no clear evidence that walks have more than a slight effect on runs scored.

 

You're wrong, but I get the impression that you don't care.

[jjgman21]

lot of strawman arguments going here. I don't think anyone but one poster 2 or 3 pages ago slammed Beane or gave an indication that he or his philosophies are bad.

 

if all of this is in response to what I wrote, I was merely stating that I don't think he's done everything that was possible with the situation he's been in, that he's not the boy wonder everyone made him out to be a few years ago, etc. I was not arguing that he is a bad GM.

 

I do take issue with the notion that what the A's have done in his regime is so attributable to him. many GMs could have ripped off a good run with the team, farm system, and draft picks soon to come that he was handed. who couldn't build a good run with Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, and the players acquired as a result of trading those guys or via the draft picks they brought.

 

finally, I don't think anyone, including Cubs fans, should be barred from criticizing anybody for any reason, even a GM who has a team that has had a good run recently. I doubt anyone would pay any attention to him whatsoever if not for those who claimed and continue to claim him the boy wonder GM, especially when a pretty solid argument could be made that he hasn't done what was possible with what he was handed and that he's on the verge of some pretty thin years.

 

if he's retained for the next five years and the A's remain competitive like they have the past 5, I'll stop arguing about his greatness. until then, I think his grade has to be an Inc.

 

edit - did he draft one or two of Zito, Hudson, Mulder?

Edited July 18, 2006 by jjgman21

[CubColtPacer]

1) Yes, Beane has a much smaller payroll. Do you think his offensive philosophy might change with a larger payroll? As some have said, Beane values efficiency because he has to. Most efficient does not always equal ideal. The Yankees are not efficient whatsoever, but yet they have very good offensive numbers. The Cubs could easily do somewhat of the same thing.

 

Sounds like something Dusty would say. The Yankees have been doing the walk/obp/slg thing for years. They can just pay for better versions of that stuff. They have good offensive numbers because they get the most talented players who have the best plate discipline.

 

If the Cubs were smart they'd do a scaled down version of the same thing. You don't need to go after every big time free agent, and there's no need to throw huge money after problems that can be fixed with minimal effort.

 

 

 

Are people still arguing that the lack of walks isn't behind the Cubs lack of runs and lack of wins for the past several years? Are we still debating whether or not the Cubs should take more walks?

 

Yes, we should take more walks. Do you need to be anywhere near a leader in walks to win the WS? Absolutely not. The White Sox last year-25th out of 30 teams in walks. The Astros? 20th out of 30 teams. 3 of the top teams in walks last year finished in the bottom 10 team of runs. There is simply no clear evidence that walks have more than a slight effect on runs scored. OBP, yes-it adds the high effect of average and the slight effect of walks. Walking a great deal is not a great indicator of scoring runs or having success on the field.

 

Jim, is that you?

 

Well, look at the numbers, and tell me which one is a better indicator of runs scored-average, or walks. You will find that average does a 2 to 3 times better job of pointing to a high scoring team. Walks do help-which is why we use OBP to combine their help with the greater help of average. The stats absolutely bear this out 100 percent, and if you want, I'd be happy to prove it to you.

[fromthestretch]

Hasn't Oakland gone through a lot of injuries on offense? Ellis, Crosby, Chavez, Thomas, Bradley just off the top of my head?

 

yes, they have had their share of missed time. but if you're going to excuse their performance because of injuries, I don't want to see you turn around and bitch about Hendry and Baker making injury excuses. the missed time of the A's also hasn't been that significant. respective PAs (approx) of the players you listed: 235, 350, 325, 275, 122.

 

of the players you listed, only Bradley and Ellis have missed significant time, and Lee missed comparable time as Bradley and Barrett missed comparable time as Ellis (due to injury and suspension). and the expected offensive production of Lee/Barrett >>>> the expected offensive production of Bradley/Ellis, so the Cubs injuries have aruably hurt more than the A's injuries.

 

There's a difference between relying on healthy guys that get hurt after you bring them in and bringing in/relying on guys that have a history of getting hurt to be key parts to your team. Also, even though Chavez hasn't missed significant time, he's playing hurt. Tendinitis in both forearms can really impact a player's ability to swing a bat. Ask Brad Wilkerson that.

 

well there's two problems with your retort.

 

1. I said nothing about pitchers. neither Lee nor Barrett had any injury history whatsoever before this year.

 

2. Bradley, Thomas, Crosby, Ellis, Harden = key parts of the A's Beane relied on even though they have a history of getting hurt.

 

1. No, but Ramirez has. And you can't have this injury argument without including the pitchers.

 

2. Thomas is being paid $500,000 this season. They basically threw very little money at him, hoping he'd provide some pop here and there. They've more than gotten their money's worth for him. Even with injuries, Crosby still has played quite a bit...he's just not producing. Three people that have "hurt" Oakland this season (I use the term "hurt" loosely since they are still in first place) are Chavez (forearm tendinitis), Crosby (various injuries and overall lack of production), and Johnson, who just happened to have a terrible start to the season. Don't get me wrong, other guys are having medicore seasons for them, but those three guys were counted on to be a big part of the offense.

 

Despite all this, he keeps winning. His team was able to withstand injuries and sub-par performances. The Cubs haven't been able to.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Well, look at the numbers, and tell me which one is a better indicator of runs scored-average, or walks. You will find that average does a 2 to 3 times better job of pointing to a high scoring team. Walks do help-which is why we use OBP to combine their help with the greater help of average. The stats absolutely bear this out 100 percent, and if you want, I'd be happy to prove it to you.

