Quote:
Originally posted by Zeeter
I don't know how this discussion turned to discussing the merits of batting average, but I'll bite.
Batting average has always been the measuring tool for offensive production. That and Home runs. What's the first thing you look for on a player? BA and HR.
Lately, many statisticians and other people who want to look smarter than everyone else have come to the conclusion that BA is far less important than it once was. Well, for all of you old timers out there, I'm going to take one for the team and defend the batting average.
The best measure of a hitter is his batting average. Sure, he can play "lawer ball" and go for a walk, but unless the bases are loaded, it is not as good as a single, and there is no chance for a double, triple, homer, or an error on a walk (unless it is a wild pitch, which could happen whether it's ball four or ball one).
I'll agree that OBP is very important, and has been neglected for years, but let's not get so carried away with OBP that we ridicule the BA. Me? Unless the guy is leading off, I'd rather have a guy hit .310 with a .380 OBP than have a guy hit .290 with a .400 OBP.
I just did a search on ESPN stats to prove my point and found arguments for both sides. Frank Thomas - low average, high OBP. He has 25 homers though which has produced a ton of RBI's. Edgar Renteria - high batting average, relatively low OBP (when compare to his average). He is right up there in RBI's.
I guess this is why we came up with OPS, to get a better look at the player's production. OPS, however, is not a good representation in all cases as it tends to reward power hitters over lead off/speedy players.
One thing that struck me when looking at the stats was that everyone in the top ten for On Base Percentage has an OBP of almost 100 points or higher than their average except for one - Albert Pujols. His is only 65 points higher.
In other words, while Todd Helton and Brian Giles' OBP are greatly helped by walks, Pujols OBP is not. Pujols is also four homers away from the triple crown right now.
I'm also looking at a guy like Vladimir Guerrero. This guy has steadily increased the difference between his BA and OBP from fifty-something to eighty-something. Yet his runs scored have remained relatively the same. He had more hits and more walks than any time in his career last year and had his best OBP. Yet his RBI's were not as high as he had in previous years (although higher than the last year by 3). It looks to me like Vlad's better OBP has not necessarily made him a more productive batter.
In conclusion, let me just say that I'm not trying to discredit OBP. I am trying to credit BA.
|
You make some decent points, but there are a few things I'd like to point out:
1. No one is arguing that BA is not important, just that it's been overrated. To put it in
Moneyball terms, there's no opportunity to be made with BA, because everyone looks at BA to determine a player's worth. You have to look at the stats that not everyone is looking at "first," as you put it, and that's where OBP becomes so valuable.
2. Your Frank Thomas/Edgar Renteria/Vlad Guerrero point doesn't help much, because while BA is important, RBIs (which you use as evidence) are not. They are merely a function of how many guys are on base when a hitter comes up.
3. Your point about the .310/.380 hitter vs. the .290/.400 hitter is difficult to argue against without looking at more. However, assuming power and other attributes were the same, you'd be foolish to take the .380 OBP guy over the .400 OBP guy. Statistical analysis shows that outs are scarce - you need to conserve them.
4. The best measure of a hitter is certainly not batting average. Here's a fairly simple test you can run yourself: Go back and look at team performances through baseball history. Sort teams by batting average, as most books do, then by slugging percentage, and then by on-base percentage. You'll find that on the team level, on-base percentage and slugging correlates to runs scored (which is, after all, the point) much more closely than batting average. Sample size will be key here - but this is such an obvious point that I think even looking a one or two seasons will show you.
5. Once again - everyone agrees that hitting is valuable, and that a hit is better than a walk. But look at it this way: Let's use your .310/.380 example. Assume two players, each of whom have 62% of their hits as singles, 20% as doubles, 3% as triples and 15% as home runs. If both guys got 600 plate appearances, your .310 hitter would have 7 singles, 2 doubles, 1 triple and 2 home runs more than the .290 hitter. However, the .290 guy would have 24 more walks/hit by pitches than the .310 guy. This is a really close call between the two guys - I don't have in front of me the estimates about how many estimated runs each of these is worth, but it looks to me like your .310 guy creates slightly more. However, this is balanced by the fact that he also creates 12 outs more than the .290 guy - in RC/27, I imagine the .290 guy would come out a little ahead.
In addition, think about how the marketplace would value these guys. One would be a 28 HR, .310 hitter, the other a 26 HR, .290 hitter. Looking just at that, the market would likely put a slightly higher value on the slightly worse player. Thus, you'd be competing with more teams for the worse player. That is why sabermetrics is successful as a philosophy and it's how Oakland has achieved success beyond their market slot.
Edit: the sheep already made some of these points. Oh well....