Not sure who this soliloquy is aimed for (or against).  Who is saying batting average is unimportant?

What you may be reading here and there is that batting average is not the only important thing for a batter.

Batting average is indeed important enough that it figures prominently in both components of OPS, for example.

22 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Not sure who this soliloquy is aimed for (or against).  Who is saying batting average is unimportant?

What you may be reading here and there is that batting average is not the only important thing for a batter.

Batting average is indeed important enough that it figures prominently in both components of OPS, for example.

Lots of folks act like batting average is not important.  Including, seemingly, unfortunately, the ones that run the local nine.

57 minutes ago, dxpavelka said:

Lots of folks act like batting average is not important.

That was my question. Who?

I have always said teams that play small ball and hit for contact will have many more opportunities for success! If everybody hits a single, you will move everyone around the bases. 

On 7/1/2023 at 1:22 PM, ashbury said:

That was my question. Who?

There is a blog on TD that states that BA is the most worthless measurement of all. 

On 7/1/2023 at 2:22 PM, ashbury said:

That was my question. Who?

Guys on MLB Network…….I saw a comparison of Arraez to Gallo maybe 6 weeks ago. Gallo was hitting around .225 but much better power numbers. It was interesting “runs generation” analysis. Brian Kenney had to yield to the .410 BA but it took 15 minutes of back & forth. Gallo was making contact about 29% of the time at that point - by my memory.

The national pundits are united in the lack of interest in BA.

I saw this morning in a TD article that if CC was hitting .270 …….much closer to his ‘22 BA of .291 that his OPS would be above 800. His power numbers mirror ‘22 or are close but his .220 BA drags his OPS down close to 700.

This comparison of CC’s ‘22 & ‘23 seem to make it obvious that BA has a big effect on overall run generation.

On 7/1/2023 at 11:22 AM, ashbury said:

That was my question. Who?

I didn’t have a direction at anyone.  It is an attitude that has been prevalent around here for a while.  And since money all came out with the importance of on base percentage over batting average.  I always thought it was important with how the Twins would score so many runs being near the bottom of the league in HRs.  

On 7/1/2023 at 12:01 PM, ashbury said:

Not sure who this soliloquy is aimed for (or against).  Who is saying batting average is unimportant?

Off the top of my head, Gleeman, Hayes, every analytics-driven baseball writer ever, several of the posters here, the Twins front office....  I believe the direct quote I heard from Gleeman on the radio earlier this year was "no MLB team cares about batting average".  Which is obviously a lie, but goes to show the extent to which the hardcore analytics guys are willing to die on the BA hill.   

On 7/4/2023 at 1:46 PM, JD-TWINS said:

Guys on MLB Network…….I saw a comparison of Arraez to Gallo maybe 6 weeks ago. Gallo was hitting around .225 but much better power numbers. It was interesting “runs generation” analysis. Brian Kenney had to yield to the .410 BA but it took 15 minutes of back & forth. Gallo was making contact about 29% of the time at that point - by my memory.

The national pundits are united in the lack of interest in BA.

I saw this morning in a TD article that if CC was hitting .270 …….much closer to his ‘22 BA of .291 that his OPS would be above 800. His power numbers mirror ‘22 or are close but his .220 BA drags his OPS down close to 700.

This comparison of CC’s ‘22 & ‘23 seem to make it obvious that BA has a big effect on overall run generation.

Did you even bother to read their original post? You are simply restating their point to them. The problem isn't that people who think BA is overvalued (...and it was, relative to OBP and SLG for a long time. Now it isn't...) have completely disregarded it, it's that y'all refuse to engage with the conversation honestly. Look at this thread, you restate the same point that was already made to the person who made it, while other people make up lies about the FO and twins beat reporters/analysts to serve some 10 year old agenda. That's not discourse, it's borderline trolling.

Also national pundits are some of the worst analysts, grats on finally figuring that out. It's a function of their job and how they come to get those jobs (hi, lots of former players and unsuccessful FO personnel). It's also a context that really struggles with nuance, is often recorded live so mistakes are cemented and easily misrepresented, and there's a push to say controversial and outlandish things. So yea, I don't doubt somebody on MLB Network said something stupid. I just can't figure out why you would waste your time with them. And to suggest they are wholly representative of the state of (or for the matter, important to) modern baseball discourse is as unfair as trying to represent all of sabermetrics with Jack Zduriencik (who was clearly incompetent, most modern orgs respect scouting immensely).

