Anyone ever make a team based solely on speed?

[rockze25]

Although. . .

If Soriano drives in runs, that leaves less runs to be driven in for the rest of the lineup. It would be better, overall, if you have a guy who gets on base more often than hits home runs at the top of the order. The runs driven in should be taken care of by the middle o fthe order.

[crackpott]

to disprove this, can someone use Rockze's method of "proof" only for RBI instead of runs? It's much more difficult, since you need to get the average amount of players on base for any given at bat, which I can't seem to find. I know the league average OBP is .340, so basically there will someone on base more often than not when you're up, and also there could be numerous people on base. Still, I don't want to try to show something as fact without the accurate mathematical calculations, so I'm hoping there is a math wiz here.

[jameyhammock]

Originally posted by rockze25
I'm not looking for anyone to think I'm credible. My ideas should be their own proof. If it doesn't make sense to you then it doesn't.

So just because you have an idea, that makes it credible? The existence of an idea is its own validation? Whatever happend to testing your idea to see if it was true?

[crackpott]

Originally posted by rockze25
Although. . .

If Soriano drives in runs, that leaves less runs to be driven in for the rest of the lineup. It would be better, overall, if you have a guy who gets on base more often than hits home runs at the top of the order. The runs driven in should be taken care of by the middle o fthe order.

...explain. No one is doubting OBP is more important than slugging.

But under your scenario...

let's assume someone gets on base at the #1 spot. Someone later hits a homer and drives him in. That's 2 runs.

If it was a power hitter, someone homers at the #1 spot. Someone homers later. That's still 2 runs.

Of course, I was assuming the player in the middle hit a homer. Lets look at some other scenarios.

Player 1 leads off with a single/walk. He stays on fist. (doesn't try to steal). Player 2 singles. Player 1 moves to third, 2 is on first. No one scores. If player one had have hit a homerun, there would be one run already.

Player 1 leads off with a single/walk. He steals second. Player 2 singles. Run scores. That run would have scored if player 1 had have homered anyway. Also, there is no guarantee he'll be safe on the steal, so this is also a worse situation.

Ultimately, there is NOTHING better than a homerun. It not only drives in everyone on base, you score yourself. To think that's it's better to get on base to let someone else hit you home over just slugging the hell out of the ball yourself is absurd.

Yes, OBP is important, and at the top of the lineup, is more important than slugging (it always is, but maybe even a little moreso) but guess what? Homeruns help your OBP too.

[rockze25]

Originally posted by crackpott
to disprove this, can someone use Rockze's method of "proof" only for RBI instead of runs? It's much more difficult, since you need to get the average amount of players on base for any given at bat, which I can't seem to find. I know the league average OBP is .340, so basically there will someone on base more often than not when you're up, and also there could be numerous people on base. Still, I don't want to try to show something as fact without the accurate mathematical calculations, so I'm hoping there is a math wiz here.

Keep in mind that the more home runs you hit, the fewer people you are going to have on base.

[rockze25]

Originally posted by crackpott
...explain. No one is doubting OBP is more important than slugging.

But under your scenario...

let's assume someone gets on base at the #1 spot. Someone later hits a homer and drives him in. That's 2 runs.

If it was a power hitter, someone homers at the #1 spot. Someone homers later. That's still 2 runs.

Of course, I was assuming the player in the middle hit a homer. Lets look at some other scenarios.

Player 1 leads off with a single/walk. He stays on fist. (doesn't try to steal). Player 2 singles. Player 1 moves to third, 2 is on first. No one scores. If player one had have hit a homerun, there would be one run already.

Player 1 leads off with a single/walk. He steals second. Player 2 singles. Run scores. That run would have scored if player 1 had have homered anyway. Also, there is no guarantee he'll be safe on the steal, so this is also a worse situation.

Ultimately, there is NOTHING better than a homerun. It not only drives in everyone on base, you score yourself. To think that's it's better to get on base to let someone else hit you home over just slugging the hell out of the ball yourself is absurd.

