Homeruns or OBP?

[JoshiQ]

Here is a debate I've had with several people and I think it is an interesting question. Maybe it's a no-brainer, but I'd like to see where everybody stands on this.

 

Here are the two options:

 

You can have a guy on your team that walks every single time at bat. He never gets a basehit, but he has a 1.000 OBP because every time at bat he walks.

 

Or you can have a guy that hits ONE homerun every game. He never walks and only gets one hit a game, that being the homerun. It could be a grandslam or a solo shot in the first. You can't choose when to use the homerun, you just know it will happen sometime in his 4-5 at bats.

 

And I don't want any "Well, I'd sit the homerun guy until the bases are loaded, pinch hit and then immediately sub him." Pretend like you have to keep both guys in the whole game.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

As much as I love OBP, I think a guy who will finish the year with 162 HRs would be a bit more valuable.

[CubColtPacer]

I definitely want the guy that will hit 1 homerun a game for 2 big reasons.

 

1) Your team will never get shutout. Walking every at-bat is then contingent on your teammates. When your teammates are hitting well, that team may score 10. When they aren't, you might score 0 or 1. A guy who hits a homerun every single game will make it more likely that your team can get to 4-5 runs in each game, which is typically the magic number to win. Anyway you can get your team to be more consistent in their run production, even if the number of runs for the two different teams is the exact same at the end of the year, the consistent team will result in more wins.

 

2) The OPS for the guy who hits a homerun every game will be higher unless he averages more than 5 at-bats a game. Nobody averages anywhere close to that many at-bats, so his OPS will be a couple hundred points higher than the guy who walks every time.

[Guest]

Definitely the HR guy.

[rawaction]

Does the guy with the 1.000 OBP have speed, or does he just clog the bases for people that can run? How much grit is involved?

[Derwood]

Does the guy with the 1.000 OBP have speed, or does he just clog the bases for people that can run? How much grit is involved?

 

is the HR guy batting 1st or 5th? :roll:

[KingCubsFan]

 

Or you can have a guy that hits ONE homerun every game. He never walks and only gets one hit a game, that being the homerun. It could be a grandslam or a solo shot in the first. You can't choose when to use the homerun, you just know it will happen sometime in his 4-5 at bats.

Didn't we already have this guy? I think his name was the 2005 Chicago Cubs.

[Vanilla Ice]

 

Or you can have a guy that hits ONE homerun every game. He never walks and only gets one hit a game, that being the homerun. It could be a grandslam or a solo shot in the first. You can't choose when to use the homerun, you just know it will happen sometime in his 4-5 at bats.

Didn't we already have this guy? I think his name was the 2005 Chicago Cubs.

 

If we had a guy that hit 162 homers we would have been a lot better.

[hardcorecubfan]

The first guy was me ion little league

 

 

but chicks dig the long ball

[Jon]

So essentially it's a 1.000 OBP vs. a 1.000 SLG.

 

I'd have to take the perfect OBP.

[CubColtPacer]

So essentially it's a 1.000 OBP vs. a 1.000 SLG.

 

I'd have to take the perfect OBP.

 

Except with the 1.000 OBP, you have a .000 SLG. While with the 1.000 SLG, you have a .250 OBP (approximately).

[seanimal]

depends on their batting average

[Ding Dong Johnson]

So essentially it's a 1.000 OBP vs. a 1.000 SLG.

 

I'd have to take the perfect OBP.

 

Except with the 1.000 OBP, you have a .000 SLG. While with the 1.000 SLG, you have a .250 OBP (approximately).

1000 OPS vs 1200-1250 OPS

[TruffleShuffle]

i need to know more about the home run guy. we know what the first guy is doing every time up, getting on first base. But we only know something about one of the PAs from the home run guy. In his other ABs, is he simply doing something other than hitting home runs - whether it be hit a double, walk, strike out, ground out, etc.? Or is he an automatic out for every other PA in the game? If he's even having a Neifi result in his other ABs, it makes it a tougher choice because at least Neifi will get on base a quarter of the time, so you add that to the HR and you've got a very productive player. But if he's hitting one HR per game and then making an out every other PA, I'd definitely take the 1.000 OBP guy.

[javy knows my name]

Here is a debate I've had with several people and I think it is an interesting question. Maybe it's a no-brainer, but I'd like to see where everybody stands on this.