I too would like to see some direct quotes from the Twins FO or the people who cover the team, so I can then contextualize them, and show they don't say what the clowns in this thread claim. But when asked, these paragons of debate just double down with EVERYONE SAYS IT!!!! Look inward, who really is being dismissive in this discussion? Who really argues from a single-minded perspective?

There is a very interesting conversation to have about differing offensive approaches, such as contact vs TTO, and which is better suited for success in the play-offs. Or if that is even determinable! But when your starting argument is "People said BA doesn't matter" and everyone you're citing understands the very basic premise (that these posters clearly don't) that BA is a component of both SLG and OBP, it's clear what you're really attempting to accomplish is pedantry or anti-intellectualism. I hope next time you bother to read what the poster you're responding to actually wrote, in a thread of like 5 posts.

Edit: This has been quoted too many times to change, but I do realize now it's quite a bit rude. Especially considering you weren't really being an a-hole like some of the others. I conflated too much of their posts with your post, I'm sorry for that. I do think some of the points stand, but my ire should not have been directed at you JD-TWINS.

16 minutes ago, randy_moist said:

Did you even bother to read their original post? You are simply restating their point to them. The problem isn't that people who think BA is overvalued (...and it was, relative to OBP and SLG for a long time. Now it isn't...) have completely disregarded it, it's that y'all refuse to engage with the conversation honestly. Look at this thread, you restate the same point that was already made to the person who made it, while other people make up lies about the FO and twins beat reporters/analysts to serve some 10 year old agenda. That's not discourse, it's borderline trolling.

Also national pundits are some of the worst analysts, grats on finally figuring that out. It's a function of their job and how they come to get those jobs (hi, lots of former players and unsuccessful FO personnel). It's also a context that really struggles with nuance, is often recorded live so mistakes are cemented and easily misrepresented, and there's a push to say controversial and outlandish things. So yea, I don't doubt somebody on MLB Network said something stupid. I just can't figure out why you would waste your time with them. And to suggest they are wholly representative of the state of (or for the matter, important to) modern baseball discourse is as unfair as trying to represent all of sabermetrics with Jack Zduriencik (who was clearly incompetent, most modern orgs respect scouting immensely).

I too would like to see some direct quotes from the Twins FO or the people who cover the team, so I can then contextualize them, and show they don't say what the clowns in this thread claim. But when asked, these paragons of debate just double down with EVERYONE SAYS IT!!!! Look inward, who really is being dismissive in this discussion? Who really argues from a single-minded perspective?

There is a very interesting conversation to have about differing offensive approaches, such as contact vs TTO, and which is better suited for success in the play-offs. Or if that is even determinable! But when your starting argument is "People said BA doesn't matter" and everyone you're citing understands the very basic premise (that these posters clearly don't) that BA is a component of both SLG and OBP, it's clear what you're really attempting to accomplish is pedantry or anti-intellectualism. I hope next time you bother to read what the poster you're responding to actually wrote, in a thread of like 5 posts.

Congratulations, you've managed to accomplish several amazing things here:

-doing the exact thing you accuse your opponents of doing

-suggesting that anything you disagree with is "anti-intellectual"

-constructing incredible strawmen, then barely even knocking them down

-suggesting the only way anyone could disagree with you is because they didn't read the post

-suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith

-every accusation is a confession (re: "trolls")

Again, very well done my friend.  

On 7/1/2023 at 3:30 PM, Brandon Peddycoart said:

I have always said teams that play small ball and hit for contact will have many more opportunities for success! If everybody hits a single, you will move everyone around the bases. 

This is an earnest comment, I do appreciate that. Let me point out a slight flaw in this thinking. First, what level of contact do you think is actually achievable? A team hitting even .270 would be great these days, but let's give them an empty .333. First batter singles, the next 2 make outs. Now you're going to get a hit a third of the time on this final PA. If that's a single too, the player moves to second and then you're going to get outs again. Inning over. Maybe, sometimes, the previous outs moved a runner over and occasionally you do get the run, But a lot of the time, you're not getting anything. A lot of times, that contact leads to DPs and wipes away your opportunities.

