Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to ADG's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ADG's comment:

     

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

     

    K's are just outs, BB's are as good as singles, so a high OBP is more telling than a players AVG.  would you rather have a AVG/OBP .250/.350 guy? Or a .300/.300 guy?

    Thats a simplistic argument.  I understand that K's aren't productive outs and walks don't move a runner from first to third.  So I like to look at the quality of hits as well, would you rather have a AVG/SLG .330/.400 or a .250/.500 guy? 

    Of course we could just bypass all of this and look at OPS.  Which is one of thee best stats to look at (if you had to pick only one).

     What if a guy was batting below .200 let's say .175 but yet all his hits were home runs with men on base? He'd likely be an MVP candidate.  Of course that is almost statistically impossible, but theoretically possible.  I think my point is solid.  AVG it'sself is basically meaningless however most good players do have higher than normal averages, yet it is not a prerequisite to be a great hitter as there are some great productive hitters who tend to have lower averages.

     

     



    You are joking when you say BB's are as good as singles?

     

     

    1. If you get a BB, can a runner score from second?

    2. If you get a BB, can a runner score from third (Unless bases are loaded)?

    3. Can you get two RBI's on a BB?

    4. Can a runner advance from 1st to 3rd on a BB?

    One of dumbest comments ever. Thanks for your baseball knowledge.



    So a walk is as good as an infield single.  And it is as good as single if there is nobody on base.  Or it's as good as a single to LF if there is a runner on 1B. Or if the bases are loaded and there is a slow runner on 2B. In other words, it's almost always as good as a single.

     

    Also, sometimes it's better than a single, because nobody can be thrown out on the base paths, and pitchers are more likely to get upset over a walk than a single.

     

     



    And on a single, an error can be made and the runner can get an extra base, or the ball can be thrown away. But what about bases loaded and two outs?
    Run expectancy is higher for a hit than a walk.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If the single is hit to the outfield, the OF is not playing shallow, and the runner on second is not a liability, then the single is better than a walk.  All things considered, I'd say a walk has about 90% the value of a single.  I think CT Hugh would agree, and saying a walk is as good as a single is the forum debate equivalent of rounding off.  It's a far cry from the dumbest comment ever, and hardly worthy of derision.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ADG's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

    [QUOTE] 

    K's are just outs, BB's are as good as singles, so a high OBP is more telling than a players AVG.  would you rather have a AVG/OBP .250/.350 guy? Or a .300/.300 guy?

    Thats a simplistic argument.  I understand that K's aren't productive outs and walks don't move a runner from first to third.  So I like to look at the quality of hits as well, would you rather have a AVG/SLG .330/.400 or a .250/.500 guy? 

    Of course we could just bypass all of this and look at OPS.  Which is one of thee best stats to look at (if you had to pick only one).

     What if a guy was batting below .200 let's say .175 but yet all his hits were home runs with men on base? He'd likely be an MVP candidate.  Of course that is almost statistically impossible, but theoretically possible.  I think my point is solid.  AVG it'sself is basically meaningless however most good players do have higher than normal averages, yet it is not a prerequisite to be a great hitter as there are some great productive hitters who tend to have lower averages.

     

     



    You are joking when you say BB's are as good as singles?

     

     

    1. If you get a BB, can a runner score from second?

    2. If you get a BB, can a runner score from third (Unless bases are loaded)?

    3. Can you get two RBI's on a BB?

    4. Can a runner advance from 1st to 3rd on a BB?

    One of dumbest comments ever. Thanks for your baseball knowledge.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So a walk is as good as an infield single.  And it is as good as single if there is nobody on base.  Or it's as good as a single to LF if there is a runner on 1B. Or if the bases are loaded and there is a slow runner on 2B. In other words, it's almost always as good as a single.

     

    Also, sometimes it's better than a single, because nobody can be thrown out on the base paths, and pitchers are more likely to get upset over a walk than a single.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's a refrian thats recited in baseball dugouts from little league all the way up to the majors..."a walk's as good as a hit" Clearly that's not entirely accurate but it does speak to the value of getting on base and taking what the pitcher gives you. One thing that is certain is a walk is almost always better than an out with the exception of a sac fly that plates a run (quality at bat). To the defense a walk is far more demoralizing than a hit because there is no defense for a walk. 

