OBP vs BA

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Hi all,

Following a comment from one of our league mates, I was interested to know if there was much support for exploring swapping from BA to OBP. I thought this had recently been discussed, but I don't see anything since it was suggested in late 2018 but didn't really gain any traction.

If there seems to be a decent level of support, we can put it to vote. 
For such a significant change, I would not foresee any such change if successfully voted in taking effect until the 2025/2026 offseason at the earliest.

Thanks,
Stephen

[Red Sox GM (Nick)]

Personally I feel our categories are more traditional. If we make this change, I would start a discussion on W, which correlate a bit more to team and circumstance than pure individual performance.

But worth conversation.

[Braves GM (Eric)]

Quality Starts over W and OBP over AVG both appeal to me. QS are specifically SP based and rely less on the team one plays for, and OBP captures a hitter’s talent level more comprehensively.

[Washington Nationals GM (Alex)]

Aug 15, 2023 20:26:51 GMT -5 Braves GM (Eric) said:

Quality Starts over W and OBP over AVG both appeal to me. QS are specifically SP based and rely less on the team one plays for, and OBP captures a hitter’s talent level more comprehensively.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the topic. I feel like keeping it 5X5 and just replacing AVG/W with OBP/QS is keeping our traditional feel while just updating it a bit to better reflect what we now know about baseball. I wouldn’t want to go much further down the modern statistic rabbit hole (I wouldn’t advocate for wrc+ or era+ for example) but OBP and QS just make too much sense.

[D'backs GM (Mo)]

Please keep Bating Average, I'm very old school.

BA / R / HR / RBI / SB

I love it like that

[Astros GM (Adam)]

So, I sent this question to Stephen, and appreciate that he opened it up for discussion.

My preference for switching to OBP is because it could add a touch more excitement to the game while still keeping pretty much the same balance we currently have.

At present, every walk is almost a non-event. When tracking the games, walks are always a bit of a let down. With a change in one stat, we could add a little extra spice to the game by increasing the amount of countable events.

Since this was posted, I did try to look up a few fantasy related articles making a case for batting average. The most compelling reason I came across was that BA gives a small bump to light hitting speedsters. That could be a serious reason not to make a change. If it pushes the Jon Berti or Esteury Ruiz types too far down the player rater, I’ll understand.

I would not be in favor of switching Wins for QS. We did a really good thing by quickly adopting SVH. Our middle relievers enjoy a significant amount of value. My guess is that adopting QS would drag our relievers down too far. If the relevant player pool was smaller, I could see the advantage of QS or even Innings Pitched. But it’s so cool that our relievers play a sizable role. Changing the wins category would seem likely to upset that balance.

I’m happy with BA or OBP, but prefer OBP. Plus it has been a while since it was discussed.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Hi all,

My two penneth:


BA vs OBP

Despite feeling like I have in the past few years rostered a lot of players who would have benefited from an OBP category over a BA category, I must confess to being something of a traditionalist. Adding holds to our saves category was an excellent (and necessary) decision which added stability amongst the most volatile player pool (RP), and flattened player value so that talent was more rewarded in proportion to role.

On the basis of being a traditionalist first (but also practical where necessary), I personally favour BA over OBP. That said, if there were heavy support for OBP and it went to a successful vote, I would see that as a fairly natural evolution and this dinosaur would have to adapt (or go extinct).


W vs QS

I have a fairly strong reluctance to consider QS as a straight replacement for W. Wins has always been a pretty hopelessly (also wonderfully?) flawed stat, and never moreso than in the modern game. But I fear given the evolution of pitcher usage that QS is also becoming a poor measure of the effectiveness of a pitcher's outing. Openers have never been more prevalent, and pitch limit management alongside the avoidance of multiple trips through a lineup are becoming more aggressive and forever shortening the lengths of starts.
If a change were to be considered here, I would perhaps favour a W+QS compromise. This is far from a perfect solution, but perhaps the dilution and combination of two flawed stats might somehow be the exception to the rule of two wrongs making a right?


I look forward to further thoughts from the rest of the league.

All the best,
Stephen

[Braves GM (Eric)]

I like the idea of QS/W as a combined category, so we’re incentivized to go after guys who we think are competent SP—not just ones who’ll be on the receiving in of good run support. So many times have I been in a position to trade for a ‘good pitcher on a bad team’ only to realize acquiring him would be pointless…his team sucks and he won’t accumulate the only stat that SP affect more than RP, Wins. I’d rather go after a middle RP who might fall into some HLDS…cheaper to acquire and affects the same amount of categories. Which is more valued IRL? SP. Should we try to better approximate IRL value? I think so.

Stephen and Adam make great points about RP value being diminished by a single QS category. I’ll grant that, for sure. The compromise is something I would wholeheartedly get behind. QS is to SP what HLDS is to RP, especially in the modern game. As the modern game shortens starts and uses openers, SP who can give you 6IP with 3ER or less should be rewarded. These are the SP we seek, the ones who can give us QS, and we are all hoping and praying that they have the opportunity to get Wins. Much like HLDS were incorporated to capture more value, to account for those great RP who perform well but haven’t been given the 9th for one reason or another, adding QS in with Wins captures the truer value of a SP.

As for OBP, it is BA and walks. That’s it. Do we value walks in the modern game? Without a doubt. We who value Juan Soto, who really isn’t ‘GREAT’ in a BA league, just really solid. Has his value been captured? Not even close…look at that paltry R total of his, the only stat that approaches capturing the value of a player with his skillset, look at that sub-270 BA and league-leading OBP. Many other players in his boat.

My point is that both QS and OBP are more ‘fielder independent’ and ‘team independent’. They are ‘purer’ stats that better approach what we value in the modern game, as has been mentioned above, and I am for trying to capture that value.

[Washington Nationals GM (Alex)]

I hadn’t considered rhe effect on RP of removing W from our scoring. A W/QS combined category would be a way to credit SP performance without devaluing bulk RP or taking away a RP heavy strategy from owners.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

This discussion will be paused, and re-opened at a later point.