...and how would you use him? Pinch-hitter the 1st time runners in scoring position? A regular in the lineup?
I'd take 1.000, all singles... & a pinch-hitter w/i 3-4 innings w/ runners on.
...and how would you use him? Pinch-hitter the 1st time runners in scoring position? A regular in the lineup?
I'd take 1.000, all singles... & a pinch-hitter w/i 3-4 innings w/ runners on.
I wonder how much each (single, double, triple) is valued in the WAR calculations. I'm guessing 4 singles is worth more than 1 home run (and three outs) but I'm not sure.
If my math isn't completely stupid, which it might be. 1.000 all singles is an OPS of 2.000. .500 all doubles is an OPS of 1.500. .333 all triples is an OPS of 1.333, and .250 all HRs is an OPS of 1.250, assuming 600 ABs and no walks. So I'd go with the singles, bat him lead off.
HardLoper wrote:
I wonder how much each (single, double, triple) is valued in the WAR calculations. I'm guessing 4 singles is worth more than 1 home run (and three outs) but I'm not sure.
I thought about the outs too. But remember, some outs would be used up to get that 1000 singles hitter around to score.
ttc wrote:
...and how would you use him? Pinch-hitter the 1st time runners in scoring position? A regular in the lineup?
I'd take 1.000, all singles... & a pinch-hitter w/i 3-4 innings w/ runners on.
If someone always got on with a single, after awhile he'd be walked every-time people were in scoring position lowering the impact.
If someone was hitting a home run 25% of the time it would be wise to walk him as well, so I assume it's given the player isn't walked.
This question cannot be answered in a vacuum.
Depends on the rest of your line-up.
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
If my math isn't completely stupid, which it might be. 1.000 all singles is an OPS of 2.000. .500 all doubles is an OPS of 1.500. .333 all triples is an OPS of 1.333, and .250 all HRs is an OPS of 1.250, assuming 600 ABs and no walks. So I'd go with the singles, bat him lead off.
This is your answer. Somebody who got a hit every single time they got up would be far and away the most valuable player in baseball history. Of course anyone who hit a homerun 25% of the time would completely break the game, too- but the 0% chance of failure of the 1.000 hitter would be the perfect hitter, without a doubt.
I'd also want to know about the players' foot speed. If the singles hitter was really slow it would make him a lot less valuable.
Positional effect is about 3 wins between DH and C. Major dependencies are on PA/season, slugging percentage, and league OBP and SLG.
C, all singles, WAR = 35.8
C, all HR, WAR = 12.23
SS, all singles, WAR = 35.23
SS, all HR, WAR = 11.66
DH, all singles, WAR = 32.42
DH, all HR, WAR = 8.85
HardLoper wrote:
If someone was hitting a home run 25% of the time it would be wise to walk him as well, so I assume it's given the player isn't walked.
You can assume someone who never gets out will be walked more with men in scoring position than someone who hits .250 with all hrs. The guy with singles would get way more RBIs assuming no walks, so it's only logical that he'd be walked way more than the HR guy. Pretty straight forward.
Example
- 500 abs with a man on 2nd/3rd = 1000 RBIs for the single guy. (Assuming both score obviously)
- 500 abs with a man on 2nd/3rd = 375 RBIs for the HR guy
Easy choice as to who gets walked more.
Doubles. From a leadoff spot, the hitter would already be in scoring position. The singles hitter would need a stolen base, hit or certain kind of out just to get in scoring position. With bases loaded, the doubles hitter could clear the bases. Singles hitter two at the most. Three runs can break a game open. Two, not really. I would rather have the higher percentage of scoring/breaking the game open at 50% than 100% chance of just getting on first/getting two runs. Only a few opportunities to score runs in a game. I would rather have the higher upside. Triples/home runs hitter are overkill as you only need to be on second to score.
Les wrote:
Doubles. From a leadoff spot, the hitter would already be in scoring position. The singles hitter would need a stolen base, hit or certain kind of out just to get in scoring position. With bases loaded, the doubles hitter could clear the bases. Singles hitter two at the most. Three runs can break a game open. Two, not really. I would rather have the higher percentage of scoring/breaking the game open at 50% than 100% chance of just getting on first/getting two runs. Only a few opportunities to score runs in a game. I would rather have the higher upside. Triples/home runs hitter are overkill as you only need to be on second to score.
You're voluntarily giving away 300 outs by going with the doubles hitter, assuming 600 ABs.
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
You're voluntarily giving away 300 outs by going with the doubles hitter, assuming 600 ABs.
But remember, getting the singles hitter to score would take more outs (would still take singles hitter).
That said- On a BAD HITTING TEAM, would the singles hitter's production go to waste? If no one in scoring position to bat in, and no one to RBI him home.... That could be a scenario towards the HR hitter. I know we originally weren't talking about the team around him. But...
Mrr82 wrote:
If someone always got on with a single, after awhile he'd be walked every-time people were in scoring position lowering the impact.
All four of those guys would be walked. A guy that hits .250 but a homer every time? He is going to have 150 or so homers in a single year....150!...300 triples, 450 doubles or 600 singles in a single year? ALL of those guys would be walked nearly every time, because the risk is too great. (assuming an average of 600 AB per year...it is actually about 620 or so)
All 4 players would break the game. That said. Unless the player was ridiculously slow, I would take the guaranteed single every time and put him lead-off. More runners on base means more opportunities to score. As a former pitcher, nothing would be more frustrating than a hitter batting 1000. I'd probably throw a ball at his head.
If you had nine of the singles guy, they would produce infinity runs per game, which is better than teams made up of the other three guys. But those teams would probably have a better record because they would likely go 162-0, whereas the singles guys would never finish their first game (even the first inning would never end).
I would like to see the results of game simulations with just one of each guy in normal lineups.
I would bat the singles hitter clean up. If he hits in the 1st inning someone is on and a strong possibility of an RBI. If he doesn't come up until the 2nd he's the lead off guy other posters wanted. Yes, I know he may not have as many AB's hitting down in the order.
I'd want the guy who never makes an out, the guy who bats .1000