These new-fangled batting averages and whatnot drive me crazy.  Just give me runs and RBIs, that's how you win games.

If you look over their career states each player they each have provided the same amount of runs per plate appearances. The most useless stat in baseball is the small sample size to make a point.

4 hours ago, old nurse said:

If you look over their career states each player they each have provided the same amount of runs per plate appearances. The most useless stat in baseball is the small sample size to make a point.

Cherry-picking statistics has proven to be the best way to "prove" that your opinion is the best.

Batting average is still a bit overrated, but it's still more useful than RBIs in telling you things about who the player is and how much they contribute to the offense.

Disagree. I like a batter who can hit the ball.

Advanced analytics are an excellent way of predicting the past.

So the Twins would have been better if they had Dave Kingman rather than Rod Carew?

On any given at bat there are 3 outcomes.  In order of worst outcome to best: strikeout, put the ball in play, or walk.  I prefer OBP, which is correlated to the 2 best outcomes, but batting average is a useful measure of how a batter avoids the worst outcome (strikeouts).  

The worst statistic in baseball is the one that is cherry picked just to prove a point, while ignoring other stats that may not fit "the narrative".    

1 hour ago, Twodogs said:

So the Twins would have been better if they had Dave Kingman rather than Rod Carew?

Rod Carew was a hall of famer, so...no. Carew was substantially better on offense for his career, in part because he also walked more than Kingman. Carew also didn't just slap a bunch of singles; he had 45% more doubles and 4 1/2 times as many triples than Kingman, which makes up to a degree for the many more HRs that Kingman hit. Kingman was also a rotten defender, and Carew was a decent one. The Twins were better off with Carew not because of just his batting average, but because he also had a better on-base %, a better OPS, a better OPS+, and was a much better defensive player.

I mean, you're comparing an 18-time all-star vs a 3 time all-star (who played on teams that didn't have a lot of other options and was a marginal to poor choice all three years), a no-doubt Hall of Famer, MVP, and RoY against a guy who was...just a guy.

Arraez is a very good player and currently having a Carew-like year. but it's been less than 1/4 of the season for a player that struggled down the stretch last year because of chronic leg problems. He's healthy now and playing great (good for him! I love Luis Arraez) but he did similar things for the Twins last season before falling off significantly. he's struggled against lefties his whole career and has a pretty significant split again this season. So far, Gallo and Arraez have been pretty similar in terms of their overall offensive contributions, albeit in very different ways. Arraez could end up providing more total value over the course of the season (and has so far) if he's able to stay healthy and at 2B...but that's a pretty huge if. Too early to really compare him to Rod Carew.

K/9 is worse.

On 5/13/2023 at 11:30 PM, ashbury said:

These new-fangled batting averages and whatnot drive me crazy.  Just give me runs and RBIs, that's how you win games.

Runs and RBIs do tell a useful story. So, if you compare them, in 91 at bats, Gallo has scored 17 runs and driven in 21; in 136 at bats, Arraez has scored 14 runs and driven in 14 runs. 

On 5/14/2023 at 5:24 AM, old nurse said:

If you look over their career states each player they each have provided the same amount of runs per plate appearances. The most useless stat in baseball is the small sample size to make a point.

I would point out that those enamored with Arraez' offensive output have posted continuous updates on his batting average since back in April. At least the talk of him hitting .400 for the season has died down a bit now that he's at .382.

I like OBP best as the name of the game on offense is not making outs. If you are not making an out you are contributing to the offense. You are putting pressure on the pitcher and give the next man up a chance to do the same.  Doesn't matter if it is a walk, single or HR the bottom line is that it isn't an out. 

As this article points out slugging is important as well because doubles, triples and HR's either put runners in scoring position or score runs if anyone else is on base.  OPS really is kind of king right now and as the OP pointed out it doesn't really matter how you get there OPS tells a more complete story where offensive contribution is concerned.

