Which Batter is More Productive?

[Frisbetarian]

While we’re throwing out theories, I’ve been ruminating on this one for awhile and it seems like FO’s as well as players have been trending this way since KC’s World Series several years ago. Not all OPS’s are created equal. I’m unsure about how to test this theory but it goes something like this. An OBP heavy OPS team leads to a more consistent lineup with a higher floor but lower ceiling. A SLG heavy OPS team leads to greater offensive variability and less consistency, but lower troughs and higher crests. Nobody remembers the lows, but they do remember (or for players and agents, they market and try to sell) the highs.

Like you, I don’t know how to go about testing this, but it seems to be the overall pattern that my eyes have seen overall as well as the smaller example of BOS offense last season.

If I’m close to correct, it would seem that an emerging (already here?) market inefficiency would be higher OBP, lower SLG players.

edit: The timing of your inconsistency recollections correspond with how difficult or easy the schedule was, IIRC.

If I’m close to correct, it would seem that an emerging (already here?) market inefficiency would be higher OBP, lower SLG players.

After a few requests, I'm breaking this out into its own thread. Well, at least I hope I am. I've never done this before.

Somewhat related, and a potentially interesting diversion as we wait for baseball. Tangotiger asked the following question on Twitter a while back. What say you, SoSH.

You have two players and these are their slash numbers:

Player A: .315/.365/.515
Player B: .260/.365/.515

Who is the more productive hitter? Show your work.

edit to include that you should assume the players play the same position and their plate appearances were equal and in the same situations.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Tangotiger asked the following question on Twitter a while back, and it may be an interesting diversion as we wait for baseball to see how it’s answered here on SoSH.

You have two players and these are their slash numbers:

Player A: .315/.365/.515
Player B: .260/.365/.515

Who is the more productive hitter? Show your work.

Assuming this is BA/OBP/SLG formatted…. I don’t see how in hell a .260 BA could be more productive than a .315 BA under the assumption that we don’t know any context of men on base or how many outs there are.
If this is the first batter of an inning, it has to be the better hitter…. If it’s one outs with a runner on second it has to be the better hitter. If it’s no outs or one outs with a runner on first then possibly the batter with the better walk rate.
And does the new defense rules change this?

 

[Frisbetarian]

Assuming this is BA/OBP/SLG formatted…. I don’t see how in hell a .260 BA could be more productive than a .315 BA under the assumption that we don’t know any context of men on base or how many outs there are.
If this is the first batter of an inning, it has to be the better hitter…. If it’s one outs with a runner on second it has to be the better hitter. If it’s no outs or one outs with a runner on first then possibly the batter with the better walk rate.
And does the new defense rules change this?

Assume they play the same position and had the same number of plate appearances in the same situations.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Assume they play the same position and had the same number of plate appearances in the same situations.

Well its context driven as I stated. If its leadoff then I want a higher BA who could possibly get a double rather than a BB.
Then if there’s a guy on 2b with no outs, I’ll still take a hit- with a .315 BA that leads me to believe he’ll at least advance a runner to 3rd with one out almost 1/3 of the time. There’s too many scenarios to detail, but anytime there’s a runner on first with less than 2 outs, I’ll take a hitter with better chance of them getting a walk.

 

[Frisbetarian]

Well its context driven as I stated. If its leadoff then I want a higher BA who could possibly get a double rather than a BB.
Then if there’s a guy on 2b with no outs, I’ll still take a hit- with a .315 BA that leads me to believe he’ll at least advance a runner to 3rd with one out almost 1/3 of the time. There’s too many scenarios to detail, but anytime there’s a runner on first with less than 2 outs, I’ll take a hitter with better chance of them getting a walk.

Re: the bold. Would player B, who has a larger ISO power number, be more likely to get an extra base hit than player A with the higher batting average?

 

[Max Power]

Re: the bold. Would player B, who has a larger ISO power number, be more likely to get an extra base hit than player A with the higher batting average?

Yes. Both players will make the same number of outs and have the same number of total bases, so the one with fewer hits will have more for extra bases. If this lineup spot comes up with guys on 2nd or 3rd, you'd guess player A would drive in more runs with singles. But if it comes up with nobody on or a runner on 1st, player B would drive in more runs with doubles and homers. I'd guess they'd score about the same since they both reach base the same number of times.

