Your Opinion- Hypothetical Player Stat Comparison

[Moose Milligan]

Lt. Melmo wins the thread.

[Matt]

By the way, a SF counts as a PA. Therefore the OP is incorrect to begin with.

Also, does anyone else find it ironic that O5F prefers the player who walks more per PA? You can look it up. Factoring out IBBs, Pena walks 14.8% of the time while Markakis "only" walks 13.4% of the time.

Give me Markakis any day of the week.

OPS - NM > .893 / .891

wOBA - NM > .385 / .369

Runs Above Average AL Player (using wOBA per 600 PA) - NM > 33.3 / 24.9

RAA at position AL (using wOBA per 600 PA) - NM > 19.8 / 15.8

Defensive RAA at position AL (using +/-) - CP > 11.2 / 10.1

Total RAA at position AL (combining previous two) NM > 29.9 / 27.0

RC/27 outs - NM > 7.4 / 6.7

RC/500 PAs - NM > 85.1 / 78.9

As PapaRick pointed out. Runs Produced (R + RBI - HR) per PA - NM > .250 / .242

Then when you factor in that Pena is completing his 30-year old season while Markakis is completing his 24-year old season, the fairly narrow gulf currently between them just became a canyon.

It tells me all I need to know about someone if said someone thinks Pena is a better player now, and then will be a better player going forward.

Any thoughts on Pena's splits and 2007 stats, 1970? If that is actually his true level of performance, and it may well be, I think he's probably better than Nick for the next couple years.

[Old#5fan]

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGHHHF:SDGFBASKJGBS:KGBAS:GJKB

So the last time OldFan complained about THIS EXACT THING, the thread was closed before I had a chance to respond. So I'll just do that now.

The stats I'm about to use are barely stats, they only take into consideration RBI and plate appearances with runners on. They can be found here.

Carlos Pena has had 202 plate appearances with runners on first.

Nick Markakis has had 202 plate appearances with runners on first.

In those 202 plate appearances, Carlos Pena has batted in 14 of the runners.

Nick Markakis has batted in 15.

Carlos Pena has had 158 plate appearances with runners on second.

Nick Markakis has had 144.

Carlos Pena has batted in 27 of those runners, which is 17.1%.

Nick Markakis has batted in 29 of his runners, which is 20.1%.

Carlos Pena has had 88 plate appearances with runners on third.

Nick Markakis has had 65.

Carlos Pena has driven in 30 of his 88, for a 34.1% clip.

Nick Markakis has driven in 23 of his 65, for a 35.4% clip.

When Carlos Pena steps up to the plate, 15.8% of the batters on base in front of him end up scoring in that plate appearance.

When Nick Markakis steps up to the plate, 16.3% of the batters on base in front of him end up scoring in that plate appearance.

Yeah, but you conveniently left out one stat in how many runs did he drive in with nobody on base as in solo homers? He must have had more than Markakis else how does he have that many more rbi overall with so fewer hits per plate appearance? If you cannot explain that I have to question the accuracy of your stats as they don't make sense.

[Matt]

You brought up good points about his injuries affecting his first half. Yes, Pena's 2007 was better than Nick's 2008. Yes, Pena's 2008 second half has been better than Nick's whole 2008.

As for going forward, I would still take Markakis even over the next couple of years. I suspect he's really going to break out next season, and I would expect Pena to drop a bit.

What upsets me about this whole discussion is that the Orioles could very easily have had Pena for essentially free prior to last season.

I'm pretty much with you on this. We're talking about two awesome players, and it'd be great if we could take (and had taken) them both.

[TakebackOPACY]

I have no dog in this fight, but I wonder how Nick Vs Carlos would look with 2007 numbers when Tampa was among the worst pitching. Now, if Carlos was much better than Nick during that span based on the teams playing each other only, does OF5's argument suddenly hold weight? I'm just asking because I think there is a fairly interesting discussion going on here.

Pena was a better all-around offensive player than Markakis in 2007. And Pena was a better all-around offensive player against the O's than Markakis was against the Rays in 2007.

I think the debate in their value in 2008 is interesting, and I give the edge to Markakis. If that's what we were debating, I think this whole thread would be healthy.

In his original post, if we get rid of some of the junk and give him the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to pretend OldFan was offering up a debate between

'Player A'

.300+ avg; .400+ obp; slug between .450-ish (that's not exactly Markakis)

vs.

'Player B'

.250- avg; .325-ish obp; slug .500-ish (that's not Pena)

... I'd love a healthy discussion on the value of the 'walk' and some insight into how the SABR-guys value it in their advanced stats. For example, how many walks does it take to match a HR in value to a team's overall chance of success? But that's not the discussion we have, here.

[Old#5fan]

Pena was a better all-around offensive player than Markakis in 2007. And Pena was a better all-around offensive player against the O's than Markakis was against the Rays in 2007.

I think the debate in their value in 2008 is interesting, and I give the edge to Markakis. If that's what we were debating, I think this whole thread would be healthy.

