The Brewster

Which player do you take, all other things being equal?

Saw this poll on Twitter (@mlbrandomstats) and I'm curious what you all think.

Funny, every one of those guys is better than anyone I have, lol!

I like option one. The low batting avg doesn't matter. Best OBP, and iso power is only slightly worse than the guy with the best slg. So you're still getting tons of extra bast hits. This dude's just getting walks instead of singles. That also means he's seeing more pitches/making the opposing pitcher work harder.

1,4,2,3 in that order.

Per 600 plate appearances, this calculates out to (extra bases are an arbitrary division of total bases beyond singles as indicated by isop. I removed triples because they are rare and assigned 2B to HR ratios based on typical for players with that iso power)

option 1 - on base 240 times, 144 hits, .260 iso on those hits - about 40 2B, 30 HR, no triples
option 2 - on base 195 times, 180 hits, .275 iso on those hits - about 40 2B, 40 HR, no triples
option 3 - on base 231 times, 198 hits, .120 iso on those hits - about 35 2B, 10 HR, no triples
option 4 - on base 210 times, 162 hits, .275 iso on those hits - about 37 2B, 35 HR, no triples

All are solid players, and a single can be better than a walk. But option 1 is easily the best. He's on base the most and while he has slightly less pop than option two and 36 fewer hits (more than half of these are singles), option 2 is on base significantly less. Option three is your classic great on base guy, but doesn't move runners well. Option 4 is essentially option 1, but trading 30 BB for 18 hits (again more than half of which are singles)

usnspecialist wrote:1,4,2,3 in that order.

Ditto

I'm with you guys that 1 is my clear favorite. But in the poll on Twitter 2-4 have twice as many votes.

https://twitter.com/mlbrandomstats/stat ... 3990210563

That's because many casual baseball fans are dumb/still can't get over batting average, or people didn't read the question and are inferring other things about the player from the batting lines. Four has an argument for being as good as one, if you are ignoring the "All other things being equal" part. (for example if you say 1's batting avg is low because he is slow and has a lower babip and strikes out more than 4), but you specifically stated that's not the case.

In reality, the "all other things being equal" part of this is exceptionally unlikely. Players have batting profiles like these for a reason. In the real world, if you asked me which one I want, and I had to assume defensive capability, strikeout rates, speed, etc from their batting lines alone, I'd probably take number 4, because option one is much more likely to be an Adam Dunn type, losing almost all his offensive value on D.

trying to find guys from this past year who fit the given numbers as a real life comparison, and it is really hard lol. Here are the best ones i came up with (numbers from ESPN).

1) Edwin Encarnacion (.258/.377/.504)
2) Jose Abreu (.304/.354/.552)
3) Josh Reddick (.314/.363/.484)
4) Justin Upton (.273/.361/.540), Gary Sanchez (.278/.345/.351)

usnspecialist wrote:trying to find guys from this past year who fit the given numbers as a real life comparison, and it is really hard lol. Here are the best ones i came up with (numbers from ESPN).

1) Edwin Encarnacion (.258/.377/.504)
2) Jose Abreu (.304/.354/.552)
3) Josh Reddick (.314/.363/.484)
4) Justin Upton (.273/.361/.540), Gary Sanchez (.278/.345/.351)

This might be the reason people are't picking 1 in the twitter poll. That player is really hard to find. People just might not have a good comparison. Encarnacion isn't that close. 23 points of on base is huge, and with a BA 18 points lower than Encarnacion and similar slugging, option one is hitting the ball a good deal harder than him as well.

And Jose Abreu's 25 points of OBP make him a TON better than option 2.

This is useless without context.

bschr682 wrote:This is useless without context.

I disagree. He's asking you in a situation where not other factors differ, with the same position, same speed, defense, etc, which is the best batting line. It's a fundamental question about what is most likely to lead to runs scored. It's also funny that the leading answer at this point is the most wrong one.

1 is Mark McGwire basically.

Yes, it is quite interesting that #3 is leading.

Ted wrote:

bschr682 wrote:This is useless without context.

I disagree. He's asking you in a situation where not other factors differ, with the same position, same speed, defense, etc, which is the best batting line. It's a fundamental question about what is most likely to lead to runs scored. It's also funny that the leading answer at this point is the most wrong one.

It’s missing some data which does matter. It’s a half assed hypothetical situation which can never exist designed solely to get responses such as your original reply where you called people dumb for liking a higher batter average. Stat snobbery. So like I said, useless.

It's just supposed to be a fun little hypothetical. It's not supposed to be taken too seriously.

That said, I have a hard time seeing how the .830 OPS could be objectively better than the three options with a .900 OPS.

#1 is Adam Dunn during his time with the Reds.

In 8 years he hit .247/.380/.520

7teen wrote:#1 is Adam Dunn during his time with the Reds.

In 8 years he hit .247/.380/.520

20 points of anything is a big difference. There's a big difference between .380 obp and .400. Just like there's a big difference between .310 avg and a .330 avg, etc.

I'll take the guy with the most RBI.

ae37jr wrote:I'll take the guy with the most RBI.

Can't argue with that!