 

[Frisbetarian]

Yes. Both players will make the same number of outs and have the same number of total bases, so the one with fewer hits will have more for extra bases. If this lineup spot comes up with guys on 2nd or 3rd, you'd guess player A would drive in more runs with singles. But if it comes up with nobody on or a runner on 1st, player B would drive in more runs with doubles and homers. I'd guess they'd score about the same since they both reach base the same number of times.

I agree. Do you have any thoughts on which is the more productive hitter?

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Somewhat related, and a potentially interesting diversion as we wait for baseball. Tangotiger asked the following question on Twitter a while back. What say you, SoSH.

You have two players and these are their slash numbers:

Player A: .315/.365/.515
Player B: .260/.365/.515

Who is the more productive hitter? Show your work.

edit to include that you should assume the players play the same position and their plate appearances were equal and in the same situations.

My baseball brain was formed in the 1980s so I have a hard time ignoring batting average. But, this link has some pretty compelling examples to show that the two hitters are equally productive. I do think there should be some value assigned to the fact that singles can move baserunners further than a walk in many circumstances, but, I don't know that that statistic would look like (and that effect may be offset in full or in part by the other player's additional extra base hits). Either way, even if the two players are equally productive, my response is that I would find Player A much more enjoyable to watch, and since I look at baseball as entertainment, I would prefer the higher average.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/instagraphs/tom-tangos-triple-slash-conundrum/




And here's another link with the real world example of Don Mattingly v. Darryl Strawberry:

http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/article/batting-average-begone-quint-mattingly-v-quint-strawberry

 

[OCD SS]

Somewhat related, and a potentially interesting diversion as we wait for baseball. Tangotiger asked the following question on Twitter a while back. What say you, SoSH.

You have two players and these are their slash numbers:

Player A: .315/.365/.515
Player B: .260/.365/.515

Who is the more productive hitter? Show your work.

edit to include that you should assume the players play the same position and their plate appearances were equal and in the same situations.

The players are exactly equally valuable.

In an abstract scenario where the only criteria are abstract, the judging is similarly abstract, and in this case the criteria are even. Trying to decide who is more productive between a hitter who will hit more singles and one who will walk more with more XBH, can’t be answered without giving the context.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

My baseball brain was formed in the 1980s so I have a hard time ignoring batting average. But, this link has some pretty compelling examples to show that the two hitters are equally productive. I do think there should be some value assigned to the fact that singles can move baserunners further than a walk in many circumstances, but, I don't know that that statistic would look like (and that effect may be offset in full or in part by the other player's additional extra base hits). Either way, even if the two players are equally productive, my response is that I would find Player A much more enjoyable to watch, and since I look at baseball as entertainment, I would prefer the higher average.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/instagraphs/tom-tangos-triple-slash-conundrum/

View attachment 60587


And here's another link with the real world example of Don Mattingly v. Darryl Strawberry:

http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/article/batting-average-begone-quint-mattingly-v-quint-strawberry

Thanks. This is where I was heading. And I think they end up essentially equal. I share your hunch that more singles might move more runners than a guy with more walks, but the extra base hits probably even that out over time.

I do have this nagging memory of multiple, slow Sox teams getting three hits in an inning and not scoring. So maybe a team lacking any speed needs to have a guy who can clear the bases more often? I’m not sure if that kind of larger team context could influence the answer in specific cases.

 

[nvalvo]

Yes. Both players will make the same number of outs and have the same number of total bases, so the one with fewer hits will have more for extra bases. If this lineup spot comes up with guys on 2nd or 3rd, you'd guess player A would drive in more runs with singles. But if it comes up with nobody on or a runner on 1st, player B would drive in more runs with doubles and homers. I'd guess they'd score about the same since they both reach base the same number of times.

I agree. Do you have any thoughts on which is the more productive hitter?

I made two synthetic 650 PA lines, using some poorly-done algebra and then some futzing around in a spreadsheet. I left out details like HBP, IBB and sacrifices.

The high-BA player, player A, had 118 singles, 30 doubles, 11 triples, 31 HR, and 47 walks, for a .315/.365/.515 line.

The low-BA player, player B, had only 55 singles, but 39 doubles, 2 triples, 49 HR, and 92 BB, for a .265/.365/.515 line.