    I don't think anyone would or could argue the value of a walk being greater than getting a base hit. Nor do I think that at anytime a walk could be viewed as a negative outcome for the hitter. So if we are trying to weight the value of a walk v hit, clearly a hit is the better outcome in any situation. I think we all can agree on that?

    Back to the debate of batting ave v OBP and which is the better indicator of a hitters production. That's easy one. Answer is OBP BECAUSE it includes both hits and walk divided by plate appearances. In the end it's a fact that you cannot score if your not on base. That's not to suggest that batting average alone is not a good indicator of hitters ability because I believe it is. When used in concert with OBP, SLG & OPS it paints a better picture of a hitter overall approach and prowess. 

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    I think captain obvious missed the point.



    Would that be me?

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to ADG's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    For a power hitter, it is acceptable to have a somewhat lower batting average. If you are not a power hitter, batting average is very important. If you have a low average and little or no power, you are not a good hitter. The few who have high averages and a lot of power are the true super stars. Triple crown types. Batting average should not  be looked at exclusively , you should check other stats too. But batting average is important and should not be taken lightly. There is too much of a tendency by some of the metric guys to just dismiss the traditional stats. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     



    BA is important, but I'll take a leadoff hitter with a .250 BA and .400 OBP over one with a .300 BA and a .350 OBP as long as the XBHs and SBs are pretty even.

     

     



    moon - For 500 ABs, the extra 50 points equate to 25 extra hits. For a .250 BA player to have a .400 OBP, he would need 150+ BB. Do the math. You make a 'POTENTIALLY' valid argument, but don't you think that someone with 25 extra hits would have some EXTRA XBH? Wouldn't some of those 25 hits also come in situations where it would generate an an RBI where a walk wouldn't? Lastly, check MLB.com, Baseball reference, etc. Because of the number of walks needed, in the history of baseball, there have only been a handful of players that have had a .250 or lower average (M. Bishop in 1930, Mickey Tettleton with 97 BB in 339AB and Gene Tenace with 124 BB in 424 AB) with an OBP over .400.

     

    These guys that you would prefer to have, they don't exist and if they did, they aren't leadoff hitters.

    [/QUOTE]

    Gary Sheffield in 97

    Eddie Yost in 55 & 56

    Eddie Stanky in 51

    Roy Cullenbine in 47

    Jason Giambi in 2003

    Jack Clark in 89

    Adam Dunn in 2002

    Ricky Henderson in 96 & 97

     

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    Back in Little League , the coach used to say , " A walk's as good as a hit. "  Of course , he only said it to the kids who were not good hitters.
     

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I think captain obvious missed the point.

     



    Would that be me?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No that is not you.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    Of course hits are worth more than BB's, but walks are worth something and at least partially offset a lower avg.  The point of this debate was to illustrate how some hitters have lower averages but make up for it with walks (that is partially).  No one is saying if player XYZ walks 50 times more but gets 50 less hits he is of equal value; at least I'm not.  But it does make up some ground, perhaps 80% 70%; whatever number it is, it's subjective.  There is a direct relationship between AVG and OBP, in such as way that the higher the average the higher the OBP.

    I did not suggest that OBP% is Superior to AVG, rather I thoutht I conveyed that others such as myself prefer to match OBP up with SLG % and look at a players OPS, which I think trumps AVG (and so should any intelligent human).  So just to be perfectly clear so EVERYONE can understand; OPS is better than AVG. I actually thought everyone in here got that point but I suppose it went over ADG's head.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    No that is not you.


    Ah. My bad.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    No that is not you.

     


    Ah. My bad.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You might be Ron Obvious though.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    I am not a big fan of batting average.

