The Big Post for 2016

I will disagree with your conclusions around the slash lines for obp/slg. Runs are more influenced by obp than slg, even in this depressed offensive environment. Go take a look at any of the teams I ran this year and I finished top 3 in runs scored playing in a pitchers park. However, this has been debated before as you saw geekors earlier comments.

I will add that slg isn't really the key driver, but isolated power. Cristiano had a great tour team in round one or two that highlights this dynamic.

I think some players with higher on-base and relatively low iso power were perhaps overpriced----catchers like Cervelli or Murphy come to mind. Problem with these players also stem from considerations. over building an efficient lineup. You put them lead-off, they have no speed whatsoever, so you need the Earl Weaver strategy of hitting a 3-run homerun---but you're not likely to have a stadium that favours the Earl Weaver strategy if you pursue them at the first place. And if you put them lower in the lineup, they lack he isopower to produce runs with efficiency...

Marc,

That's probably true. In recent years I have played with OBP modifiers based on the players base running rating. So first I value the player based on pure OBP, then I come back over the top and add either a premium if they are rating 15 or higher or a penalty if they are 10 or lower. Its by no means a perfect adjustment, but I know most people won't touch a high OBP, with no speed or power, especially if that obp is walks.

That being said I have theorized that we place way to much emphasis on maximizing the line up. I have toyed with running high value players that don't fit the typical lineup and see how they perform, but I am not playing enough these days to experiment.

I believe I may have misstated something in my earlier post: SLG was the difference in run scoring teams, not necessarily in winning teams. Pitching, I think, largely best determined winners and losers this card set. However, nobody really opts for fewer runs over more scoring.

How do you score more runs? Obviously, you try to have the best OPS. In league after league that I participated in, I caught the following trend:

Go to the team stats page and look at the bell curves around each section of the slash line. Time and again, it seemed to me that the league's high and low in batting average were fairly close to the league average. Same thing with OBP. The high to low range was pretty compact. But the SLG line was often spread VERY wide over the league average. Obviously, the higher SLG teams were scoring more runs.

So I must be missing the isolated power distinction (ISO = SLG - AVG). The 10th best run scoring team and the first place run scoring team often appeared to have very similar BA and OBP, but wildly different SLG. Not sure how you see OBP influencing more runs being scored. I absolutely did not see it that way at all (for the 2016 card set).

check out tour event 1 league 2. The top 3 teams-

814 runs .240/.312/.455
808 runs .240/.317/.441
729 runs .258/.316/.445

the stats look fairly consistent for obp and slg, but the top two teams scored almost 100 runs more due to isolated power. The primary factors in my model are getting on base and moving runners which is a combination of obp and isolated power. I find slg - avg. to be better indicator of power and scoring runs.

My team stats for the same season playing in AT&T were:

713 runs .253/.335/.389 so I did only finish in 5th for this season in runs scored, but it provides a good counter point to scoring runs from the teams above.

fourth place was:

719 runs .239/.301/.435

Again almost as many runs as the third place team. the lower OBP was made up by better iso power.

I lead our Pepperdine league in runs scored with a slg only 7 points higher than the league average, but with an OBP 31 points higher than the league average. That was an AT&T team as well.

Thank you, I do feel there is additional insight in what you're saying. But do we actually agree more than we disagree? I thought you were originally making the case for OBP?? Isolated power is SLG - AVG, but if the averages are roughly the same, and the OBPs are roughly the same, there's only one item left, right?

I may be using SLG in a more macro sense, and your distinction with isolated power is a deeper look in, but I think in a general way we're more in agreement than not, no?

Mark,

Just so we understand each other, I do recognize the role of OBP in run scoring. I even understand the value of ISO.

We do have to be careful of small sample sizes also, but I'll counter your examples with the three tour semis leagues.

League 1:

BA .245 (hi-lo range was -17 to +20)
OBP .312 (-21 to +17)
SLG .402 (-32 to +39)

Note: SLG had a 71 point range, and hi SLG team was first in runs scored.

League 2:

BA .250 (-20 to +15)
OBP .318 (-16 to +15)
SLG .420 (-45 to +35)

Note: SLG had an 80 point range.

League 3:

BA .250 (-24 to +25)
OBP .314 (-19 to +12)
SLG .403 (-52 to +58)

Note: SLG had an enormous 110 point range and the hi SLG team was first in runs scored.

Now, my argument isn't that SLG is necessarily more important than OBP. Obviously, a well structured high run scoring team can be favorably tilted to OBP. The formula is still OBPxSLG, so I'm not trying to argue that OBP is irrelevant.

What I am saying, is that in league after league, just like in the three examples above, the BAs and OBPs could be nearly identical in the high run scoring team and the low run scoring team in any given league. The only thing that was noticeably different was the SLG. So I began to win more when I started targeting high SLG low dollar players in my team make-up.

If every single team is plus or minus 20 league avg in BA and OBP time after time, but plus or minus 40 in SLG, I want to be as close to that +40 as I can get. That's where I see the separation in teams generating the most runs.

And if it's unclear, this is a macro generalization, and not intended as a slight on your pricing model. To buy wins you buy runs. To buy runs you buy OPS. If OBP appears to be being held constant, that is, you're unlikely to massively outperform the league average in OBP, then the only thing left is to add more SLG. If you outperform the league average in SLG in 2016, you have a very good chance of finishing well in runs scored, IMO.

The conclusion I think you are reaching is that slugging is a much easier variable to manipulate to score more runs. I would agree with that and most slugging teams are built to maximize the park.

What my experience tells me is that if I have 2 players worth the same runs produced over the same plate appearances, but one does it with high obp and low slugging he is worth more in the team concept because baseball isn't limited by pa's but outs so a player who "consumes" less outs allows his team more pa's and more runs scored. As far as scoring runs is concerned the value of obp is much greater than slg. now to geekors complaint I have priced obp where it is much harder to manipulate this stat comparative to the league, but it can be done and the runs do come with it.

I think the point we agree on is that based on pricing slg is easier to find value for runs than obp

You really got me to thinking about isolated power now:

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/1429926

Can anyone top .228 (.478 SLG - .250 BA)? That was my best example for this year. I had a couple finish at .200, but this was really an outlier, I think. Exactly league average in batting average and OBP, terrible against the division, five below the pythag, lost more one run games than I won, but somehow closed the deal.

+58 in SLG, led the league in runs scored, too, with over 800. Scoring more by hitting less. There really is no end in the SOM mouse trap making business.

I just rearranged my latest team to tilt this way now too, in Camden. We'll see how that goes...