U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2013, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,842,166 times
Reputation: 6637

Advertisements

3 projections systems on FanGraphs have Damon hitting .314/.376 with .7 WAR per 700 PA's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2013, 11:00 PM
 
Location: Florida
251 posts, read 377,497 times
Reputation: 259
Hitting? You mean getting on base and slugging.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Florida
251 posts, read 377,497 times
Reputation: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Why don't you ask filihok if he understood? My message was directed to him.

You are behind the times with your "100% positive", it has become quite common to deliver those two stats without including batting average. OBA and SLG are more meaningful than batting average and represent a quick shorthand for conveying the quality of someone's offensive output.

Consider...

Suppose that stats were: .265/.285/.375, that conveys one picture. Suppose the stats were .235/.285/.375, that seems to convey another picture when in fact the overall productivity has not changed in any important manner, merely the building blocks of that productivity are rearranged.

I don't care that super-saber-nerds have foolishly deemed the batting average stat as obsolete. It isn't by any means and a good hitter will always will be more valuable than a good walker. That's why the BA stat is shown next to every players name in every game and TV broadcast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,457 posts, read 18,692,091 times
Reputation: 18826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestrel88 View Post
I don't care that super-saber-nerds have foolishly deemed the batting average stat as obsolete. It isn't by any means and a good hitter will always will be more valuable than a good walker. That's why the BA stat is shown next to every players name in every game and TV broadcast.
Tip. There is seldom a reason to continue reading a paragraph which begins with "I don't care....." It announces that the evidence is about to be ignored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2013, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,842,166 times
Reputation: 6637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestrel88 View Post
I don't care that super-saber-nerds have foolishly deemed the batting average stat as obsolete. It isn't by any means and a good hitter will always will be more valuable than a good walker. That's why the BA stat is shown next to every players name in every game and TV broadcast.
Which gives more information?

On Base Percentage which includes hits, walks, at bats and plate appearances

or

Batting Average which includes hits and at bats?


The best, of course, would be wOBA which uses the linear weights value of each event. For example, in 2012, a single was worth .884 and a walk was worth .691. This sounds like the stat for you since you recognize that a hit is worth more than a walk.

However, many people are not 'super-saber-nerds' and they balk at learning anything beyond batting average, home runs, and RsBI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,863,617 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestrel88 View Post
I don't care that super-saber-nerds have foolishly deemed the batting average stat as obsolete. It isn't by any means and a good hitter will always will be more valuable than a good walker. That's why the BA stat is shown next to every players name in every game and TV broadcast.
Generally agree with you that BA still has meaning, and you'll see it mentioned a lot in the non-saber baseball stories.

The masses still refer to BA quite a bit, the smaller sub group that are pure saber fans will never agree though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,842,166 times
Reputation: 6637
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Generally agree with you that BA still has meaning, and you'll see it mentioned a lot in the non-saber baseball stories.

The masses still refer to BA quite a bit, the smaller sub group that are pure saber fans will never agree though.
Pure saber fans will never agree with what?
That Batting Average has meaning?
Can you please cite ANY reputed saber fan who has said that batting average has no meaning.

Of course it has meaning. It has less meaning than On Base Percentage though. It has less meaning the Slugging Percentage. It has less meaning than wOBA. It has less meaning than numerous other offensive stats.

As in Grandstander's example above
The .265/.285/.375 hitter would be a slight bit better than the .235/.285/.375 hitter. Because a single is worth a bit more than a walk.

But too many fans will laud a .280/.320/.450 hitter over a .250/.350/.450 hitter because Batting Average! Ignoring all the extra outs the .280 hitter makes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,863,617 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
Pure saber fans will never agree with what?
That Batting Average has meaning?
Can you please cite ANY reputed saber fan who has said that batting average has no meaning.

Of course it has meaning. It has less meaning than On Base Percentage though. It has less meaning the Slugging Percentage. It has less meaning than wOBA. It has less meaning than numerous other offensive stats.

As in Grandstander's example above
The .265/.285/.375 hitter would be a slight bit better than the .235/.285/.375 hitter. Because a single is worth a bit more than a walk.

But too many fans will laud a .280/.320/.450 hitter over a .250/.350/.450 hitter because Batting Average! Ignoring all the extra outs the .280 hitter makes.
We disagree here. What I have noticed over the years, actually decades, is that there are three different levels of fans. You have those who live and breathe the game, many of whom fall into the saber category. You have a very large number who are pretty good fans, but not as interested in drilling down on the stats. Finally, you have the very casual fan, who would have difficulty even naming the starting lineup and pitching rotation for their own local team.

I agree that the last group would likely focus more on batting average over on base percentage, but anyone who is more than a casual fan knows walks are important too.

This isn't really anything that new or revolutionary, even players 50 years ago were generally valued by fans and management based on their ability to get on base too. The best example I can think of off the top of my head was a catcher who was with the Phillies when I was growing up in Philly, a guy named Clay Dalrymple. Clay often struggled to get his batting average over .200, but he generally would walk enough to have an on base percentage 80-100 points above his batting average. In contrast, catcher Mike Ryan likewise had a poor batting average but also didn't get nearly as many walks, and as a result was often never more than just a backup catcher.

So walks have been something that fans and management alike had valued even 50 years ago, though they never quantified it like is done today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Florida
251 posts, read 377,497 times
Reputation: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Tip. There is seldom a reason to continue reading a paragraph which begins with "I don't care....." It announces that the evidence is about to be ignored.

Point taken. I probably wouldn't have used those words if we weren't talking about a couple guys who no longer cared about the most commonly used stat in baseball.

Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
Which gives more information?

On Base Percentage which includes hits, walks, at bats and plate appearances

or

Batting Average which includes hits and at bats?


The best, of course, would be wOBA which uses the linear weights value of each event. For example, in 2012, a single was worth .884 and a walk was worth .691. This sounds like the stat for you since you recognize that a hit is worth more than a walk.

wOBA gives too much information. If I had ten seconds to pick the better player in a fantasy baseball draft being run by some sort of Bond villain who would blow the world up if I chose wrong, I'd definitely consider a broader based stat. Since I will never be looking at wOBA stats without also seeing exactly how those percentages were achieved, then they are of little use to me. OPS is nice for sluggers but most of my favorite types of players are not sluggers so I'm rarely impressed by it. WAR is the least useful of them all because it covers too much information and then spits out a universally un-agreeable figure. I'd rather see the numbers the WAR stat-man sees than his opinion of what they mean.

Basically I love looking at everything. If I want to dive in deeper I'll look up splits, and then obscure splits. If you're capable of explaining what WOBA means then shouldn't need to use it.

Last edited by Kestrel88; 02-26-2013 at 10:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2013, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,457 posts, read 18,692,091 times
Reputation: 18826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestrel88 View Post
Point taken. I probably wouldn't have used those words if we weren't talking about a couple guys who no longer cared about the most commonly used stat in baseball.
Okay, here's the thing. All of your responses suggest that you are viewing me as somehow or other anti batting average, part of a crusade against it. My actual attitude toward batting average is that it is a piece of information about a baseball player's offensive production. It tells us some things, but it reveals less than other stats that I could cite. I chose to cite those other stats because they conveyed the information I wished to convey. Am I under some obligation to convey more information than I wish to convey?

If not, then what is all this fuss and fury?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top