     

    First of all, what does it really measure?   It’s not how good of a hitter a player is.  It measures the percentage of times a player gets a hit when he does not walk or get hit by a pitch or hit a deep enough flyball with a runner on third and less than two outs.  That sacrifice flies do not count towards batting average is a big sticking point with me, and probably the most nonsensical rule in all of baseball.  If a player squares up to sacrifice bunt, I can understand not counting that as an at-bat, since the hitter is essentially saying “I am not even going to try to get a hit here and instead giving up my opportunity in order to move a runner into a better scoring position.”   But a sac fly?  That’s just a situational non-at bat from a hitter who failed to do what he wantednamely get a hit.  RBI ground outs count as at-bats; what is the difference between the two?  In fact, one could argue RBI groundouts are closer to sacrifices, because if the contact play is on, the hitter is trying to keep the ball on the ground to bring home a (typically) speedy runner and therefore not necessarily giving himself his best chance to hit.   How many hitters head up to the plate with the goal of hitting a flyball to the left fielder?

     

    Batting average witha BABIP breakdown?  Absolutely.  LD%? I like. GB/FB? HR/FB%?  These are more indicative of the type of hitter you have, and do not take into account whether or not you are a better or worse hitter best on the ability of someone to make a WebGem off your batted ball.

     

    I also do not like BA because fans do not seem to understand the difference in good and bad.  We see a .280 hitter and think “That guy is a good hitter.”  But what do we feel about a .240 hitter?  Exactly how different are they? Over 500 at-bats, a .280 hitter gets 140 hits.  Over the same amount of at-bats, a 240 hitter gets 120.  A baseball season is about 25 weeks long, so the difference between the two is less than one hit per week.   In fact, the overwhelming majority of all baseball hitters fall in between the range of .200 and .300.  This means the difference between elite and completely ineffective falls into a 10% success range.  That’s pretty tight.  Volume appears to be the only form of separation, but again, over 25 weeks and 500 at-bats, it boils down to 2 hits per week.  Argue all you want about how important those 2 hits can be, it is not a huge amount no matter how you try, especially when you consider hits are fungible.

     

    BA also treats all hits equally.  1 for 4 with a home run? .250.  1 for 4 with an infield single?  Also .250.  Which .250 is better?

     

    I look at OBP as “the percentage of time a hitter does not make an out.”   Argue all you want about how walks are not as good as hits, and you will always run into the same problem -walks are not outs. Putting the ball in play can make good things happen, but only about 30% of all balls put in play go for hits.  100% of all walks put men on base.  And if your success rate is 30% or less, taking advantage of the gifts given to you by the other team is ALWAYS a good idea.  It’s really hard to think of any time when a player lost a game by taking a walk, and it is impossible to do so without falling into the realm of supposition and “what if.” 

     

    I look at SLG as the number of bases per at-bat.  With OBP, these are much better representations of effective offense, and have much more detail of significant production from a hitter.  This is why I like OPS, as it takes both of these far better representations and makes them into a nice, neatly-packaged simple statistic.  Due to some mathematical issues with how OPS is calculated, it is not a quantifiable number.  If two players differ by 40 points in BA, OBP or SLG, you know what it means.  If two players differ by 40 points in OPS, you don’t. 

     

    One of the funnier gripes often repeated by long-departed but never forgotten andrewmitch was that he did not like OPS because he felt it treated walks the same as HRs.  We all knew why he did not like OPS, which was because it made JD Drew look like a good hitter, and there was no way he was going to stand for that.  The 2 problems with his argument were that 1) OPS does NOT treat walks like home runs, or even like singles, since even a single counts as a total base.  And 2) JD Drew actually was a good hitter, on those occasions he felt healthy enough to actually play.  To make his hatred of OPS even funnier, andrewmitch often cited OBP and BA as his stats of choice.  OBP does treat walks like home runs, and BA treats them the same as singles. 0 for 7 with 3 walks gives you an OPS of .300 (.300 OBP + .000 SLG = .300 OPS).  3 for 10 with 3 singles gives you a .600 OPS (.300 OBP + .300 SLG = .600 OPS).  3 for 10 with 3 HRs gives you a 1.500 OPS (.300 OBP + 1.200 SLG = 1.500 OPS) 

     

    But if you pointed this out to him, he put you on ignore…

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    The thing with OPS is that it gives exactly equal weight to OBP and SP. Does that seem right ?