 

Here are the two options:

 

You can have a guy on your team that walks every single time at bat. He never gets a basehit, but he has a 1.000 OBP because every time at bat he walks.

 

Or you can have a guy that hits ONE homerun every game. He never walks and only gets one hit a game, that being the homerun. It could be a grandslam or a solo shot in the first. You can't choose when to use the homerun, you just know it will happen sometime in his 4-5 at bats.

 

And I don't want any "Well, I'd sit the homerun guy until the bases are loaded, pinch hit and then immediately sub him." Pretend like you have to keep both guys in the whole game.

[TruffleShuffle]

Here is a debate I've had with several people and I think it is an interesting question. Maybe it's a no-brainer, but I'd like to see where everybody stands on this.

 

Here are the two options:

 

You can have a guy on your team that walks every single time at bat. He never gets a basehit, but he has a 1.000 OBP because every time at bat he walks.

 

Or you can have a guy that hits ONE homerun every game. He never walks and only gets one hit a game, that being the homerun. It could be a grandslam or a solo shot in the first. You can't choose when to use the homerun, you just know it will happen sometime in his 4-5 at bats.

 

And I don't want any "Well, I'd sit the homerun guy until the bases are loaded, pinch hit and then immediately sub him." Pretend like you have to keep both guys in the whole game.

 

ah okay, missed that part when reading the original premise. so he's an auto out aside from the home run. that makes my decision easy.

 

HOLY CRAP, home run guy is winning 2-to-1?!?!?

[JoshiQ]

Here is a debate I've had with several people and I think it is an interesting question. Maybe it's a no-brainer, but I'd like to see where everybody stands on this.

 

Here are the two options:

 

You can have a guy on your team that walks every single time at bat. He never gets a basehit, but he has a 1.000 OBP because every time at bat he walks.

 

Or you can have a guy that hits ONE homerun every game. He never walks and only gets one hit a game, that being the homerun. It could be a grandslam or a solo shot in the first. You can't choose when to use the homerun, you just know it will happen sometime in his 4-5 at bats.

 

And I don't want any "Well, I'd sit the homerun guy until the bases are loaded, pinch hit and then immediately sub him." Pretend like you have to keep both guys in the whole game.

 

ah okay, missed that part when reading the original premise. so he's an auto out aside from the home run. that makes my decision easy.

 

HOLY CRAP, home run guy is winning 2-to-1?!?!?

 

Yeah, depends on the week for me. Some weeks I like the idea of the OBP guy, other weeks the homerun guy gets the nod.

 

I am slightly surprised that the homerun guy is running away with the thing though. But I think the fact that the guy will have an OPS of 1.250 over the guy with a 1.000 OPS is a pretty good point.

[TruffleShuffle]

Here is a debate I've had with several people and I think it is an interesting question. Maybe it's a no-brainer, but I'd like to see where everybody stands on this.

 

Here are the two options:

 

You can have a guy on your team that walks every single time at bat. He never gets a basehit, but he has a 1.000 OBP because every time at bat he walks.

 

Or you can have a guy that hits ONE homerun every game. He never walks and only gets one hit a game, that being the homerun. It could be a grandslam or a solo shot in the first. You can't choose when to use the homerun, you just know it will happen sometime in his 4-5 at bats.

 

And I don't want any "Well, I'd sit the homerun guy until the bases are loaded, pinch hit and then immediately sub him." Pretend like you have to keep both guys in the whole game.

 

ah okay, missed that part when reading the original premise. so he's an auto out aside from the home run. that makes my decision easy.

 

HOLY CRAP, home run guy is winning 2-to-1?!?!?

 

Yeah, depends on the week for me. Some weeks I like the idea of the OBP guy, other weeks the homerun guy gets the nod.

 

I am slightly surprised that the homerun guy is running away with the thing though. But I think the fact that the guy will have an OPS of 1.250 over the guy with a 1.000 OPS is a pretty good point.

 

except that (1) a point of OBP is significantly more important than a point of SLG, and (2) it's not fair to the guy who gets on base every time, because he doesn't swing the bat once to actually have a SLG%. If you change your assumption and say that the guy gets on base by hitting a single every at bat, it's the same outcome (he's on first base after his turn at bat) but now his OPS is 2.000.

