My apologies: slugging over on-base, after all (or is it?)

[MARCPELLETIER]

In a recent post, I literally cracked down on some Strat member (I can't remember whom it was) who was providing some preliminary data that slugging seem to be more succesful than on-base.

This might be true, after all.

Look at the players everyone is complaining about: As we speak, J.Micheals owners are saying they're getting rip off. Yet, Micheals has the best on-base vs lhp (at least without stadium effects).

Many have complained about B.Giles, about Abreu. Roberts is thought to be too expensive.

Perhaps on-base has been priced too much, at the expense of slugging.

In any case, the two teams I had success with had average on-base, but very strong slugging.

Is there a trend?

[ANDREWLAITURI]

I'm not sure there is a trend here Lucky. My first two 06 teams have finished 2nd and 4th respectively in offense and only had SLG percentages of .418 and .436 so I wouldn't necessarily go overboard on the team slugging yet.

In fact my .418 SLG team won it all and the other team that took the championship in the other league only had a SLG of .409

[MARCPELLETIER]

You miss my point, Tyber90.

I'm not linking better offensive rank to better slugging. We all know that good offensive rank (unless if you're not lucky) is linked to OPS (or any similar measure of offense).

I am linking winning records with high slugging/average on-base.

What was your record on those two teams?

[ANDREWLAITURI]

Ah, ok sorry I did miss your point then Lucky. I was thinking that you were equating SLG with overall success which as of yet has not been my experience.

Of the teams I mentioned both had OBP of less than .350 so maybe OBP is overrated??

[MARCPELLETIER]

Tyber, sorry for the confusion, we've been editing our texts at the same moment.

Yeah, my point is that winning teams have either:

-average on-base/high slugging
-average on-base/strong pitching


You seem to have the second sort of teams.

[ANDREWLAITURI]

An interesting discussion to be sure because one of the championship teams coincides completely with your premise.

They posted stats of .327 OBP .409 SLG and a 3.51 ERA

My own championship team is the anomaly posting stats of .349 OBP .436 SLG but also posting an ERA of 4.52

Interesting stuff.

[LANCEBOUSLEY]

hmmm...

maybe the era thingie has to do with the number of people going for pitching parks and pricey pitchers this year.

that would be consisitent with the antecdotal stuff we are hearing in that direction.

Anybody read "baseball between the numbers".

[Jeepdriver]

I know this is a general statement, but I have built my line-ups (over all 5 seasons) based on slugging way more than OBP. True, I have generally played in hitter parks, but give me slugging any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. :wink:

[rgimbel]

Last year I think there were more bargains in ob and def type players and the mgrs in hitters park had to overpay for slugging. I think that made it easier to win in pitchers park. however I think def and ob are priced in now and are more expensive this year giving the sluggers a better shot at winning. that is why jason michaels is more than a buck 70 higher than last year. going back to the thread about skill or chance since newbies love slugging that may be why they are performing better at the vets exspense. Of course every year is different and once the vets adjust to the new year and find the players they like, the vets will perform close to what they always have.

[cummings2]

I think one of the problems I developed at one point with last year's set is to think of OBP almost to an extreme and get lineups predominant with walkers. My Sluggers were, due to the high bucks given to OBP, lower avg. HR type hitters (like Dunn 05).

I know this is stating the obvious, but at one point you have to have someone that can hit the ball not just walk to 1st.

My H&R teams have had abysmal SLG, barely over .400 and actually not so high OBP either, yet none has posted a losing record. Of the 5 H&R teams, 3 have made it to the finals 1 tied for div lead (but lost tie breker) and the other one was the one with supposedly the higher OBPs and SLGs. But the 4 more succesful had higher batting averages usually in the top 3 in the league.

My point? Lost in between OBP and SLG there's Batting Average, which as we all know contributes to both OBP and SLG.

I don't disagree with you Lucky, actually I strongly agree with this:

Yeah, my point is that winning teams have either:

-average on-base/high slugging
-average on-base/strong pitching

I'm simply pointing out how I "misused" the notion of OBP and SLG thinking only walks and Homeruns at one point.