That's an example taken to the extreme, obviously. That's not really what anyone is thinking will happen. What you're hoping for, in reality, is that everyone bunches hits together. Or hits for some power alongside those singles. But this is actually what the modern TTO approach attempts. Do as much damage at once, accept most of the time you are going to come up empty handed (that's just baseball, afterall).

Power and contact have some level of inverse relationship. That should be obvious. If everyone could hit for high BA and power, they would. Luis Arraez is having a great offensive season (and has been an asset on offense his whole career), but it is contingent on him keeping up extremely high BAs. If he comes down to a more realistic, but still impressive BA, he's still a good hitter. But his overall production is capped and he'll fall far behind the best overall hitters in the game.

There's also a push and pull between being passive, looking for a good pitch to hit, and swinging with full force. Much of this is playing out right in front of our eyes with the Twins. We are seeing the TTO approach break the wrong way. It is very ugly, nobody is pretending otherwise. Lots of strikeouts without top-end power results. But Twins fans also neglect that Cleveland takes a near opposite approach, and their offense is way more frustrating. Why? Because when it breaks bad, there's no upside remaining. Being somewhere in the middle may be ideal, but is it feasible? How do you achieve that balance? Maybe it's adopting a two strike approach, that seems like the most evident change since the players meeting. But it's also exploitable in its own way. And finally, for most of this FO's tenure, the offense hasn't been an issue. It's been solid, occasionally great and disappointing a couple years. But they've never been as Cleveland's worst and have been outperformed only a couple times by Cleveland. Wanting more is ok, but I don't think the modern game really gives much space for a pure small ball team to succeed. That doesn't mean they can't! It just means, it's a narrower path. IMO

Just now, Woof Bronzer said:

Congratulations, you've managed to accomplish several amazing things here:

-doing the exact thing you accuse your opponents of doing

-suggesting that anything you disagree with is "anti-intellectual"

-constructing incredible strawmen, then barely even knocking them down

-suggesting the only way anyone could disagree with you is because they didn't read the post

-suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is acting in bad faith

-every accusation is a confession (re: "trolls")

Again, very well done my friend.  

 

Produce a single quote.

1 minute ago, randy_moist said:

Produce a single quote.

Let's start with the first line of your post:  Did you even bother to read their original post?

it's that y'all refuse to engage with the conversation honestly. 

the clowns in this thread

it's clear what you're really attempting to accomplish is pedantry or anti-intellectualism.

I just can't figure out why you would waste your time with them

There's more, shall I continue?

You misunderstand me, my bad. I was perhaps not specific enough. I get you don't like my post. I'm saying produce a quote from the FO, or a beat reporter, or whoever y'all think doesn't get that BA is a component of SLG and OBP. Because that was the frustration that is generating the conversation here. That's the part that is tiresome. That's the part we can actually directly respond to.

I agree.  You need to have both guys who get on base and power guys. Most importantly you have to play the style that best suits your personnel. We don't have the personnel for a small ball approach. To be sure, some of that is self inflicted by the batting coaches and by picking up FAs like Gallo, although i do want to mention we also picked up Solano, the polar opposite of Gallo. Good offensive teams are balanced with TTO guys and OBP guys. We are just too far on the power/TTO side, especially now that Lewis is out.  You can see the difference when Correa and Buxton stop selling out for power and the team starts to score more or at least put more pressure on their opponent's pitching and defense.   

I'd love to see us pick up a higher BA/OPB guy at the trade deadline. I'm just not willing to give up much for him. Why? Because unless they hit over .300 with an over.800 OPS they aren't worth much, and they really aren't worth much unless they hit in front of higher SLG % guys.  

6 minutes ago, randy_moist said:

You misunderstand me, my bad. I was perhaps not specific enough. I get you don't like my post. I'm saying produce a quote from the FO, or a beat reporter, or whoever y'all think doesn't get that BA is a component of SLG and OBP. Because that was the frustration that is generating the conversation here. That's the part that is tiresome. That's the part we can actually directly respond to.