These are both fantastic players, obviously. But wOBA, using the 2022 weights from Fangraphs, thinks the low-BA player is a bit more fantastic, .409 to .394.

 

[LoLsapien]

This is a pretty cool thought exercise. We're absent all contextual information, as folks have pointed out, but we're not being asked "who do we prefer" but who was more productive. What we're missing is the definition of "productive" which makes the question unanswerable. However, I'd argue that OBP and SLG are the true measures of context absent productivity, and therefore that the two players are equally productive. But let's look at the scenario a bit.

Slugging does not include walks, only the result of hits. The slugging pct for the two batters is identical, which suggests that while player B is getting less hits, indicated by his lower batting average, he is getting more bases per hit. His isolated power is higher. But the two batters have the same OBP, which means that playerB is getting more walks, to make up for his lack of BA. So, player B is getting more walks, and more bases per hit. On the other hand, Player A gets more hits, therefore more opportunities to advance batters.

I might put Player B at the top of the lineup, where he will put himself on base by walk, or in scoring position by hit, and Ichiro in the heart of the lineup to knock Player B in.

Thanks for posting that thought exercise, i dig it. edit: or what Minneapolis Miller and Nvalvo said, ha!

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Thanks. This is where I was heading. And I think they end up essentially equal. I share your hunch that more singles might move more runners than a guy with more walks, but the extra base hits probably even that out over time.

I do have this nagging memory of multiple, slow Sox teams getting three hits in an inning and not scoring. So maybe a team lacking any speed needs to have a guy who can clear the bases more often? I’m not sure if that kind of larger team context could influence the answer in specific cases.

In the block of stats above, player A has 91 more singles while player B has 14 more doubles, 4 more triples, and 4 more home runs. The hypo states that the at bats are in the same circumstances. But, taken to the extreme, if all at bats occurred with no baserunners, I think we'd prefer player B, since they would be more likely to score after their extra base hits, while their walks would have the same impact as player A's singles. But, if all at bats occurred with a runner on third base and two outs, I think we'd prefer player A, who would be scoring that run every time with their 91 extra singles.

 

[Frisbetarian]

I made two synthetic 650 PA lines, using some poorly-done algebra and then some futzing around in a spreadsheet. I left out details like HBP, IBB and sacrifices.

The high-BA player, player A, had 118 singles, 30 doubles, 11 triples, 31 HR, and 47 walks, for a .315/.365/.515 line.

The low-BA player, player B, had only 55 singles, but 39 doubles, 2 triples, 49 HR, and 92 BB, for a .265/.365/.515 line.

These are both fantastic players, obviously. But wOBA, using the 2022 weights from Fangraphs, thinks the low-BA player is a bit more fantastic, .409 to .394.

This is an excellent methodology, but I think you might want to check your math.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

In the block of stats above, player A has 91 more singles while player B has 14 more doubles, 4 more triples, and 4 more home runs. The hypo states that the at bats are in the same circumstances. But, taken to the extreme, if all at bats occurred with no baserunners, I think we'd prefer player B, since they would be more likely to score after their extra base hits, while their walks would have the same impact as player A's singles. But, if all at bats occurred with a runner on third base and two outs, I think we'd prefer player A, who would be scoring that run every time with their 91 extra singles.

Agree. I think for this purpose we have to assume that all of those individual game circumstances even out over time. Right? But Nvalvo’s wOBP calculation has me wondering. (Unless Fris is right, in which case never mind!)

As an aside, this feels like the Wade Boggs Conundrum: Why does such a great hitter take so many freaking walks with the tying runner in scoring position and the game on the line, leaving it to the lesser hitter behind him to not win the game?!

 

[geoflin]

Although I understand the advanced stats I'm not as sophisticated as many of you in using them or in creating scenarios to arrive at them. So a question - does it make a difference to this discussion that the lower batting average player is more likely to hit into a double play if there are men on base (but also more likely to walk which has been mentioned upthread)?

 

[Max Power]

Although I understand the advanced stats I'm not as sophisticated as many of you in using them or in creating scenarios to arrive at them. So a question - does it make a difference to this discussion that the lower batting average player is more likely to hit into a double play if there are men on base (but also more likely to walk which has been mentioned upthread)?

