Really? Because the OP explicitly does ask that.
And seeing as how that’s the last statement in the OP, the implication is that it’s more important then the first question which is which one you would rather be.
So it’s hard to answer a poll with two contradictory choices that could apply to two questions that could have different answers.
I did actually ask which player is helping his team more, but yes, I’m primarily interested in what YOU would choose to do.
Sorry. I can see how that could be confusing. I guess you should answer whichever way you want. It’s all part of what is an interesting discussion.
This isn’t right. The homer guy has a 10% chance of hitting a home run. With nine of these guys, the game right on average will be 27 strikes outs and 3 home runs with three runs scored. I’d certainly like to pitch against that team, I’d think.
For the singles hitter, most singles score an average runner from second and a reasonable fraction of singles advance a runner from first to third so three hits in an inning will usually score a run. For simplicity, assume runs scored in an inning are max(singles - 2, 0) nobody’s thrown out advancing, etc. The last batter each inning must make an out, so we want the distribution of n hits combined with two outs * 0.7 for the last out. This is the binomial probability of n out of n+2 or
(n+2)!/(2! n!) * 0.3[sup]n\sup[sup]3[\sup]
multiply this by n-2 and sum from n=3 to infinity.
I get 0.28 runs per inning or 2.5 runs per game on average.
I’d like to pitch against that team even more and I suspect I’ve overestimated this teams run production as some hits won’t score the runner from second and in some of them he may be thrown out.
I don’t think either of these teams are going to do too well.
One home run is just more fun than three or almost any other number of singles.
Besides, chicks dig the long ball.
That depends on if they get the pitcher who allows the opposing team a .150 average, all outs are by strikeout but the hits are random.
It occurs to me that the singles guy would have some value as a pinch-hitter. Preferably for the pitcher or in 2 out scoring position ABs.
I’d be the home run hitter. Just the spectacle of it all would be worth millions to you and your team. A guy chasing a once thought of as unbreakable record for 5 years straight would be enough to uplift the sport. You would be a legend and a curiousity. Even if your performance hurts your team on the field, the stands would be full every game.
And the fact that it would piss off baseball nerds who would scream about how your WAR is terrible is just icing on the cake. The fans would love that guy. I can already see the “All or Nothing” t-shirts now. I would almost prefer that career to being a good player. The reality is sports are entertainment, and the HR guy is far more entertaining, and thus more marketable and valuable, than a reliable (but average) player.
With 70 runs created the number of runs per out is 0.111111…, still not as high as the singles hitter.
However, 70 runs created for the homer guy assumes the bases are empty every time he hits a home run. This won’t happen if he’s part of a regular batting order, in which case you have to factor in the average number of baserunners when he comes to bat.
The simple version of the Bill James runs created formula has this same problem for the singles hitter. It gives the number of runs created if everyone in the batting order had the same level of performance. But the overall on-base-average of the major leagues is higher than .300 (it’s usually around .330). So if Mr. Singles were hitting in a typical batting order, there would be more runners on base ahead of him than if he were in a batting order of nine Mr. Singles.
Bill James came up with runs created formulas that more or less fixed this problem, but they’re complicated. I would expect the baserunner factor to have a much bigger effect on the homer guy’s runs created than on the singles guy’s runs created. So I think a lineup consisting either entirely of singles guys would score more runs than a lineup consisting entirely of homer guys, but if you inserted one or the other into a typical lineup, the homer guy would produce more runs.
0, 1, 2, and 3 hits are not equivalent. Once a man is on base, he’ll often go to third on a single, and a man on second will often score. Three hits usually means a run.
You also have to account for the fact that a single is less likely to drive in base runners than your average hit. I suspect the formula underrates high slugging batters and overrates low slugging batters. It’s definitely a team dependent problem.
If you look at the range of possible runs created it’s 0-630 for the singles guy and 70-280 for the homers guy. Not terribly instructive. Knowing the distribution of base runners would make this easy.
Fill the stands? A guy who HRs 1 every 2-3 games and strikes out 650 times? The stands would be filled allright. With assassins.
Stat nerds? Everyone (but yourself apparently) would hate this guy.*Chicks may dig the longball, but they hate watching a guy strikeout 5 times a game. and that isn’t even touching on the effect the this guy would have on the team. “Why am I bothering trying to draw walks, or drive this guys pitch count up when Bocephus here is swinging from his heels at everything?? He hasn’t drawn a GD walk all season. You think I can’t hit 50 HRs if I swing at everything and eschew walks? Watch me. I can be a .100 hitter too. He broke the damn strikeout season record in June FFS.”
*Yes, near the end of the season as it becomes apparent he may break 70, then the fans would show up.
