1 hour ago, Woof Bronzer said:

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?

Actually it is on base percentage and slugging percentage, not batting average, that make up OPS. Theoretically, one could have a super high on base percentage and a meh batting average. 

2 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

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.

 

Sure, but getting on base isn't the ultimate desired outcome, it is scoring runs. I remember Bert Blyleven pointing out that a walk or a single with two outs is generally not going to produce a run, and he (and other commentators) discussed the importance in those situations of hitting the ball hard somewhere, which makes it much more likely you might score a run. That, of course, is the whole point of slugging percentage as an offensive statistic.

BA is a bad predictive stat for a simple reason: it can't differentiate between the instances that a batter made contact 'worthy' of a hit and when they got a hit because of luck. It does work well in the context of OBP to tell how often the player got on base vs an opponent. 

Arraez doesn't get many hits due to luck, but he does get hits because of risk avoidance. It would be quite easy to turn Arraez into a .200 hitter by playing the outfield in about 7 steps. But that would be bonkers, because he could burn you any time with a slightly deeper fly that led to extra bases. It wouldn't be worth the risk, since giving up a single to Arraez is not generally that bad with no runners on, due to pretty terrible base running. If the Marlins had two consistent hitters behind him, Arraez would be scoring more. 

Gallo gets walks because he strikes out. Pitchers are willing to test him, since going in the strike zone 3 times increases the likelihood of a deep fly. But since Gallo's best swing profile results in frequent whiffs, the risk/reward of walking him is OK. It beats the alternative of a computer breaking bomb. My guess what broke Joey in the Bronx was a philosophy change (maybe internal, probably a mix of that a organizational) that valued trying to make more contact. But as he tried to alter his approach, he just made even less contact and of it was also less good contact. The pop up homers in Yankee stadium everyone dreamed of never materialized. And by the time they flipped him to LA, the season was lost for him.   

I'd rather have Arraez and Gallo and Lopez, but if I had to pick two it would be Gallo and Lopez. I just prefer power and pitching to singles. I wouldn't even start Arraez in a Twins lineup. I'd hold him for a key situation in each game where he could get 1-2 runs with an at bat runner at 3rd, tie game? Arraez time. Bases loaded after the 7th? oops look who it is. 

10 hours ago, Twodogs said:

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

We had Dave Kingman.  We use to call him Miguel Sano.  We now call him Joey Gallo.

Sure it's the worst. Say it enough times and you will believe it to be true. That's the way the world is working in the days of social media. Just say it over and over. Players are better (but they can't stay on the field). They need rest from playing baseball. And batting average is the worst offensive stat. Sure it is. 

12 hours ago, dxpavelka said:

We had Dave Kingman.  We use to call him Miguel Sano.  We now call him Joey Gallo.

Their careers have some similarity - about the same number of at bats (Sano 2502, Gallo 2455), HRs (Sano 162, Gallo 186), and OPS (Sano .808, Gallo .799). There is one big difference - Gallo's WAR is 15.5 and Sano is 7.6. That is probably largely due to Gallo's far superior defensive ability. Of course, Sano isn't employed by a MLB team, and I'm certain that Minnesota is happy to have Gallo - even with a low batting average, his 91 ABs with 9 HR and 21 RBIs would translate over a full season to something like 45 HRs and 100+ RBIs. I understand that will probably not be the outcome, but it will be far better than the last couple of years of Sano.

2 minutes ago, h2oface said:

Sure it's the worst. Say it enough times and you will believe it to be true. That's the way the world is working in the days of social media. Just say it over and over. Players are better (but they can't stay on the field). They need rest from playing baseball. And batting average is the worst offensive stat. Sure it is. 

So refute it - use numbers and baseball logic. I have provided enough of that to make a prima facia case - have a crack at it rather than just posting a hitting your head against a rectangle meme.

1 hour ago, arby58 said:

Their careers have some similarity - about the same number of at bats (Sano 2502, Gallo 2455), HRs (Sano 162, Gallo 186), and OPS (Sano .808, Gallo .799). There is one big difference - Gallo's WAR is 15.5 and Sano is 7.6. That is probably largely due to Gallo's far superior defensive ability. Of course, Sano isn't employed by a MLB team, and I'm certain that Minnesota is happy to have him - even with a low batting average, his 91 ABs with 9 HR and 21 RBIs would translate over a full season to something like 45 HRs and 100+ RBIs. I understand that will probably not be the outcome, but it will be far better than the last couple of years of Sano.

Lot season between now and that outcome.  More likely that he regresses to the mean and ends up a lot closer to Sano's last couple full season average of 32 home runs or if you'd like to translate 2020 over a full season the 35 home runs that would have been.  Any improvement over even average Sano will end up being nominal.

44 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

Lot season between now and that outcome.  More likely that he regresses to the mean and ends up a lot closer to Sano's last couple full season average of 32 home runs or if you'd like to translate 2020 over a full season the 35 home runs that would have been.  Any improvement over even average Sano will end up being nominal.

 

I'll guarantee it will be an improvement over Sano's last season, and it won't be that hard to get above his second to last season either.

