Should On-Base Be A Category?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun May 16, 2004 6:07 am

It's interesting to note that when the Founding Fathers of Rotisserie Baseball developed their scoring system that batting average was the most used statistic to determine a batter's plate discipline. But over the years, the scoring categories have been developed to also include runs and strikeouts. Now I wonder if Batting Average shouldn't be looked at closer.

In today's current 5x5 scoring system, walks do not play a factor at all. Sure, they can lead to runs and RBIs for other hitters, but they're not rewarded to the actual hitter. If Barry Bonds walks 200 times this year, it won't be accurately reflected in fantasy baseball, which is a shame.

Changing batting average to on-base percentage as a scoring category would change that. I'm not proposing that, just saying that in today's more stat-enriched society it's as easy to calculate OBP as it is BA. I'm actually in one experts league (XFL, started by Ron Shandler) that uses OBP instead of BA and I like it.

So here's my thought for the week: Do you think fantasy baseball would be better with On-Base Percentage as a scoring category instead of Batting Average? If so, why do you think so? If not, why not? The NFBC has some of the most dedicated fantasy baseball players in the country and I'd love to hear your views on this. I might even use this as a column or feature story in our first fantasy baseball issue of 2005. Let's start the dialogue and see where it leads us. Thanks.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Sun May 16, 2004 9:50 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

It's interesting to note that when the Founding Fathers of Rotisserie Baseball developed their scoring system that batting average was the most used statistic to determine a batter's plate discipline. But over the years, the scoring categories have been developed to also include runs and strikeouts. Now I wonder if Batting Average shouldn't be looked at closer.

In today's current 5x5 scoring system, walks do not play a factor at all. Sure, they can lead to runs and RBIs for other hitters, but they're not rewarded to the actual hitter. If Barry Bonds walks 200 times this year, it won't be accurately reflected in fantasy baseball, which is a shame.

Changing batting average to on-base percentage as a scoring category would change that. I'm not proposing that, just saying that in today's more stat-enriched society it's as easy to calculate OBP as it is BA. I'm actually in one experts league (XFL, started by Ron Shandler) that uses OBP instead of BA and I like it.

So here's my thought for the week: Do you think fantasy baseball would be better with On-Base Percentage as a scoring category instead of Batting Average? If so, why do you think so? If not, why not? The NFBC has some of the most dedicated fantasy baseball players in the country and I'd love to hear your views on this. I might even use this as a column or feature story in our first fantasy baseball issue of 2005. Let's start the dialogue and see where it leads us. Thanks. Ok, first off - on base percentage is certainly a good indicator of plate discipline. Agreed, no problem.

But who cares? Wins (minus) losses is a better way to determine Starting Pitcher dominance but we don't talk about having a WmL scoring category for starting pitchers. Stolen bases - times caught stealing sounds wonderful as a category as well, because stealing 22 bases in 50 attempts isn't all that great and the player shouldn't be regarded as a premier stolen base guy.

So - why pick on batting average and ignore all the other 'flaws' in the system ?

It is what it is - and I don't see the problem.

My .02,

Dyv

nnoy · Post by **nnoy** » Sun May 16, 2004 12:17 pm

Historically what has won baseball games? Besides great pitching it’s players that get on base. Additionally even if all of us think he’s a waste as a human being (media included of course) SF Outfielder may be the greatest player in the history of the game ( I love The Babe, Cobb etc. but they were all long gone before most of us were even born.) The fact that fantasy leagues essentially minimize the value of the greatest player our of era (at a minimum we all have to concede to that fact) is a travesty. OB Pct SHOULD be a stat instead of Ave.

Average will always get the press. The batting champ will always get his due. But we use WHIP don’t we? Hell, you can’t even find a list of league leaders in WHIP on most sites. MLB surely does not recognize it as an official stat, at least OBP has a one-up over WHIP there.

Go with OBP next year in the NFBC. It will set a trend that numerous leagues will follow suit on. The game has evolved, and fantasy leagues should evolve with it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun May 16, 2004 1:15 pm

obp is for punks. stay with what works.

SoonerC · Post by **SoonerC** » Sun May 16, 2004 3:08 pm

In my local league, we use OBP & Runs Produced instead of Runs and RBI's and it is a lot of fun. I believe this brings a lot more of a players true real life value to a team into the fantasy realm.

