Batting Average Leaders

[hogan873]

Another factor is what type of player you're looking at, or more specifically, what their role is. A lead off guy with a good BA and a better OBP with low power numbers and a lower OPS is great. But a guy who is supposed to be your number 3 or 4 hitter with low OPS but a good BA doesn't look as good.

 

I coach little league baseball, and although it doesn't compare to managers at the ML level, I still look at what type of players I have. I have the speedy guy who gets on base a lot (hits or walks) leading off followed by a contact hitter. The #2 hitter doesn't necessarily need a high BA, rather just needs to make a lot of contact to move the runner(s) over or in. Then I plug in the guys who can hit for power at 3 and 4.

 

Since I've been coaching, I've begun to appreciate the other stats beyond BA. And then you look at the player as a whole. Running, defense, situational awareness, etc.

 

There's a lot more to baseball than BA, but it still has to be one of the top stats we look at.

[Eminor3rd]

OBP is more valuable during periods of high-offensive output, because anyone who reaches base is more likely to eventually score. SLG is more valuable during periods of low-offensive output, because high SLG events are more likely to score runs immediately instead of having to rely on subsequent hitters to continue to move the line.

[Jerksticks]

I don't think there is such a thing as an OBP-only person. I am a good baseball player person and I appreciate good baseball players. Just as apples come in different shapes, flavors, and colors, so can baseball players.

 

I agree. It's the haughtiness of it all though. I think they are both wonderful statistics. Joe Mauer in his prime was a thorn in our side because he spanked game-changing hits more often than one could stomach, not simply because he got on base.

 

Batting average drives OBP the way it drives in runs. Guys that hit are dangerous.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

An out is recorded on a FC. All that other stuff is taken care of with ERA, and your batting average.

 

But if there was no one on base you would have otherwise been out. Therefore, you are not being rewarded solely for reaching base at the expense of another baserunner.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Yeah it's hard to credit the player for the defender making a mistake. But an unintentional walk resulting from poor control by the pitcher early is the AB is kind of the same thing, as is rewarding the batter with a hit when it's only a non-error on the scorecards. I.E. the fielder sucks and he takes a bad route/misjudges the ball on a relatively easy play, but because he doesn't get there in time it goes as a hit.

 

I think an unweighted "total positive outcomes" type of stat would be great as a means of considering stats on players you've never seen before. Like, hits + walks + HBP + reached on errors + sacrifices + making an out while advancing a runner to 3B with 0 or 1 outs + SB / PA - CS. Put it in BA type of form where you can say something like "this guy has a positive outcome average of .495" or something like that. I would think that could be useful especially when looking at a player with underwhelming offensive stats and looking at where you might want to bat him (like 2nd or 8th/9th specifically).

 

You could subtract BA and OBP from it and compare it to SLG looking for the all-or-nothing types, you could use it to compare lead-off hitters, etc.

 

Also I think that a hitter's highest measured speed from home plate to 1B following contact should be a basic offensive stat. That could be very useful in gameplanning & also if you're in a league with a lot of guys who get down the line rather quickly you probably don't want an arm like Sanchez's at 2B. Also it might put an added value on 3B and SS arms in the same situations.

[The Ultimate Champion]

I agree. It's the haughtiness of it all though. I think they are both wonderful statistics. Joe Mauer in his prime was a thorn in our side because he spanked game-changing hits more often than one could stomach, not simply because he got on base.

 

Batting average drives OBP the way it drives in runs. Guys that hit are dangerous.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything but in one of those Dunn lover threads there was a link posted about what an oddity he has been given how little the defense has had to make any play when he's been at the plate. Also most of those plays that had to be made were just routine ones anyway.

 

Players like Mauer with great contact ability and bat control, with approaches to spray the ball everywhere, are really tough because they force you to position your defense, pitch to your positioning, then defend those positions once the ball is in play. It's a whole lot more difficult than setting up the same shift over and over, using the same patterns over and over, etc.