[CubColtPacer]

Here is a debate I've had with several people and I think it is an interesting question. Maybe it's a no-brainer, but I'd like to see where everybody stands on this.

 

Here are the two options:

 

You can have a guy on your team that walks every single time at bat. He never gets a basehit, but he has a 1.000 OBP because every time at bat he walks.

 

Or you can have a guy that hits ONE homerun every game. He never walks and only gets one hit a game, that being the homerun. It could be a grandslam or a solo shot in the first. You can't choose when to use the homerun, you just know it will happen sometime in his 4-5 at bats.

 

And I don't want any "Well, I'd sit the homerun guy until the bases are loaded, pinch hit and then immediately sub him." Pretend like you have to keep both guys in the whole game.

 

ah okay, missed that part when reading the original premise. so he's an auto out aside from the home run. that makes my decision easy.

 

HOLY CRAP, home run guy is winning 2-to-1?!?!?

 

Yeah, depends on the week for me. Some weeks I like the idea of the OBP guy, other weeks the homerun guy gets the nod.

 

I am slightly surprised that the homerun guy is running away with the thing though. But I think the fact that the guy will have an OPS of 1.250 over the guy with a 1.000 OPS is a pretty good point.

 

except that (1) a point of OBP is significantly more important than a point of SLG, and (2) it's not fair to the guy who gets on base every time, because he doesn't swing the bat once to actually have a SLG%. If you change your assumption and say that the guy gets on base by hitting a single every at bat, it's the same outcome (he's on first base after his turn at bat) but now his OPS is 2.000.

 

You are right that walking is slightly underrated in OPS and singling is overrated in OPS. The differences between how they move runners up is important, but not important enough for their huge difference in slugging. (I actually think triples are also overrated in slugging because they are usually give you the same effects as a double does other than the obvious of the batter standing on 3rd, and a home run is underrated in slugging because the guaranteed run is so important).

 

At the same time, I feel like my point about balanced scoring is a big factor that isn't being factored in. If you asked a great pitcher that if you knew absolutely for certain that the batter was going to get a home run sometime in the game, would you walk the player every time? Most great pitchers IMO would rather walk the person every time because they can work around that and strand him. I know in a small way that was the Braves pitchers philosophy for years to not let the big guys hurt you and to get everybody else out.

 

I think the biggest effect of choosing the OBP player is that the team would score more runs against bad pitchers than the team with the home run guy, and less runs against good pitchers than the team with the home run guy. Considering a good team usually already scores enough runs to win against bad pitchers most of the time, I'd rather take the advantage against the best pitchers in the league.

 

BTW, if you just told me that the homerun guy would have 162 HR's and get outs in every other at-bat, I'd take the OBP guy. I would assume then that the homerun guy piles up many of his homeruns against the bad pitchers of the world. It's the specific fact that he's guaranteed to do it every game that puts homerun guy over the top for me.

[TruffleShuffle]

i'd be shocked if the guy who never makes an out does not end up contributing more offense in the end than the guy who hits one home run every game. i don't really know how to prove it though. i'll leave that up to someone smarter/more simulation-savvy than myself.

[rocket]

i'd take the home run guy because the guy who walks would be BORING to watch

[Vanilla Ice]

i'd take the home run guy because the guy who walks would be BORING to watch

 

and its called hitting not walking

[17 Seconds]

So essentially it's a 1.000 OBP vs. a 1.000 SLG.

 

I'd have to take the perfect OBP.

 

Except with the 1.000 OBP, you have a .000 SLG. (approximately).

 

That's not true. If he walked every at-bat, he wouldn't have a slugging percentage. It would not exist.

[Roast]

So essentially it's a 1.000 OBP vs. a 1.000 SLG.

 

I'd have to take the perfect OBP.

 

Except with the 1.000 OBP, you have a .000 SLG. (approximately).

 

That's not true. If he walked every at-bat, he wouldn't have a slugging percentage. It would not exist.

 

Which...is the definition of Zero.

[TruffleShuffle]

So essentially it's a 1.000 OBP vs. a 1.000 SLG.

 

I'd have to take the perfect OBP.

 

Except with the 1.000 OBP, you have a .000 SLG. (approximately).

 

That's not true. If he walked every at-bat, he wouldn't have a slugging percentage. It would not exist.

 

Which...is the definition of Zero.

 

no, something divided by zero is most certainly not the definition of zero.