Why is OBP Important?

[GMinTraining]

Why is OBP important?

 

Is it important for scoring runs?

 

Is it important for driving in runs?

 

Does the BB portion of OBP become important for the sake of scoring runs?

 

Does the BB portion of OBP become important for the sake of driving in runs?

 

Does the hit portion of OBP become important for the sake of scoring runs?

 

Does the hit portion of OBP become important for the sake of driving in runs?

 

What result from having a high OBP becomes the most important factor for you?

 

Should the result of having a high OBP in the minors serve in the same respect in the majors? & If so, does it generally work that way in your experiences with most prospects?

[drjim]

Avoiding outs is the most important thing you can do as a hitter. OBP measures that. It is never, ever a bad thing to avoid making an out.

[drivlikejehu]

Getting on base is just the entire point of baseball. Other than that I guess it isn't too important.

[drjim]

 

Getting on base is just the entire point of baseball. Other than that I guess it isn't too important.

 

Scoring more runs than your opponent is the true point of baseball. But yes, getting on base really helps half of that equation.

[GMinTraining]

I agree that OBP is important for the sake of scoring runs.  That is the purpose of the game.  To out score your opponent.  If that is the case - Wouldn't and shouldn't run production be the more important stat line.  I only ask that because there are several players who sport a high OBP, but never find a way to score runs (RBI or Runs Scored).  Therefore what is the true importance for OBP becoming the determining factor for a prospect making it to the Show.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I agree that OBP is important for the sake of scoring runs.  That is the purpose of the game.  To out score your opponent.  If that is the case - Wouldn't and shouldn't run production be the more important stat line.  I only ask that because there are several players who sport a high OBP, but never find a way to score runs (RBI or Runs Scored).  Therefore what is the true importance for OBP becoming the determining factor for a prospect making it to the Show.

OPS (OBP plus Slugging%) is the quick and dirty stat that has the highest correlation to runs scored. Runs scored and RBI are both very dependent on your teammates unless you are Barry Bonds. OPS measures what an individual player has control over.

[jimmer]

 

OPS (OBP plus Slugging%) is the quick and dirty stat that has the highest correlation to runs scored. Runs scored and RBI are both very dependent on your teammates unless you are Barry Bonds. OPS measures what an individual player has control over.

Or we can use wRC+.  It's about creating runs. IMO, OPS doesn't give enough value to OBP.  So yeah, it's a dirty stat that comes close to telling the right story, but there are better ones.  wRC+ is one of them as is RE24.

[Seth Stohs]

Because not getting out is better than getting out. 

[jimmer]

 

I agree that OBP is important for the sake of scoring runs.  That is the purpose of the game.  To out score your opponent.  If that is the case - Wouldn't and shouldn't run production be the more important stat line.  I only ask that because there are several players who sport a high OBP, but never find a way to score runs (RBI or Runs Scored).  Therefore what is the true importance for OBP becoming the determining factor for a prospect making it to the Show.

If you just look at RBI and runs scored you miss something.  Let's say there's one out and a guy walks. The next guy gets a single and the guy goes from 1st to 3rd.  The next guy creates an out with a fly ball but it's deep enough to score the guy.  The guy who got the hit gets no credit in the RBI or run scored category, but he was instrumental in creating that run.

[jimmer]

Back to topic, the more people get on base, the better chance a team has to score. A team only gets 27 outs, it's advantageous to have a pretty good percentage of not making outs (OBP).

 

Last year, the top 5 teams in OBP in the AL were the top 5 teams in runs scored in the AL.

[GMinTraining]

 

If you just look at RBI and runs scored you miss something.  Let's say there's one out and a guy walks. The next guy gets a single and the guy goes from 1st to 3rd.  The next guy creates an out with a fly ball but it's deep enough to score the guy.  The guy who got the hit gets no credit in the RBI or run scored category, but he was instrumental in creating that run.

 

Let's not look at RBI as an important stat.  That would mean that the guys with higher OBP / BB rates should probably score more than the guy with the low OBP / BB rate.  In theory? True or False

[jimmer]

 

Let's not look at RBI as an important stat.  That would mean that the guys with higher OBP / BB rates should probably score more than the guy with the low OBP / BB rate.  In theory? True or False

As a stand alone stat, I pretty much never look at RBI. That's how little I think of that stat as a way to evaluate performance.

[Whammy]

 

As a stand alone stat, I pretty much never look at RBI. That's how little I think of that stat as a way to evaluate performance.

