It’s the storage of data one always had in his or her head – long before Bill James even opened up a scorecard.

I’m not sure if James is responsible for this fascination with figures more than it is those who adopted it. James is a noted baseball historian who has written many books filled with rich and wonderful antidotal stories about the game that has nothing to do with figures and analysis but simply how they played the game. If one based his or her knowledge on the game by talking about stats, then they would know nothing at all about how wonderful the 1962 Mets were to watch and follow.

What started out as a critique on how stats and computer analysis can make small differences in players seem gigantic, beginning with OBP, slowly expanded into other facets of the game as the continued reference to stats came more and more into the discussion. Thus what started out with an OBP went to Ed Charles and Oakland’s early first round draft picks.

Referring to one’s OBP percentage being 64 points higher than the league to show how far better that player’s ability is at getting on base would not hold much merit with those who play the game itself since it only equates to getting on base just additional time every four games, or 39 times over a course of a season. Those additional times to first base obviously presents 39 more opportunities to help create a run or even a series of runs per season but in the realm of 600 plate appearances it shows that difference between many players is less than statistics make it appear. Same with a .300 hitter compared to a .260 hitter in 600 at bats – 24 hits, or one more over a spread of seven games.

Percentages are different than home run, rbi, stolen base accumulations,etc. and do not paint an accurate picture of one’s overall talent. So when one hears ball players talking about the game, it’s in terms of how the players mesh together and one’s individual talent, like a pitcher’s grip, deceptive motion, ability to paint the corners, a batter’s wrist action, batting eye, the ability of a base runner to read a pitcher’s motion to get that extra split second jump off first, a catcher’s ability to block pitches thrown in the dirt, an outfielder’s strong throwing arm making runners hesitant to take an extra base, a fielder being able to tell how well a ball is hit by the sound of the ball coming off the bat, one’s lack of speed on the base path slowing down other runners….. and all that other type of mumbo jumbo. It’s not about batting averages, on base percentages, WAR, OPS, etc.

That is the logic of baseball. Those who really understand and appreciate the game don’t need to think about it in terms of stats other than for the record books.

All History shows is good teams score more runs than bad teams and good teams do everything better than bad teams not just get on base!

As for getting on Base I showed the history…Higher OBP does not guarantee higher RS than a team with lower OBP!

So your statement is patently FALSE, Your History MADE UP pile of BULL!

You thump your chest like you proved something becuase a team that came in 4th in OBP came in 5th in runs or a team that came in 2nd in OB came in 5th in runs. LMAO. Your arguments are hilarious. Now if you showed me a team that was 3rd or 4th in OB come in 12,13,14 in runs then you may prove something. You haven’t done that.

Again I showed you a team lead the league in BA come in 13th in runs scored. Can you show me a team lead the league in OB come in that low in runs scored? How about that amatuer OPS? You can’t do it. No team that leads the league in OPS is ever going to be in the bottom 13th or 14th in runs scored. None, Zero, Zippo, Nada, Niente, Zilch.

You want to know who the parrot was who first caught my attention with OB%. His name is Mr Ralph Kiner. he’s been yapping about it for the 40 years I’ve been watching the Mets and he continues to talk about it today, even in spring games this year he brought it up. That’s my parrot. I researched it and found him to be telling the truth. Just look at the teams that can’t score runs for shit and look at their OB and look at the teams that are good at scoring runs and then look at their OB. Oh yeah you found one.

I won’t even get into the RBI to Runs debate cause it’s even funnier than saying OB doesn’t correlate to runs. I don’t know who taught you these things but I believe you have a good lawsuit.

All this focus on OBP is just BS!

Plate Discipline is all about getting better BA which in turn will make the OBP better as well!
It’s about getting HITS not on base!

No correlation whatsoever!

Some teams with good OBP score lots of runs and some don’t!
Some teams with lower OBP score lots of runs and more than someone with a higher OBP and some do not!

OBP does not correlate to RS AT ALL!

The problem is Bill James’ discovery then went onto hopw by lookig at past events you could predict the future…

You can’t you can only make a better guess!