Personally I like both the Arraez and Gallo approaches as teams have been built with high average and power strokes for ages.  There is a reason why your teams HR king bats 4th.  Both types of hitters are important IMO but I do feel the OP is correct that batting average doesn't give you a very complete picture of the true value a player has as it eliminates slugging completely.  OPS is the only way to combine the three aspects to gain a more complete picture.  Still not perfect but far, far better than batting average.

The "worst offensive statistic"? I can't follow you there. You can argue it is misunderstood, overrated, incomplete...

...but it does a great job of telling an important part of the story of a hitter's performance.

There are definitely other parts of the story, but batting average is a fine starting point and it doesn't try to be everything.  Even as a baseball card collecting child in the late 1980's my friends and I knew enough to look at several stats to get a sense of what a hitter was. We all knew Kirby Puckett's high average with power was more valuable than Tony Gwynn's high average without, but both were very valuable players. 

I love watching Luis Arraez's frequent contact style of play while Gallo's SO's-walks-dingers style makes me turn off the tv and mow my lawn.

Both have value, but we're all allowed our own taste. I guess we can just agree to disagree.

On 5/14/2023 at 9:40 AM, terrydactyls said:

Cherry-picking statistics has proven to be the best way to "prove" that your opinion is the best.

Baseball is a game replete with statistics. I would note we are now more than 1/4 through the season, so the statistics are starting to gain more traction. 

Yesterday, Joey Gallo went 1 for 5, but the one hit was a two-run home run. So he generated his own run and drove in two runs. His batting average went down. Yesterday, Luis Arraez went 2 for 4; he didn't score or drive in any runs. His batting average went up. This is an example of why batting average is a poor primary indicator of offensive performance.

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

On any given at bat there are 3 outcomes.  In order of worst outcome to best: strikeout, put the ball in play, or walk.  I prefer OBP, which is correlated to the 2 best outcomes, but batting average is a useful measure of how a batter avoids the worst outcome (strikeouts).  

The worst statistic in baseball is the one that is cherry picked just to prove a point, while ignoring other stats that may not fit "the narrative".    

This is a bit over-simplified. A strikeout is not always worse than putting the ball in play (balls put in play that result in a double or triple play, or, in the case of a strikeout, the runner safe via a wild pitch or passed ball), and putting the ball in play is often far better than a walk (any double, triple or home run). OBP still gives the same credit to a walk or single as a double, triple, or home run, which is a weakness. That is why OPS, which combines OBP and slugging percentage, is a better measure.

30 minutes ago, PopRiveter said:

The "worst offensive statistic"? I can't follow you there. You can argue it is misunderstood, overrated, incomplete...

...but it does a great job of telling an important part of the story of a hitter's performance.

There are definitely other parts of the story, but batting average is a fine starting point and it doesn't try to be everything.  Even as a baseball card collecting child in the late 1980's my friends and I knew enough to look at several stats to get a sense of what a hitter was. We all knew Kirby Puckett's high average with power was more valuable than Tony Gwynn's high average without, but both were very valuable players. 

I love watching Luis Arraez's frequent contact style of play while Gallo's SO's-walks-dingers style makes me turn off the tv and mow my lawn.

Both have value, but we're all allowed our own taste. I guess we can just agree to disagree.

Headlines are meant to get a reader to read it. If you would prefer 'less useful than OPS or WAR' statistic, that's fine with me. The beauty of OPS is it gives hitters like Arraez credit for what they do (via OBP), but it also recognizes that a walk or single is less impactful than extra base hits. 

The Gallo example is a stark reflection of that. As I noted in another post, Gallo went 1 for 5 yesterday, but the 1 was a HR, so he had a run scored and a run batted in - but his batting average went down. Arraez was 2 for 4, but neither hit led to him scoring a run or batting one in. His batting average went up. Who had the better game?

1 hour ago, MMMordabito said:

K/9 is worse.

That's not an offensive statistic. That said, missing bats is fielder independent, so it does reflect on the pitcher's ability to control an offense.

A batting average between 200 and 300 means nothing without more data, IMO.

I’d say significantly below 200, it’s more and more likely that it says “bad”.

Likewise, once you get past, say 325…it’s very likely you’re at least “good” even with very little power or walks.