I think the higher batting average player would be more likely to hit into a double play. He walks a lot less, so likely strikes out a lot less and puts in the ball in play more. That would result in more double plays, but also more reaching on an error. Maybe they'd even out.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

In the block of stats above, player A has 91 more singles while player B has 14 more doubles, 4 more triples, and 4 more home runs. The hypo states that the at bats are in the same circumstances. But, taken to the extreme, if all at bats occurred with no baserunners, I think we'd prefer player B, since they would be more likely to score after their extra base hits, while their walks would have the same impact as player A's singles. But, if all at bats occurred with a runner on third base and two outs, I think we'd prefer player A, who would be scoring that run every time with their 91 extra singles.

Ha! RBI’s as a helpful stat!

 

[Yo La Tengo]

Ha! RBI’s as a helpful stat!

I know... I tried to write the blurb to avoid an onslaught of mockery!

 

[Max Power]

I found two players who are good examples for this.

Mike Schmidt
.267/.380/.527
0.180 R/PA
0.191 RBI/PA

Miguel Cabrera
.308/.384/.524
0.153 R/PA
0.184 RBI/PA

They each drove in runs at a similar rate, but Schmidt scored more. That's probably a combo of his lineup and the fact that Miggy is a ridiculously slow runner.

 

[geoflin]

Although I understand the advanced stats I'm not as sophisticated as many of you in using them or in creating scenarios to arrive at them. So a question - does it make a difference to this discussion that the lower batting average player is more likely to hit into a double play if there are men on base (but also more likely to walk which has been mentioned upthread)?

I think the higher batting average player would be more likely to hit into a double play. He walks a lot less, so likely strikes out a lot less and puts in the ball in play more. That would result in more double plays, but also more reaching on an error. Maybe they'd even out.

Maybe I just answered my own question. Using nvalvo's example above, each player has 413 plate appearances in which they didn't reach base. So the player who strikes out less is more likely to hit into a double play or reach on an error (which we already know in the real baseball world) because he puts the ball in play more often. But I don't think we have enough information to know which one that is. So maybe it doesn't matter.

 

[chrisfont9]

In the block of stats above, player A has 91 more singles while player B has 14 more doubles, 4 more triples, and 4 more home runs. The hypo states that the at bats are in the same circumstances. But, taken to the extreme, if all at bats occurred with no baserunners, I think we'd prefer player B, since they would be more likely to score after their extra base hits, while their walks would have the same impact as player A's singles. But, if all at bats occurred with a runner on third base and two outs, I think we'd prefer player A, who would be scoring that run every time with their 91 extra singles.

Related but slightly different question: who would you rather have going forward?

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Maybe I just answered my own question. Using nvalvo's example above, each player has 413 plate appearances in which they didn't reach base. So the player who strikes out less is more likely to hit into a double play or reach on an error (which we already know in the real baseball world) because he puts the ball in play more often. But I don't think we have enough information to know which one that is. So maybe it doesn't matter.

Does the new infield defense rule change the likelihood of a double play?

 

[OCD SS]

I think the higher batting average player would be more likely to hit into a double play. He walks a lot less, so likely strikes out a lot less and puts in the ball in play more. That would result in more double plays, but also more reaching on an error. Maybe they'd even out.

This is actually not true; it is a reasonable assumption based on what type of hitters we think they might be, but there's no way to know how either of them made their outs.

If the scenario were to provide additional information, such as totals for Ks, GIDP, sac flys, runners LOB or advanced, or even their respective base running, then we could plug these in further and get accurate linear weights for the total values, but again, the final values are going to be context dependent as to who helps the team win more.

Edited to add this response:

I found two players who are good examples for this.

Mike Schmidt
.267/.380/.527
0.180 R/PA
0.191 RBI/PA

Miguel Cabrera
.308/.384/.524
0.153 R/PA
0.184 RBI/PA

They each drove in runs at a similar rate, but Schmidt scored more. That's probably a combo of his lineup and the fact that Miggy is a ridiculously slow runner.

Wouldn't you also have to adjust for both park and era?

To take @Frisbetarian 's equalizing in the scenario to its logical extreme, the players would actually need to be on the same team to neutralize the statlines for home park and strength of the opposition.

 

[geoflin]

Does the new infield defense rule change the likelihood of a double play?

Don't know but maybe the best way to find out is to compare double play rates from years before the shift was commonly used to rates the past few years when it was. But those will also be skewed because in the past few years strikeout rates have increased so numbers of balls in play have decreased.