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    The thing with OPS is that it gives exactly equal weight to OBP and SP. Does that seem right ?

    Stabbed by Foulke.




    Excellent question.   And there are two schools of thought on that.  Although one appears to be mine and mine alone.

     

    Some, such as Rob Neyer, feel OBP is more important, and I can see the argument per my defintion above.

     

    But I hate to de-emphasize SLG, as it also tells you the number of bases a player gets per at bat.   

     

    Also, OBP is like BA in that it is only scaled from .000 to 1.000, and pretty much everyone falls into a pretty right range, usally .200 to .400.  SLG goes all the way up to 4.000 and the numbers can range from .200 to, say, .600.    I think the wider range from SLG gives a little more seperation between hitters that you cannot get from BA  or even OBP.

     

    OPS gives the widest range of them all, but as it is a combination of other numbers, it is an unfair comp. And, like I said before, differences are not quantifiable.   Still I like it.  wOBA is one stat that does not weight the two evenly, but it falls back into the tighter range.

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to SpeedWorkout's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Iggy is a good example of a high batting average that's misleading.  Although he's maintaining a high average a lot longer than most people expected.

     




    He keeps misleading us with now a .321 average.  He should really live up to some expectations and drop that average to .250.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good one!

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to SpeedWorkout's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Iggy is a good example of a high batting average that's misleading.  Although he's maintaining a high average a lot longer than most people expected.

     




    He keeps misleading us with now a .321 average.  He should really live up to some expectations and drop that average to .250.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He did have an excellent August, but he is still hitting .252 / .291 / .307 since the ASB.

     

    I think Detroit will be happy for him, because I doubt they had offense in mind when they made the acquisition.  Cabrera hits enough for 2 people, and they have an on-off love affair with defense on that team...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Of course hits are worth more than BB's, but walks are worth something and at least partially offset a lower avg.  The point of this debate was to illustrate how some hitters have lower averages but make up for it with walks (that is partially).  No one is saying if player XYZ walks 50 times more but gets 50 less hits he is of equal value; at least I'm not.  But it does make up some ground, perhaps 80% 70%; whatever number it is, it's subjective.  There is a direct relationship between AVG and OBP, in such as way that the higher the average the higher the OBP.

    I did not suggest that OBP% is Superior to AVG, rather I thoutht I conveyed that others such as myself prefer to match OBP up with SLG % and look at a players OPS, which I think trumps AVG (and so should any intelligent human).  So just to be perfectly clear so EVERYONE can understand; OPS is better than AVG. I actually thought everyone in here got that point but I suppose it went over ADG's head.



    I would also argue that if player XYZ also strikes out at a higher rate than the norm, his value also takes a hit. Mike Napoli has stuckout 167 times in 440 at bats, one could argue that based on the number of unproductive at bats he's had it negates the gain of his 76 walks and his pedestrian .248 BA with a .340 OBP an increase above his average of almost 100 points when looked at independent of the number of strikeouts suggest that he's more productive than your average .250 hitter. Which in fact he is, but it's difficult to overlook 176 unproductive plate appearances.

    As has been suggested by numerous posters on this thread...individual statistics paint an incomplete picture. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    Yes but Napoli doesn't have a great OPS

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    BA is important, but I'll take a leadoff hitter with a .250 BA and .400 OBP over one with a .300 BA and a .350 OBP as long as the XBHs and SBs are pretty even.

     

     



    moon - For 500 ABs, the extra 50 points equate to 25 extra hits. For a .250 BA player to have a .400 OBP, he would need 150+ BB. Do the math.

    1) My argument was more theoretical. I used nice round numbers to make a point. The reality is somewhere inbetween, but what I'm trying to say is, I'd rather have a guy with a much better OBP than a much better BA. I realize that most great hitters have a high OBP as well, but if I had to sacrifice on one or the other, it would be BA. 

