Offseason Priorities

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by 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.

I disagree.

The eyetest of who are the best hitters always matches up to their batting averages for me.

Same with pitchers. I never needed all the Saber stuff to know that Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax were great pitchers. Without even looking at their e.r.a.'s, you knew it. But their e.r.a.'s always backed it up too.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

I disagree.

The eyetest of who are the best hitters always matches up to their batting averages for me.

Same with pitchers. I never needed all the Saber stuff to know that Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax were great pitchers. Without even looking at their e.r.a.'s, you knew it. But their e.r.a.'s always backed it up too.

So, the BA of Adam Dunn matches up to his offensive abilty?

And their have been lots of pitchers who have been lights out for a year and them settled back into their normal level. Steve Stone comes to mind.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by mth123

I think what is being ignored here is KC's original premise that this team needs some diversification of its skillset. Its not necessarily that Mickey Slaphitter is better than Jack Slugger. The problem is that the Reds have a team filled with Jack Sluggers and there isn't a Mickey Slaphitter to be found. I know this, I just watched the Reds leave a small army on base in Games 3, 4 and 5 of the series they lost to the Giants. Two outs and a runner on second, I'd much rather have Mickey Slaphitter up there to get the run home than I would Jack Slugger. Increased ability to get a hit would seem to mean increased ability to get the hit. A walk doesn't do much good in the situation I just sighted. Its simply adds another runner to be left on base. Getting a hit on the other hand....

I agree with this.

The Reds simply are good at SLG and not good at OBP/BA. They need more OBP/BA. It will provide better balance to the offense. Best case scenario, they add the OBP/BA without reducing SLG, or reducing it very slightly.

As for the difference between OBP and BA, it becomes less meaningful when you consider that most high BA hitters have good OBPs. Of the top qualified 50 BA hitters in baseball this year, only two had OBPs below .330.

IMO, the Reds offense has too many right handed hitters who hit for fair to good power but are low OBP/BA guys. It's not a well diversified offense.

Also, I commend to all of you recent writings by Tom Verducci of SI. He views this as an age of strikeouts where teams that put the ball in play succeed in key games. I find his writing on this subject persuasive. He even quotes Joey Votto's comments for support.

[Brutus]

Does anyone have scouting reports on Mickey Slapper and Jack Slugger? I'm not familiar with them.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

The issue of disconnect is that somehow just mentioning BA (in the context of wanting to get more BA-driven OBP guys) taints the discussion -- which I think is insane.

Someone got a little too "four legs good, two legs bad" about the whole thing.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

. The benefits of extra contact are erased by the extra double plays and fielder's choices they create.

Disagree. Can you support this statement?
Especially on a guy like Stubbs.. He's very difficult to double up.
There are cases where an out can advance a runner. Larkin was the master of hitting the ball to RF to advance the runner. That's a productive at bat, even if it sometimes caused an out.

Again, I'm not saying there's a case where an out is better than a BB or hit.. Just saying that some outs advance the runner, induce errors, sac flies, etc. I guess I see no downside to extra contact, as you imply.

[Raisor]

Dear lord, a batting average discussion I overlooked.

Feels like 2004.

[Raisor]

Dear lord, a batting average discussion I overlooked.

Feels like 2004.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Here is another way to look at your question:

Jack Slugger's stats: .200/.330/.450

Mickey Slapper's stats: .300/.330/.450

[snip..]

The aspect you are not considering is this: Since you are giving more hits to Mickey Slapper you are also giving him more Total Bases (singles grant 1 TB while walks do not count as Total Bases). Since you are giving him more Total Bases his SLG should go up above the .450 mark we have quoted but it doesn't (SLG=TBs/ABs). Since we know his SLG remained at .450 despite the extra Total Bases from base hits we can conclude that Mickey Slapper must be losing Total Bases somewhere else (we know he has the same Total Bases as Jack Slugger or else they would have different SLG rates). .

Real world example.. 100 plate appearances (so BBs count.)

Jack Slugger would walk 13 times, bringing his "at bats" down to 87.
He's have 17 hits.
He'd have 39 total bases to maintain that slugging of .450
So he'd have 2.29 bases per hit
Factor in the walks.. he averages .56 bases every time he comes to the plate.


Mickey Slapper
3 walks..
97 at bats left.
29 hits
..to slug 450 he'd need 43.6 total bases
So he gets roughly 1.5 bases per hit
Factor in the walks.. he averages .466 bases every time he comes to the plate.

IMO, they are kind of close, since hits are more valuable than walks.. Maybe someone else can determine the exact math..

Slapper is the type of person I would like the Reds to add, due to their current "all or nothing" offense.