 

[OCD SS]

Does the new infield defense rule change the likelihood of a double play?

Possibly, but probably not enough to matter? Everything I've seen seems to suggest that the new rules are going to have a pretty minimal effect overall.

 

[nvalvo]

This is an excellent methodology, but I think you might want to check your math.

Definitely possible I botched the formulas!

 

[Frisbetarian]

This is actually not true; it is a reasonable assumption based on what type of hitters we think they might be, but there's no way to know how either of them made their outs.

If the scenario were to provide additional information, such as totals for Ks, GIDP, sac flys, runners LOB or advanced, or even their respective base running, then we could plug these in further and get accurate linear weights for the total values, but again, the final values are going to be context dependent as to who helps the team win more.

Edited to add this response:

Wouldn't you also have to adjust for both park and era?

To take @Frisbetarian 's equalizing in the scenario to its logical extreme, the players would actually need to be on the same team to neutralize the statlines for home park and strength of the opposition.

Same everything, park, team, era, SoO, spot in the batting order, speed, etc. Thanks.

 

[BaseballJones]

Just make it simpler. If the OBP is the same but one guy’s BA is better, that guy is going to be more productive (higher BA).

40 PA

Player 1: 10 singles, 5 walks, .250 avg, .375 obp
Player 2: 5 singles, 10 walks, .125 avg, .375 obp

Both players accumulate 15 bases, since a single is the same as a walk. But runners advance more bases on average on a single compared to a walk. Not knowing any of the game context, you’d always, 100% of the time, prefer player A over player B because a guy who hits more singles will, on average, advance runners more bases than a guy with more walks.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Just make it simpler. If the OBP is the same but one guy’s BA is better, that guy is going to be more productive (higher BA).

40 PA

Player 1: 10 singles, 5 walks, .250 avg, .375 obp
Player 2: 5 singles, 10 walks, .125 avg, .375 obp

Both players accumulate 15 bases, since a single is the same as a walk. But runners advance more bases on average on a single compared to a walk. Not knowing any of the game context, you’d always, 100% of the time, prefer player A over player B because a guy who hits more singles will, on average, advance runners more bases than a guy with more walks.

Right, but you left out slugging. For slugging to be the same (it doesn’t include walks), player 2 has to be getting more XBHs, which drive in more and result in more runs than singles.

 

[BaseballJones]

Right, but you left out slugging. For slugging to be the same (it doesn’t include walks), player 2 has to be getting more XBHs, which drive in more and result in more runs than singles.

Good point.

So in 80 PA

Player 1: 20 singles, 0 doubles, 10 walks, .250 avg, .375 obp, .250 slg - Player 1 accumulates 30 bases
Player 2: 0 singles, 10 doubles, 20 walks, .125 avg, .375 obp, .250 slg - Player 2 accumulates 40 bases

Essentially: Are 20 singles + 10 walks better than, equal to, or worse than, 10 doubles + 20 walks? The answer is: worse than. Because both players get on base at the same rate, and both players' hits accumulate the same number of total bases (which is why their slugging percentage is the same). But player 2 actually accumulates 10 more bases:

Player 1:
- 20 singles = 20 bases
- 0 doubles = 0 bases
- 10 walks = 10 bases
TOT: 30x on base = 30 bases

Player 2:
- 0 singles = 0 bases
- 10 doubles = 20 bases
- 20 walks = 20 bases
TOT: 30x on base = 40 bases

Player 2's contributions are more valuable then.

 

[RS2004foreever]

I played around about 10 years ago with looking at volatility measures in runs. Teams probably win 95% of the games in which they score 10 or more runs. and lose 95% of the games they score fewer than 2 runs. So the question is to what extent is volatility in runs random or are their underlying factors that create higher volatilities. IIRC - and this data is 10 years old - all things being equal higher ISO is correlated with higher run volatility. Of course it also correlates with more runs period, but the data kind of supports the intuition.

In this example player 2 has a higher ISO - and you might expect him to drive more runs in as a result. Someone has to have done this research though.