    2) Doing the math.  If someone is batting 250 with 500 ABs, it means he is 125 for 500. To have a .400 OBP, he does not need 150 BBs; that would make him get on base 275 times in 650 PAs, which is a .423 OBP not .400. To get him to 400, he'd actually only need 125 BBS (125H+125BB = 250 H + BB / 625= .400)

    I'm not saying these hitters are common: they are not, really, but they do exist, and if you just judged players by BA alone, these guys would be overlooked. Add to this the fact that some of these types might have a lot of power, and some pretty good offensive players would be overlooked.

    Of course, in many situations a hit is better than a walk, but clearly a batter with 80 more BBs is better than a batter with just 40 or 50 more singles.

     

    You make a 'POTENTIALLY' valid argument, but don't you think that someone with 25 extra hits would have some EXTRA XBH?

    It's a hypothetical example. There are hitters with 25 extra singles than other and close to the same XBHs. It gets too complicated if you want to bring 3 variables into the equation, but of course XBHs are very important. BA does not show XBH value or BB value.

    Wouldn't some of those 25 hits also come in situations where it would generate an an RBI where a walk wouldn't?

    Probably yes, but wouldn't the extra walks keep innings going where the other guy makes an out, and more times on base leads to more runs scored- perhaps at the expense of less RBIs.

     

    Lastly, check MLB.com, Baseball reference, etc. Because of the number of walks needed, in the history of baseball, there have only been a handful of players that have had a .250 or lower average (M. Bishop in 1930, Mickey Tettleton with 97 BB in 339AB and Gene Tenace with 124 BB in 424 AB) with an OBP over .400.

    I think there may be more, but my point was theoretical. I could have said .275/.375 vs  .300/.325 instead. There's plenty of examples similar to that. My point still stands.

     

    These guys that you would prefer to have, they don't exist and if they did, they aren't leadoff hitters.

    What's leadoff hitting have to do with it?

    High OBP and high SLG are more valuable than high BA in every slot in the line-up.

    Sox4ever

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    I would also argue that if player XYZ also strikes out at a higher rate than the norm, his value also takes a hit. Mike Napoli has stuckout 167 times in 440 at bats, one could argue that based on the number of unproductive at bats he's had it negates the gain of his 76 walks and his pedestrian .248 BA with a .340 OBP an increase above his average of almost 100 points when looked at independent of the number of strikeouts suggest that he's more productive than your average .250 hitter. Which in fact he is, but it's difficult to overlook 176 unproductive plate appearances.

    Napoli's .340 OBP is not good for a 1Bman, but I'll take the Ks and .248/.340 over someone with 50 Ks and a .275/.325.

    I think you are overcounting "productive outs". They really don't happen as often as many people think, and when they do, they don't always lead to another run or two.

     

     

    As has been suggested by numerous posters on this thread...individual statistics paint an incomplete picture. 

    Yes, they do, but I think the way this thread is going, we are looking for the best of the flawed stats. BA is not the best single stat to use, if you had to choose one. That's my point.

    notin makes a lot of sense, and he hit on something with teh range differential being greater with SLG% than OBP. To me, this makes the OPS stat too SLG% orientated, even though the two stats appear to be equal.

    A player with aq .400 OBP and .450 SLG is at a .850 OPS, while a player with a .350 OBP and .550 SLG is at .900. Somehow, I don't see the two as being that far apart in value, and notin touches on this fact. SWhen you read an OPS number, you really don't know which number is the more influential.

    I do think OBP is more valuable, but SLG% is very important as well. I know the wOBA differentials are not that great, but if you can train yourself to view a .010 difference as very significant, then it can be a superior stat.

    Let's look at the leader boards for this year, and think about who you think are the best 10 hitters (or offensive players)...