Yes, OBP is important, and at the top of the lineup, is more important than slugging (it always is, but maybe even a little moreso) but guess what? Homeruns help your OBP too.

Given this example, keep in mind that players are more likely to hit/walk than hit a home run.

[rockze25]

If people get on base more often, your chances of scoring are increased more than hitting a home run.

Again, as long as the amount of times a player gets on base and scores is greater than the amount of home runs they have, getting on base will always be beter than hitting a home run.

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by rockze25
Again, as long as the amount of times a player gets on base and scores is greater than the amount of home runs they have, getting on base will always be beter than hitting a home run.

There is no situation where getting on base is better than hitting a home run. Your ignorance is appalling though after 300+ posts of lies and idiocy, no longer surprising. There is no offensive result in baseball better than a home run. If you are unable to see this you've moved a step beyond ignorance.

[jameyhammock]

Originally posted by darkhorse
There is no situation where getting on base is better than hitting a home run. Your ignorance is appalling though after 300+ posts of lies and idiocy, no longer surprising. There is no offensive result in baseball better than a home run. If you are unable to see this you've moved a step beyond ignorance.

But wait! I've got this quite from Tony Muser saying that sometimes a double is better than a home run. And since he manages a baseball team and I don't, he must be right, right?

[rockze25]

Originally posted by darkhorse
There is no situation where getting on base is better than hitting a home run. Your ignorance is appalling though after 300+ posts of lies and idiocy, no longer surprising. There is no offensive result in baseball better than a home run. If you are unable to see this you've moved a step beyond ignorance.

Here we go again.

Obviously, if people could hit home runs all the time, that would be the best case scenario. However, hitting 39 home runs while not getting on base that often is not better than getting on base 40 percent of the time.

Please uncover your eyes and look closely at my example, it explains everything if you would allow yourself to see the truth for once.

[Modern Relic]

SORRY I HAVE TO DO THIS BUT CLICK

[jameyhammock]

Originally posted by rockze25
Please uncover your eyes and look closely...

...if you would allow yourself to see the truth for once.

lol

[Modern Relic]

Your Mommy and Daddy is giving you away to some poor person ready to plan a attack to hurt you so bad that you canot walk anymore

[Modern Relic]

this have gone way to far. enough of this crap.

[Dwolfson20]

Originally posted by rockze25
If people get on base more often, your chances of scoring are increased more than hitting a home run.

Originally posted by rockze25
Again, as long as the amount of times a player gets on base and scores is greater than the amount of home runs they have, getting on base will always be beter than hitting a home run.

Wow... no words come to mind that can adequately describe this.

So it's better to increase your chances of scoring a run than actually scoring a run?

[rockze25]

Hitting a home run 6% of the time you come up to the plate while actually getting on base 27% of the time is not better than homering 1% of the time while getting on base 38% of the time.

You would have to homer like half of the percentage of the time you get on base without homering (13.5% to 27%) for home runs to matter more.

Getting on base at least gives you a chance of scoring, whereas you only hit a home run a small percentage of the time.

[Modern Relic]

you want to join my hitlist. then knock it off with your big fat hitting the new post button. what do you do for a living . all you do is post badly grammer and stuffs.

[jameyhammock]

Originally posted by rockze25
Hitting a home run 6% of the time you come up to the plate while actually getting on base 27% of the time is not better than homering 1% of the time while getting on base 38% of the time.

What exactly are you trying to prove with this?

[rockze25]

It's amazing how I can give you all the statistical evidence in the World and you still fail to see the truth simply because it's coming from me.

Let's not forget that someone else agreed with me a while ago that it is better to have a high OBP and low SLG at the top of the order and you didn't sya a word about that.

[SoxWin]

You may be the most laughable, idiotic, ignorant person I've ever met. What freaking planet do you live on?

Rich