 

Players like Dunn (especially in his prime) have a place in a lineup because a lineup needs balance, but if you could have more of one thing than any other IMO you'd want a balanced lefty-righty order full of guys with bat control and contact ability who can "hit it where they ain't" as Hawk would say. Of course you still need pop and so forth, as well as OBP, and so you can't put Mark Kotsays all over the field. But Viciedo at least has the raw tools to be like that and hit the ball wherever, and at least Tyler Flowers tries to do this stuff even though he lacks a lot of tools (had a great near-double last night off Yordano, a terrific approach in that AB).

Edited September 18, 2014 by The Ultimate Champion

[Pants Rowland]

It is easier to find AB and hit totals for individuals in newpapers and box scores than plate appearances. I don't think anyone is disagreeing OPB not being important. But is is funny how offense has dropped.

 

 

Jim Thome, took a lot of grief around here. He was very streaky and station to station, and was on the team when some of this board became anti home run. But his first 2 years with the Sox would actually lead the league on OBP this season. His 3rd season would be top 25 and his last top 20, and that is with what would be maybe top 5 HR totals.

 

I don't think it is all steroids. I have said before, I think Bud deadened the ball a little to give the appearance his steroid policy is working. I think pitching is becoming even more specialized, which makes it harder to hit. The White Sox have played 5 nine inning games this season that took over 4 hours to finish. A lot of that is pitching changes, trips to the mound, batters taking their time,etc. They have to fix it. Generations attention spans are shrinking. Most 4 hour games on a Tuesday night suck,

 

One thing I think people might be underestimating is the banning of amphetamines along with other controlled substances. They were an acceptaed part of the game for a long time and really helped keep player energy levels to handle the grind of a 162 game season. I personally think along with the ban on greenies should have been a return to the 154 game season. Take those remaining 8 days to: (i) start the season in April, (ii) give 4 more off days later in the season, and (iii) get the wildcard playin game and start of divisional playoffs going a bit earlier.

 

Right now the pitchers have experienced a huge competitive advantage over hitters that are in the field every game. The grind has to be a lot tougher on them than even a bullpen pitcher.

[shysocks]

Mauer is a bad example if you're trying to make a case for how important the hit tool is, because since he came into the league the only guy with as many plate appearances as him and a higher OBP is Pujols. His greatness is not tied to his batting average alone.

 

I think we all can agree that you want a variety of hitters in the lineup and that a team full of Dunn's is no good. Here's what it boils down to though: Take the 10th best batting average in baseball this season (Posey, .310). We can't look at a .310 hitter's average alone and know he's a useful presence in the lineup. Then take a guy with the 10th best OBP (Abreu, .382). We can say with much greater certainty that guy is helping you.

[witesoxfan]

Mauer is a bad example if you're trying to make a case for how important the hit tool is, because since he came into the league the only guy with as many plate appearances as him and a higher OBP is Pujols. His greatness is not tied to his batting average alone.

 

I think we all can agree that you want a variety of hitters in the lineup and that a team full of Dunn's is no good. Here's what it boils down to though: Take the 10th best batting average in baseball this season (Posey, .310). We can't look at a .310 hitter's average alone and know he's a useful presence in the lineup. Then take a guy with the 10th best OBP (Abreu, .382). We can say with much greater certainty that guy is helping you.

 

Even more than this, you can look at the 10th best wOBA (.387, Miguel Cabrera) or the 10th best wRC+ (149, also Miguel Cabrera) and say with 100% certainty "That is an elite hitter."

[The Ultimate Champion]

Mauer is a bad example if you're trying to make a case for how important the hit tool is, because since he came into the league the only guy with as many plate appearances as him and a higher OBP is Pujols. His greatness is not tied to his batting average alone.

 

I think we all can agree that you want a variety of hitters in the lineup and that a team full of Dunn's is no good. Here's what it boils down to though: Take the 10th best batting average in baseball this season (Posey, .310). We can't look at a .310 hitter's average alone and know he's a useful presence in the lineup. Then take a guy with the 10th best OBP (Abreu, .382). We can say with much greater certainty that guy is helping you.

