First off, sample size.
I used 10 to just show for the "purposes of example", but I'm sure it would work fine for lthe last 100 or more call ups. But if you go back too far and take too large a sample size, you'll start going back to a time when GM's clearly didn't give a hoot about OBP, defeating the purpose of the study.
OBP isn't the be-all, end-all stat. If there was a player with a .400 OBP, 0 steals, and 0 HR, give me a player with a .250 OBP but 50 HR and 50 SB.
Good sir, if you can find me an example of a player with 50 HR, 50 SB and a .250 OBP within the last 25 years I'd be willing to send you a free giant sized pizza-cookie.
You are just pulling those numbers out of thin air. You might as well say, give me a player with 100 Hr's and 100 SBs but with a .250 OBP against a guy with a .251 OBP and hits no HRs.
They DO measure these things and they do have a runs created formula and they DO measure the tradeoff between OBP and Slugging.
Furthermore, A player with a high OBP is more likely to excel at both SBs (getting on base means getting more steals) and HR's (getting ahead of the count is good business for power hitters).
That's actually one of the most important points. OBP is not at "war" with other statistics, it supports them. All offensive statistics benefit from patience. Finding low avg, high obp players is not the end of all/be all of offense, I would agree. But once you find your patient hitters, your odds of finding great OVERALL hitters goes up dramatically. Go ahead and use Baseball Encylopedia and research the stats of hall of famers and I promise you a nifty correlation between walks and entry to the hall of fame.
Wily Mo Pena out-OBPed and out-OPSed Brett Lawrie in AAA last year, but I dare you to draft Pena higher. Fourth, sample size, but of a different kind.
Brett Lawrie had amazing success in a limited role in Toronto last year. That's why he got drafted so high. If he never showed anything in the Majors, I doubt he would have gone as high in as many drafts.