MLB: Would you rather have a player bat 1000 with all singles, 500 with all doubles, 333 all triples, or 250 all HR's??

We're talking about a guy who has a .250 average and only hits homeruns. Not someone who hits a homerun 1/4 at bats. You're assuming he never gets walked.

In regards to Bonds vs Ichiro, it's a huge difference between batting .353 and 1.000. Notice nobody picked the doubles/triples hypothetical. A batting average of 1.000 means he also never causes an out during an at bat! That's amazing. I'd walk him if the bases were loaded as well. A single with bases loaded is at least 1, sometimes 2 runs.

Meant to say 1/4 times he steps up to the plate.

Network Engie wrote:

We're talking about a guy who has a .250 average and only hits homeruns. Not someone who hits a homerun 1/4 at bats. You're assuming he never gets walked.

In regards to Bonds vs Ichiro, it's a huge difference between batting .353 and 1.000. Notice nobody picked the doubles/triples hypothetical. A batting average of 1.000 means he also never causes an out during an at bat! That's amazing. I'd walk him if the bases were loaded as well. A single with bases loaded is at least 1, sometimes 2 runs.

This may be the single worst argument I've heard in my entire life, no joke.

Going by linear weights (the most intuitive way to evaluate this) - singles are about .47 runs, homers are 1.4 I think... since 4 singles is then 1.88 runs, the singles guy seems slightly (maybe 30%) more valuable. Until you take into account the outs; 0 outs vs 450 assuming 600 at bats is an enormous difference. Each of those outs is about -.3 runs, so the homer guy per 4 at bats is worth more like .5 runs, while the singles guy is 1.88, or almost 4 times as valuable.

Network Engie wrote:

We're talking about a guy who has a .250 average and only hits homeruns. Not someone who hits a homerun 1/4 at bats. You're assuming he never gets walked.

In regards to Bonds vs Ichiro, it's a huge difference between batting .353 and 1.000. Notice nobody picked the doubles/triples hypothetical. A batting average of 1.000 means he also never causes an out during an at bat! That's amazing. I'd walk him if the bases were loaded as well. A single with bases loaded is at least 1, sometimes 2 runs.

That, and Bonds was an incredible hitter all-around, hitting as high as .370 one year. Getting walked every other time up probably kept him from a triple crown. He was more than just home runs.

MLB says the .250 all HR guy is most valuable and by a lot. Proof ARod Bonds Cabrera Texiera Pujols considered > Jeter Griffey Rose

michael furey wrote:

Going by linear weights (the most intuitive way to evaluate this) - singles are about .47 runs, homers are 1.4 I think... since 4 singles is then 1.88 runs, the singles guy seems slightly (maybe 30%) more valuable. Until you take into account the outs; 0 outs vs 450 assuming 600 at bats is an enormous difference. Each of those outs is about -.3 runs, so the homer guy per 4 at bats is worth more like .5 runs, while the singles guy is 1.88, or almost 4 times as valuable.

Good/interesting analysis there.

***

Others are going off on tangents that may change the problem itself. If errrbody *knows* about the guys monster stats, will he be treated differently -- and will that affect his stats, thereby changing the original problem definition?

Maybe that's an interesting part of the question.

Or maybe we should think of the "superpower" as somehow unknown/blinded to the defense, so that it occurs in a manufactured way as specified by the problem.

Anyway, Sr. Single seems more valuable bc of the tradeoff vs. outs.

michael furey wrote:

Going by linear weights (the most intuitive way to evaluate this) - singles are about .47 runs, homers are 1.4 I think... since 4 singles is then 1.88 runs, the singles guy seems slightly (maybe 30%) more valuable. Until you take into account the outs; 0 outs vs 450 assuming 600 at bats is an enormous difference. Each of those outs is about -.3 runs, so the homer guy per 4 at bats is worth more like .5 runs, while the singles guy is 1.88, or almost 4 times as valuable.

I don't think you can analyze it like this. For one, Barry Bonds demonstrated that teams would walk the HR hitter in late game situations. Teams gave up outs all the time to keep him from having the chance to hit home runs. Let's not pretend they were walking him to prevent a single or double. That walk is exactly the same outcome as the singles hitter. In addition, if the singles hitter was hitting 100%, opposing teams would walk him every time there was a runner on base. I'm seeing the linear weight of a walk online as 0.33. The singles hitter would get a score of 0.33 per at bat if that's correct. That's the best he could do by your formula. There is no strategy, planning or risk when he's up with runners on base-you just walk him.

As we saw with Bonds, they'd walk the HR guy constantly too. You can quote all the acronym stats you want and make calculations based on computer simulations, but that's what would and did actually happen. In many situations -say past the 7th inning in a tight game or with 2+ guys on base- the managers would intuitively know (and the numbers would agree) that letting HR guy hit is more dangerous than walking him. That would raise his value by your score.

Let's say they walked him at the same rate Bonds was walked (I think they'd actually walk him more). I looked up your formula and HR hitter's score per bat would be: 0.25*1.4+0.38*0.33-0.37*0.27=0.38.

chicks dig the long ball

Bonds wasn't only walked because he hit homeruns. He was also walked when runners were on base because he had a great batting average. Hitting .370 is a lot different than hitting .250. Mark McGwire had a much higher HR percentage per at bat than Bonds and didn't draw nearly as many intentional walks during his career.

