Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    K's are over-rated by most on this site. 

    RBIs are often a product of opportunities, and it is hard to find any MLB who has consistently batted much higher with men on base than otherwise, of hit better "in clutch situations" than otherwise.

    HRs are important, but I do think some give them more weight than they deserve.

     

    Most over-rated stats (not in order listed):

    1) FLG%

    2) Pitcher's wins

    3) Catcher's CS%

    4) BA (as opposed to OBP)

     

    Sox4ever

     



    " in clutch situations ".        I don' t know if there are any stats to prove or dispute this, but there can be no doubt that in baseball , or anything else , some people perform better than others in high pressure situations .  You don't necessarily have to raise your game in clutch situations ,  so much as to just maintain your poise while the opponent is losing their's. It comes down to concentration , confidence and controlling your emotions.  Some do it better than others. 

     

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

     

     

    HR are rally killers

    just kidding

     

     

     

     




     


    Good pitchers will tell you home runs are rally killers.  A single and a home run gives up 5 bases and 2 runs.  If it's a starting pitcher, he now gets to go back to the wind-up, where he is probably more comfortable.   Even a grand slam gives the pitcher a fresh start.

    5 singles also gives up 5 bases and 2-3 runs, with 2-3 men still on, leaving the potential for more damage and the pitcher is still out of the stretch.



    good points illinoisredsox

    I should have said I was 1/2 kidding

    I think a case can be made that sometimes

    a lead off HR is less harmful than a lead off BB to a plus baserunner

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Good examples in today's game. Bautista tied it with one swing.  Then , Victorino puts the ball in play and good things happen. If Shane had struck out, we still need a two out hit.  Who knows if we win the game. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.



    Of course, one cpould also point out that TO had 2 HRs to Boston's -0-, but they were both solo HRs.

    One could also point to the fact that TO is 2nd in HRs, and 8th in scoring, while the RS are 7th in HRs, and 1st in scoring.

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    K's are over-rated by most on this site. 

    RBIs are often a product of opportunities, and it is hard to find any MLB who has consistently batted much higher with men on base than otherwise, of hit better "in clutch situations" than otherwise.

    HRs are important, but I do think some give them more weight than they deserve.

     

    Most over-rated stats (not in order listed):

    1) FLG%

    2) Pitcher's wins

    3) Catcher's CS%

    4) BA (as opposed to OBP)

     

    Sox4ever

     



    " in clutch situations ".        I don' t know if there are any stats to prove or dispute this, but there can be no doubt that in baseball , or anything else , some people perform better than others in high pressure situations .  You don't necessarily have to raise your game in clutch situations ,  so much as to just maintain your poise while the opponent is losing their's. It comes down to concentration , confidence and controlling your emotions.  Some do it better than others. 

     



    I once compared players we normally think of as being "clutch" (OPS vs OPS in late and close situations), and I think I found that none had consistently better clucth numbers than their over all numbers. I believe I chose Papi, Reggie Jackson, Eddie Murray and a couple others.

    Hitting in the clutch is really not a sustainable skill, in my opinion. That's one reason I have to chuckle when posters blame the GM for not acquiring clutch hitters. How can you obtain clutch hitters when it is not something one can project.

    I haven't done any in depth studies on pitching, but I do think there are certain pitchers that almost always rise to the occasion.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Promise4you2. Show Promise4you2's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    I really thought that "W" was a very important factor, without them you end up in last place.

    I dont like facts, they cloud my irresponsible Judgement!

    I often go back to read what i wrote only to find out it's not what I said!

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    K's are over-rated by most on this site. 

    RBIs are often a product of opportunities, and it is hard to find any MLB who has consistently batted much higher with men on base than otherwise, of hit better "in clutch situations" than otherwise.

    HRs are important, but I do think some give them more weight than they deserve.

     

    Most over-rated stats (not in order listed):

    1) FLG%

    2) Pitcher's wins

    3) Catcher's CS%

    4) BA (as opposed to OBP)

     

    Sox4ever

     



    " in clutch situations ".        I don' t know if there are any stats to prove or dispute this, but there can be no doubt that in baseball , or anything else , some people perform better than others in high pressure situations .  You don't necessarily have to raise your game in clutch situations ,  so much as to just maintain your poise while the opponent is losing their's. It comes down to concentration , confidence and controlling your emotions.  Some do it better than others. 