Great hitters are dangerous enough to where pitchers try to miss off the plate, down, up, etc. not over the heart of the plate. Great hitters are also generally smart hitters, and part of their greatness comes from the fact that they zero in on what they want to do (pitches and location) before they even step into the box. They pay attention to patterns and histories. Also, if you are playing the Sox, the greatest attention you are going to pay to any hitter is Abreu when you go over the scouting report. Every pitcher on the roster has it is his mind "don't make a mistake to this guy." Every pitcher also knows that a BB to Abreu is less likely to lead to a demotion to AAA than a BB to Leury Garcia would.

 

So a lot of the OBP stuff comes from a hitter establishing how great he is. Even with Dunn, not a great hitter but the power is frightening that you'd still see some guys trying to go around him/stay away from him even when Dunn was in his really s***ty periods.

 

You just have to take everything into consideration. IMO the biggest problem with ANY stat EVER is people just using one stat to try to define everything. It doesn't matter if it is a very simple and basic stat like errors committed, batting average, wins for a pitcher, etc. or something very complex like WAR, RC or whatever. You need as many tools as you have available to make a decision. Your eyes are always going to be the best, and video is the greatest tool ever, but you do need stats to fill gaps for you when you need to make a decision/what to make an observation but can't look at hours of tape. So they are useful (stas are) but only really to a point, and no one single stat is going to tell you how much a player truly helps his team because it pretty much ignores the team.

 

And really... you can have all kinds of cumulative stats to tell you that Sale and Abreu are great... so what? Everyone already knows that. Pick any number of statistics, watch video on these guys, it's obvious they are great. RC+ on Abreu is basically saying "water is indeed wet."

[The Ultimate Champion]

One thing I think people might be underestimating is the banning of amphetamines along with other controlled substances. They were an acceptaed part of the game for a long time and really helped keep player energy levels to handle the grind of a 162 game season. I personally think along with the ban on greenies should have been a return to the 154 game season. Take those remaining 8 days to: (i) start the season in April, (ii) give 4 more off days later in the season, and (iii) get the wildcard playin game and start of divisional playoffs going a bit earlier.

 

Right now the pitchers have experienced a huge competitive advantage over hitters that are in the field every game. The grind has to be a lot tougher on them than even a bullpen pitcher.

I think this is an awesome post. I will vote your profile 5 stars.

 

Not sure about the 154 game season though, but the point about the relievers and the greenies... I've never thought of that before but I'd be shocked if you were wrong.

[southsider2k5]

I think OBP is a bit hollow as well. It really doesn't account for what is sacrificed to get on base. Take a guy like Abreu. If he laid off of the pitch off of the corner, he'd have an insane OBP. But he'd also sacrifice some batting average, as he hits the hell out of that pitch, and a ton of RBI's. Is that worth it? Just because a pitch is in the strike zone, doesn't mean that a batter can hit it, and just because a pitch is out of the zone, doesn't mean the hitter doesn't have a better swing for it.

 

Another one that comes to mind it Thomas. I really feel like in his first 6-8 years, if he would have expanded his zone a bit more, he could have really added to his average and RBI numbers, as crazy as that sounds. He had a great swing the other way, and could probably have hit that same pitch that Abreu does six inches off of the corner, very effectively.

[The Ultimate Champion]

I think OBP is a bit hollow as well. It really doesn't account for what is sacrificed to get on base. Take a guy like Abreu. If he laid off of the pitch off of the corner, he'd have an insane OBP. But he'd also sacrifice some batting average, as he hits the hell out of that pitch, and a ton of RBI's. Is that worth it? Just because a pitch is in the strike zone, doesn't mean that a batter can hit it, and just because a pitch is out of the zone, doesn't mean the hitter doesn't have a better swing for it.

 

Another one that comes to mind it Thomas. I really feel like in his first 6-8 years, if he would have expanded his zone a bit more, he could have really added to his average and RBI numbers, as crazy as that sounds. He had a great swing the other way, and could probably have hit that same pitch that Abreu does six inches off of the corner, very effectively.

5 stars for you too. This is absolutely true.

 

Pitchers are stupid when they are facing Abreu. They need to realize, his plate coverage is AWESOME. LOL. He can pull his hands in, he can take the pitch well off the outside corner and take it out opposite field, he can really do whatever he wants *so long* as you give him what he is looking for.