JerseyPaul · Post by **JerseyPaul** » Sun May 16, 2004 4:07 pm

o Do walks advance lone runners on 2nd or 3rd?

o Does an intentional walk with runners on 2nd and 3rd reflect a situation or fear of the hitter?

o Does getting hit by a pitch show skill? (especially with todays armor plating)

I can't argue with the fact that OBP is indeed an excellent measure of a players worth. The fact that OBP can be effected by factors not associated with the player is key. BA can only be improved by actions taken by the hitter while OBP can be effected by other factors. With the winner of this event possibly decided by the 2nd decimal of BA, I think BA is less subject to luck and therefore a better category for this event.

Speaking of that, how many of us have had W's thrown away by a bullpen, like Clemens W yesterday when Piazza hit a 2 out, 2 strike 9th inning homer off of the closer. Personally, I hate that category because it has such a large random component. It's like losing head-to-head in football when the opponent's D returns a fumble for a TD.

Bottom line, I say stick with tradition. If the industry changes, however, like LABR, then this event should reflect what is current.

a · Post by a » Sun May 16, 2004 4:49 pm

I would prefer OBP over average. I even talked with Larry Bump about it last year in the other event. I think it is a better measure of a batter. Then again, I don't like HRs and would rather see either TBs or slugging% instead. It shows the true measure of runner advancement.

viper · Post by **viper** » Mon May 17, 2004 12:28 am

I personally prefer OBP to BA but I'm not sure if you should change. I am in an 18-team private Yahoo Legaue that uses OBP and we all like it. I also play in a private 12-team ESPN sabermetrics league with some pretty fine players and it obviously uses OBP and SLG%. As much as it reflects a truer nature of a hitters ability, switching would create a problem. Many participants in this league rely on sites to provide draft rankings. My guess is that these participants use the rankings from several site and combine them into some type of master list or they just use a single list. The obvious snag is that these lists use BA and not OBP. By changing categories, you might lose a few of these owners. Until you reach the magic 300 teams, I would be hesitant in replacing a standard category with a category which is not normally used in the pre-draft rankings from the various fantasy baseball sites.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon May 17, 2004 2:49 am

Please understand that I'm not proposing that the NFBC change these statistical categories next year, it's just a discussion of the system, that's all. I am in seven fantasy baseball leagues this year and only one uses OBP instead of BA, so I understand how drastic this change would be if the NFBC or any national contest would change their scoring system this way. I'm just looking for a discussion on the matter in general and the NFBC group of players are probably the most veteran group of players in the country who would have a good opinion on this.

As for LABR, we're still a 4x4 league, so don't look for any trend-setting there. But we did make the right move in 1997 when we allowed players to accumulate stats even if they got traded to the other league, which was tough to do at the time but certainly is standard procedure these days.

All of the opinions are good so far as you are correct that if we change BA to OBP, then you could find a better statistic than any of the other current ones as well. This could go on to the point where all 10 categories could be changed, but in the long run the best team would still win each league title. The NFBC likely won't change any of its scoring methods for 2005, but that won't prevent us from discussing them here.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sun May 23, 2004 3:58 pm

The fact that OBP can be effected by factors not associated with the player is key. BA can only be improved by actions taken by the hitter while OBP can be effected by other factors. With the winner of this event possibly decided by the 2nd decimal of BA, I think BA is less subject to luck and therefore a better category for this event.

Actually, this is not true. Luck plays a tremendous role in the batting average for each individual hitter. The rule of thumb is that it is within statistical randomness for a hitter to hit +/- 30 points. That is, a .280 career hitter can hit .250 solely due to bad luck or .310 due to good luck without losing or gaining any degree of skill.

[ May 23, 2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sun May 23, 2004 4:09 pm

As for the OBP vs. BA disussion, in general I don't need my fantasy game to emulate the real game. So long as we all begin with the same $260 or we snake draft rounds, we are already fundamentally different than the "real game".

From an admittedly selfish angle, I wouldn't mind having a different category or two, as that would force the participant to know a little something about player valuation, or at least potentially give an advantage to someone who does. But then, I come from the school that says there is more to fantasy baseball than "knowing baseball".

