DK wrote:Limiting hits is much more important than limiting walks.
Think of it this way, would you rather have someone with a .000 batting average and a .300 on-base; or a .300 average and a .300 on-base?
You'd want the second player, because he's actually hitting the ball and has the ability to slug players ahead. Even if he's hitting solely singles, he's still creating more runs.
If you can limit both hits and walks, you're golden. But I'd rather a pitcher limit the hits given up than the walks any day.
I agree with the bolded part, but disagree with your unfair comparison since you are basing it on common sense (2 guys that walk the same amount with one that never hits, as opposed to a guy who never hits but gets an OBP twice what the hitter does). If you want to compare identical players lets say a guy who hits .300 with a OBP of .300 (never walked) and a guy who is hitting .000 with an OBP of .600 (walks 6/10 ABs, obviously unrealistic but for debate sake). That is a much more fair comparison and a much more debatable discussion. I think I would take the .600 OBP guy, while he does not hit runners along he more then makes up for it with his constant getting on base and thus producing more runs.