Still a lot left to do

smootness said:
Your exaggerated example is a guy who walks while everyone around him also walks. Well, that team is going to score a crap ton of runs if no one ever gets out.
Click to expand...

Almost by definition... In order to avoid walking guys on a team that is really good at taking walks, other teams will have to start throwing them pitches that are strikes. The more perfect you try to get at throwing strikes, the more hittable mistakes you are going to make.

Eventually a team that is really good at drawing walks will also be a better hitting team because they will see more hittable pitches.
 
mfree80 said:
Almost by definition... In order to avoid walking guys on a team that is really good at taking walks, other teams will have to start throwing them pitches that are strikes. The more perfect you try to get at throwing strikes, the more hittable mistakes you are going to make.

Eventually a team that is really good at drawing walks will also be a better hitting team because they will see more hittable pitches.
Click to expand...

Not only that but when your going against a great starting pitcher or even reliever you wear them down by making them throw more pitches.

Just look at us vs the Yanks in the mid to late 90s. They had a lineup full of grinders. Guys like Knoblauch, Jeter, O'Neil, Bernie, Tino, etc would take pitches, foul pitches off, and wear the pitcher down and when it came to the mid or late innings even if they we're down against a great pitcher like the Big 3 they were going to get you. And that's what happened especially with a suspect pen.
 
So just to look at the example proposed of 2 WAR walker vs 2 WAR power hitter first we need to realize that a 2 WAR hitter (who is average defensively for the sake of argument so all his value is from his offense)is not a good hitter. That hitter is essentially average.

Jonathan Schoop, the 2B of the O's, is a great example of a 2 WAR power hitter. He was average on defense and had 25 homeruns. His slash line was 267/298/454 - 752. Should be obvious that for an average hitter if you are going to be beasting in homers then your walk rate isn't going to be great.

Now I couldn't find a 2 WAR walker who played average defense but Brett Gardner fits the bill pretty good of an average hitter who has low power and walks a good amount. He did have 2.4 WAR this season but that's because he's a plus base runner. But his hitting was average and that's what we are looking at. He had 7 homers this year with a slash line of 261/351/362 - 713. As would be expected. A high OBP with little power.

Running the numbers through http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

A lineup full of Brett Gardners gives us 4.48 runs per game. Replacing one of the Gardners with Schoop's numbers gives us 4.51 runs per game with the optimal lineup.

So all of a 0.03 runs difference per game over a full season which comes out 5 runs. So replacing a team full of walkers with 1 power hitter doesnt do much of anything.

Granted there is going to be some variance here as the OBP/SLG numbers used aren't park adjusted. But the point should remain. If you have a league average hitter and replace him with another league average hitter. You are going to score the same amount of runs regardless if he's a masher who doesn't walk or a guy who gets on base a ton and has zero power.
 
The above should also be a good example of why most people have gone to WOBA and WRC+ opposed to OPS and OPS+. Not that OPS isn't valuable but it really undersells OBP. It treats OBP and SLG the same whereas a point of OBP is more valuable than a point of SLG. And it really shows up in extreme examples like Schoop and Gardner. 40 point gap between them but they are both average hitters who bring the same value to the plate.
 
The opposite scenario in case anyone is wondering. A team full of Schoops gives us 4.47 runs per game. Replacing one of them with a Gardner gives us 4.52 runs per game. So again a slight improvement but nothing noteworthy.
 
thewupk said:
The opposite scenario in case anyone is wondering. A team full of Schoops gives us 4.47 runs per game. Replacing one of them with a Gardner gives us 4.52 runs per game. So again a slight improvement but nothing noteworthy.
Click to expand...

Is it linear? What if you replace two Schoops with Gardners? What if you have four and four?
 
GovClintonTyree said:
Is it linear? What if you replace two Schoops with Gardners? What if you have four and four?
Click to expand...

I ran teams of 5/4 and 4/5 since you need 9 spots and I'm assuming DH here. But 5 Gardners and 4 Schoops provides 4.56 runs per game and 4/5 provides 4.57

So actually having balance between the two does give you best returns but again the difference between 4.56 and 4.48 runs per game is like 13 runs over the course of the year. While that's good it's still within the variance of what might actually happen in the games.

Average hitters produce average results regardless of how they get there.