 

The scouting report say "X" and Abreu steps in, watches the first pitch, maybe fouls off the second, then Abreu says "OK I see what they are trying to do to me" and so he looks 6" off the outside corner and either slider low (just prepare to take it, and if the guy has an excellent slider just assume he's not going to use the FB out there) or it will be FB high. So Abreu looks FB high 6" off the plate and now someone 8 rows back in RF has a souvenir. "Strikezone" for Abreu is throwing him what he isn't looking for.

 

There's an example I saw earlier this year, he was looking FB off the corner again like he does all the time, and up, because he can hit the thing a mile. The pitcher threw the fastball center cut, right there down the middle, thigh high. Abreu wasn't looking for that pitch, but he was waiting back so he was able to adjust and hit it straight up the middle hard for a single. This was Kluber's outing vs. Abreu (he gave Dunn center cut which Dunn always looks for & Dunn hit it out later). But was the center cut FB to Abreu really a bad pitch? Not really, a bad pitch to Abreu there would have been 6" off the corner and up, then it would have been a gopher ball. But because it was in the middle all he could do was get a single, and if there's no one all then a single is the same as a walk really. But a good pitch to Abreu in that spot would have been a little more inside, also a FB, and even though in other situations the inside FB is a pitch Abreu can hit out, in that spot it probably would have resulted in an out.

 

Anyway 5 stars for you too! Also about Abreu & OBP, one thing the OBP stat doesn't factor in is speed. A small guy with good baserunning skills and very good speed can do more on the bases than Abreu. Abreu has improved as a baserunner (he made some mental mistakes early) but no matter what he'll never have great speed. The OBP Abreu offers requires more bases totaled via hit to score him than someone else, and also, he's more of a threat for a DP. So OBP on Abreu, even as a high total, isn't necessarily as productive as a lower OBP for a player who can easily take 2 bases for every 1 base hit on average, and who is a threat to stel and stay out of the DP.

[cabiness42]

I think OBP is a bit hollow as well. It really doesn't account for what is sacrificed to get on base. Take a guy like Abreu. If he laid off of the pitch off of the corner, he'd have an insane OBP. But he'd also sacrifice some batting average, as he hits the hell out of that pitch, and a ton of RBI's. Is that worth it? Just because a pitch is in the strike zone, doesn't mean that a batter can hit it, and just because a pitch is out of the zone, doesn't mean the hitter doesn't have a better swing for it.

 

Another one that comes to mind it Thomas. I really feel like in his first 6-8 years, if he would have expanded his zone a bit more, he could have really added to his average and RBI numbers, as crazy as that sounds. He had a great swing the other way, and could probably have hit that same pitch that Abreu does six inches off of the corner, very effectively.

 

You get one base every time you walk. That translates to a SLG of 1.000. There may be very small zones outside the strike zone where an elite hitter can manage a SLG of 1.000 or better by swinging, but overall, a walk is a better outcome than you can expect by swinging. There is a very short list of hitters who have become elite without a high walk rate. Vlad at 8.1% is the one who first comes to mind, and that isn't even all that low of a walk rate.

 

 

 

[Eminor3rd]

I think OBP is a bit hollow as well. It really doesn't account for what is sacrificed to get on base. Take a guy like Abreu. If he laid off of the pitch off of the corner, he'd have an insane OBP. But he'd also sacrifice some batting average, as he hits the hell out of that pitch, and a ton of RBI's. Is that worth it? Just because a pitch is in the strike zone, doesn't mean that a batter can hit it, and just because a pitch is out of the zone, doesn't mean the hitter doesn't have a better swing for it.

 

Another one that comes to mind it Thomas. I really feel like in his first 6-8 years, if he would have expanded his zone a bit more, he could have really added to his average and RBI numbers, as crazy as that sounds. He had a great swing the other way, and could probably have hit that same pitch that Abreu does six inches off of the corner, very effectively.

