I enjoy the arguments involving targeting OBP players over "toolsy" guys, but I have to wonder the following after watching the A's (namely Jeremy Brown) today... How many guys who are strong high OBP candidates tend to do better than the "toolsy" guys when it comes to the draft and major league success? I understand that one category does not necessarily preclude the other, but at the same time, most guys fall into one camp or another. Murton is not toolsy, but he is likely to get on base at a very good rate. Pie is toolsy, but his projected OBP is questionable given his current makeup (see: K/BB). Do draftees whose only significant natural tool is OBP tend to have as much success, if not moreso, than guys who are athletic and projectable? Is there really any reason to favor one over the other, or have people gone overboard with focusing solely on this stuff. Don't get me wrong, when it comes to proven major leaguers, I think there is something to be said for guys who can get on base at excellent clips. Yet, at the same time, it just feels like a stat that is...incomplete. It seems like it is measuring a meaningful tool, but that it's not something that is be-all, end-all.