Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A team's goal is not to compile a high batting average, it is to score runs. The proper gauge for hitting efficiency will be a metric, or series of metrics, which measure how much a batter has contributed toward creating runs. Batting average measures only one portion of a hitter's possible contributions.
They give an award if a player has the highest batting average even if the team finishes last.
I am only talking batting average not MVP honors.
Just like a pitcher who wins 20 games and has a low batting average against but his team finishes last. It's not his fault his team sucks, he did his job.
These pitchers were winners!
18.4 hits, 0 home runs, 7.4 earned runs, 2.5 walks, 7.4 strike outs, 7.36 ERA
These pitchers must have pitched worse, because they were branded L for LOSER
7.2 hits, 0 home runs, 1.2 earned runs, 2.4 walks, 9 strike outs, 1.20 ERA
These pitchers were worse than the winners! because they got no decision
6.15 hits, .2 home runs, 0.4 earned runs, 1. 8 walks, 5.5 strike outs, 0.39 ERA
These pitchers were better than the losers! because they got no decision
13.8 hits, 1.3 home runs, 9.7 earned runs, 6.0 walks, 5.3 strike outs, 9.73 ERA
The first has 600 plate appearances, 0 walks, 0 home runs and 180 hits.
His batting average is .300 (180/600)
The second has 600 plate appearances, 100 walks, 0 home runs and 150 hits.
His batting average is .300 (150/500)
The third has 600 plate appearances, 50 walks, 50 home runs and 165 hits.
His batting average is .300 (165/550)
They all have equal batting averages but are they remotely equal hitters?
The first made an out 70% of the time that he came to the plate.
The second made an out 58% of the time that he came to the plate.
The third made an out 64% of the time that he came to the plate.
Obviously, the 2nd and 3rd players are better hitters than the first player.
The first player produced 180 bases (assume all non-home run hits were singles) in 600 plate appearances.
The second player produced 250 bases in 600 plate appearances.
The third player produced 365 bases in 600 plate appearances.
Again, the first player is not nearly as good as the other two hitters.
Batting Average might be a worse indicator of player performance than ERA & W-L record
Does not the player with the best average usually fit into the 2nd or 3rd category's.
I never heard of a quality player with a high average go through a season with no walks.
They give an award if a player has the highest batting average even if the team finishes last.
I am only talking batting average not MVP honors.
Just like a pitcher who wins 20 games and has a low batting average against but his team finishes last. It's not his fault his team sucks, he did his job.
Batting average measures a very specific thing, ratio of hits to ... takes a deep breath ... plate appearances less walks, hit by pitches, sac flies and sac bunts. What that has to do with anything, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me
Does not the player with the best average usually fit into the 2nd or 3rd category's.
I never heard of a quality player with a high average go through a season with no walks.
How about Nyjer Morgan and Aaron Miles. Morgan has a .323 batting average and 6 walks in 251 plate appearances. Miles has a .292 batting average and 9 walks in 318 plate appearances.
Both have much higher batting averages than Chris Ianetta who is hitting .240 with 62 walks in 340 trips to the plate.
If each of these players came to the plate 600 times and hit exactly as they have thus far this season:
Morgan would have 177 hits, 13 walks, and 412 outs. 190 times on base and 412 outs
Miles would have 166 hits, 16 walks, and 430 outs. 182 times on base and 430 outs
Ianetta would have 115 hits, 109 walks, and 388 outs. 223 times on base and 388 outs.
Ianetta's batting average is much worse but he gets on base more often and makes less outs than two players with much better batting averages.
Oh say can you see, that these guys deserved a win?
14.9 hits, 4.0 home runs, 9.8 earned runs, 2.3 walks, 8.6 strike outs, 9.76 ERA
What so proudly we hailed, as 3 losing pitchers
5.9 hits, 0 home runs, .8 earned runs, 1.2 walks, 6.2 runs, 0.78 ERA
Gave proof through the night, they're not bad enough to lose.
14.7 hits, 2.3 home runs, 9.3 earned runs, 2 walks, 5.7 strike outs, 9.33 ERA
The land of the free, and the home of the slaves...to a really dumb scoring rule
5.1 hits, 0 home runs, .4 earned runs, 1.1 walks, 8.4 strike outs, 0.43 ERA
Bill Gullickson when he pitched for the Tigers had a 20 win season but an ERA over 4. It meant that his hitters were giving him adequate run support, not necessarily that he was a dominant pitcher that year.
Last night I shared my newly acquired baseball knowledge with a couple of co-workers. I told them that RBI's, runs produced and batting average are no longer reliable guages of a player's value. And that we can no longer use win-loss records and ERA in evaluating pitchers. Both co-workers looked at me like I had three heads, but neither said a word. Later, one of them suggested that I not share this new knowledge with very many people because somebody might come and throw a net over me. This must be another of those silly dreams I have now and then. I certainly hope so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