(Currently a 363 hitter that hits all singles and never walks is an average hitter in terms of run production.)

55 minutes ago, arby58 said:

This is a bit over-simplified. A strikeout is not always worse than putting the ball in play (balls put in play that result in a double or triple play, or, in the case of a strikeout, the runner safe via a wild pitch or passed ball), and putting the ball in play is often far better than a walk (any double, triple or home run). OBP still gives the same credit to a walk or single as a double, triple, or home run, which is a weakness. That is why OPS, which combines OBP and slugging percentage, is a better measure.

Lately, I have been seeing lineups posted with OPS instead of BA. I like that along with RISP to get an idea of how effective a batter is at the plate.

1 hour ago, arby58 said:

This is a bit over-simplified. A strikeout is not always worse than putting the ball in play (balls put in play that result in a double or triple play, or, in the case of a strikeout, the runner safe via a wild pitch or passed ball), and putting the ball in play is often far better than a walk (any double, triple or home run). OBP still gives the same credit to a walk or single as a double, triple, or home run, which is a weakness. That is why OPS, which combines OBP and slugging percentage, is a better measure.

You get on base 30% of the time you put the ball in play.  You get on base 100% of the time with a walk.

Yes, OPS is great.  You do realize that batting average is a sizable component of OPS, right?

3 hours ago, jmlease1 said:

Rod Carew was a hall of famer, so...no. Carew was substantially better on offense for his career, in part because he also walked more than Kingman. Carew also didn't just slap a bunch of singles; he had 45% more doubles and 4 1/2 times as many triples than Kingman, which makes up to a degree for the many more HRs that Kingman hit. Kingman was also a rotten defender, and Carew was a decent one. The Twins were better off with Carew not because of just his batting average, but because he also had a better on-base %, a better OPS, a better OPS+, and was a much better defensive player.

I mean, you're comparing an 18-time all-star vs a 3 time all-star (who played on teams that didn't have a lot of other options and was a marginal to poor choice all three years), a no-doubt Hall of Famer, MVP, and RoY against a guy who was...just a guy.

Arraez is a very good player and currently having a Carew-like year. but it's been less than 1/4 of the season for a player that struggled down the stretch last year because of chronic leg problems. He's healthy now and playing great (good for him! I love Luis Arraez) but he did similar things for the Twins last season before falling off significantly. he's struggled against lefties his whole career and has a pretty significant split again this season. So far, Gallo and Arraez have been pretty similar in terms of their overall offensive contributions, albeit in very different ways. Arraez could end up providing more total value over the course of the season (and has so far) if he's able to stay healthy and at 2B...but that's a pretty huge if. Too early to really compare him to Rod Carew.

Kingman's career OPS was 780. Carew's was 822. Carew was definitely better. Fielding and base running also factor in to a player's value. Nobody would pick Kingman over Carew in either of those categories, either.

1 hour ago, arby58 said:

but batting average is a useful measure of how a batter avoids the worst outcome (strikeouts)

Again, not really. Not for many big power guys. Aaron Judge batted 311 last year…he struck out 175 times. A lot of power hitters through the years have sustained BA above average with high K%. Why? Because when they do make contact, they hit the ball much harder than average…result, not just HRs, but also sustainably high BABiP.

6 hours ago, Twodogs said:

So the Twins would have been better if they had Dave Kingman rather than Rod Carew?

No. But in 1979, the Angels would have been better off with Kingman, rather than Carew. Carew batted 318, that year. Kingman 288.

46 minutes ago, Fred said:

Kingman's career OPS was 780. Carew's was 822. Carew was definitely better. Fielding and base running also factor in to a player's value. Nobody would pick Kingman over Carew in either of those categories, either.

Yeah. Not much of a comparison really…even while just looking at batting. Kingman had one big year…only 2 years where his OPS was over 850…and both in parks very conducive to HR.

Crew had a relatively long ramp up (injuries and also had two seasons before they lowered the mound in 1969)…and then a career tale, as well. He had 6 consecutive years where he averaged 900 OPS, without one being as low as 850.