Which cheap C in a neutral park?

[TomP]

MM,

Doesn't Schalk have better OBP? I believe he has 43 chances while Gibson is around 36 or 37. Gibson does have better slugging.

[Munich_Man]

Tom, I don't know what you mean by chances, I'm not a numbers guy. I just go by how players perform for me. In my experience, I get a better OBP out of Gibson. :)

(_)ß

[TomP]

MM,

Sorry, I forgot some play by "feel" while others read the cards. Sometimes my math background probably gets in the way of building a good team as I tend to ignore the intangibles.

Anyway, what I meant by chances is that there are 108 possible dice outcomes on a batter's card (36 times 3 columns). A hit or walk on a 2 result is 1 chance. That progresses to 6 chances for a 7 roll per statistical probabilities. If you total those results, you'll have a metric of a batter's OBP potential.

[Free Radicals]

Tom can you explain that to a non math wiz ? The 108 , where does that come from ? Each column has 11 chances , there are 6 columns , isn't that 66 potential dice rolls ?

[TomP]

Sure, I'll get it a shot. The probability is based on the roll of 2 dice. A 2 result can occur only when the first die has a 1 result and the second die is also a 1. However, a 7 result can happen from a variety of combinations (1 and 6, 2 and 5, 6 and 1, etc). Thus, the probability of a 7 occurring is much greater than a 2. The chart below details the odds of each roll. 36 chances are possible. Thus, there are 216 possible combinations per plate appearance (6 columns times 36). In my Schalk example, I was discussing only the batter's card (columns 1, 2 & 3; that is 3 times 36 = 108). Hope this helps.

Dice Result Probability
2................1
3................2
4................3
5................4
6................5
7................6
8................5
9................4
10..............3
11..............2
12..............1

[PJ Axelsson]

Call me crazy, but I think the coding for the cards is funky sometimes. I use numbers too, but the old gut feeling and past experiences tend to provide me with better results.

I agree about Gibson too. If he were listed, I'd go with him first. I used to use Schalk more based on the numbers, but the reality turned me around.

[gkhd11a]

I take the "chances" and multiply by 20 so I can account for any partial splits. I too believe Gibson is better for the following reasons:

1) Gibson's slugging average via the card in Fenway '67 is .422 vs righties and Schalk is .342. In the lower part of the lineup power will account for many more runs than OBP which helps more at the top of the lineup. Schalk's OBP is .435 vs .373 for Gibson but for the most part it is wasted OBP as it is all singles and walks. A key statistic for hitting ability I use is SLG X OBP X 600 expected at bats in a year to give me numbers to compare. the higher the better. Schalk at Fenway '67 against righties is a 89.4 Gibson is a 94.5 and this does not take into consideration the following below:

2) Gibson is an "N" Schalk a "W" in a hitters league Gibson is much better for you on the road. I have seen Gibson get as many as 10 home runs with 89 RBI's for me even though as his card is you should only have one in a year.

3) Gibson has positive clutch of 40 (2 chances) vs righties Schalk has a
-20 or -1 chance. Assume 60 clutch situations in a year for Gibson he will get 3 extra hits from that over Schalk.

4) Gibson is a 14 vs 13 for speed, and will score incrementally better.

5) Gibson is a "B" hit and run which can be utilized successfully on a good fast small ball team Schalk as a "C" should not hit and run.

6) Gibson's deep fly balls vs righties are to left field (4.6% of the time his card is selected or about 14 per year) where many in ATGII throw weak arms, Shalk's are to CF where everyone for the most part has a good arm. Gibson will therefore have more sacrafice flies which means higher BA and RBI's. If 1/3 of the time he hits a deep fly ball that will be 4-5 RBI's and non ab's that Schalk will have.