[ May 23, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

RotoXpert · Post by **RotoXpert** » Tue May 25, 2004 9:03 am

Most of us are old enough to remember back to the day when the only real stat reports we saw were in the Sunday newspaper, in which the players, by league, were listed in order of their AVG. They knew it then, and we know it now. The first stat in the triple crown is the purest of all baseball numbers. What percentage of AB's does a player obtain a hit, that is the bottom line to the game. Billy Beane and his like aside, with all due respect to Bill James, nobody wants to root for a walk. Swing the damn bat. Sure other stats may reflect the true value to a baseball team better than AVG, so what? Our game has very little in common with the game we utilize for stats. Why is fielding, totally ignored in fantasy? Why homers, and steals, rather than sacrifices and walks? It is easy, fantasy, unlike reality can be augmented to contain only action, excitement and need not accurately reflect the truth. I say leave us to our Sunday papers.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Tue May 25, 2004 10:09 am

Why is fielding, totally ignored in fantasy? Quick point of interest...

I'm not justifying this, merely pointing out the inclusion of stolen bases as a category was in part to incorporate defense, employing the anecdotal generalization that the better fielders were more apt to contribute in the stolen base category.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue May 25, 2004 10:09 am

Originally posted by nnoy:

Historically what has won baseball games? Besides great pitching it’s players that get on base. Wrong. Next!

Originally posted by nnoy:

Go with OBP next year in the NFBC. It will set a trend that numerous leagues will follow suit on. Wrong. Next!

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue May 25, 2004 10:10 am

Originally posted by SoonerC:

In my local league, we use OBP & Runs Produced instead of Runs and RBI's and it is a lot of fun. I believe this brings a lot more of a players true real life value to a team into the fantasy realm. Stay with the local league. Thanks.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue May 25, 2004 10:12 am

Originally posted by Vega$ Gambler$:

I would prefer OBP over average. Not me. Try again.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue May 25, 2004 10:15 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Actually, this is not true. Luck plays a tremendous role in the batting average for each individual hitter. The rule of thumb is that it is within statistical randomness for a hitter to hit +/- 30 points. That is, a .280 career hitter can hit .250 solely due to bad luck or .310 due to good luck without losing or gaining any degree of skill. If a player's BA goes down, so does his OBP. What am I missing? I'm looking more like a genius every day. Thanks.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue May 25, 2004 10:18 am

My team has improved, so I took the liberty of issuing a few posts. Hope you guys don't mind.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed May 26, 2004 9:23 am

If a player's BA goes down, so does his OBP. What am I missing? The point, genious.

The point was made that batting average does not incorporate luck. I refuted that point.

And now I'll show that OBP serves to actually reduce the effect of that element of randomness.

A .280 hitter with 500 AB and 60 BB has an OBP of .357.

A .250 hitter with 500 AB and 60 BB has an OBP of .330.

A .310 hitter with 500 AB and 60 BB has an OBP of .384.

So the randomness effect to batting average is +/- 30 points while the effect is +/- 27 points with OBP.

[ May 26, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed May 26, 2004 9:46 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

quote: If a player's BA goes down, so does his OBP. What am I missing? The point, genious.

A .280 hitter with 500 AB and 60 BB has an OBP of .357.

A .250 hitter with 500 AB and 60 BB has an OBP of .330.

A .310 hitter with 500 AB and 60 BB has an OBP of .384.

So the randomness effect to batting average is +/- 30 points while the effect is +/- 27 points with OBP. [/QUOTE]Are you sure your numbers are correct? I'm gonna have one of my people run the calculations. I'd hate for you to be wrong. Oh ya, if you want to poke fun at Gekko, try and spell the word correctly, Genius .

[ May 26, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

a · Post by a » Wed May 26, 2004 4:29 pm

What does the this have to do with using OBP instead of BA?????? You should of had your staff research your answer before you gave it.

OBP is a better stat than BA. I'd rather have a .280 hitter with an OBP of .410 than a .300 hitter that has a .330 OBP. The point is, OBP helps a team better than average and gives a better valuation of a batter. Plus, this would give better prepared owners the edge, you should be in favor of this since you research team could have a field day..

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

Actually, this is not true. Luck plays a tremendous role in the batting average for each individual hitter. The rule of thumb is that it is within statistical randomness for a hitter to hit +/- 30 points. That is, a .280 career hitter can hit .250 solely due to bad luck or .310 due to good luck without losing or gaining any degree of skill. If a player's BA goes down, so does his OBP. What am I missing? I'm looking more like a genius every day. Thanks. [/QUOTE]