    1) Miggy .358

    2) Trout  .335

    3) Johnson .334

    4) Cuddyer .329

    5) A Beltre  .327

    6) Y Molina .327

    7) Mauer     .324

    8) J Werth  .320

    9) McCutch .319

    10) Craig    .317

    OBP

    1) Miggy  .449

    2) Trout   .432

    3) Votto   .430

    4) Choo  .415

    5) Mauer  .404

    6) Golds  .399

    7) McCutc .397

    8) J Werth .395

    9) Ortiz     .395

    10) Wright .391

    SLG

    1) Miggy   .681

    2) C davis .663

    3) C Gon   .591

    4) Trout    .576

    5) Ortiz    .554

    6) Golds  .540

    7) Cudd   .538

    8) Encarn .538

    9) Beltre  .536

    10) Werth .528

    OPS

    1) Miggy 1.130

    2) C Davis 1.044

    3) Trout  1.008

    4) C Gon .958

    5) Ortiz   .949

    6) Golds .939

    7) Votto  .928

    8) Cudd  .927

    9) Werth  .923

    10) Beltre .918

    wOBA

    1) Miggy  .474

    2) C Davis .435

    3) Trout     .430

    4) C GON   .408

    5) Votto     .401

    6) Golds   .400

    7) Cudd   .399

    8) Werth  .399

    9) Ortiz    .399

    10) Beltre .394

    Sox4ever

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    I would think anyone arguing for BA ovet OBP because a hit is better than a walk, then i'd think hould prfer SLG over BA sincea double or triple is better than a single...

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:



    You might be Ron Obvious though.



    I'd say I'm more oblivious than obvious.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I would also argue that if player XYZ also strikes out at a higher rate than the norm, his value also takes a hit. Mike Napoli has stuckout 167 times in 440 at bats, one could argue that based on the number of unproductive at bats he's had it negates the gain of his 76 walks and his pedestrian .248 BA with a .340 OBP an increase above his average of almost 100 points when looked at independent of the number of strikeouts suggest that he's more productive than your average .250 hitter. Which in fact he is, but it's difficult to overlook 176 unproductive plate appearances.

    Napoli's .340 OBP is not good for a 1Bman, but I'll take the Ks and .248/.340 over someone with 50 Ks and a .275/.325.

    I think you are overcounting "productive outs". They really don't happen as often as many people think, and when they do, they don't always lead to another run or two. 

     

    As has been suggested by numerous posters on this thread...individual statistics paint an incomplete picture. 

    Yes, they do, but I think the way this thread is going, we are looking for the best of the flawed stats. BA is not the best single stat to use, if you had to choose one. That's my point.

    notin makes a lot of sense, and he hit on something with teh range differential being greater with SLG% than OBP. To me, this makes the OPS stat too SLG% orientated, even though the two stats appear to be equal.

    A player with aq .400 OBP and .450 SLG is at a .850 OPS, while a player with a .350 OBP and .550 SLG is at .900. Somehow, I don't see the two as being that far apart in value, and notin touches on this fact. SWhen you read an OPS number, you really don't know which number is the more influential.

    I do think OBP is more valuable, but SLG% is very important as well. I know the wOBA differentials are not that great, but if you can train yourself to view a .010 difference as very significant, then it can be a superior stat.

    Let's look at the leader boards for this year, and think about who you think are the best 10 hitters (or offensive players)...