28 minutes ago, arby58 said:

I'll guarantee it will be an improvement over Sano's last season, and it won't be that hard to get above his second to last season either.

YOU OR I could be better than a 60 plate appearance season.  And as far as Sano's second to last season, Gallo's number were pretty much the same, except Gallo's average was 25 points lower and he struck out 30 more times. 

3 hours ago, arby58 said:

So refute it - use numbers and baseball logic. I have provided enough of that to make a prima facia case - have a crack at it rather than just posting a hitting your head against a rectangle meme.

Sorry. Not worth it. Be honest. Nothing would sway you anyway, eh? Not feeling disputatious this evening. Enjoy your opinion.

Wouldn't the best example be Judge vs Arraez last year.  They had nearly identical BAs.  However, Judge had a wRC+ that was 76 points higher.  Would anyone argue Arraez had anywhere near the impact of Judge?

22 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.

But would Rod Carew been a hall of famer had he hit .209?  Or even as good as Kingman, I think he hit like .240 for his career.  Would Carew have been a hall of famer then?  So, I'm saying batting average means something for sure.  I mean people pick on Kingman, saying he wasn't good defensively, but he played a majority of his career in the NL with no DH so he was able to get on the field at least most of the time.  Kingman finished in the top 10 in HR's numerous times, he finished top 5 in HR's numerous times.  I am obviously not saying he was better than Carew, but Carew was definitely no defensive gem by any means.  In fact he was actually pretty sketchy also.  What I'm getting at, is a guy like Kingman, most of the young people on here probably don't even know who the hell he is.  However, with today's stats, if Kingman played in today's game, especially with the DH in both leagues, and the shift over the last few years, no steroids/hgh they'd probably be talking about him being a hall of famer in today's game.  Back then he was basically a nobody.

18 hours ago, jkcarew said:

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.

What would Kingman's ops have been had he hit .300?  Also, I'd say the opposite, most of Kingman's career was in non homer friendly parks.  San Fran I think candlestick?  Oakland, not really a hitters park, I don't think shea stadium was exactly a hitters park, and even I thought Yankee stadium wasn't that friendly to right handed hitters.  He also played in san Diego and for the Angels.  I don't think any of those parks are hitter havens.  I mean had he spent his career in Boston like David Ortiz did Kingman probably hits over 500 home runs, especially since they could have DHed him more in Boston?  Just an example.  

18 hours ago, arby58 said:

Actually it is on base percentage and slugging percentage, not batting average, that make up OPS. Theoretically, one could have a super high on base percentage and a meh batting average. 

OBP is like 80% batting average.  It's BA with walks.  Look, we get it, you discovered a sabermetrics site and now you've got all the answers and anyone who has a different opinion is wrong.  Enjoy the righteousness.  

It's pretty simple really.  BA only tells a relatively small portion of a hitter's impact on producing runs.  Obviously, a player with a 280 BA can have an OBP of 300 or 350.  They are not the same.  Where the huge difference comes in is slugging percentage.  If Judge and Arraez both bat 320, batting average is not even remotely going to reflect their individual offensive impact.  IDK if BA is the worst stat but it is certainly a very incomplete measure of hitting.

28 minutes ago, Twodogs said:

But would Rod Carew been a hall of famer had he hit .209?  Or even as good as Kingman, I think he hit like .240 for his career.  Would Carew have been a hall of famer then?  So, I'm saying batting average means something for sure.  I mean people pick on Kingman, saying he wasn't good defensively, but he played a majority of his career in the NL with no DH so he was able to get on the field at least most of the time.  Kingman finished in the top 10 in HR's numerous times, he finished top 5 in HR's numerous times.  I am obviously not saying he was better than Carew, but Carew was definitely no defensive gem by any means.  In fact he was actually pretty sketchy also.  What I'm getting at, is a guy like Kingman, most of the young people on here probably don't even know who the hell he is.  However, with today's stats, if Kingman played in today's game, especially with the DH in both leagues, and the shift over the last few years, no steroids/hgh they'd probably be talking about him being a hall of famer in today's game.  Back then he was basically a nobody.

They would not be talking about him like he was a Hall of Famer today. Kingman wasn't that good of an offensive player. He hit HRs, but that was it; Kingman only hit 20+ doubles 3 times in 16 seasons. He didn't walk much; only cleared 50 BBs 3 times as well. He's a more neutral version of Adam Dunn (Dunn was significantly better on offense and one of the worst defensive players in MLB, impressively worse than Kingman) and no one is considering Dunn for the Hall. Kingman wasn't exactly a great teammate either, but that's less relevant. Dunn was a 2 time all-star, Kingman got 3...both of them probably deserved maybe ONE.

Joey Gallo is closing in on Kingman in terms of bWAR already and he hasn't even finished his 9th season yet. No one is talking about Gallo has a Hall of Fame-type player either, although Gallo was more deserving in both of his all-star campaigns than Dunn or Kingman in any of theirs.