I guarantee you the singles hitter is by far the most valuable, I only wish I was smart enough to back it up with sabermetrics or some Bill James-type voodoo like that. I'll try my best to solve it through the power of basic math.

Say our hitter is seeing 600 at bats, like the average MLB player. .250 therefore equates to 150 homers.

Some other internet magic lead me to this:

Solo HR — 56.9%

2R HR — 29.1%

3R HR — 11.3%

Grand slam — 2.6%

Apply those percentages to the 150 homers, and our Homers Guy creates an average of 239.1 runs a season. Assuming he doesn't walk at all, he will drive in 239 runs and score 0 more, considering he makes an out in his other 450 at-bats.

Bill James' Runs Created statistic lists Barry Bonds as having created 230 runs in his doped-up 2001 rampage of a season. Assuming all our Homers guy does is hit homers and make outs without advancing runners, with no other variables (important), he creates 239.1 runs, only ~9 runs more than Barry.

Also of note: Barry had 664 plate appearances in 2001. Because there are no other variables besides "Home Run" or "Out that does not advance runners on base" e.g. a walk, HBP, sac bunt/fly, et cetera, Homers Guy has both 600 PAs and 600 ABs.

Just for comparison, when given the same number of PAs as Barry, he creates 25.5 more runs, for a total of 264.6 Runs Created. Therefore, if you believe the HR percentages above, we can assume Homers Guy is creating 34 more runs than 2001 Barry Bonds, given the same amount of plate appearances.

To figure out if Singles Hitter is better, give him the same circumstances as Homers Guy: 600 PAs/ABs.

The question is now: On average, does 600 singles create more than 239.1 runs? I'm willing to say yes.

This is not a good analysis... Think of it this way. The homer guy has a 1/4 chance of hitting a homer. Great! and the opposing team will walk him only in situations where doing so decreases the amount of runs expected from his at bat (well, we can't expect some mumbo-gumbo and go get 'em boys manager to do this exactly right, but it'll be close enough). So the homer guy will likely lose more value when we start taking the opposing team's strategy into account. Ok fine we bump the singles guy to .33 R/AB instead of .47, he still produces 1.32 runs per 4 AB, and the homer guy drops in value too (couldn't tell you by how much without a more sophisticated, scenario specific calculation but your math is obviously wrong - you've kept the HRs at 1/4th of at bats while reducing just the outs when you added in walks... He's now batting .400 instead of .250...).

Using XR(extrapolated runs), which uses the weights from one of the posters above, the singles guy has the most value. XR estimates the amount of runs a hitter adds to his team. XR also takes into account This is assuming the players have 1000 AB. Leftover non base hits are outs, not K.

If singles guy hits 1.000, he has a XR of 500.

Doubles guy .500: 315

Triples .333: 286.29

HR .250: 292.5

Even if you double the singles guy AB to 2000, his score is 410. Lets say the 250 HR guy has 250 BB in 1000 PA, his XR is still 377.5. 350 BB would puts him at 411, but this is only in 1000 AB.

Lets looks at wOBA(Weighted On-Base Average)

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/woba/

now, which also uses weighted values, but slightly different. Again assuming 1000 PA

Singles: .900

Doubles: .620

Triples: .519

HR: .480

I think we can also all agree that any of these hypothetical hitters would be a welcome addition to my team. Although they'd probably all just end up on the yankees.

Think which generates the most buzz and fan interest.

I like the guy who compared the theoretical greatest hitter of all time (150HRs!) to Ichiro. Like... yeah. He's better than Ichiro. No shit. That doesn't mean he's better than a guy with a 2.000 OPS.

They would all be walked significantly but one of them goes out 3/4 times they get pitched to and the other one goes out 0/4 times they get pitched to. This is a complete no-brainer.

Like I said earlier, make it 1/3 HRs and it'll be a debate. As it is, 2.000 OPS >>>>> 1.000 OPS.

baberuth wrote:

Singles guy would hit into double plays

NO. If a batter hits into a DP then it's not scored a base hit. Question indictes he always gets a hit. Getting to 1st every time he steps into the batter's box makes his OBP and BA the same at 1.000. True, being aboard does not mean he will come around and score so it's up the the other 8 guys to drive him in.

Small ball is cool!

This is actually a tremendous thread. Thanks for the topic. I shall ponder.

D3 XC, you are forgetting about how walks affect your calculations. The original poster didn't say how many ABs the players get vs how many plate appearances. The calculations you did depend on these hypothetical players never walking. I would contend that after a certain amount of time opposing teams would adjust and start walking these players in any situation where it is advantageous to do so. Figuring out when for the singles hitter is a lot easier. Figuring out when for the HR hitter is tough because the original contention was that he bats .250, but it didn't specify when he bats .250. If the outcome pattern is that he always goes out-out-out-HR, and if his last 3 ABs have been outs then the opposing team knows that the next AB is going to be a HR. All they have to do is walk him until they get to a game situation where a HR is not an important factor, say a late game blowout situation. If the outcome pattern is random for every 4 ABs then it's a to tougher to know how/when to pitch to him.

If it's a case where the HR hitter only has to have a .250 BA at the end of the season then it's a totally different game play scenario.

I would agree with you that on average 600 singles creates more than 239.1 runs, I just don't see either player getting a chance to have 600 ABs. 600 plate appearances yes, but not 600 ABs.