The reason you actually see teams generally make the playoffs with good homerun totals isn't because they are necessary. It's because most good players hit homeruns.

In our example of 2 WAR power vs 2 WAR walkers. I could easily fill a team of actual players who fit the bill of average hitters with good power and bad OBP. It would be a struggle to do it the other way because there simple isn't that many of those types of hitters. But one isn't better than the other.

Give the option of an average hitter with power or an average hitter with OBP you simple have to look at everything else. Offensively they give you the same results. So then you look at base running, defense, and the cost it takes to acquire the player.
 
thewupk said:
So just to look at the example proposed of 2 WAR walker vs 2 WAR power hitter first we need to realize that a 2 WAR hitter (who is average defensively for the sake of argument so all his value is from his offense)is not a good hitter. That hitter is essentially average.

Jonathan Schoop, the 2B of the O's, is a great example of a 2 WAR power hitter. He was average on defense and had 25 homeruns. His slash line was 267/298/454 - 752. Should be obvious that for an average hitter if you are going to be beasting in homers then your walk rate isn't going to be great.

Now I couldn't find a 2 WAR walker who played average defense but Brett Gardner fits the bill pretty good of an average hitter who has low power and walks a good amount. He did have 2.4 WAR this season but that's because he's a plus base runner. But his hitting was average and that's what we are looking at. He had 7 homers this year with a slash line of 261/351/362 - 713. As would be expected. A high OBP with little power.

Running the numbers through http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py

A lineup full of Brett Gardners gives us 4.48 runs per game. Replacing one of the Gardners with Schoop's numbers gives us 4.51 runs per game with the optimal lineup.

So all of a 0.03 runs difference per game over a full season which comes out 5 runs. So replacing a team full of walkers with 1 power hitter doesnt do much of anything.

Granted there is going to be some variance here as the OBP/SLG numbers used aren't park adjusted. But the point should remain. If you have a league average hitter and replace him with another league average hitter. You are going to score the same amount of runs regardless if he's a masher who doesn't walk or a guy who gets on base a ton and has zero power.
Click to expand...

I think that the most important thing to point out here is the fact that a lineup full of .713 OPS hitters whose slash lines lean toward OBP will put up exactly an average number of runs/game (the MLB average this year was 4.48). I've been told you have to have power in the lineup.

The reality is, if your whole lineup is getting on base, you're going to score...which is why I'm ok with Mallex and Inciarte both playing in the same OF, even if we don't have crazy power from 3B or C to 'make up' for it IF Mallex is getting on base at a good clip.

The MLB OPS average was .739. So a below-average OPS can produce an average number of runs if it leans toward OBP, while an above-average OPS that leans toward power may only produce an average number of runs. It seems like it's better to fill your lineup with OBP than power.
 
thewupk said:
In our example of 2 WAR power vs 2 WAR walkers. I could easily fill a team of actual players who fit the bill of average hitters with good power and bad OBP. It would be a struggle to do it the other way because there simple isn't that many of those types of hitters. But one isn't better than the other.

Give the option of an average hitter with power or an average hitter with OBP you simple have to look at everything else. Offensively they give you the same results. So then you look at base running, defense, and the cost it takes to acquire the player.
Click to expand...

So the summary of your argument is that a lineup with Ender, Mallex, Albies, and Swanson will work fine even though none of them have much power.
 
smootness said:
I think that the most important thing to point out here is the fact that a lineup full of .713 OPS hitters whose slash lines lean toward OBP will put up exactly an average number of runs/game (the MLB average this year was 4.48). I've been told you have to have power in the lineup.

The reality is, if your whole lineup is getting on base, you're going to score...which is why I'm ok with Mallex and Inciarte both playing in the same OF, even if we don't have crazy power from 3B or C to 'make up' for it IF Mallex is getting on base at a good clip.

The MLB OPS average was .739. So a below-average OPS can produce an average number of runs if it leans toward OBP, while an above-average OPS that leans toward power may only produce an average number of runs. It seems like it's better to fill your lineup with OBP than power.
Click to expand...

Like I pointed out earlier. It's why OPS is falling out of favor with most stat heads. It overvalues SLG compared to OBP. It's a good shorthand tool but not 100% accurate of offensive value, especially when you get to extreme players like a Schoop or Gardener.
 
thewupk said:
Like I pointed out earlier. It's why OPS is falling out of favor with most stat heads. It overvalues SLG compared to OBP. It's a good shorthand tool but not 100% accurate of offensive value, especially when you get to extreme players like a Schoop or Gardener.
Click to expand...