 

RBI is a stat, so in that regard it's a good way of measuring performance. 

 

WRC+ is a metric, so it's a good way of predicting future success

 

Using Joe Mauer as an example, I would say in spite of his relatively low AVG and OBP, he's had a pretty successful year so far, because he's doing something that a 3rd hitter should do, which is driving in runs. However, his WRC+ probably predicts that his success, in that regard, is unlikely to continue at it's current high level.

[jimmer]

 

RBI is a stat, so in that regard it's a good way of measuring performance. 

 

WRC+ is a metric, so it's a good way of predicting future success

 

Using Joe Mauer as an example, I would say in spite of his relatively low AVG and OBP, he's had a pretty successful year so far, because he's doing something that a 3rd hitter should do, which is driving in runs. However, his WRC+ probably predicts that his success, in that regard, is unlikely to continue at it's current high level.

RBI is a stat that is very much dependent on other people's performance and wRC+ tells us how well a player created runs in relation to the rest of the league.  It measures what has happened and how valuable that player was at creating runs. And Mauer has very often been a good example of how RBI is a bad stat to judge performance.  This year it's just being done in the opposite way. 

 

But we clearly disagree, and that's okay.

[Willihammer]

Your last question is quite a bit different from the first ones. I recommend reading the KATOH primer here: http://www.hardballtimes.com/katoh-forecasting-a-hitters-major-league-performance-with-minor-league-stats/
 

 

I think the biggest takeaway here is that walk rate doesn’t matter very much at the lower levels of the minors. In fact, it’s not predictive at all for players in rookie ball or Low-A. And even as high as Double-A, a one percent change in strikeout rate affects a player’s projection by about 1.5 times as much as a one percent change in walk rate.

 

 

Edit: that's not to say walk rate = OBP but is probably a decent proxy.

[ashbury]

Let's not look at RBI as an important stat.  That would mean that the guys with higher OBP / BB rates should probably score more than the guy with the low OBP / BB rate.  In theory? True or False

The teams with higher OBP do score more (on average) than the teams with the low OBP. Trying to pin the run scoring (or the run driving-in) down to individual players has all the difficulties already mentioned. But all else being equal, swapping out a low OBP player for one who gets on base more, should help your offense, regardless of how "clutch" you think his contributions may be.

 

_{^{/ I realize nobody has used the word "clutch" in this thread so far, but I always imagine that word to be lurking in the shadows in such discussions. Forgive me if I'm wrong.}}

[Whammy]

jimmer, on 04 Jun 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:
RBI is a stat that is very much dependent on other people's performance and wRC+ tells us how well a player created runs in relation to the rest of the league.  It measures what has happened and how valuable that player was at creating runs. And Mauer has very often been a good example of how RBI is a bad stat to judge performance.  This year it's just being done in the opposite way.

But we clearly disagree, and that's okay.

 

 

 

--------------------------------

 

Let's take this to an extreme.... (and I agree, that it's fine for us to disagree on the topic)

 

Let's say Miguel Cabrera won the triple crown this year.

His average was inflated by a historic .440 BABIP

His RBI were inflated by having an inordinate number of men on base when he got his hits

And his HR total was inflated by a ridiculous HR/FB Rate

 

We would say that Miguel Cabrera had an absolutely fantastic year, but we would also say that he's very likely to regress in 2016 and that would be shown by a much lower WRC+ than one might expect for a triple crown winner.

 

[jimmer]

In that scenario:

 

-One wouldn't expect his BABIP to continue, but it happened.  And it was still based on his performance and not teammates.

-One wouldn't expect his HR rate to happen, but it did. And it was still solely based on his performance and not teammates.

 

RBI is different, while it did happen, it was greatly dependent on opportunity. I think your example would make a little more sense if you were talking about performances with RISP from year to year instead of RBI totals.  Like a crazy BA or Slg% or OPS with RISP that is out of character for the batter that causes an RBI total out of whack with what he normally does? If we just look at RBI total, a guy could have 90 one year and hit poorly with RISP but have lot of opportunity, they next year he could hit great with RISP and have 65 RBI due to not so many opportunity. The amount of opportunities are completely out of his control. It's just not a good performance stat.

 

Back to just RBI, Have you looked at the year Howard won MVP over Pujols? Howard had a few more RBI and many voters I heard mentioned that as a deciding factor. That he was a bigger run producer. Now look at their numbers with RISP and the discrepancy in number of PA with RISP. Who was actually better?