ARod.....

[CP_414]

Arod not in the Yanks lineup tonight. Looks like he might be hurt afterall.

[oldstyle81]

Arod might have broken his toe

 

seeing the season is over for the cubs

 

would any of you do

 

Aram+Jones for Arod and a prospect?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Arod might have broken his toe

 

seeing the season is over for the cubs

 

would any of you do

 

Aram+Jones for Arod and a prospect?

 

Yes.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Arod might have broken his toe

 

seeing the season is over for the cubs

 

would any of you do

 

Aram+Jones for Arod and a prospect?

 

I'd prefer the Yankees throw in some cash rather than the prospect.

[CubColtPacer]

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.

 

Exactly..you'll agree with me that OBP is basically BA and walks combined, wouldn't you? I know there are other factors to OBP, but they are pretty unimportant. If that is the case, then what is the bigger factor in OBP? Why is OBP so good? Of course OBP is a better stat then average-it is a more complete stat. The question is-of the two components that primarily make up OBP, average and walks-which one is more important to have a higher number in? If you have a .350 OBP, would you rather have a team hit .320 with a few number of walks, or a team who hit .270 with a great number of walks? What I'm saying is that with similar OBP's, it is the team with the greater average who will typically have the much better offense.

[CuseCubFan69]

Is it possible that ARod is really Sargent Hulka?

 

I'm in one of the Yankee heartlands and I asked some of the big fans about trading ARod for ARam/Jones and a reliever and they said no. But then, they go on and complain more about ARod and talk about how great/clutch Jeter is. The guy is in a no win situation.

[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.

 

Exactly..you'll agree with me that OBP is basically BA and walks combined, wouldn't you? I know there are other factors to OBP, but they are pretty unimportant. If that is the case, then what is the bigger factor in OBP? Why is OBP so good? Of course OBP is a better stat then average-it is a more complete stat. The question is-of the two components that primarily make up OBP, average and walks-which one is more important to have a higher number in? If you have a .350 OBP, would you rather have a team hit .320 with a few number of walks, or a team who hit .270 with a great number of walks? What I'm saying is that with similar OBP's, it is the team with the greater average who will typically have the much better offense.

 

If OBP is equal and constant, you pick other stats that are greater. It's not that simple.

 

Compare Cincinnati to the Cubs in 2005. We had a higher BA (270-261). They were a little bit higher in SLG (446-440), but they were +15 in OBP. They scored 117 more runs than us with 53 less hits. They got more people on base, and scored a lot more runs because they drew 611 walks to our 419.

[oldcubsfan]

Cincy also had more extra base hits which tend to drive in more runs.

[goonys evil twin]

Right now, the last place team in the NL is only 8.5% lower than the first place team in terms of batting average. The last place team in walks is 37.4% lower than the first place team. Last year those numbers were 7.4% and 34.4%.

 

The biggest component in OBP is AVG. But the biggest variable is walks. AVG is relatively similar from team to team, but walks are the difference between the low OBP teams and high OBP teams. Walks are how you make up the difference between being in the bottom half and being in the upper half. The Cubs will not big a top tier OBP team simply by hitting more frequently. They have to walk more. They aren't just below average in walks, they are dead last in walks, and they've been there for a longggggggggg time.

 

Taking walks is a good thing. Not taking walks is a bad thing. If you walk more your OBP will be higher and you will score more.

[Geech]

If you walk more your OBP will be higher and you will score more.

 

But average is the larger component of OBP, Goony. If you have two teams with approximately equal OBP, the higher average team will usually score more runs. (I figure I'll save him the time of replying.)

[davearm]

If OBP is equal and constant, you pick other stats that are greater.

This statement is correct, and proves CubColtPacer's point, because the next stat to look at is AVG.

 

If OBP is equal between Team A and Team B, the team with the higher AVG is going to score more runs, because hits are 2-3x more effective in producing runs than are walks.

 

Everybody agrees that more OBP is better. But if you had to choose between more hits or more walks to achieve that higher OBP, you'd better take more hits.

 

The Cubs' problem is that they get a similar numbers of hits, but many fewer walks, than their opponents (thus Cubs' OBP < opp OBP).

 

One solution is to leave hits unchanged, and get as many walks as the other guys (such that Cubs' OBP = opp OBP).

 

An even better solution is to leave walks unchanged, and get more hits than the other guys (such that Cubs' OBP = opp OBP).

 

In the former instance, runs scored should be roughly equal. In the latter, the Cubs should score more than their opponents.

[CubColtPacer]

Right now, the last place team in the NL is only 8.5% lower than the first place team in terms of batting average. The last place team in walks is 37.4% lower than the first place team. Last year those numbers were 7.4% and 34.4%.