 

The thing to consider here, though, is that people that want to replace AVG with OBP universally agree that they also need SLG to contextualize it. The argument is less about walks and hits as it is about the stats themselves; that if you have OBP and SLG, AVG doesn't really add anything to the conversation, yet it remains the first one cited. All of those figures, alone, fail at telling how good a hitter you have, and when you consider them all together, AVG has the least to contribute to the conversation. So it's not that OBP replaces AVG, it's just that it's a more useful overall stat in a world where you need more than one stat anyway -- but that you also want to be able to cite as few as possible. Everyone craves brevity, and you just don't NEED AVG, so a lot of people don't want to get caught up with it.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[witesoxfan]

You get one base every time you walk. That translates to a SLG of 1.000. There may be very small zones outside the strike zone where an elite hitter can manage a SLG of 1.000 or better by swinging, but overall, a walk is a better outcome than you can expect by swinging. There is a very short list of hitters who have become elite without a high walk rate. Vlad at 8.1% is the one who first comes to mind, and that isn't even all that low of a walk rate.

 

A walk correlates to slugging percentage of 0 (or technically, undefined). Slugging percentage is total bases divided by at bats and a walk does not count as an official at bat nor a total base, so the outcome of a walk is 0 TB/0 ABs, and dividing anything by 0 is undefined.

 

If you draw a walk, your OPS will be 1.000. If you get a single, your OPS will be 2.000. This is part of the flaw of OPS. While a single is more valuable than a walk, it is not twice as valuable as a walk.

[The Ultimate Champion]

So it's not that OBP replaces AVG, it's just that it's a more useful overall stat in a world where you need more than one stat anyway -- but that you also want to be able to cite as few as possible. Everyone craves brevity, and you just don't NEED AVG, so a lot of people don't want to get caught up with it.

There's a whole lot here in these few words that I would disagree with but I'm picking one sentence and bolding out the worst parts.

 

Baseball is an extremely complex game. Go ahead and name another sport with more variables and that is more finite. Go ahead because I can't think of one. As far as I know, among the major sports, baseball is the most complex, finite, and interdependent game out there.

 

Everyone wants brevity?

 

No, just people who want the game to be simpler want brevity.

 

The stuff about batting average adding little and SLG contextualizing OBP.... sure if all you want to do is make lists and hand out awards you can operate that way. If you want to understand and appreciate the game of baseball you need a whole s***load more than a couple of stats. And you definitely DO need batting average anyway, if you need OBP and SLG. What ultimately contextualizes BA, OBP and SLG is team makeup, situation as a whole including inning, outs and men on base, as well as player capabilities like speed. Sometimes a hit is as good as a walk, other times a hit is better, sometimes a HR or bases-clearing double wins you the game, other times it doesn't really affect the score.

 

At the end of the day you want stats to help you make difficult decisions. If I trade my #6 hitting RH SS putting up the following numbers and replace him with a lesser defensive but still quality option who hits for more power and is LH but doesn't have the speed, contact ability or arm strength am I going to be a better team? Can I still hit him sixth in MY batting order? That's what you need to know. None of those stats in isolation tell you anything, in this case they just make you dumber.

[cabiness42]

A walk correlates to slugging percentage of 0 (or technically, undefined). Slugging percentage is total bases divided by at bats and a walk does not count as an official at bat nor a total base, so the outcome of a walk is 0 TB/0 ABs, and dividing anything by 0 is undefined.

 

If you draw a walk, your OPS will be 1.000. If you get a single, your OPS will be 2.000. This is part of the flaw of OPS. While a single is more valuable than a walk, it is not twice as valuable as a walk.

 

You didn't understand my point. I know that walks don't count for or against your SLG, but in order to make up for any number of walks, you would have to SLG 1.000 in order to replace that production. Actually, a little bit less than 1.000 because hits advance runners in situations where walks don't, but my general point is that it is awfully hard to replace the production of a walk by swinging.

[witesoxfan]

You didn't understand my point. I know that walks don't count for or against your SLG, but in order to make up for any number of walks, you would have to SLG 1.000 in order to replace that production. Actually, a little bit less than 1.000 because hits advance runners in situations where walks don't, but my general point is that it is awfully hard to replace the production of a walk by swinging.

 

I see what you're saying now. It's true too.

 

I try and shy away from using OBP and SLG anymore unless they are used in unison because they work so much against each other that if you said "so and so is good because he has an OBP of this" (or the exact same thing about his SLG) you open up about 10 cans of worms.