    1) Miggy .358

    2) Trout  .335

    3) Johnson .334

    4) Cuddyer .329

    5) A Beltre  .327

    6) Y Molina .327

    7) Mauer     .324

    8) J Werth  .320

    9) McCutch .319

    10) Craig    .317

    OBP

    1) Miggy  .449

    2) Trout   .432

    3) Votto   .430

    4) Choo  .415

    5) Mauer  .404

    6) Golds  .399

    7) McCutc .397

    8) J Werth .395

    9) Ortiz     .395

    10) Wright .391

    SLG

    1) Miggy   .681

    2) C davis .663

    3) C Gon   .591

    4) Trout    .576

    5) Ortiz    .554

    6) Golds  .540

    7) Cudd   .538

    8) Encarn .538

    9) Beltre  .536

    10) Werth .528

    OPS

    1) Miggy 1.130

    2) C Davis 1.044

    3) Trout  1.008

    4) C Gon .958

    5) Ortiz   .949

    6) Golds .939

    7) Votto  .928

    8) Cudd  .927

    9) Werth  .923

    10) Beltre .918

    wOBA

    1) Miggy  .474

    2) C Davis .435

    3) Trout     .430

    4) C GON   .408

    5) Votto     .401

    6) Golds   .400

    7) Cudd   .399

    8) Werth  .399

    9) Ortiz    .399

    10) Beltre .394

    Sox4ever



    It's not difficult to access who the best hitters are they typically bat 3rd or 4th. I would venture a guess that every hitter that has exceeded 1.000 OPS, hits in the middle of the order with SLG north of 550. End of the day if you hit .300 you're a good hitter regardless of your OBP or SLG. Tony Gwynn's lifetime OPS was .847 the only year he exceeded 1.000 was in 1994 when he hit .394. His lifetime batting average was .333 his lifetime OBP .383 or a mere 50 point higher...was Tony Gwynn a good hitter? Was he the best hitter during his years in MLB? I would say yes and among the best. But his lack of power not unlike Boggs, Rose and Carew all were table setters for the big boppers. 

    Regarding strikeouts...come on man you can't tell me that you're trying to dismiss the unproductive results of a strikeout. Aside from hitting into a double or triple play a strikeout is a net zero at bat...at least on a double play with less than two outs with a runner's on the cormers you can plate run. Of Napoli's 176 strikeouts you can't tell me that in at least a half dozen of them a simple ground ball to the right side of the infield would have moved up a runner with less than two outs...or for that matter a sac fly...

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    Regarding strikeouts...come on man you can't tell me that you're trying to dismiss the unproductive results of a strikeout.

    Not "dismiss", but I do feel the whole unproductive out is way overrated. Pop-up, ground outs, and fly outs are almost always "unproductive outs". Yes, K's are always unproductive (pitch count argument aside), but the differential between the zero % productive out of the K vs the tiny percent of productive non K outs is hardly something that "negates" a lot of extra BBs or XBHs.

    Aside from hitting into a double or triple play a strikeout is a net zero at bat...at least on a double play with less than two outs with a runner's on the cormers you can plate run. Of Napoli's 176 strikeouts you can't tell me that in at least a half dozen of them a simple ground ball to the right side of the infield would have moved up a runner with less than two outs...or for that matter a sac fly...

    Some may have, and some of those runners might have neded up scoring, but Napoli does not ahve 176 more Ks than the average player. Let's say it is 100 more. Let's say out of those 100 Ks turned into non K outs, he moved a runner over 10 times (I think that is way higher than the average percent of "productive outs"), I'd still take an extra 10 BBs than just changing an unproductive out to a productive one. A BB keeps the inning going. It adds a man on base for another hitter to drive in. 

    Sox4ever

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I would also argue that if player XYZ also strikes out at a higher rate than the norm, his value also takes a hit. Mike Napoli has stuckout 167 times in 440 at bats, one could argue that based on the number of unproductive at bats he's had it negates the gain of his 76 walks and his pedestrian .248 BA with a .340 OBP an increase above his average of almost 100 points when looked at independent of the number of strikeouts suggest that he's more productive than your average .250 hitter. Which in fact he is, but it's difficult to overlook 176 unproductive plate appearances.

    Napoli's .340 OBP is not good for a 1Bman, but I'll take the Ks and .248/.340 over someone with 50 Ks and a .275/.325.

    I think you are overcounting "productive outs". They really don't happen as often as many people think, and when they do, they don't always lead to another run or two. 

     

    As has been suggested by numerous posters on this thread...individual statistics paint an incomplete picture. 

    Yes, they do, but I think the way this thread is going, we are looking for the best of the flawed stats. BA is not the best single stat to use, if you had to choose one. That's my point.

    notin makes a lot of sense, and he hit on something with teh range differential being greater with SLG% than OBP. To me, this makes the OPS stat too SLG% orientated, even though the two stats appear to be equal.

