Home
Feature Article
The Most Important Baseball Stat?

For years now a war has been brewing among baseball fans and professionals. What's the best tool to evaluate a baseball player's talent? Your gut and eyes, or a computer munching on the latest data.

These two groups, for the most part, make up a club's philosophy when it comes to evaluation. You rarely find a team that does things as a combination, which to the casual observer, would seem to be the smart thing to do.

Sometimes baseball is confusing like that though. By using just a bit of common sense you can reach some rather solid conclusions, which most in the baseball world would scoff at. In fact, if you ever want to find a place that is set in its old ways, resisting change at every corner, baseball would be the sport to look at.

Pariahs such as Billy Beane have begun to change the way we look at baseball and have shed a light on just how many different ways you can play the game (some more effective than others to this point). Nonetheless, I think by looking at some of the techniques teams are using today, you could easily up your managerial skills in games such as MLB 2K8 and MLB 08: The Show.

To me, and many others, On-Base-Percentage is the biggest stat to look at for hitters. As long as a player is not getting an out and is keeping your chances of scoring alive, he is doing a great job. But before you call me a Sabremetrician, let me first say a few other things about Sabremetrics. I think that the system is fairly black and white, because judging a player by one stat and one stat alone is foolish. Plus it would be silly to say there isn't a human element involved. Some guys do not perform well in big game situations or aren't good clubhouse guys.

Although games do not simulate those things well, it is an important element to consider when piecing together a team. Also you can't concentrate on the big picture and say lineups don't matter, because if you don't put yourself in the best position to win every day you'll lose some games you shouldn't have. That little tidbit could cost you a playoff spot.

Quantifying how good a player's OBP is in a baseball game is more than looking at his contact hitting ratings. This will come across as a revelation for some and old hat for others, but you must always take into account all of the ratings when looking for a dynamic offensive player that will deliver. For starters, looking at a guy's avoid strikeouts eye, or whatever other ratings a game throws at you along with a batter's contact hitting is a great start.

Dave Branda, aka BlyGilmore, laid out a great starting foundation for those who plan to build a lineup to face the competition. You want to load up the front end with guys who get on base and the middle with guys who have the power to swing those guys home. A novel concept, I know.

Teams that lack power hitters should just concentrate on getting guys on base and then try to bring them home anyway possible. This can be done a few creative ways: You can load up the front end of your lineup with guys who can get on base; or you could try to support the bad offensive players on your team by giving them a bit of protection in the form of good OBP guys.

But remember, opinions in baseball are a dime a dozen. Everyone has his or her own idea when it comes to running a team. In fact, there will be a ton of people that disagree with my assessments because they have a polar opposite idea. The beauty is, with the right players, you can create your own system that works.

So where does that leave us? Well I'd say I've come to the conclusion that going simply by batting AVG and HRs is a bad idea, and going off OBP when piecing together a team is a much better option.

But what are your opinions when it comes to this volatile topic?


Member Comments
# 21 PLite14 @ 03/07/08 06:01 PM
OPS makes for a good stat, since it combines average, OBP %, and SLG %
 
# 22 JoeRyan33 @ 03/07/08 07:26 PM
I think the main difference between the Oakland A's and the Boston Red Sox was, and perhaps always will be, money.

The A's built their team on an idea of what they felt was the soundest way to produce the most wins at the smallest cost; the Red Sox didn't have such constraints. I find it hard personally to praise their methods when they tried to dump their key bat (Manny Ramirez) preseason 2004.

I don't necessarily agree with the A's formula, especially not when it came to predicting future performance in young players. Here their hands weren't tied so much, and they had the ability to get players who would contribute in the long run. Before you say they didn't, that they couldn't afford to take risks on big bonuses, I'm referring to the draftees outside the elite tier. These guys are very much signable at good value; the A's over reliance on DePodesta's stat lines, and Beane's stubbornness, cost them dearly.