[Eminor3rd]

There's a whole lot here in these few words that I would disagree with but I'm picking one sentence and bolding out the worst parts.

 

Baseball is an extremely complex game. Go ahead and name another sport with more variables and that is more finite. Go ahead because I can't think of one. As far as I know, among the major sports, baseball is the most complex, finite, and interdependent game out there.

 

Everyone wants brevity?

No, just people who want the game to be simpler want brevity.

 

The stuff about batting average adding little and SLG contextualizing OBP.... sure if all you want to do is make lists and hand out awards you can operate that way. If you want to understand and appreciate the game of baseball you need a whole s***load more than a couple of stats. And you definitely DO need batting average anyway, if you need OBP and SLG. What ultimately contextualizes BA, OBP and SLG is team makeup, situation as a whole including inning, outs and men on base, as well as player capabilities like speed. Sometimes a hit is as good as a walk, other times a hit is better, sometimes a HR or bases-clearing double wins you the game, other times it doesn't really affect the score.

 

At the end of the day you want stats to help you make difficult decisions. If I trade my #6 hitting RH SS putting up the following numbers and replace him with a lesser defensive but still quality option who hits for more power and is LH but doesn't have the speed, contact ability or arm strength am I going to be a better team? Can I still hit him sixth in MY batting order? That's what you need to know. None of those stats in isolation tell you anything, in this case they just make you dumber.

 

I'm bolding all the same old strawman claims always hear that don't have anything to do with what I'm talking about and that imply that I represent some sort of soulless group of computer nerds trying to ruin baseball with robots.

 

If you actually want to know or learn something, you need to draw a conclusion of some kind. You need brevity for that because a conclusion IS brevity. If you ask a question, you want an accurate answer. If that question is "what percentage of times does a guy come up to bat and get a hit," then AVG is it. If it's anything closer to "how valuable is this guy at the plate", AVG is an afterthrought when compared to OBP and SLG.

 

If you don't want to know anything and enjoy the mysticism of the game being as unpredictable as possible, then why look at any results at all?

 

I'm tired of this false narrative that anyone who wants to use data to understand what is happening on the field is some sort of tasteless socialist nerd. If you don't give a s***, just ignore it all. We're talking about the utility of the most general and freely cited offensive stats as the refer to the ability to hit, there's no threat of someone making some bulls*** claim that team makeup and situational hitting are useless. No one ever argues that. The people that are arguing that are imaginary people you made up in your head. Why can't we talk about ways to measure hitting without devolving into another "us vs. them" argument about how it's impossible to measure the total value of a player?

Edited September 18, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[The Ultimate Champion]

I'm bolding all the same old strawman claims always hear that don't have anything to do with what I'm talking about and that imply that I represent some sort of soulless group of computer nerds trying to ruin baseball with robots.

 

If you actually want to know or learn something, you need to draw a conclusion of some kind. You need brevity for that because a conclusion IS brevity. If you ask a question, you want an accurate answer. If that question is "what percentage of times does a guy come up to bat and get a hit," then AVG is it. If it's anything closer to "how valuable is this guy at the plate", AVG is an afterthrought when compared to OBP and SLG.

 

If you don't want to know anything and enjoy the mysticism of the game being as unpredictable as possible, then why look at any results at all?

 

I'm tired of this false narrative that anyone who wants to use data to understand what is happening on the field is some sort of tasteless socialist nerd. If you don't give a s***, just ignore it all. We're talking about the utility of the most general and freely cited offensive stats as the refer to the ability to hit, there's no threat of someone making some bulls*** claim that team makeup and situational hitting are useless. No one ever argues that. The people that are arguing that are imaginary people you made up in your head. Why can't we talk about ways to measure hitting without devolving into another "us vs. them" argument about how it's impossible to measure the total value of a player?

The bolded part... I am saying that you can't answer that question, you can't even ask that question, dealing with only a stat or two.