    A player with aq .400 OBP and .450 SLG is at a .850 OPS, while a player with a .350 OBP and .550 SLG is at .900. Somehow, I don't see the two as being that far apart in value, and notin touches on this fact. SWhen you read an OPS number, you really don't know which number is the more influential.

    I do think OBP is more valuable, but SLG% is very important as well. I know the wOBA differentials are not that great, but if you can train yourself to view a .010 difference as very significant, then it can be a superior stat.

    Let's look at the leader boards for this year, and think about who you think are the best 10 hitters (or offensive players)...

    1) Miggy .358

    2) Trout  .335

    3) Johnson .334

    4) Cuddyer .329

    5) A Beltre  .327

    6) Y Molina .327

    7) Mauer     .324

    8) J Werth  .320

    9) McCutch .319

    10) Craig    .317

    OBP

    1) Miggy  .449

    2) Trout   .432

    3) Votto   .430

    4) Choo  .415

    5) Mauer  .404

    6) Golds  .399

    7) McCutc .397

    8) J Werth .395

    9) Ortiz     .395

    10) Wright .391

    SLG

    1) Miggy   .681

    2) C davis .663

    3) C Gon   .591

    4) Trout    .576

    5) Ortiz    .554

    6) Golds  .540

    7) Cudd   .538

    8) Encarn .538

    9) Beltre  .536

    10) Werth .528

    OPS

    1) Miggy 1.130

    2) C Davis 1.044

    3) Trout  1.008

    4) C Gon .958

    5) Ortiz   .949

    6) Golds .939

    7) Votto  .928

    8) Cudd  .927

    9) Werth  .923

    10) Beltre .918

    wOBA

    1) Miggy  .474

    2) C Davis .435

    3) Trout     .430

    4) C GON   .408

    5) Votto     .401

    6) Golds   .400

    7) Cudd   .399

    8) Werth  .399

    9) Ortiz    .399

    10) Beltre .394

    Sox4ever

     



    It's not difficult to access who the best hitters are they typically bat 3rd or 4th. I would venture a guess that every hitter that has exceeded 1.000 OPS, hits in the middle of the order with SLG north of 550. End of the day if you hit .300 you're a good hitter regardless of your OBP or SLG. Tony Gwynn's lifetime OPS was .847 the only year he exceeded 1.000 was in 1994 when he hit .394. His lifetime batting average was .333 his lifetime OBP .383 or a mere 50 point higher...was Tony Gwynn a good hitter? Was he the best hitter during his years in MLB? I would say yes and among the best. But his lack of power not unlike Boggs, Rose and Carew all were table setters for the big boppers. 

     

    Regarding strikeouts...come on man you can't tell me that you're trying to dismiss the unproductive results of a strikeout. Aside from hitting into a double or triple play a strikeout is a net zero at bat...at least on a double play with less than two outs with a runner's on the cormers you can plate run. Of Napoli's 176 strikeouts you can't tell me that in at least a half dozen of them a simple ground ball to the right side of the infield would have moved up a runner with less than two outs...or for that matter a sac fly...

    [/QUOTE]


    It's not so much the strikeouts as it is the K/BB.  Napoli gets a lot of Ks, but also a lot of BB.  Walks are good.  Walks are gifts from the other team.  If it takes a few more strikeouts to get them, so be it.

     

    I will take a hitter who gets a lot of strikeouts as long as he also gets alot of walks.  But hitters who strike out lot and get very few walks are not nearly as useful.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from joyceand. Show joyceand's posts

    Re: Here is a fact for those that love using Batting average as a guide to how good a player is

    In response to JimfromFlorida's comment:

    if you are hitting 350 to 400 at the AS break and go on an 82 game hit streak where you go 1 for 3 every game your average will go down EVERY game.

    And just like if you hit 200 (50 for 250)at the AS break and you do the 1 for 3 every game the rest of the season your ave (82 for 246) is .333 and the 200 goes up BUT you will not ever get over 266 mark


    Who uses only BA to evaluate a player?  There are 5 tools, OBP, OPS. 

     

Share