I think too many people want to keep BA alive (as a go-to stat) because they have learned the benchmarks for it and are comfortable.
Everyone grew up knowing <.250 = bad, .275 = average, .300 = good....etc.
Expand your horizons.
1) can score a runner from any base or the plate
2) creates potential errors and extra bases
3) creates runs with less events
4) potential to create RISP in fewer events
Calculating RC27 of a lineup of .300/.300/.300 hitters vs a .290/.310/.290 hitters and the latter created about a .25 more runs per game.
Last edited by '69 & Vine; 05-26-2014 at 12:19 PM.
"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
It's all moot, I was using a calculator based on OBP/SLG only. Sorry!
-jojo, I think your analysis is unchanged by this
Just using OBP/SLG, SLG makes a similar impact on runs per game as OBP
.290/.290 = 2.747 RPG
.300/.290 = 2.917 RPG
.290/.310 = 2.941 RPG
.300/.300 = 3.014 RPG
.300/.310 = 3.111
.310/.300 = 3.184
.310/.310 = 3.281
Last edited by '69 & Vine; 05-26-2014 at 08:33 PM.
The main issue is that some people want to see people expand the strikezone to try and get hits, because they don't want to see a guy walk then someone else not get a hit. The problem that they often fail to realize is that expanding the strikezone to try and get hits makes it far more likely to make an out, because well, 99% of hitters suck a lot more at hitting balls than they do at hitting strikes, while taking a walk, adding a base runner and letting the next guy try to hit a strike is far more likely to result in not just that first run they wanted to be scored, but more runs after that.
And when said player is a coin flip when it comes to walks or strikeouts, then yes, I would prefer the player to be more aggressive on strikes early in the count, rather than taking them or playing cricket with the pitch....
Especially, if the player then passes on the duty to drive in a run to a greatly inferior hitting talent than himself.
I don't consider AVG useless info, just a subset of OBP. I will look at a player's average but it's down on the list of things. To me OPS is the first thing I look at. Lots of information in there.
I think as time goes on, we'll see the focus on AVG and RBI go down. Those two stats have been ingrained in every fan's head for a long, long time, but I think with advanced stats, we're able to notice better value in other measurements. Problem is, the advance stat era is barely over a decade old. I'd say in 20 years, OPS will be a lot more known in the average fan's lexicon.
Anyone decrying the advanced stat era just needs to look around at how it's changed the game and how organizations run. High OBP guys like Shin Soo Choo are getting much larger contracts on the market than they would have 15 years ago. As its been pointed out, the team Bill James works for has won 3 World Series titles in the last ten years. Sign me up.
"The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers."
...the 2-2 to Woodsen and here it comes...and it is swung on and missed! And Tom Browning has pitched a perfect game! Twenty-seven outs in a row, and he is being mobbed by his teammates, just to the thirdbase side of the mound.
Just wish we could get the whole baseball world focused on OPS. It's as close to a perfect stat as there is for productivity.
Rounding third and heading for home...
Attended 1976 World Series in my Mother's Womb. Attended 1990 World Series Game 2 as a 13 year old. Want to take my son to a a World Series Game in Cincinnati in my lifetime.