Side note: When you play pure percentages with steals, you do remove the human element. No statistic can account for everything positive that speed does for a team, the things that don't show up in box scores. Maybe Roberts' in the 2004 ALCS wasn't the best example, but I understand what Bly is saying.

The Beane philosophy, and that espoused in Moneyball, is that speed is the element of baseball that you can most afford to be without. I don't necessarily disagree - in fact, I agree with that idea - but, the strict sabermetric approach does have its massive downfalls. The old scouting methods are in a lot of ways ridiculous, but so too is total adherence to pure statistical analysis in building a baseball team.
 
# 23 BledsoeHoF @ 03/07/08 07:37 PM
I actually like OBP+S for offensive capability.

I guess I only look at errors for defense.. If you are money in plays you are involved in it really doesnt matter to me if you have the range of Furcal. A large range leads to throwing errors as well.

Just one more thing.. David Wright winning the Gold Glove over Chipper Jones was a travesty. Wright had 20 freaking errors for crying out loud.
 
# 24 Gary Armida @ 03/07/08 10:37 PM
The great thing about baseball is the fact that you can have these kind of discussions. Any good baseball man will tell you that there is value in stats like OBP, VORP, etc. I like OPS, but that isn't the be all and end all. There is a human element to the game that has its right place too. Take a guy like Adam Dunn. A lot of people don't like him b/c he K's 180 times a year. But, he consistently posts good OBP and SLG. But, if someone values a stat involving strikeouts, then Dunn will not be good to them. They are not cyborgs playing which is why something like the Red Sox bullpen by committee failed and was quickly fixed.

Bottom line is there is no one important stat, just like a guy can't be soley judged on whether he is a good influence. A good baseball man looks at the whole picture. Guys like Beane, James, Epstein get a bit of a bum rap. They do look at more than stats; they just base a lot of their feelings about players on the data. Unfortunately, the zealots who warp the thinking into only having value for stats ruins some great and valid stats.

Sully had the best comment on the thread. Wins is really the only important stat. It doesn't matter how you get there.
 
# 25 catcatch22 @ 03/08/08 01:09 AM
To go off topic for a bit, not sure where to post it. I love these articles man and the way it pops on the frontpage like that. Great reads and informative as well. Keep them coming.
 
# 26 BledsoeHoF @ 03/08/08 03:14 AM
Not sure how to quote on these things but.. Ill try .

Quote:
There were far worse decisions than that.

And looking strictly at errors is a terrible measure.
David Wright is a horrid defender no matter how you look at it. He is living off of that VERY overrated barehanded catch ( not that hard in all honesty ).. His arm is one of the weakest I have seen , not very accurate either and his range is average considering his age.

All I need is my eyes to tell if someone is good in the field or at the plate.
 
# 27 Bigtonyclark @ 03/08/08 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BledsoeHoF

All I need is my eyes to tell if someone is good in the field or at the plate.
Good luck with that.
 
# 28 SportsTop @ 03/08/08 08:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by favre4vr
Sully had the best comment on the thread. Wins is really the only important stat. It doesn't matter how you get there.
It was hardly the best. In fact, I'd say it was the most irrelevant in relation to the actual article.

If you read the article it's about what statistical method is best for assessing player's statistics, and not team wins. Players statistics matter because no team will consistently win with nine Micky Morandini's on their roster.
 
# 29 Sully @ 03/08/08 09:19 AM
Yeah, I meant it as a more of a joke...

As for the article, I'm not really sure what the point of it is. Pretty much everything stated is common baseball knowledge. The casual fan will learn more from the posts in this thread than from the original piece.
 
# 30 Gary Armida @ 03/08/08 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squint
It was hardly the best. In fact, I'd say it was the most irrelevant in relation to the actual article.

If you read the article it's about what statistical method is best for assessing player's statistics, and not team wins. Players statistics matter because no team will consistently win with nine Micky Morandini's on their roster.
Hey man--I READ the article. If you READ my post, you would see that. I understand the "point" of the article was to discuss which stat was best. However, as I said in my post there is not just ONE stat. Any person who knows baseball at all, knows that. Heck even Bill James says that. I closed my post with a quick little ONE line freakin statement saying that wins are the bottom line. Like Jackets said, there are many paths to get there.