In his original post, if we get rid of some of the junk and give him the benefit of the doubt, I'd like to pretend OldFan was offering up a debate between

'Player A'

.300+ avg; .400+ obp; slug between .450-ish (that's not exactly Markakis)

vs.

'Player B'

.250- avg; .325-ish obp; slug .500-ish (that's not Pena)

... I'd love a healthy discussion on the value of the 'walk' and some insight into how the SABR-guys value it in their advanced stats. For example, how many walks does it take to match a HR in value to a team's overall chance of success? But that's not the discussion we have, here.

You can make it that if you want, I don't care. I am not one of those posters who gets all out of sorts and accuses people of hi-jacking threads.

[Fairfax Bird]

Where are rbi's in your numbers?

rbis is largely dependent on where you bat in the order and the chances you have when runners are on base. Pena is in a position to drive in far more runs than Markakis is.

[Malike]

Sorry if my post was considered highjacking. SG asked specifically if Tampa had better pitching than the O's, and they certainly do this year. I thought it would be interesting to see it in the context of when last year, Tampa had horrible pitching, much like the O's so I posted both players splits from 2007 against each other.

[Fairfax Bird]

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.

My opinion is that Markakis plays excellent defense, it is "gold glove" caliber. Of course it is an opinion. I suppose in your own mind you speak in fact and not opinion.

[Fairfax Bird]

No, he might have a couple but he is not really much of a HR hitter as we all know. The importance of this comparison is to show the difference in types of hitters and how merely using OBP as the measure of who is a better hitter is folly IMO.

And you are wrong, as Pena has more HRs, but is a far inferior hitter as his .247 BA indicates. If anything, Pena is far superior at drawing walks, but that would play into your OBP theory and therefore your hypothetical has been ALL WRONG.

[PapaRick]

Funny you should bring that up.

Both are hitting extremely well against the other's team this year. Nick has a .970 OPS and Pena a 1.115 OPS.

Nick has 6 RBI against the Rays and Pena has 25 against the Orioles.

I'm sure these stats will somehow be turned against Markakis.

Don't you get it - that's the point! Pena has 25 rbi's agianst the O's who have a terrible pitching staff this year and Markakis has none against that same staff - so clearly Pena is better.

[ledzepp8]

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.

Actually you're wrong about that. I know...Surprise, Surprise.

Using the basic Runs Created formula because all you gave were basic stats, Player A created more runs then Player B and it's not that close.

RC = (H + BB) x TB / AB + BB

According to your stats, I had to assume that Player A had 10 TB and Player B had 11 TB. Now someone more familiar with RC can feel free to correct me if I did this wrong but Player A created 5 Runs and Player B created 2.75.

So in short, Player A created more runs and you couldn't be more wrong...but I'm sure you'll try.

[Malike]

Don't you get it - that's the point! Pena has 25 rbi's agianst the O's who have a terrible pitching staff this year and Markakis has none against that same staff - so clearly Pena is better.

As my earlier post shows, when both teams had horrible pitching last year, the numbers were much closer. Pena still had the advantage but they were very close. Pena's numbers were also with 10 less AB's I think.

[ledzepp8]

How many walk off homers has Pena had versus Markakis? How many game winning hits has Pena had versus Markakis? You overlook them completely, why? I haven't looked them up but I bet Pena has more.

The fact remains which try as you may, you cannot deny that Pena has driven in more runs and hit more homers while making more outs than Markakis which makes him more efficient in producing runs.

In other words his hits mean more to his team than Markakis to his team. Nick is not more proficient at driving in runs because Pena has done more with fewer hits. One of the reasons is he hits more homers which automatically produce at a minimum one run regardless of who is on base.

Markakis is more of a walker than a HR hitter. Pena is a HR hitter period. Give me a HR over a walk anyday of the week.

Again your are completely missing the importance of this comparison which is to show the difference in types of hitters and how merely using OBP as the measure of who is a better hitter is folly IMO.

Who cares how man walk off homeruns or game winning hits either of them has? I don't think MLB even keeps those kinds of stats anymore because they are stupid/useless stats and are completely irrelevant to anything. And once again you couldn't be more wrong about who produces more runs, yet you continue to try.

Markakis is tied for 4th in the AL (with Aubrey Huff) with 116.8 runs created on the year...Pena isn't even close to that. He is 22nd with 96.4. Markakis creates 7.34 runs/9 good for 8th in the AL compared to Pena's 6.76 which is good for 13th in the AL. Nick creates over half a run more per 9 than Pena does.

Let it be known that I'm not trying to discount Pena's season and him as a player, but Markakis has had a better season than him.

[Sports Guy]

old fan...What exactly is the purpose of this thread?

Do you think anyone gives a rats patootie that you like Pena more than Markakis?

Do you think that we care that you have a total inability to comprehend stats?

Do you think that we care that you have value homers and RBIs so highly?

This thread has no purpose.