     

     



    I once compared players we normally think of as being "clutch" (OPS vs OPS in late and close situations), and I think I found that none had consistently better clucth numbers than their over all numbers. I believe I chose Papi, Reggie Jackson, Eddie Murray and a couple others.

     

    Hitting in the clutch is really not a sustainable skill, in my opinion. That's one reason I have to chuckle when posters blame the GM for not acquiring clutch hitters. How can you obtain clutch hitters when it is not something one can project.

    I haven't done any in depth studies on pitching, but I do think there are certain pitchers that almost always rise to the occasion.

    [/QUOTE]


    That is not really a counterpoint to my post. Some hitters and some pitchers consistently perform better under pressure than do others. This also applies to place kickers , free throw shooters and just about anything else in life.   Do you dispute that ? 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:


    A strikeout is a totally non- productive at bat. A ground ball may result in a double play, but also may result in a base hit or a productive out. The point is , if you don't put the ball in play you accomplish nothing. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's actually not true. Striking out on eight or nine pitches is a much more productive at-bat than grounding out on one pitch. The batter who struck out accomplished a lot more than the guy whou grounded out in this example.

    Again, you need context -- what is the situation?

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    That is not really a counterpoint to my post. Some hitters and some pitchers consistently perform better under pressure than do others. This also applies to place kickers , free throw shooters and just about anything else in life.   Do you dispute that ? 

    I assume there would almost have to be some differences, but it hard to find.  I just checked 3 guys I thought would be interesting.  Reggie, because I think he is a clutch player, and Jeter and Nomar because of the rivalry.  I was surprised at the results.

    • Reggie career was .846 and late and close was .804.
    • Jeter was .829/.794
    • Nomar was .882 and .892
    • ARod was .945/.895.
    • Manny had a career .996 and L&C of .894, a huge negative.
    • Papi was .930 and .886

    I'd have expected Reggie to be much better, not much worse.  Jeter and Nomar were the reverse of what I expected.  I'd have expected Manny and Papi to be better, and particularly surprised at Manny.

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     


    A strikeout is a totally non- productive at bat. A ground ball may result in a double play, but also may result in a base hit or a productive out. The point is , if you don't put the ball in play you accomplish nothing. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's actually not true. Striking out on eight or nine pitches is a much more productive at-bat than grounding out on one pitch. The batter who struck out accomplished a lot more than the guy whou grounded out in this example.

    Again, you need context -- what is the situation?

    [/QUOTE]

    One could also argue that those taking walks are probably striking out more.  You can't consistently get yourself in a 3-ball count without taking a lot of pitches.  It's worth noting that the guy that led the league in striking out last year, also led the league in walks.

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    That is not really a counterpoint to my post. Some hitters and some pitchers consistently perform better under pressure than do others. This also applies to place kickers , free throw shooters and just about anything else in life.   Do you dispute that ? 

    I assume there would almost have to be some differences, but it hard to find.  I just checked 3 guys I thought would be interesting.  Reggie, because I think he is a clutch player, and Jeter and Nomar because of the rivalry.  I was surprised at the results.

    • Reggie career was .846 and late and close was .804.
    • Jeter was .829/.794
    • Nomar was .882 and .892
    • ARod was .945/.895.
    • Manny had a career .996 and L&C of .894, a huge negative.
    • Papi was .930 and .886

    I'd have expected Reggie to be much better, not much worse.  Jeter and Nomar were the reverse of what I expected.  I'd have expected Manny and Papi to be better, and particularly surprised at Manny.



    I think if you look at the playoff numbers, they might tell a different tale, but I'm not sure where to find late and close or high leverage numbers for just the playoffs.

    Hitting is not like basketball, where you seemingly can "rise to the occasion" by just willing it to be (and having the skill).

    I expected to find guys like Reggie, Manny, Papi and Eddie Murray much better in the clutch, but it is just not something that easlily done, and even more difficult to do on a consistent basis. You see players go on a season or two stretch where they seemingly can do no wrong when it counts, but it is never sustained over years and years.