Right, and breaking that down even further, you can then argue that getting on base is more valuable than power.
 
thewupk said:
Getting into more extreme examples, you are right. A 400/400 team scores over a half run more per game than a 300/500 team.
Click to expand...

When comparing any two identical OPS's, the one with the higher OBP will lead to more runs scored, yes? When evaluating any one individual player?
 
smootness said:
When comparing any two identical OPS's, the one with the higher OBP will lead to more runs scored, yes? When evaluating any one individual player?
Click to expand...

Generally, yes. You do have to factor in park effects, etc. It's generally just better to use WRC+ for your offensive needs. Takes any guesswork out of it.
 
I'll have to look into it some more, but I'm pretty sure all of these statements about the value of OBP (specifically walks) are based on the assumption of league average power driving them in. Take away that league average power and walks are worth less than they are now.

It almost makes me want to write a simulation tool that takes all outcome rates as inputs (rather than just OBP and SLG used by lineup optimizers). An exercise like that would reveal if there is truly an ideal mix of OBP and power, and what order they should be in.
 
Enscheff said:
I'll have to look into it some more, but I'm pretty sure all of these statements about the value of OBP (specifically walks) are based on the assumption of league average power driving them in. Take away that league average power and walks are worth less than they are now.

It almost makes me want to write a simulation tool that takes all outcome rates as inputs (rather than just OBP and SLG used by lineup optimizers). An exercise like that would reveal if there is truly an ideal mix of OBP and power, and what order they should be in.
Click to expand...

I doubt you would see much if any differences. That's the whole point of linear weights and the way the offensive side of WAR works. A truly league average offense (in OBP and Power) will likely score more runs than a league average offense skewed in either OBP or Power. But that difference isn't going to big that big.

If there is a team that has good OBP but is lacking power. I would not replace a 2-3 WAR corner outfielder that might be light on power but plays good defense and gets on base with a Matt Kemp for example. Taking a lesser player just to increase homeruns is not a good strategy.
 
thewupk said:
I doubt you would see much if any differences. That's the whole point of linear weights and the way the offensive side of WAR works. A truly league average offense (in OBP and Power) will likely score more runs than a league average offense skewed in either OBP or Power. But that difference isn't going to big that big.

If there is a team that has good OBP but is lacking power. I would not replace a 2-3 WAR corner outfielder that might be light on power but plays good defense and gets on base with a Matt Kemp for example. Taking a lesser player just to increase homeruns is not a good strategy.
Click to expand...

That's not at all what I said. I said adding a 2 WAR power guy would improve a low power team more than adding a 2 WAR contact guy.

I think this is why Kemp improved the Braves more than simply adding his WAR to the team's WAR suggests he should have improved the team. He brought some balance to a team with little power, but several low power guys with .340+ OBPs (Peterson, Markakis, Inciarte, Swanson, and Albies in the future).
 
Enscheff said:
That's not at all what I said. I said adding a 2 WAR power guy would improve a low power team more than adding a 2 WAR contact guy.

I think this is why Kemp improved the Braves more than simply adding his WAR to the team's WAR suggests he should have improved the team. He brought some balance to a team with little power, but several low power guys with .340+ OBPs (Peterson, Markakis, Inciarte, Swanson, and Albies in the future).
Click to expand...

You quoted me and said that is where you start to disagree with sabremetrics in that a 3 WAR player is better than a 2 WAR player based on the dynamics of the team and what said 2 WAR player brings to the table. The 3 WAR player is better, period.

Kemp improved the team because he played at a 1.5-2 WAR level for the Braves when we had Jeff Francoeur and others before him.
 
Enscheff said:
I'll have to look into it some more, but I'm pretty sure all of these statements about the value of OBP (specifically walks) are based on the assumption of league average power driving them in. Take away that league average power and walks are worth less than they are now.

It almost makes me want to write a simulation tool that takes all outcome rates as inputs (rather than just OBP and SLG used by lineup optimizers). An exercise like that would reveal if there is truly an ideal mix of OBP and power, and what order they should be in.
Click to expand...

The simulation tool that was used had a lineup full of guys with below-average power, did it not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top