Carew absolutely would not have been in the Hall if he hit .209. I I guess I don't understand the point? It's like saying Wade Boggs wouldn't have been in the Hall if he hit .209. Or Reggie Jackson wouldn't be in the hall if he'd only hit 400 HRs. Getting a lot of hits was key to Carew's success, but he's not in the hall just because he got a ton of singles: Carew drew 50+ BBs 10 times. 20+ 2Bs 13 times. 10+ 3Bs 5 times. OBP over .400 8 times. SLG% over .425 9 times. (for comparison, Arraez hasn't finished with an OBP over .400 yet in his career, though he's on track right now. SLG of .425 once, but again on track this year.)

Bating average isn't meaningless, but it is limited. It describes only a small portion of a player's offensive contributions. It still seems to be focused on by a lot of people because does illustrate players that play an aesthetically pleasing style of baseball, even if it's not necessarily always a winning one. 

The article like many of the new found analytics is cherry picking at its worst.  What a joke of an article.  This is exactly what is wrong with the new Era of modern baseball.

have to disagree ..i'd take a bunch of hitters hitting .250 plus and K-ing less than 20% of the time over our current guys hitting .225 and less and K-ing over 30% of the time. put the ball in play boys. todays game is sooooooo  boring with all the K's. i've always been a fan of the high average guys   .290 and better that drive in Runs and K less

With Buxton on 2nd and 2 outs, I will pinch hit Arraez for Gallo every single time. 

2 hours ago, MinnInPa said:

have to disagree ..i'd take a bunch of hitters hitting .250 plus and K-ing less than 20% of the time over our current guys hitting .225 and less and K-ing over 30% of the time. put the ball in play boys. todays game is sooooooo  boring with all the K's. i've always been a fan of the high average guys   .290 and better that drive in Runs and K less

The problem for baseball is that the high average guys are more entertaining, but they don't score as many runs. Power is the best way to score, and win games. There are 9 teams with 200+ runs scored so far this season. Including the top 8 teams in slugging. "Only" 6 of them are in the top 10 in BA. 80% vs 60% is rather significant.

The Dodgers are 25th in BA, 2nd in HR, 3rd in slug, and 3rd in runs. The Twins are 26th in BA, 6th in HR, 15th in slug, and 10th in runs. The Nationals are 9th in BA, 29th in HR, 28th in slug, and 25th in runs. Philly is 8th in BA, 20th in HR, 11th in slug, 20th in runs. Hitting homeruns and slugging make up for a significant amount of batting average when it comes to scoring runs, because it's really hard to string multiple singles together to score chunks of runs.

Last year there were 14 teams to score 700+ runs. 7 of them were in the top 10 in BA. 9 in the top 10 of HR. 10 in the top 10 in slug. The title is a little aggressive calling BA the worst offensive stat, but it's correct in that BA is a severely lacking stat, and power is how teams win. Luis Arraez is far more entertaining to watch than a low BA power bat, but his lack of power makes him need to be all-time great to be an impact back. He's got 101 more points of BA than Taylor Walls, but his being 112 points worse in slugging means he's 15 points of wRC+ worse. He's a 15% worse hitter despite being 100 points better with BA because singles simply aren't as valuable as extra base hits.

9 minutes ago, Muppet said:

With Buxton on 2nd and 2 outs, I will pinch hit Arraez for Gallo every single time. 

In what inning? What's the game situation? Are you down by 2 in the bottom of the 9th? Who's the hitter on deck? There's way too much context in a baseball game for that to mean anything. Tie game, bottom 9? Absolutely. Down 4 in the 6th? I'm not sure playing for 1 run is the way to go. Way too much context missing.

3 hours ago, MinnInPa said:

have to disagree ..i'd take a bunch of hitters hitting .250 plus and K-ing less than 20% of the time over our current guys hitting .225 and less and K-ing over 30% of the time. put the ball in play boys. todays game is sooooooo  boring with all the K's. i've always been a fan of the high average guys   .290 and better that drive in Runs and K less

That's fine if they're guys like Arraez at the plate (and can stay healthy, and play decent defense, etc); that's not fine when they're more like Astudillo.

Willans Astudillo had a career Batting Average of .267. That's higher than 9 guys currently on the 16 man roster, and 14 of the 18 hitters that have taken ABs for the Twins this season, for this season. You will lose a LOT more games with a lineup of Astudillos over the current group.

But the ball will be in play!

7 hours ago, Twodogs said:

What would Kingman's ops have been had he hit .300?  Also, I'd say the opposite, most of Kingman's career was in non homer friendly parks.  San Fran I think candlestick?  Oakland, not really a hitters park, I don't think shea stadium was exactly a hitters park, and even I thought Yankee stadium wasn't that friendly to right handed hitters.  He also played in san Diego and for the Angels.  I don't think any of those parks are hitter havens.  I mean had he spent his career in Boston like David Ortiz did Kingman probably hits over 500 home runs, especially since they could have DHed him more in Boston?  Just an example.  

Kingman’s best 3 years we’re in Wrigley…he barely had anything close to a good year outside of wrigley…maybe one.

He wouldn’t be in the hall of fame in ANY era.

Friday against the Cubs the Twins went 4-30 batting 133 as a team. They scored 2 runs. Saturday they went 13-36 batting 361 as a team. They scored 11 runs. So NO batting average is not a worthless stat.