I already gave you one!  As I said, it appears you've done what you accuse your opponents of doing:  not reading my post. It was 3 sentences long, one of which was the quote.

Again, congrats.  

6 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

Off the top of my head, Gleeman, Hayes, every analytics-driven baseball writer ever, several of the posters here, the Twins front office....  I believe the direct quote I heard from Gleeman on the radio earlier this year was "no MLB team cares about batting average".  Which is obviously a lie, but goes to show the extent to which the hardcore analytics guys are willing to die on the BA hill.   

If this is what you're referring to: I cannot contextualize this Gleeman quote, because I don't know what was said before or after it. What show? If it was on KFAN, I can look it up if you give me the time and day. If it was on a podcast, I can find it, but narrow my search. I frankly think it's probably a lie or a misattribution. I can only guess at what was trying to be conveyed without knowing what was being discussed. Nobody is being fooled by this, and this is why you get called a troll.

I'm not a math whiz but I do remember the 87 and 91 Twins teams had a decent team batting average (.261 in 1987 and .280 in 1991). I'll take the higher batting average...

12 hours ago, twinssporto said:

I'm not a math whiz but I do remember the 87 and 91 Twins teams had a decent team batting average (.261 in 1987 and .280 in 1991). I'll take the higher batting average...

It's not math, it's history. Indeed, the '91 team led the league in BA, and were among the top of the league in OBP and SLG. Because BA is part of both of those, which is something everyone recognizes. They didn't just hit an empty .280. The '87 team had a below average BA, this wasn't a particular strength of theirs, it only looks nice when you take out that important piece of historical context.

So yea, to act as if BA was the secret sauce of two world series is ahistorical. Moreover, many teams have won the World Series before and after without being among the best in BA.

And why would you focus on how the Twins ran things 30 years ago and think that's indicative of how they should run things now? The Twins tried to emulate that for ages and look where it got them. The rosters, the environment, the availability of certain kinds of players are all radically different. Trying to shape your operations based on some ideal point in history is a recipe for disaster, and that became evident with the Ryan regime, who were chasing their middling success from the aughts with antiquated methods and saw them bottom out the organization.

17 hours ago, randy_moist said:

If this is what you're referring to: I cannot contextualize this Gleeman quote, because I don't know what was said before or after it. What show? If it was on KFAN, I can look it up if you give me the time and day. If it was on a podcast, I can find it, but narrow my search. I frankly think it's probably a lie or a misattribution. I can only guess at what was trying to be conveyed without knowing what was being discussed. Nobody is being fooled by this, and this is why you get called a troll.

-moving the goalposts

-dismissing any information that doesn't fit your narrative

-attacking the people whose opinions you disagree with instead of the opinion

-implying the entire world agrees with your opinion

I've got to hand it to you, you are the bad faith internet troll equivalent of a 5-tool prospect.  You can do it all!  

Do you like apples?

1 hour ago, randy_moist said:

It's not math, it's history. Indeed, the '91 team led the league in BA, and were among the top of the league in OBP and SLG. Because BA is part of both of those, which is something everyone recognizes. They didn't just hit an empty .280. The '87 team had a below average BA, this wasn't a particular strength of theirs, it only looks nice when you take out that important piece of historical context.

So yea, to act as if BA was the secret sauce of two world series is ahistorical. Moreover, many teams have won the World Series before and after without being among the best in BA.

And why would you focus on how the Twins ran things 30 years ago and think that's indicative of how they should run things now? The Twins tried to emulate that for ages and look where it got them. The rosters, the environment, the availability of certain kinds of players are all radically different. Trying to shape your operations based on some ideal point in history is a recipe for disaster, and that became evident with the Ryan regime, who were chasing their middling success from the aughts with antiquated methods and saw them bottom out the organization.

I wasn't focusing on how they did it 30 years ago. Just an over simplified observation. As they say in the investment world, "past results are not indicative of future performance"

5 hours ago, Woof Bronzer said:

-moving the goalposts

-dismissing any information that doesn't fit your narrative

-attacking the people whose opinions you disagree with instead of the opinion

-implying the entire world agrees with your opinion

I've got to hand it to you, you are the bad faith internet troll equivalent of a 5-tool prospect.  You can do it all!  

So can't find the quote or what?