Yes, they would. People filled the stands for Sosa and others solely because they hit home runs. Bonds filled stand for the same reason. Or do you think they came to see him get intentionally walked?
The poll isn’t that skewed, so clearly I have some company.
I disagree. Nobody really cares how often a guy like that strikes out. Do you think any casual fans know how many times Bonds struck out when he set the record? Do you think they care? Obviously this is a contrived scenario since the batters in both scenarios would not likely stay in the majors for long, but the choice is between having an unremarkable in every way, or excelling at one aspect to a level we have never seen before. It’s between being a guy whose name no one will remember, and a guy whose career will be remembered and dissected for years to come. Why would the embarrassment of having a poor batting average be enough to give up a shot at making history?
Except that that guy likely cannot hit 50 hrs. And it’s not like the .300 hitter drawing no walks would be liked anymore.
We’re well into a completely unrealistic scenario, obviously, but I don’t think this is true at all. I think if you told Jose Altuve or Nick Markakis that nothing counted but home runs, they could easily become .100 hitting 50-HR hitters.
Not striking out 500 times and not being a .100 hitter are pretty critical motivational factors preventing people from trying to pop one out of the yard in every at bat. Take that away and a major league hitter can do a lot of damage… some of the time.
In those days, the Cubs and Giants were in the playoff hunt for large stretches of the season. Also, Sosa and especially Bonds were offensive juggernauts. Not just HR hitters. Sosa struck out a lot, but Bonds didn’t. He struck out more than 100 times exactly once. His first year. So what I’m saying is they came to see the second best hitter of all-time.
Last year Mike Napoli hit 27 HRs and struck out 187 times. And it was MADDENING to watch. “Mike choke up with 2 strikes. Mike we just need a ground ball here. You’re killing me Mike!”
The closest real player to this I can think of is Adam Dunn. Maybe there are some Reds or White Sox fans here who can tell me what it was like being his fan.
Mark Reynolds is probably closer. Career .231 hitter with 216 HRs, 1366 SOs, .459 slugging % and is generally a terrible fielder, but he manages to keep getting signed.
I enjoyed watching him when he played in Baltimore (where he batted .221 with 60 HRs and struck out 355 times).
I doubt even most players are capable of hitting 50 HRs let alone 70 in a season regardless of whether they are trying to preserve a respectable batting average. Even some power hitters can’t reliably hit 10% HRs in the derby being thrown pitches right over the plate. Granted, most of them do, but (IIRC) Puig didn’t hit one this year. The vast majority of guys on a baseball team are not able to do that over 162 games, season after season.
Bonds was a phenomenal player most of his career. He didn’t become a household conversation topic for casual fans until he started hitting HRs. People love HRs. They idea that seeing him hit doubles or get walked mattered at all to many fans doesn’t hold a lot of water in my opinion.
Regardless, that is not the topic at hand. Why would it be better to be cut after 5 years as a singles only .300 hitter than to be a guy with more HRs/season than any other player ever? What is the upside of the 1st scenario that makes it worthwhile at all?
Adam Dunn was one of my favorite fantasy players, especially in OBP leagues. Dude could get on base like nobody’s business. DCnDC is much closer with Mark Reynolds. In the past, you’ve got Rob Deer and Gorman Thomas - players that the fans just generally loathed because they were so frustrating to watch. A guy who hit .100 would be even more frustrating in Mudville - but I’d gladly take his place before I stepped into little Freddie Patek’s uniform.
According to this WAR estimator, the HR hitter (if he plays 3B) would cost his team 4.11 wins over 675 PA, whereas the singles hitter is worth +0.39 wins. I’d take those numbers with a grain of salt, since no doubt the estimator (as well as WAR itself) doesn’t do so well at the extremes, but that’s a pretty big difference.
That said, I’d rather be the HR hitter. CRACK! FWOOooosh Weeeeeee!
For a team made of just the home run hitters, over a 9 inning game, the expected scoring is 3 runs per game. Three home runs plus 27 outs = 30 at bats, and that gives the 0.100 average.
For a team made of just the singles hitters, 3 or more hits in an inning is needed to score. The probability of getting N hits are at the end of my post. If I assume a runner on second can score on a single, then up to two hits doesn’t score, three hits in an inning scores one run, four hits scores two runs, etc. The expected runs per inning for the singles hitters is 0.27865, giving 2.51 runs per game.
There’s the caveat that inserting either of these batters into a normal line up might have a different effect, but the difference is pretty big. I already voted for the singles hitter, but it looks like the Home Run hitter might have been a better choice.
Hits Runs Percent
0 0 34.3
1 0 30.9
2 0 18.5
3 1 9.3
4 2 4.2
5 3 1.8
6 4 0.7
7 5 0.3
8 6 0.1
9 7 0.04