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Clutch and late stats might be distorted by the fact there is often a relief pitcher involved. I assume on most teams the closer has a lower ERA than the teams best starting pitcher. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    Good examples in today's game. Bautista tied it with one swing.  Then , Victorino puts the ball in play and good things happen. If Shane had struck out, we still need a two out hit.  Who knows if we win the game. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.



    Denny, c'mon.  Are you seriously using a sample size of one at bat to make your point?

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Good examples in today's game. Bautista tied it with one swing.  Then , Victorino puts the ball in play and good things happen. If Shane had struck out, we still need a two out hit.  Who knows if we win the game. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     



    Denny, c'mon.  Are you seriously using a sample size of one at bat to make your point?

     

    [/QUOTE]  An example would always be a small sample size.  That is why it is called an example, pal.


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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     


    A strikeout is a totally non- productive at bat. A ground ball may result in a double play, but also may result in a base hit or a productive out. The point is , if you don't put the ball in play you accomplish nothing. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's actually not true. Striking out on eight or nine pitches is a much more productive at-bat than grounding out on one pitch. The batter who struck out accomplished a lot more than the guy whou grounded out in this example.

    Again, you need context -- what is the situation?

    [/QUOTE]


    A strikeout is never productive. You are really reaching.  The ground ball could have been a base hit.  You can never have a chance for success unless you put the ball in play. 

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Other than a hit or sacrifice, which are both measured by stats, how often does a ball put in play vs a strike out leads to a run? My guess is very few. When you subtract DPs vs a K, the difference is lessened slightly.

    In a vacumn, of course a ball put in play for an out is more likely to help than a K, but not by that much. Yes, there is the pychological effect of a K to consider as well, but I have always thought the whole K thing is overblown.

    If you are getting on base or have a high slugging percent, then Ks hardly matter. If you are stinking up the place and never advancing players on the basepaths due to a high K rate, then those Ks really seem to stand out.

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I've been reading quite a few comments this year on the question of whether or not HR's and K's are overrated.  Just look at yesterday's game thread for examples.

    I'm going to add RBI to the mix because that is another stat that is often referred to as being overrated.  I once read a statement by Keith Law that the RBI stat was 'meaningless'.  That really irritated me.  How can RBI be meaningless?  You don't win any games if you don't score any runs.  And based on the current 2013 MLB stats, only 5% of all runs scored do not result in an RBI.

    I still have a problem with Law's statement, but part of the problem is that he didn't expand on exactly what he meant.  I have to assume that what he meant was that a player's RBI total doesn't necessarily reflect his performance. 

    A textbook example of the RBI distortion is the 2007 RBI totals of Lugo and Pedroia.  Lugo had 73 RBI in 630 PA.  Pedroia had 50 RBI in 581 PA.

    But Lugo hit 237/294/349, and Pedroia hit 317/380/442.

    The issues with HR's and K's are a little different, but I think there is a similarity.  It's not so much a question of whether a HR, RBI or K is important in the context of one at-bat, it's a question of how important it is in the context of the whole season.

    Fire away people. Smile

     




    I think you've raised two great separate issues, hf:

    1) stats that isolate an individual's performance vs. teams stats; and

    2) the value of those stats

     

    IMO, it's obvious that some traditional stats like a pitcher's wins, or a batter's RBIs or runs have little meaning in isolation and I cringe when people cite them as measures of success.  BA also makes me roll my eyes.....it's OBP that counts i.e. not making outs.

    Value is a different issue.  A home run is a clear advantage.  Run(s) for your team.  Seems obvious to me.  But strikeouts?  I don't think I'm hypocritical about them, but I am conflicted.

    On one hand, if John Lackey strikes out 12 guys, that's 12 slam dunks....no chance of errors, misfortune, etc.  But I also am pretty relaxed about how my players make outs....if an Adam Dunn-like player gets on base nearly 40% of the time why care how he makes his outs.

    Thoughts?