 

The 2005 Cubs were 9th in BA, 20th in runs scored. Their OBP was 20th. The 2006 Cubs are 17th in BA, 30th in runs scored. Their OBP is 29th.

[soccer10k]

Well, look at the numbers, and tell me which one is a better indicator of runs scored-average, or walks. You will find that average does a 2 to 3 times better job of pointing to a high scoring team. Walks do help-which is why we use OBP to combine their help with the greater help of average. The stats absolutely bear this out 100 percent, and if you want, I'd be happy to prove it to you.

 

The 2005 Cubs were 9th in BA, 20th in runs scored. Their OBP was 20th. The 2006 Cubs are 17th in BA, 30th in runs scored. Their OBP is 29th.

 

Game. Set. Match.

[mul21]

Well, look at the numbers, and tell me which one is a better indicator of runs scored-average, or walks. You will find that average does a 2 to 3 times better job of pointing to a high scoring team. Walks do help-which is why we use OBP to combine their help with the greater help of average. The stats absolutely bear this out 100 percent, and if you want, I'd be happy to prove it to you.

 

The 2005 Cubs were 9th in BA, 20th in runs scored. Their OBP was 20th. The 2006 Cubs are 17th in BA, 30th in runs scored. Their OBP is 29th.

 

Where were they in OPS relative to runs scored?

 

Bottom line is, I think OBP as a whole is the important thing here. Whether it comes from a guy hitting .340 and having a .380 OBP or hitting .270 and having a .380 OBP. If you don't look at it as a whole, you're not getting the entire picture. Now, there aren't a ton of guys who can hit .340, so you're going to need some patience to get to the desired OBP.

[fromthestretch]

lot of strawman arguments going here. I don't think anyone but one poster 2 or 3 pages ago slammed Beane or gave an indication that he or his philosophies are bad.

 

You'd probably get a lot less flack if you'd quit the condescending remarks.

 

if all of this is in response to what I wrote, I was merely stating that I don't think he's done everything that was possible with the situation he's been in, that he's not the boy wonder everyone made him out to be a few years ago, etc. I was not arguing that he is a bad GM.

 

I think you (or anyone else) would be hard pressed to find a GM that has done everything that was possible with their own situation. Not one person has said Beane is perfect, so don't make it seem like anyone has. He's made decisions that people have questioned. However, his results have been very good.

 

I do take issue with the notion that what the A's have done in his regime is so attributable to him. many GMs could have ripped off a good run with the team, farm system, and draft picks soon to come that he was handed. who couldn't build a good run with Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Giambi, Tejada, Chavez, and the players acquired as a result of trading those guys or via the draft picks they brought.

 

Other GMs have had good position in the draft, with more money to offer to higher picks, and have done squat with it. He's managed to be creative with money for draft picks. And you have to give him credit for drafting some of those guys, signing some of them to 3-4 year deals to keep them on the team at a relatively low cost through some of their peak years (and avoiding arbitration), and then getting good return on trades for some of those players when they were going to be too expensive to re-sign. For the others, he got high draft picks. Over the next couple years, we'll see how effective he was with those picks.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The 2005 Cubs were 9th in BA, 20th in runs scored. Their OBP was 20th. The 2006 Cubs are 17th in BA, 30th in runs scored. Their OBP is 29th.

 

Where were they in OPS relative to runs scored?

 

Bottom line is, I think OBP as a whole is the important thing here. Whether it comes from a guy hitting .340 and having a .380 OBP or hitting .270 and having a .380 OBP. If you don't look at it as a whole, you're not getting the entire picture. Now, there aren't a ton of guys who can hit .340, so you're going to need some patience to get to the desired OBP.

 

2005 - 8th in OPS (6th SLG)

2006 - 29th in OPS (28th SLG)

 

Last season, we did not score because we did not get people on base. This season we suck at most things, but we're above average at hitting singles.

Edited July 18, 2006 by Ding Dong Johnson

[CubColtPacer]

Well, look at the numbers, and tell me which one is a better indicator of runs scored-average, or walks. You will find that average does a 2 to 3 times better job of pointing to a high scoring team. Walks do help-which is why we use OBP to combine their help with the greater help of average. The stats absolutely bear this out 100 percent, and if you want, I'd be happy to prove it to you.

 

The 2005 Cubs were 9th in BA, 20th in runs scored. Their OBP was 20th. The 2006 Cubs are 17th in BA, 30th in runs scored. Their OBP is 29th.

 

Ok, Tampa Bay last year-29th in walks, 12th in runs scored. 3rd in Batting Average, 16th in OBP.

the Angels- 24th in walks, 11th in runs. 7th in batting average, 19th in OBP.

 

If you look at teams with a high batting average and low walk totals, you notice that their runs scored are much closer to their average then to their level of walks. Typically, a team will be close in rank of their league between their OBP and runs scored, yes. A team with high walks and low average will be on the lower end of the range of rank, and a team with high average and low walks will be on the higher end of that spectrum. Note-this does not mean that it is not the most beneficial to have a high BA and high numbers of walks-it is, and the best scoring teams generally do that because it is the best of both worlds. However, the best indicator is average, and then walks. I will have a post in baseball discussions either tonight or tomorrow showing this fact in better detail.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Ok, Tampa Bay last year-29th in walks, 12th in runs scored. 3rd in Batting Average, 16th in OBP.

the Angels- 24th in walks, 11th in runs. 7th in batting average, 19th in OBP.

 

OBP is more than just walks, my friend.