 

Also, outside of fantasy baseball applications (I think maybe this is where I miss the point in most of these stats arguments, because I see that as being useless) I can't see any real world baseball situation where any serious question is ever answered so simply, unless it is just an awards scenario. I.E. WAR and all that stuff is great for making a list to decide who the most productive overall player is at a position so that you can laud him for it. But I don't see how anyone would ever want to use such simple measures to try to organize anything that really matters. I don't see how these stats help you make out lineups or determine pitch sequences or set defenses or anything. You need a ton of numbers to ever do anything important/make an important decision.

 

I guess it doesn't really matter in the end, we're all just fans, but that's what bothers me, when people try to argue how much better this one single stat is than some other single stat is. In a vacuum sure, the XBH is better than the single and the HR is the greatest possible outcome of a PA for a hitter, and OBP is important because you want people on base when these things happen. But if everything is about the "scoring opportunity" then I'm not sure why something like the chances of getting a hit is seen as less relevant. Both seek to water down the value of a single which is the easiest thing to do for a hitter in terms of things he has control over (pitches in his strikezone). There are only 3 outs in an inning and so a lot of scoring has to occur with 2 outs, when generally only a hit or defensive miscue is going to result in a run. I don't see why OPB in a vacuum is important and SLG in a vacuum is important while average also in a vacuum is not nearly as important. s***, why do the fans boo when the pitcher walks Abreu with RISP? Because the next guy probably sucks in comparison and isn't getting the hit. We want the hit, not the walk.

 

One other thign too.... I know you're smart enough to know how the game works at a larger level and wouldn't try to minimize thigns like situational hitting and stuff. So then what is really the point of taking all these very simple stats way out of context and using them to attempt to come to a "conclusion" as you say? What kind of conclusion can someone come to using these stats, and being so brief? Seriously what value does it have, not trying to be a dick either you're one of my favorite posters, I just seriously do not get any of this stuff and why it is supposed to matter so much/be so valuable. You pick like any spot in the offense in the batting order and the defense in the field and there's like porbably 10-20 or so numbers you're going to want to look at to really answer any kind of meaningful question. Otherwise it would be hard to qualify the answer as a "conclusion" and not an "assumption" or a "guess."

 

Also it's always us vs. them until you come over to my side.

[Jerksticks]

I agree. The stats don't have a biased agenda. No feelings. The stats just sit there to be used. How do you guys typically check out a player. For me it's like this in my head:

 

So what did he hit the last few years. Oh looks like about .260 so that's not a guy that can work pitchers. What's his plate discipline like?

I'll check out his OBP .322. Ok so the dude walks a decent amount but strikes out quite a bit. I bet he has some power.

What's the slugging say. .496. So he's got some pop but he probably gets fooled a lot at the plate.

Oh I see, 43 walks and 123 strikeouts. So he walks because he has power and probably hits in the middle of the order, but he's probably an easy out when a pitcher has his stuff and command.

 

Then I'd probably look at his doubles, HRs and SB totals to paint the rest of the picture about his value.

 

WAR can't help me paint this picture but I'll check his oWAR and dWAR anyway.

Using WAR is akin to a cop giving you a ticket for speeding even though you told him you just rescued a bunch of old grannies from a burning building and you were on your way to help out a bunch of kids across town. You're just a speeder.

[The Ultimate Champion]

Probably the main goal or at least one of the main goals of a statistic is to act as a separator and help you define the differences between two different players, two different situations, etc. and on a larger scale you try to tell the differences between multiple players and multiple situations.

 

Having a ton of very valuable statistics used in their proper context allows you to do this. The more good numbers you have, the more separators you have, the more you can tell players apart and the easier it is to specialize them in roles or at least try to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

 

If you take AVG, OBP & SLG as an example, you take AVG first (how often in the most general terms will this guy get a hit) then you (or at least I) compare AVG to OBP to see how many walks the guy takes. OBP alone doesn't seem to tell you much, but with AVG you get the sense of how much his hitting is contributing to his OBP. Then SLG you compare with the AVG & OBP for context, i.e. you get a sense of ISO just by looking at the numbers at first glance. You can compare these three numbers together, and ideally any given player is doing well enough in at least 2 of them. You can take AVG + OBP out of most guys, AVG + SLG out of most guys, and OBP + SLG out of most guys. You probably have an internal ability to place each of these numbers into an historical and maybe also a current season's context, and as a result, without having to look at the league leaderboard, you have a very good if only general idea whether this player would rank more towards the bottom, middle, or to of the league in any of these categories.

