obp vs. avg

glenlake22 · Post by **glenlake22** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:49 pm

A league this large and this serious should seriously consider going with obp over avg. watching a player walk and knowing that the at-bat was worthless is like a slap in the face. has there been any discussion on making this change?

Also, what about TB over HR?

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:28 pm

there has been discussion about this before. try the search button above and you should be able to find previous threads about this.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:32 pm

how is a walk worthless when it turns into a run, rbi, sb about 40% of the time?

Chameleon · Post by **Chameleon** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:38 pm

I understand your like of OBP%, as I play in several leagues which use it. And I agree with you. But we've been down this path before, and as an NFBC'er since the begining, what you'll find (what I've found) is that "it is what it is" (nice cliche, huh).

Sure, there are small tweaks to the rules here and there, but much as I too would like to see OBP over B.Avg as an offensive category, I think given the entrenched nature of positions on this topic, there's a better chance of a Glacier creeping up on your house from the North Pole.

The NFBC is what it is ... so those with Adam Dunn, Nick Swisher and the like, alter your plan, or don't draft guys like that.

glenlake22 · Post by **glenlake22** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:03 am

okay, so it's worthless 60% of the time.

Who likes average better than OBP? That's probably a better question.

On a prior thread someone suggested that it's a more complicated stat (OBP) and would therefore stop some fantasy players from coming to the NFBC. My personal feelings are that anybody coming to the NFBC is usually forking over a decent sum of money, is serious about fantasy baseball and is quite knowledgeable on stats far beyond OBP.

Eventually, the NFBC will use OBP. The question is: when?

a voice in the crowd

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:20 am

Something else that will be in the future as well, will be the use of only one starting catcher. The only reason we have two is tradition. When thinking about it, it is darned right silly to have two starting catchers while other infield spots have one spot

I would like to see the second catcher included with middle infielders.

[ August 27, 2009, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]