Read my entire post, you know about bullpens and Adam Dunn before you comment on the last freakin sentence and make it look like I don't know what I am talking about...Thanks for representing OS.
 
# 31 Gary Armida @ 03/08/08 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkgojackets
LOL. Nah, man nothing to see here. I just won't comment on any of the articles on the site anymore.
 
# 32 Gary Armida @ 03/08/08 01:08 PM
Absolutely dk. It's all good. It's really no big deal.
 
# 33 Skerik @ 03/08/08 01:10 PM
Quote:
Well I'd say I've come to the conclusion that going simply by batting AVG and HRs is a bad idea, and going off OBP when piecing together a team is a much better option.
Man, if only guys like Billy Beane had been around to tell us this stuff 5 years ago.

Up next in OS's continuing baseball strategy series: "Which is better, the home run or the single?"
 
# 34 ChaseB @ 03/08/08 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkgojackets
OS needs to recruit this guy.
Because Tim McCarver is such an important piece of FOX baseball broadcasts?
 
# 35 catcatch22 @ 03/08/08 02:36 PM
When I meant informative I meant the NASCAR article.
 
# 36 SportsTop @ 03/08/08 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sully
As for the article, I'm not really sure what the point of it is. Pretty much everything stated is common baseball knowledge. The casual fan will learn more from the posts in this thread than from the original piece.
Maybe the point of the article...to generate discussion. It's worked in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by favre4vr
Hey man--I READ the article. If you READ my post, you would see that. I understand the "point" of the article was to discuss which stat was best. However, as I said in my post there is not just ONE stat. Any person who knows baseball at all, knows that. Heck even Bill James says that. I closed my post with a quick little ONE line freakin statement saying that wins are the bottom line. Like Jackets said, there are many paths to get there.

Read my entire post, you know about bullpens and Adam Dunn before you comment on the last freakin sentence and make it look like I don't know what I am talking about...Thanks for representing OS.
Defensive much? I never stated you didn't read the article. That statement was more of a generalization. I quoted your post to respond to your opinion on Sully's statement (which he ended up saying was a joke).

The article never stated there was just one statistic to best evaluate players. Rather, it's goal was to argue whether or not one statistic was best. You can agree or disagree.

I was, however, happy to see you took the mature route and called out me representing OS based off a simple difference of opinion.

I expected a little more from a former mod.
 
# 37 Gary Armida @ 03/08/08 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squint
It was hardly the best. In fact, I'd say it was the most irrelevant in relation to the actual article.

If you read the article it's about what statistical method is best for assessing player's statistics, and not team wins. Players statistics matter because no team will consistently win with nine Micky Morandini's on their roster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squint



Defensive much? I never stated you didn't read the article. That statement was more of a generalization. I quoted your post to respond to your opinion on Sully's statement (which he ended up saying was a joke).

The article never stated there was just one statistic to best evaluate players. Rather, it's goal was to argue whether or not one statistic was best. You can agree or disagree.

I was, however, happy to see you took the mature route and called out me representing OS based off a simple difference of opinion.

I expected a little more from a former mod.
Well, I was just reading what your wrote, that's all. If you didn't mean that I never read it, by saying "if you read the entire article", then that's my fault. I guess we're even with the "former mod" comment"

Not defensive here, and, in the end, no big deal. Like I said, I'll keep my comments on the main content to myself. Like I said, you responded to the last sentence instead of the content of my post, but that's ok man. It's all good from this former mod, lol.
 
# 38 CMH @ 03/09/08 03:32 PM
Quote:
One would think that a lead-off walk would lead to more runs than a lead-off home-run, but it’s not true. We’ve researched it and this year a lead-off home-run has led to more multi-run innings than have lead-off walks.
Wow, Tim McCarver, did someone actually need to research that? It's painfully obvious.
 

« Previous 12Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.