it shouldn't matter, the other guy is better. you keep saying it, but i haven't seen you try to prove it. i know, because i don't really know how to prove it. then how can you say so definitively that one guy is better than the other? i guess i shouldn't have said it with as much certainty, but i feel strongly that i am right about this. feel free to prove me wrong. Well, my first thought was that there's not enough information. My second thought is: it depends. If I was forced to hazard a guess, based on an "all things being equal"/league-average lineups and opposition, that the HR guy would "create" more runs, and thus be more valuable, despite creating more outs. I say that because even if tango's data is true and the HR guy K's all this other AB's, you don't subtract the run value of the K from the run value of the HR, because the run value of the HR is still there. This is where line-up "position" matters, because say, top-of-the-order guys who play a bunch of games are going to average close to 5 PA's a game, but if they're at the bottom, they're going to be closer to 4 PA's per game. by my rudimentary calculations, the HR guy ((162)(1.397)) is more valuable until the BB guy gets to 701 PA's (226.314/.323), at which point the latter begins to create more runs. I agree. I voted for the HR guy because the Walk guy's value is team dependent. the Walk guy may never be batted in. the HR guy is guaranteeing you at least one run per game. with him, you'll never be shut out.