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 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 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.

    I get your point, but to me, it matters very little how someone gets to a high OBP. 

    I'll take 160 Ks and only 50 BBs, if the guys BA is high enough that his OBP ends up over .375 (less at some positions).

    I'll take 160 Ks and 120 BBs with a low BA, if the OBP ends up over .375 (less at some positions).

    If there is power attached, all the better.

    Sox4ever

     
  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 notin's comment:

    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...



    I don't think that anyone is arguing that BA is a better indicator or measure of hitters production. It is however the greatest contributor to a players OBP and also impacts SLG, so it shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant either. 

    .250-300-450-750

    .275-300-450-750

    which example is the more productive hitter? Proponents of the OBP would argue that they're equal...I would argue that the guy hitting .275 is the better hitter...

     

     
  3. 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 Beantowne's comment:



    I don't think that anyone is arguing that BA is a better indicator or measure of hitters production. It is however the greatest contributor to a players OBP and also impacts SLG, so it shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant either. 

    .250-300-450-750

    .275-300-450-750

    which example is the more productive hitter? Proponents of the OBP would argue that they're equal...I would argue that the guy hitting .275 is the better hitter... 



    I think in that example the .275 hitter would have slightly better numbers.  But since the SLG is identical, the difference is a few more singles, a few less doubles, a few less walks.  A very marginal difference.

     

     
  4. 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

    In response to Beantowne's comment:

     

    In response to notin's comment:

     

     

     

    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...

     

     



    I don't think that anyone is arguing that BA is a better indicator or measure of hitters production. It is however the greatest contributor to a players OBP and also impacts SLG, so it shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant either. 

     

     

    .250-300-450-750

    .275-300-450-750

    which example is the more productive hitter? Proponents of the OBP would argue that they're equal...I would argue that the guy hitting .275 is the better hitter...

     

     



    Nobody argues they are equal.

    (They can be if all the extra hits were singles with no men on base, but that is not probable.)

     

    Everyone knows a single is worth slightly more than a walk (situational). 

    The BA proponnents lessen the value of walks and XBHs by focusing more on BA than OBP and SLG%.

     
  5. 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 notin's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    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...

     



    I don't think that anyone is arguing that BA is a better indicator or measure of hitters production. It is however the greatest contributor to a players OBP and also impacts SLG, so it shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant either. 

     

    .250-300-450-750

    .275-300-450-750

    which example is the more productive hitter? Proponents of the OBP would argue that they're equal...I would argue that the guy hitting .275 is the better hitter...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I wouldn't. 

     

    You chose the guy who gets fewer XBH.  Why are his singles better than XBH and walks?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

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

     

    nice thread guys

     

    ERA vs WHIP

     

    while I think both are solid stats

    I give the edge to ERA

    when it comes to starters and

    WHIP for relievers

     
  7. 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

    With BA and ERA both, you have to be cognizant of the luck factor, especially where the season numbers are much higher or much lower than their career numbers.

    With ERA a classic example of this was Dice-K in 2008.  His ERA was 2.90 but his peripherals indicated that there was a lot of luck involved, especially a ton of stranded runners.

    The metrics people warned us that Dice-K's ERA would probably be significantly worse the next year.  Some of us sneered at this.  It's not luck, we argued, he just knows how to pitch out of jams.

    The metrics people were dead right. 

     
  8. 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

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    With BA and ERA both, you have to be cognizant of the luck factor, especially where the season numbers are much higher or much lower than their career numbers.

    With ERA a classic example of this was Dice-K in 2008.  His ERA was 2.90 but his peripherals indicated that there was a lot of luck involved, especially a ton of stranded runners.

    The metrics people warned us that Dice-K's ERA would probably be significantly worse the next year.  Some of us sneered at this.  It's not luck, we argued, he just knows how to pitch out of jams.

    The metrics people were dead right. 



    We always are.

    Wink

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wolfpack13. Show Wolfpack13's posts

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


    It's 2013 who uses batting average as a sole stat?!? Secondly the example you use is terrible about someone going 1-3 for 82 games post all-star break. One player hit .400 the first half the other hit .200. The player that hit .400 had a better year- do you just forget about the entire first half?!?

    Finally, why do we constantly have debates about the dangers of over-using stats. If you don't know by now that stats don't tell a full story of a player's value then no one can help you.

    Quick example- when "we" all compare hitting stats I rarely see it mentioned where a guy hits in the lineup. Nava, Salty, Victorino's OBP would be .50-.100 lower if they hit in the 4 hole. Can't go by stats alone (regardless of the stat).

     
  10. 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

    In response to Wolfpack13's comment:


    It's 2013 who uses batting average as a sole stat?!? Secondly the example you use is terrible about someone going 1-3 for 82 games post all-star break. One player hit .400 the first half the other hit .200. The player that hit .400 had a better year- do you just forget about the entire first half?!?

    Finally, why do we constantly have debates about the dangers of over-using stats. If you don't know by now that stats don't tell a full story of a player's value then no one can help you.

    Quick example- when "we" all compare hitting stats I rarely see it mentioned where a guy hits in the lineup. Nava, Salty, Victorino's OBP would be .50-.100 lower if they hit in the 4 hole. Can't go by stats alone (regardless of the stat).



    True enough, but when people compare stats of players, some use BA, some use OPS, some use something else (like triples used by softy on Coco Crisp).

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share