Offseason Priorities

[Wonderful Monds]

If we had a 300 hitting second slot hitter who could OBP 350 plus, that would be undeniably better than player hitting 250/350. If we have a lead off hitter on first, having someone who can pick up hits more consistently helps move that runner along better than a walk. If you have runners on the corners instead of first and second in front of the heart of the order, there are so many more ways you can score.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I respect your opinion. I just disagree.

Regarding the putting the ball in play vs strikeouts issue, I disagree on that one too unfortunately. Strikeouts have been mathematically proven to be only infinitesimally more harmful than contact outs. Yes, you can advance a baserunner with a contact out but you can also hit into double plays (not only groundball DPs, but also line-outs where a runner gets doubled-off and outfield fly balls where a runner tries to tag up and gets thrown out) and fielder's choices that cause an advance runner to be retired. These plays cancel each other out in the end.

Yes, correct, the EFFECT of the strikeout is no big deal. It's like any other out. It is even better than a DP. Correct. Agree.

The problem with the strikeout is the failure to make contact itself. When a batter fails to make contact, he severely limits his opportunity for a productive at bat.

The problem is not the strikeout itself, it's role in the game is like any other out.

The problem is the failure to make contact. Most good things for hitters come with contact. Fewer good things can happen when a batter fails to make contact.

The problem with Drew Stubbs is not merely that his strikeouts cause outs. The bigger problem is that by failing to make contact he eliminates the CHANCE of a productive at bat.

Strikeouts may not be that important, but contact is.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

If we had a 300 hitting second slot hitter who could OBP 350 plus, that would be undeniably better than player hitting 250/350. If we have a lead off hitter on first, having someone who can pick up hits more consistently helps move that runner along better than a walk. If you have runners on the corners instead of first and second in front of the heart of the order, there are so many more ways you can score.

You have to figure in how many times that extra contact erases both the runner on base and the hitter (double plays). It cancels out the benefit of the batting average improvement.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I am just telling you how the saber geeks think about batting average lovers.

You're shadow-boxing. A goodly portion of the people on this board aren't meatheads who've never moved beyond BA. They're saber-savy fans who are re-considering it.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Rojo

You're shadow-boxing. A goodly portion of the people on this board aren't meatheads who've never moved beyond BA. They're saber-savy fans who are re-considering it.

I don't think they would do that if they were truly saber-savvy.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

You have to figure in how many times that extra contact erases both the runner on base and the hitter (double plays). It cancels out the benefit of the batting average improvement.

I guess if you assume said player would lead the league in double plays, which is a pretty huge assumption to make.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Yes, correct, the EFFECT of the strikeout is no big deal. It's like any other out. It is even better than a DP. Correct. Agree.

The problem with the strikeout is the failure to make contact itself. When a batter fails to make contact, he severely limits his opportunity for a productive at bat.

The problem is not the strikeout itself, it's role in the game is like any other out.

The problem is the failure to make contact. Most good things for hitters come with contact. Fewer good things can happen when a batter fails to make contact.

The problem with Drew Stubbs is not merely that his strikeouts cause outs. The bigger problem is that by failing to make contact he eliminates the CHANCE of a productive at bat.

Strikeouts may not be that important, but contact is.

Looks like I was adding on to my earlier post while you wrote this one. My edit addresses the contact issue you raised here. The benefits of extra contact are erased by the extra double plays and fielder's choices they create.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Rojo

You're shadow-boxing. A goodly portion of the people on this board aren't meatheads who've never moved beyond BA. They're saber-savy fans who are re-considering it.

Exactly. We can all discuss it, but the "pulling us out of the dark ages" tone is unnecessary considering we've obviously all heard the BA argument ten thousand times by now.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I don't think they would do that if they were truly saber-savvy.

Why? Because they should receive some wisdom then go no further?

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Wonderful Monds

I guess if you assume said player would lead the league in double plays, which is a pretty huge assumption to make.

Nope, the run value tables I posted earlier explain this issue. Double plays are extremely harmful to a team's run expectancy. One double play can cancel out several runner advancements, and there are many ways to hit into a double play.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Rojo

Why? Because they should receive some wisdom then go no further?

Because being saber-savvy makes it very clear very quickly that batting average is a worthless stat. Not only because it leaves out so much critical information but also because it will mislead you so often.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Becuase being saber-savvy makes it very clear very quickly that batting average is a worthless stat.

*your opinion

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Looks like I was adding on to my earlier post while you wrote this one. My edit addresses the contact issue you raised here. The benefits of extra contact are erased by the extra double plays and fielder's choices they create.

Drew Stubbs fanned 166 times this year in 544 PAs. His K rate was 30.5%.

In my opinion, if he could have cut that number in half, made contact in another 83 at bats, he would have been a better hitter.

I guess you disagree, to each his own, but that's my view.

In some relatively few instances no-contact is better than contact.

Usually, contact is better.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Because being saber-savvy makes it very clear very quickly that batting average is a worthless stat.

The best argument against BA is that base hits are influenced strongly by luck and other factors beyond the batter's control.

A base hit (notably singles and doubles) could easily be an out if the ball were hit slightly differently, or the fielder was positioned slightly differently, or the fielder was better, etc. This is a good argument.

The argument fails IMO when a hitter consistently gets lots of base hits per times at bat over a number of years. Some hitters have the ability to get hits for a variety of reasons.

On the other hand, when a batter has a high BA once or twice in a long career, then the stat may not mean as much.

[AtomicDumpling]

Here is an interesting scenario:

Imagine that baseball had not been invented until the year 2000, well into the information age of computers. Now that there is so much data available about every game and so much processing power at our fingertips, do you think that Batting Average would ever have been invented as a statistic?

Batting average is basically a relic from the 1800's that became popular before records were kept on things like walks, errors and HBPs, and before extra base hits became common.

The flaws in battting average are so readily apparent by today's standards that I don't think batting average would ever have become popular if baseball had been invented in the modern world.