Not sure this is a realistic example either, because I'm guessing not many hitters average 2.29 bases per hit..(Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe this is common?)
Obviously if Jack Slugger could raise his batting average a bit, you'd expect his slugging to increase as well.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by Raisor

Dear lord, a batting average discussion I overlooked.

Feels like 2004.

.......and the discussion is like half of this thread.

I came here to read stuff about possible personnel changes.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Real world example.. 100 plate appearances (so BBs count.)

Jack Slugger would walk 13 times, bringing his "at bats" down to 87.
He's have 17 hits.
He'd have 39 total bases to maintain that slugging of .450
So he'd have 2.29 bases per hit
Factor in the walks.. he averages .56 bases every time he comes to the plate.


Mickey Slapper
3 walks..
97 at bats left.
29 hits
..to slug 450 he'd need 43.6 total bases
So he gets roughly 1.5 bases per hit
Factor in the walks.. he averages .466 bases every time he comes to the plate.

IMO, they are kind of close, since hits are more valuable than walks.. Maybe someone else can determine the exact math..

If you go back and read the last 3-4 pages the exact match has been done.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by mth123

I think what is being ignored here is KC's original premise that this team needs some diversification of its skillset. Its not necessarily that Mickey Slaphitter is better than Jack Slugger. The problem is that the Reds have a team filled with Jack Sluggers and there isn't a Mickey Slaphitter to be found. I know this, I just watched the Reds leave a small army on base in Games 3, 4 and 5 of the series they lost to the Giants. Two outs and a runner on second, I'd much rather have Mickey Slaphitter up there to get the run home than I would Jack Slugger. Increased ability to get a hit would seem to mean increased ability to get the hit. A walk doesn't do much good in the situation I just sighted. Its simply adds another runner to be left on base. Getting a hit on the other hand....

The study has shown that both hitters are equally adept at producing runs. Mickey Slapper is more reliant on his teammates to get on base and into scoring position for him, whereas Jack Slugger can create runs by himself. In the end they both create the same number of runs.

In your example of Games 3, 4 and 5 of the playoffs it seems to me that the Reds were playing more like Mickey Slapper than Jack Slugger. They were getting plenty of singles (12 hits in game 5 but only 4 runs). The problem with a singles hitter like Mickey Slapper is that you have to get at least 2 and likely 3 singles in the same inning just to score one run. With extra-base hits you can score much more quickly and are much more likely to score multiple runs. The reason the Reds left so many runners on base in those games was because they were only hitting singles. You need to mix in some extra base hits if you want to score enough runs to win.

[gilpdawg]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

I disagree.

The eyetest of who are the best hitters always matches up to their batting averages for me.

Same with pitchers. I never needed all the Saber stuff to know that Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax were great pitchers. Without even looking at their e.r.a.'s, you knew it. But their e.r.a.'s always backed it up too.

So Freddy Sanchez was the best hitter in the National League in 2006?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

In your example of Games 3, 4 and 5 of the playoffs it seems to me that the Reds were playing more like Mickey Slapper than Jack Slugger. They were getting plenty of singles (12 hits in game 5 but only 4 runs). The problem with a singles hitter like Mickey Slapper is that you have to get at least 2 and likely 3 singles in the same inning just to score one run. With extra-base hits you can score much more quickly and are much more likely to score multiple runs. The reason the Reds left so many runners on base in those games was because they were only hitting singles. You need to mix in some extra base hits if you want to score enough runs to win.

I haven't read the whole thread, but is anybody saying that a ballclub should have ALL singles hitters or ALMOST all singles hitters? I doubt it. I'm not.

You need a mixture. The Reds mix is poor IMO. They need more OBP and BA guys. To go ALONG with the power they already have.

It's a matter of balance.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Kc61

I haven't read the whole thread, but is anybody saying that a ballclub should have ALL singles hitters or ALMOST all singles hitters? I doubt it. I'm not.

You need a mixture. The Reds mix is poor IMO. They need more OBP and BA guys. To go ALONG with the power they already have.

It's a matter of balance.

My post was in regard to someone saying the Reds needed a more singles-oriented approach in those games. I was merely showing that the Reds had plenty of singles and not enough extra-base hits.

I am with you on the OBP. They need more power too. I don't think the AVG matters. Maximize the OBP and the SLG. The AVG adds nothing to the mix. We have already seen that as long as the OBP and SLG stay the same the batting average makes no difference. There is no increase in production between .200/.330/.450 and .300/.330/.450. Even a 100 point increase in batting average failed to improve his production and may even have hurt it a bit.

You should read the whole thread, lots of interesting stuff in this one.