 

[geoflin]

So in 80 PA

Player 1: 20 singles, 0 doubles, 10 walks, .250 avg, .375 obp, .250 slg - Player 1 accumulates 30 bases
Player 2: 0 singles, 10 doubles, 20 walks, .125 avg, .375 obp, .250 slg - Player 2 accumulates 40 bases

In both your examples the avg. is incorrect because you haven't figured in the walks but I don't think this makes a difference to your point. Here, Player 1 avg. is .286 (20 for 70) and Player 2 avg. is .167 (10 for 60).

 

[Yo La Tengo]

In this example, Player B has 580 total bases while Player A has 546.

This is becoming a question of how we define "more productive."

 

[Rasputin]

edit to include that you should assume the players play the same position and their plate appearances were equal and in the same situations.

I don't know if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the whole thread, but I think mandating their position and plate appearances are equal and in the same situations destroys the real difference.

The player with the higher OBP gets his team more plate appearances. The game is measured in outs. The guy with the higher OBP makes fewer outs. I think it's all really that simple.

 

[Montana Fan]

Man, this is one cool thread and question. My simple view is that the guy hitting .315 is putting runners in motion .060 more than the guy hitting .265 and therefore is more productive in advancing guys that are on base. Take a bases loaded situation where Player A singles to the RF gap versus Player B who walks. Player A has a shot at driving in 2 runs and often will.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the whole thread, but I think mandating their position and plate appearances are equal and in the same situations destroys the real difference.

The player with the higher OBP gets his team more plate appearances. The game is measured in outs. The guy with the higher OBP makes fewer outs. I think it's all really that simple.

The game is measured in runs, isn’t it?

 

[Yo La Tengo]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the whole thread, but I think mandating their position and plate appearances are equal and in the same situations destroys the real difference.

The player with the higher OBP gets his team more plate appearances. The game is measured in outs. The guy with the higher OBP makes fewer outs. I think it's all really that simple.

In this hypo, both players' OBP and Slugging % are the same. The focus in on whether batting average matters.

 

[BaseballJones]

In both your examples the avg. is incorrect because you haven't figured in the walks but I don't think this makes a difference to your point. Here, Player 1 avg. is .286 (20 for 70) and Player 2 avg. is .167 (10 for 60).

Right thanks for the correction but yes my point is still the same.

 

[Rasputin]

The game is measured in runs, isn’t it?

No. The score is measured in runs, but the game can't proceed from the top of the first inning with just runs. It needs outs.

 

[OCD SS]

Same everything, park, team, era, SoO, spot in the batting order, speed, etc. Thanks.

Right down to WPA?

I don't know if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the whole thread, but I think mandating their position and plate appearances are equal and in the same situations destroys the real difference.

The player with the higher OBP gets his team more plate appearances. The game is measured in outs. The guy with the higher OBP makes fewer outs. I think it's all really that simple.

With all contextual events the same, they cancel and the result is that this is exactly the same player. A = A.

Ultimately what you have is a single player in multi-worlds hypothesis, where the universes they occupy are so similar as to be indistinguishable from one another. Everything in these universes are identical, except how the players got on base, but that cancels out as the rest of their underlying statistics are also neutralized. If we could resort to WPA we could then see who contributed more to helping "the" team win, but in this case I'm preemptively assuming that Fris is setting their contributions and WPA results to be exactly the same again.

So A = A.

But the question remains, is this difference predictable going forward into the next season?

In this hypo, both players' OBP and Slugging % are the same. The focus in on whether batting average matters.

To take this example out of pure abstraction, I think what we find is that their must be at some difference in performance for the measurment and judgment to be meaningful. Just looking at the component offensive outputs needed to get to the same stat line points out there must be some divergence in some of the other numbers, and it is there that we can at least find some basis for judgement. In effect this is what teams are trying to do, finding any slight discrepancy in the out put that can be turned into an advantage measured in runs.

 

[BaseballJones]

View attachment 60591



In this example, Player B has 580 total bases while Player A has 546.

This is becoming a question of how we define "more productive."

Well there are two currencies in baseball: outs and bases (since you need bases to score runs). Since the outs are the same, it comes down to who gives you more bases.

 

[Frisbetarian]

There are a ton of great responses here! I’m going to wait until morning to post my thoughts, however, in order to allow others to chime in.

Thanks for indulging me, guys.

 

[Rovin Romine]

With all contextual events the same, they cancel and the result is that this is exactly the same player. A = A.