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    This is too ridiculous to continue. Here we have people defending strikeouts.  I give up.  This is a joke.  If one said that it was a beautiful day , someone would say that it was bad for the flowers since they need rain.  If one said this is Sunday night, some joker would say " not everywhere in the world."  Some would rather debate or just bust balls than actually try to make any sense.  A strikeout is a strikeout , unless you want it to be something more.   I give up.  Here is the reality, like it or not:  If you don't put the ball in play , you have failed. If you do put the ball in play, you have a chance to succeed. If you hit a home run, that is the ultimate success.  Everything else is nonsense.  Home runs are good. RBIs are good. Strikeouts are bad.  Clutch matters. So does choke. Thinking otherwise is overrated.  Trying to debate with contrarians is futile.

    Stabbed by Foulke

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Other than a hit or sacrifice, which are both measured by stats, how often does a ball put in play vs a strike out leads to a run? My guess is very few. When you subtract DPs vs a K, the difference is lessened slightly.

    In a vacumn, of course a ball put in play for an out is more likely to help than a K, but not by that much. Yes, there is the pychological effect of a K to consider as well, but I have always thought the whole K thing is overblown.

    If you are getting on base or have a high slugging percent, then Ks hardly matter. If you are stinking up the place and never advancing players on the basepaths due to a high K rate, then those Ks really seem to stand out.

    Sox4ever



    Other than a hit or sacrifice, which are both measured by stats, how often does a ball put in play vs a strike out leads to a run? My guess is very few. When you subtract DPs vs a K, the difference is lessened slightly.                                                                                                        This makes no sense  at all. A ball put in play may or may not lead to a run.  How does one get a hit without putting the ball in play ?  How can you say " other than a hit " .  What sense does that make?  How can you separate a hit from an out on a ball in play ? You have to put the ball in play first.  When you put the ball in play , it may result in a hit. Or not. When you strike out, it cannot lead to a run. How much simpler can it be?  Hit the ball , you have a chance. Strike out , you have no chance.  This has reached the point of absurdity. I have to give up. 

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    I've been reading quite a few comments this year on the question of whether or not HR's and K's are overrated.  Just look at yesterday's game thread for examples.

    I'm going to add RBI to the mix because that is another stat that is often referred to as being overrated.  I once read a statement by Keith Law that the RBI stat was 'meaningless'.  That really irritated me.  How can RBI be meaningless?  You don't win any games if you don't score any runs.  And based on the current 2013 MLB stats, only 5% of all runs scored do not result in an RBI.

    I still have a problem with Law's statement, but part of the problem is that he didn't expand on exactly what he meant.  I have to assume that what he meant was that a player's RBI total doesn't necessarily reflect his performance. 

    A textbook example of the RBI distortion is the 2007 RBI totals of Lugo and Pedroia.  Lugo had 73 RBI in 630 PA.  Pedroia had 50 RBI in 581 PA.

    But Lugo hit 237/294/349, and Pedroia hit 317/380/442.

    The issues with HR's and K's are a little different, but I think there is a similarity.  It's not so much a question of whether a HR, RBI or K is important in the context of one at-bat, it's a question of how important it is in the context of the whole season.

    Fire away people. Smile

     

        

     




       Scoring more runs than your opponent is the entire object of the game. Home runs = instant run/runs.  Strikeouts =  instant zero.  But these things are overrated.  Yeah. Sure they are. Outscoring the opponent is overrated.  Wins and losses are overrated too.    The only things that truly matter are WAR , UZR, WHIPS , ZIPS, DIPS and BABIPS.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Mark Bellhorn led the league with 177 strikeouts in 2004.  He was third in league in walks with 88, with an OBP of .373.  He hit .304 with runners in scoring position, had 82 RBI, and scored 93 runs.  He was also among the leaders in pitches per plate appearance, contributing greatly to the collective wearing down of opposing pitchers, fan slumber rates, and yes, ultimately, wins.

     

     

     

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Good examples in today's game. Bautista tied it with one swing.  Then , Victorino puts the ball in play and good things happen. If Shane had struck out, we still need a two out hit.  Who knows if we win the game. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     



    Of course, one cpould also point out that TO had 2 HRs to Boston's -0-, but they were both solo HRs.

