Your Opinion- Hypothetical Player Stat Comparison

[Old#5fan]

Using same total plate appearances:

1. Player A -

Here are his hypothetical stats:

Walks - 4

Singles- 2

Doubles - 2

Homers - 0

Sac Fly- 0

Total hits- 4

Total ABs- 12

Total plate appearances - 16

BA - 333, Runs - 2, RBI - 3

Game winning hits - zero

2. Player B

Here are his hypothetical stats:

Walks - 0

Singles - 1

Doubles - 1

Homers - 2 (three run shot, and solo)

Sac Fly - 1

Total hits - 4

Total ABs- 16

Total plate appearances - 16

BA - 250 Runs - 3, RBI - 6

Game winning hits - 1

Which of the two do you prefer based on the above?

I would easily take B. Not even close in deciding either. Even though he has a lower BA and obviously OBP he has produced more runs to help his team win. He also has done more with less hits than A has, so IMO he is more efficient. Yet most stats people will likely favor A because they just don't look deeper into the numbers. Player B also had more productive outs than player A, again something that is not factored into when using OBP as the end all be all measure of a player's performance.

This is the problem I have with stats based decision making using only OBP. It distorts the true value of a player.

Please feel free to explain whether you disgree, or not and why. Please bear in mind this is based solely on the stats as stated. However, I do think it illustrates my old school take that homers and rbi's are more important than walks and merely getting on base.

[TakebackOPACY]

It is my strong opinion that if you're going to use hypothetical stats, you shouldn't use real names!

[wickedwitch]

I'd need a larger sample size to make a choice.

[Old#5fan]

It is my strong opinion that if you're going to use hypothetical stats, you shouldn't use real names!

Okay, I will edit the post. You make a good point.

[Fairfax Bird]

Well, that is fine over the course of a game. But it doesn't account for over the course of the season. By the way, why hypothetically compare apples and oranges. Markakis is a #2 hitter and a gold-glove caliber RF. Pena is a #4 hitter and a 1B. Oh and Markakis is a good 3 years younger also.

[Old#5fan]

I'd need a larger sample size to make a choice.

Why? If you want a larger sample size than just project these same stats over 100 at bats then.

[Old#5fan]

Well, that is fine over the course of a game. But it doesn't account for over the course of the season. By the way, why hypothetically compare apples and oranges. Markakis is a #2 hitter and a gold-glove caliber RF. Pena is a #4 hitter and a 1B. Oh and Markakis is a good 3 years younger also.

16 at bats represents four games, not one. Also, defense has nothing to do with it. I am strictly looking at hitter types. I have now taken names out of the example as suggested to avoid this. I used four games but could have used 40 or any number. I was just trying to illustrate that the type of hitter I prefer is one that many wouldn't because they are too overly enamored with OBP. I actually had a very intelligent younger poster PM me that the measure of a great playing is "not making outs." I really think that is so wrong it isn't funny. This comparison illustrates my point. I also invited him to read this thread, as he actually seems like a decent chap.

[Fairfax Bird]

Alright, compare these "hypothetical players."

.303/.404/.489/.893 with 48 2B and 20 Home Runs

.247/.377/.494/.871 with 24 2B and 31 Home Runs

If you like hits better than walks than Player A is your guy. If you value OBP and power than Player B is your guy. These stats from the season seem to contradict the stats for the 4 games.

[Old#5fan]

Alright, compare these "hypothetical players."

.303/.404/.489/.893 with 48 2B and 20 Home Runs

.247/.377/.494/.871 with 24 2B and 31 Home Runs

If you like hits better than walks than Player A is your guy. If you value OBP and power than Player B is your guy. These stats from the season seem to contradict the stats for the 4 games.

Where are rbi's in your numbers?

[MarCakes21]

Well, that is fine over the course of a game. But it doesn't account for over the course of the season. By the way, why hypothetically compare apples and oranges. Markakis is a #2 hitter and a gold-glove caliber RF. Pena is a #4 hitter and a 1B. Oh and Markakis is a good 3 years younger also.

But I'm guessing everyone knows the names now.

I was more intrigued to see the names behind them than peoples opinions. Maybe that's just me.

[Old#5fan]

Well, that is fine over the course of a game. But it doesn't account for over the course of the season. By the way, why hypothetically compare apples and oranges. Markakis is a #2 hitter and a gold-glove caliber RF. Pena is a #4 hitter and a 1B. Oh and Markakis is a good 3 years younger also.

Your statement that Markakis is a "gold-glove" caliber RF is mere opinion and not fact as he has yet to win the actual award. Ergo, your statement is false. Please go to the Rants section if you want to debate this with me as there is already an extensive thread over there on this subject.

[Moose Milligan]

Your statement that Markakis is a "gold-glove" caliber RF is mere opinion and not fact as he has yet to win the actual award. Ergo, your statement is false. Please go to the Rants section if you want to debate this with me as there is already an extensive thread over there on this subject.

Seriously, you're the most close-minded person in the history of internet message board posting.

[TGO]

Where are rbi's in your numbers?

Pena 102, Markakis 87.

That's basically close enough to be context-dependent.

But I don't expect you to agree with me.

Let me break this down for you very clearly. You actually picked two extremely similar hitters but for one huge difference.

Pena has about 50 more strikeouts than Markakis (166 to 113).

Markakis has about 50 more hits than Pena (179 to 121).

Turn 50 of Nick's hits into strikeouts and you get Carlos Pena.

These are not advanced stats. These are stats that were invented 150 years ago. Strikeouts and hits, it doesn't get any easier than that.

Markakis is a better hitter than Pena, and it IS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

[Old#5fan]

Pena 102, Markakis 87.

That's basically close enough to be context-dependent.

But I don't expect you to agree with me.

Let me break this down for you very clearly. You actually picked two extremely similar hitters but for one huge difference.

Pena has about 50 more strikeouts than Markakis (166 to 113).

Markakis has about 50 more hits than Pena (179 to 121).

Turn 50 of Nick's hits into strikeouts and you get Carlos Pena.

These are not advanced stats. These are stats that were invented 150 years ago. Strikeouts and hits, it doesn't get any easier than that.

Markakis is a better hitter than Pena, and it IS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

No, he is better at making fewer outs but not in producing runs that are more apt to have an impact on a game helping his team win. Pena is a good deal better than Markakis and I will tell you why. Even though he strikes out more he produces more runs as in homers and rbi's with fewer hits. Ergo he is more efficient in that regard. Think about it!

Why else do you think Pena is in the running for MVP and Markakis isn't ever even in running to make the AL All-star team? And don't give me it is because Pena is on a top team going to the playoffs and Markakis on the bottom team. If Markakis was on the Rays he still wouldn't be an MVP candidate or an Allstar. The huge difference in the two is Pena hits homers and produces more runs as in RBI's which are what win games.

[Old#5fan]

Seriously, you're the most close-minded person in the history of internet message board posting.

It is still an opinion based on nothing relevant as in no Gold Glove ever awarded. You should look in a mirror. I am 100% correct on this. A correct statement would be Markakis plays excellent defense, superb defense, or above average defense. Leave an unachieved award or official recognition out of the statement entirely as it is simply non-applicable since it has never happened.