I don't think that follows at all. The contextual events are the same - they're not void. So if there's a random distribution of runners (the same exact distribution for both players) hitting singles as opposed to talking walks will make a difference in runs scored/game outcome.

And that, however you parse it, is where the distinction between the two will lie.

One would have to consider positive and negative outcomes - double plays, additional runners scoring on singles, etc.

 

[Mantush]

I don’t think the right question is being asked. It isn’t which hitter is ‘more productive.’ In truth, they are both equally productive—their contributions to the team, in all reality, are equivalent over a long enough period of time—but the question is actually whether the outs they make are equal. Is striking out a worse outcome than grounding out? That’s what I think should be asked. And, in reality, it probably is, right? Putting the ball in play stresses the defense in a way that striking out doesn’t.

 

[BaseballJones]

Well there are two currencies in baseball: outs and bases (since you need bases to score runs). Since the outs are the same, it comes down to who gives you more bases.

What would the argument against what I’ve said here be?

 

[Yo La Tengo]

What would the argument against what I’ve said here be?

Well there are two currencies in baseball: outs and bases (since you need bases to score runs). Since the outs are the same, it comes down to who gives you more bases.

Isn't there just one currency: runs?

I think you're missing the more subjective part of the game, since the number of runs will depend on the other eight players in the lineup. Said another way, depending on the situation, some means of gaining a base are more productive than others, right? While both player A and B are facing identical scenarios, without know what those scenarios are, it is impossible to determine which player contributes to more runs.

As an extreme comparison, if all of their at bats are with the bases empty, player B would be more productive since they would reach 2nd/3rd/home more often than player A (those are the 34 extra bases), scoring 4 more runs due to the difference in HRs and making additional runs more likely by advancing into scoring position. However, if most of the at bats were with a runner on 3rd with 2 outs, player A would be more productive since those 91 extra singles would score the run while 69 of the plate appearances by player B would result in a walk rather than a hit, in which case no run would score.

I think we'd have to run a few thousand simulated seasons to figure out which player was more often most productive.

 

[OCD SS]

I don't think that follows at all. The contextual events are the same - they're not void. So if there's a random distribution of runners (the same exact distribution for both players) hitting singles as opposed to talking walks will make a difference in runs scored/game outcome.

And that, however you parse it, is where the distinction between the two will lie.

One would have to consider positive and negative outcomes - double plays, additional runners scoring on singles, etc.

That is essentially what I've been saying, but I am taking @Frisbetarian's directive that these also equal out. If that is not the case, then you can judge each player by the actual on-field results - if you take this to it's logical conclusion you could use WPA as your measure. This would be a way to break down the actual performance, but the question is if this performance would be predictive as a way to judge players going forward, or if it is too statistically noisy and context dependent to assess the player's skill... we should ask "wither BABIP?" in this analysis; as we have so many ways to measure player performance I don't think we can really break the answer down to just a basic question about batting average since we have advanced measurments that help us parse the context.

 

[tims4wins]

In both your examples the avg. is incorrect because you haven't figured in the walks but I don't think this makes a difference to your point. Here, Player 1 avg. is .286 (20 for 70) and Player 2 avg. is .167 (10 for 60).

Right thanks for the correction but yes my point is still the same.

SLG is wrong too. A is 20 for 70 = .286. B is 20 for 60 = .333. So you haven’t matched the scenario.

 

[BaseballJones]

Isn't there just one currency: runs?

I think you're missing the more subjective part of the game, since the number of runs will depend on the other eight players in the lineup. Said another way, depending on the situation, some means of gaining a base are more productive than others, right? While both player A and B are facing identical scenarios, without know what those scenarios are, it is impossible to determine which player contributes to more runs.

As an extreme comparison, if all of their at bats are with the bases empty, player B would be more productive since they would reach 2nd/3rd/home more often than player A (those are the 34 extra bases), scoring 4 more runs due to the difference in HRs and making additional runs more likely by advancing into scoring position. However, if most of the at bats were with a runner on 3rd with 2 outs, player A would be more productive since those 91 extra singles would score the run while 69 of the plate appearances by player B would result in a walk rather than a hit, in which case no run would score.

I think we'd have to run a few thousand simulated seasons to figure out which player was more often most productive.

The currencies are outs and bases. Runs are the products of accumulating bases. Outs is the “time” available to accumulate those bases in a way that leads to runs.