     

    One could also point to the fact that TO is 2nd in HRs, and 8th in scoring, while the RS are 7th in HRs, and 1st in scoring.

    [/QUOTE]

    Joe,

    The Red Sox also are also #1 in RBI & OBP, and #2 in team batting average In all of MLB. Meaning that they have more opportunities to score. while Toronto is 10th In RBI # 16 in team batting average and #18 in OBP...meaning they have less RBI opportunities. The Orioles lead mlb in homers and are #2 in runs scored and RBI conversely they're #13 in OBP And # 4 in team batting average. 

    The saber metric guys have already made the case for the value of getting on base with the runs created stat that places a run value on each of the offensive categories. In essesense lending credence to the old adage of a walk's as good as a hit. Where the pct of scoring increases based on how the batter reached base. The Hr is the only one that grades out at 100%.

    A side note, related to strikeouts, one of the downsides of working the count is that often hitters work themselves into pitchers counts. Which can have an adverse effect on the number of times a player strikes out or simply just by protecting the plate, has to hit a pitchers pitch. The numbers bare that out when you look at MLB batting averages based on the count...when ahead the hitters fare well, when behind the advantage goes to the pitcher. 

     

     

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:


    A strikeout is never productive. You are really reaching.  The ground ball could have been a base hit.  You can never have a chance for success unless you put the ball in play. 




    thing is

    we are not comparing K's to GB singles

    we are comparing K's to GB outs

    in which case the only times when

    the GB might be more productive

    is when there are base runners with less than 2 outs

     

    that's why I say when some one looks / gets alarm at a  players K's totals

    unless they know how many times there were base runners with less than 2 outs

    they tend to overrate the negativity of the K

     

    I don't think anyone is say K's aren't worse than making contact

    just saying they aren't as bad as some think

    in otherwords overrrated

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to jimedfred's comment:


    As stated by some smart people above, any stat can be over- or under-rated if used out of context. I personally love home runs, and probably overate them.   However, the ability to score many runs quickly, turn games around in just a few a/b's, is great. Some guy named Earl Weaver used to preach " Pitching, defense, and three -run homers " as his baseball philosohy.

    IMO, if any stat is overated it is OPS. One's on base % counts hits along with walks, etc. and then slugging % counts those hits AGAIN.   Better would be adding isolated power to OBP.

    Tom Boswell in " Inside Sports " magazine used to compile the best offensive measurement I think, called Total Average.  He counted ALL bases, HBP's, BB's, bases from hits, NET stolen bases,.........and then divided by ALL outs, including pickoffs, caught stealing, extra outs for GIDP, etc. I believe only balks, errors, and catcher interferences weren't counted.

    It was cumbersome yet elegant, and identified promising up-and comers early in their careers.



    OBP + ISO would treat singles exactly like walks.

     

    OBP + SLG gives the hitter more credit for singling than for walking. 

     

    Total Average was nice, but ridiculous to calculate.  Stats like wOBA basically do the same thing, but do not rely on stolen bases.  Personally, I do not think of "SB" as a function of hitting. ..

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

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Strikeouts are horrible outs, whether they are 10-pitch at bats or not, they are useless to  your team. As for putting the ball in play, you just increase the odds of reaching base by a number of ways...error being one of them.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    Strikeouts are horrible outs, whether they are 10-pitch at bats or not, they are useless to  your team. As for putting the ball in play, you just increase the odds of reaching base by a number of ways...error being one of them.



    If the first 11 or 12 batters struck out but had 10-pitch at bats, the starter would be removed at the end of the 4th inning unless he were a knuckler.  This is not so much a justification of a strike out, but a reason not to overlook the residual benefit of a long at bat.  

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BOSOX1941. Show BOSOX1941's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Way back in the 50s, fans liked to insinuate that Yogi Berra was a better clutch hitter than Ted Williams.  A sports writer did a study and found that, in the "clutch", Yogi batted .285 and Williams batted .343. He thought that people took more notice when Williams failed than they did when Yogi failed. By the way, those averages are their lifetime batting averages.  Everybody remembered when Ted one hopped a ball right back to the pitcher with men on second and third and 2 outs. It was unusual.

     


    The best defense is a good offense.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share