 

The biggest component in OBP is AVG. But the biggest variable is walks. AVG is relatively similar from team to team, but walks are the difference between the low OBP teams and high OBP teams. Walks are how you make up the difference between being in the bottom half and being in the upper half. The Cubs will not big a top tier OBP team simply by hitting more frequently. They have to walk more. They aren't just below average in walks, they are dead last in walks, and they've been there for a longggggggggg time.

 

Taking walks is a good thing. Not taking walks is a bad thing. If you walk more your OBP will be higher and you will score more.

 

True-walks are a key variable, but remember also that a team is going to have about 80 percent of the at bats come from average, while only 20 percent will come from walks or less in OBP. So the difference in the percentages will have to factor that in. You're right-a team that is dead last in either will not have a good OBP. It is just better to be 1st in average and 15th in walks then 1st in walks and 15th in average. That will cause many more runs scored, but being in the bottom 10 of either one makes it very difficult to have a top 10 OBP, and therefore very hard to have a top 10 OPS.

[Geech]

This statement is correct, and proves CubColtPacer's point, because the next stat to look at is AVG.

 

Actually, I think the next stat to look at is SLG.

[goonys evil twin]

All these theoretical scenarios are pointless.

 

The Cubs need to walk more. They are dead last in walks and that is a bad thing.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Right now, the last place team in the NL is only 8.5% lower than the first place team in terms of batting average. The last place team in walks is 37.4% lower than the first place team. Last year those numbers were 7.4% and 34.4%.

 

And the difference in runs scored is 24%.

[Geech]

All these theoretical scenarios are pointless.

 

The Cubs need to walk more. They are dead last in walks and that is a bad thing.

 

And rather nonsensical for that matter. There's more to scoring runs than average and OBP, so framing the debate is such narrow parameters is just an exercise in futility.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

This statement is correct, and proves CubColtPacer's point, because the next stat to look at is AVG.

 

Actually, I think the next stat to look at is SLG.

 

I second that.

[CubColtPacer]

This statement is correct, and proves CubColtPacer's point, because the next stat to look at is AVG.

 

Actually, I think the next stat to look at is SLG.

 

I second that.

 

I third that, but teams with higher averages tend to have higher slugging percentages. The poster originally said that the reason our offense was struggling was due to lack of walks-I was just showing that he just hit a minor piece of the puzzle-our lack of slugging is a far bigger problem.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

This statement is correct, and proves CubColtPacer's point, because the next stat to look at is AVG.

 

Actually, I think the next stat to look at is SLG.

 

I second that.

 

I agree and think that Jason Giambi is the poster child(i.e high obp, high slg, below average batting avg).

 

Giambi' 2006 stats

AVG .264 | HR 28 | RBI 76 | OBP .419 | SLG .610

 

His batting average is inconsequential with his obp and slg.

[Geech]

I third that, but teams with higher averages tend to have higher slugging percentages. The poster originally said that the reason our offense was struggling was due to lack of walks-I was just showing that he just hit a minor piece of the puzzle-our lack of slugging is a far bigger problem.

 

I'm not really sure that SLG actually is our biggest problem. But that aside for the moment, why didn't you frame the debate in those terms? Why squabble over the tertiary matter of how much of the OBP is average?

[CubColtPacer]

I third that, but teams with higher averages tend to have higher slugging percentages. The poster originally said that the reason our offense was struggling was due to lack of walks-I was just showing that he just hit a minor piece of the puzzle-our lack of slugging is a far bigger problem.

 

I'm not really sure that SLG actually is our biggest problem. But that aside for the moment, why didn't you frame the debate in those terms? Why squabble over the tertiary matter of how much of the OBP is average?

 

I did this because a high OBP can be achieved by either a high average or high numbers of walks, and high averages influencing OBP have a greater effect on runs scored then high walk totals. Do we need to walk more? Definitely. Do walks correlate with runs scored? Not very well-I only got into what makes up OBP when a poster thought that I was confusing the two topics. We need to do both, but if we can increase one by the same amount, average would be the better one to increase in order to maximize run production.

[fromthestretch]

Right now, the last place team in the NL is only 8.5% lower than the first place team in terms of batting average. The last place team in walks is 37.4% lower than the first place team. Last year those numbers were 7.4% and 34.4%.

 

The biggest component in OBP is AVG. But the biggest variable is walks. AVG is relatively similar from team to team, but walks are the difference between the low OBP teams and high OBP teams. Walks are how you make up the difference between being in the bottom half and being in the upper half. The Cubs will not big a top tier OBP team simply by hitting more frequently. They have to walk more. They aren't just below average in walks, they are dead last in walks, and they've been there for a longggggggggg time.