 

And that's all fine, there is nothing wrong with that. AVG + OBP + SLG all together give the fan/observer a very general indication of the strengths and weaknesses of the hitter and pretty much tell him how to look at the player in the AB (i.e. look out for the hit, watch for the walk, this guy can hit a HR, etc.). Now if you take those AVG, OBP and SLG numbers and use them to come up with one stat that tries to tell how productive a player is, instead of having "more" information, or "more complete" information, you actually have *less* information. You have even less context than before and you don't know *why* one player has a rating that says he is "better" or "more productive" than another. Similarly, take AVG away from OBP and SLG and you get a picture that is hazier, not clearer by any means.

 

The super stats are great for rankings, list making, etc. I think WAR is a terrific stat when it comes to comparing contributions of players in a draft year vs. the league. I's a great stat to combine with salary figures to attempt to find cost vs. production in a way that makes each player comparable. It's a great way to quickly add up the values of a position (say compare MLB SS) for the purposes of making a list of which guys you might look into trading for, etc. There are ways to use WAR that make it very valuable or at least useful. It is great for predicting/forecasting a certain very general individual player performance level OR that player's worth in FA dollars. The fact that the stat is a composite of multiple important stats probably makes it easy to account for margin of error, i.e. player performance increases and regressions. But the value of WAR in predicting what is going to happen on the baseball field .... it has no value there. Nor does it have any value when you try to use it to justify replacements, upgrades, etc. like you can't just say "if we replace our 2.5 WAR LF with this 3.2 WAR player we are a better team." WAR doesn't factor in the fit of the player onto the new team even though it does factor in the benefits the player received from his current or last team. WAR doesnt tell you *why* Player X is better than Player Y, it just says that he is. WAR doesn't tell where the differences in abilities are between 2 different players and as such it doesn't tell you how you should most effectively use them in terms of playing time, batting order, position, etc. nor does WAR tell you what you have to do to effectively replace the guy who got hurt or the FA who left for another team. WAR says you lost X value, so replace that value or acquire a greater value. That is of no help to anyone.

 

The simplest stats (again) are fine for lists and finding out "who is better" in the mind of a fan who doesn't know the game. They also are great for video games and probably stuff like gambling, fantasy baseball, etc. They also fit in well with the baseball card collector/memorabilia collector mindset, i.e. who is the best player now and whose merchandise/cards are most valuable and so on. Most baseball fans probably use stats in this environment most of the time, they want lists in the newspaper, lists online, they want to know what the All-Star voting should look like in terms of production only, etc. They don't tell you a whole lot about the game though, and in that respect, while they are better numbers than just say batting average alone or wins for a pitcher, they're not all too valuable and somewhat arbitrary in the sense that the component parts of the stats can be weighted however you want them to be weighted depending on what you think deserves to be emphasized most. So in that sense the stats have kind of come full circle in a way, i.e. much of the time they are being used ignorantly in much the same way pitcher wins have always been used ignorantly. Basically the turd is polished & there is lipstick on the pig.

[Eminor3rd]

For me, the pursuit of understanding is fun when it applies to something I'm interested in. The fact that I'll never know everything doesn't ruin the joy of letting me know something.

 

We can't cure cancer with anything like 100% success, but we can get it right part of the time. That doesn't mean we should stop trying or continue to learn more. The point is that the fact that you don't have 100% of the answer doesn't make something useless and a waste of time.

[The Ultimate Champion]

I agree, I even said that WAR has a lot of very practical uses. But it and others are also overused a lot, and used inappropriately a lot, and some of these other stats really aren't any better than the ones currently being shat upon (which themselves are actually useful, like BA).

 

Ideally you want access to a lot of different and unique stats which are valuable because they tell a very small but specific part of the overall story. The more things you can try to quantify and define, the more possible puzzle pieces you have to work with. At the end of the day you want to piece together the big picture. That is how you make the best decisions. But focusing on one puzzle piece and trying to replicate it in as many places as possible doesn't add detail, and it doesn't make the larger picture even possible.