Stat question...All opinions welcome (Poll)

Bat him 8th. So he can get to 2nd on his own and pitcher sac him to 3rd

This was a favorite strategy when I played live with dice. Drove a buddy nuts. He argued (probably correctly) that real life managers would not steal second and then bunt. They would just bunt. Primary reason being if the hitter has to take a few pitches to give the runner a chance to steal he is not likely to be in a count that will allow him to bunt. That is especially true if it is a pitcher at the plate.

So I have to ask. How reliable can you get HAL to follow this kind of strategy? Do you really find Hal will frequently steal second and then put the bunt on verses just putting the bunt on? If you do can you post some teams where that worked?
Even better yet post a bunch of box scores.

Tied bottom of the 11th Aybar leadoff single. Lindstrom brought in to pitch to Pedrosia. Aybar advance to 2B on a WP.
Aybar steals 3B and then scores on a Pedroia single. Probably makes no sense in real life but makes perfect sense here.
Lindstrom a +9 hold with Lucroy +1 catching. Pedroia a D bunter. Can't fault HAL for stealing 3rd with no outs.
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/ga ... 424972/423

a 280 ave. vs a 250 is significant. since the obp is only 25 points different, that means many more hits than walks/hbp's. i'll take a single or better every time over a walk. we know the obp is due to walks/hbps, but we have no way to ascertain if the hits are just singles even though with the only slightly better slugging %, it appears the case? what are the two cards you are comparing or do they exist?

a 280 ave. vs a 250 is significant. since the obp is only 25 points different, that means many more hits than walks/hbp's. i'll take a single or better every time over a walk. we know the obp is due to walks/hbps, but we have no way to ascertain if the hits are just singles even though with the only slightly better slugging %, it appears the case? what are the two cards you are comparing or do they exist?

We aren't comparing any two cards. The question was asked to get peoples views basically on OB% Vs. BA/SLG%. Some would argue (including 10 in this poll alone) that the extra OB% alone is worth more in run production than a higher BA and SLG% yet lower OB%.

maybe 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. a higher slugging % and its a no-brainer.

maybe 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. a higher slugging % and its a no-brainer.

The question then would be why is the higher slugging % a no brainer?

in order to get the higher slugging %, more doubles, triples, or hrs for the same .280 BA. so more runs, rbi's and less gbdp's. check out 96 sosa. lower BA, much lower obp, but very productive

in order to get the higher slugging %, more doubles, triples, or hrs for the same .280 BA. so more runs, rbi's and less gbdp's. check out 96 sosa. lower BA, much lower obp, but very productive

It isn't the same .280 BA it's .280 to .250 .025 SLG% isn't much. They aren't going to have many more extra base hits. That extra SLG% would likely be mostly singles which results in the higher BA. Most would argue the higher OB% guy would have more runs and help turn over the lineup more. I don't follow your logic about the GDP's either...

i meant the same average but a higher slugging % difference than just 25%. on the gbdp, i'm assuming a few of the outs that are walks on the higher obp% card would be outs on the lower card. since the slugging % is so low and we both agree the slightly higher average is most likely due to singles, most single hitter cards would have more gbA opps than say strikeouts. could be popouts though?

Definitely B. The ISO SLG is almost identical, so B gets more singles and A gets more walks. So B knocls in more runs. Given identical OPS, that's enough to tip the scales.