 

Taking walks is a good thing. Not taking walks is a bad thing. If you walk more your OBP will be higher and you will score more.

 

True-walks are a key variable, but remember also that a team is going to have about 80 percent of the at bats come from average, while only 20 percent will come from walks or less in OBP. So the difference in the percentages will have to factor that in. You're right-a team that is dead last in either will not have a good OBP. It is just better to be 1st in average and 15th in walks then 1st in walks and 15th in average. That will cause many more runs scored, but being in the bottom 10 of either one makes it very difficult to have a top 10 OBP, and therefore very hard to have a top 10 OPS.

 

Batting average, however, is not the best way to project future OBP. Take Derrek Lee for example. We can be fairly certain that Lee will have a good OBP for the next few years. The reason is due in large part to his walk rate. For his career, he's walked in just over 11% of his plate appearances. Obviously, the higher his batting average is, the higher his OBP will be. But we can be pretty sure that if he only hits his career average of .276, instead of the .335 avg. from last year, he's still going to have an OBP of .360 or more.

 

Now take Carlos Lee, who coming into this season was a career .284 hitter. Carlos Lee has walked in just over 7% of his plate appearances in his career. Outside of one season, his OBP has been heavily dependant on his batting average, which fluctuates quite a bit. If Carlos Lee hits .276, chances are, his OBP will most likely be in the .330 range, much lower than Derrek Lee's. Juan Pierre is probably a better example of this. Pierre needs to pretty much hit .300 for his OBP to even begin to become respectable. If he hits in the .270 range, he'll be lucky if his OBP gets up to .330. Considering he doesn't bring power to the table like Carlos Lee, .330 from Pierre is much less acceptable.

 

While there are some hitters who can consistently post a great OBP with low walk rates (Ichiro, Tony Gwynn), those hitters are rare. They are valuable, but rare.

[cubfan]

Over the weekend I think it was said that the Cubs have a higher team AVG than the Mets but the Mets are first in the NL in runs scored and the Cubs are last. The Cubs are 29th in obp the Mets are 16th. The Mets are first in slg while the Cubs are 28th so SLG must be the most important stat.

I think you can't look at any one stat and read to much into it so I'm just joking about SLG being the most important stat. OBP, AVG, SLG, ect all have their uses but I think they all need to be looked at together to give a true picture and trying to pick out one stat as being the most important is not going to work. I would think a team that only had players like Dave Kingman would have great SLG but would not be a very good team.

[Geech]

Batting average, however, is not the best way to project future OBP. Take Derrek Lee for example. We can be fairly certain that Lee will have a good OBP for the next few years. The reason is due in large part to his walk rate. For his career, he's walked in just over 11% of his plate appearances. Obviously, the higher his batting average is, the higher his OBP will be. But we can be pretty sure that if he only hits his career average of .276, instead of the .335 avg. from last year, he's still going to have an OBP of .360 or more.

 

Now take Carlos Lee, who coming into this season was a career .284 hitter. Carlos Lee has walked in just over 7% of his plate appearances in his career. Outside of one season, his OBP has been heavily dependant on his batting average, which fluctuates quite a bit. If Carlos Lee hits .276, chances are, his OBP will most likely be in the .330 range, much lower than Derrek Lee's. Juan Pierre is probably a better example of this. Pierre needs to pretty much hit .300 for his OBP to even begin to become respectable. If he hits in the .270 range, he'll be lucky if his OBP gets up to .330. Considering he doesn't bring power to the table like Carlos Lee, .330 from Pierre is much less acceptable.

 

While there are some hitters who can consistently post a great OBP with low walk rates (Ichiro, Tony Gwynn), those hitters are rare. They are valuable, but rare.

 

Indeed. It's far better to find a hitter who typically posts both good OBP and good power than to try and worry about how much of your OBP is walks and how much is average. That's just so far down on the list of concerns.

[goonys evil twin]

I think you can't look at any one stat and read to much into it so I'm just joking about SLG being the most important stat. OBP, AVG, SLG, ect all have their uses but I think they all need to be looked at together to give a true picture and trying to pick out one stat as being the most important is not going to work.

 

You do have to look at more than one stat. The problem with the Cubs is the one stat that has been holding them back for a very long time is walks. They've hit for average and they've hit for power, but they've haven't walked in a long time. And they've been a bad run scoring team because of that. All they had to do was walk a little more in those years and they would have been a great offense. But they never even considered addressing that problem, and wouldn't even admit it was a problem. It's the one problem that is haunting this team that has haunted this team and will continue haunt the team because they don't even know it exists. People shout louder about it because of this situation.