And people have been making those positionings long before Bill James ever opened a spreadsheet and wrote a book!

The stuff in James’ book is not much more than putting all the data managers used to keep in their head into an easily searchable computer printout so those who aren’t smart enough or have a good enough knowledge can still make a decent guess!

But not always!

They are very different!
One may seem dependent on the other but since RS is the GOAL it doesn’t really matter than RBI is the same thing because from what your saying RBI IS THE GOAL then 100% of the time!
Not the OB which may or may not be an act that results in the goal you want!

I know it’s just another attempt to cloud the issue and steer away from the OBP FAILURE by turning this into a debate about RBI!
All I’m saying is the teams who have more score more runs and the teams that have more OBP don’t do that consistently!
This is about how TRUE this Higher OBP = Higher RS myth is!

And it is about as true a story as Pinocchio with Fonzie and Xtreeme’s nose growing to monumental proportions!

I don’t care what an RBI is, doesn’t matter!
OBP doesn’t correlate AT ALL!

All those years it followed him everywhere and he never could get one. The toughest of all was the collapse with the Angels in the ALCS.

Howard had more opportunities and that was the point I was trying to make.

I don’t know how that orignal point ends up being about Billy Beane, Sandy Alderson, Terry Steinbach, Jason Giambi, Mark McGwire, Sabermetrics, advanced stats, yada yada yada.

If you think one player out of nine gets on base 38 more times than the average player is minimal and over exaggerated, then by all means continue to think that way. I find that to be poor logic.

Gene Mauch blew the 1964 pennant by panicking and having his starting pitchers begin throwing on two days rest with a 6-1/2 game lead with 12 to go. That’s really wasting.

Even his players admitted he started doing things wrong down the stretch.

Gene Mauch managed for years and years and never won a pennant, sac bunting all the way

My position in this discussion is only in regards to advanced statistical analysis being construed as revealing things baseball insiders didn’t already know and taking the game to a higher level.

One example is the contention by many that through Bill James computer analysis we found out that where the fielder is positioned is actually more important than who is pitching on the mound. Now James is completely right. Fielders must know how to adjust themselves pitcher by pitcher as well as batter by batter. But is this new? Not at all. I’ve seen managers and coaches signaling fielders to take even just a few steps toward a certain direction since I was a kid.

Now, pythagorean winning percentage is an estimate of a team’s winning percentage given their runs scored and runs allowed that was developed by Bill James to ascertain when teams were a bit lucky or unlucky. So what does that reveal? Do we need pythagorean winning percentage to tell us the Yankees were lucky to win that game when Castillo dropped that ordinary popup? Or that the Mets were unlucky and lost game one of the 2000 world series because Timo Perez was thrown out at home plate since he didn’t run hard thinking Ziele’s two out double in the sixth inning was going over the fence?

Notice the cynicism about Ed Charles being a vital contribution to the 1969 Mets? Those focusing on his .200 batting average lost sight of what his experience, maturity and understanding of what younger, inexperienced players were going through and didn’t know of yet. That’s having no conception of what value this veteran on his last legs meant to a team of youngsters. That value is still being missed by those who equate getting rid of veteran players who are helping a young team to learn, mature, develop better habits, experience winning , finishing up with a respectable winning record and building up confidence to carry into the following season as being less important to building for the future as getting a highly rated prospect.

Data is a valuable as storage of information that players and managers can rely upon better in lieu of memory. It doesn’t tell them something they were not already aware of. All pitchers know to a great extent who pulls the ball more on what, who can be fooled on certain pitches in certain count situations, who adjusts his swing more on two strikes, who has a better knowledge of the strike zone, etc. The computer can give them all those details and more at a glance. I

That’s my gripe – the discussion by many is all about what the computer research reveals. It is not about the things discussed by players or shared with us on MLB Network’s 30 team series.

It shows OBP correlates badly when compared to RBI and even worse than two other metrics!
There is no research that has ever been presented to prove it does anything better in regards to RS and can only show who got on base more than someone else!