5/13 Red Sox @ the Twinkies

[reYoukilis]

I would like to see BA w/RISP as a major stat. Seems important to me.

[rjortiz]

Aha, but consider this:

 

-A single can move a baserunner with speed two bases a significant % of the time.

-A walk will sometimes not move a baserunner at all.

 

Runners at second and third:

-A single can result in 2 runs.

-A walk results in 0 runs.

 

Just messin' with you UN, because I realize you already know those things quite well.

 

A little statistical analysis on the relative value of a single vs. a walk would be interesting.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/linear-weights/

 

wOBA = (0.691×uBB + 0.722×HBP + 0.884×1B + 1.257×2B + 1.593×3B +

2.058×HR) / (AB + BB – IBB + SF + HBP)

 

The scenario you presented happens enough to make a single more valuable than a walk on average.

Edited May 14, 2014 by rjortiz

[rjortiz]

I would like to see BA w/RISP as a major stat. Seems important to me.

 

Not much of a predictive measure, and is subject to wild fluctuations due to sample size. Also, it is dependent on other batters getting to scoring position.

[User Name]

The argument, however, doesn't boil down to "single vs walk". That's a simplistic way of looking at it. The debate is BA vs OBP and it's a no-contest in terms of measuring correlation regarding to run-scoring. Batting average, by itself, is a terrible tool to evaluate hitter productivity, since all it tells you is the amount of hits someone got over a certain number of at-bats. It doesn't tell you how many times he got on base overall, the type of hit, or if it did in any way lead to run-scoring. It's just a very incomplete statistic.

 

RJ, Bell, can you either of you give me a sound argument where batting average is a better measure of overall hitter productivity than any other decent measurement ? Because i don't see it.

[User Name]

To clarify, i say that the "hit vs walk" argument is simplistic because it seems to have been forgotten here that a hit does indeed raise OBP along with batting average.

[mvp 78]

Dude, you got a little wOBA on your face. You may want to wash it off.

 

How come everyone else's views are "simplistic?" If it's a statement you don't agree with, it doesn't make it simplistic.

 

We all know how OPS is calculated. This isn't some holy grail of advanced analysis bestowed on us.

 

You said batting average is nearly useless. While there are a ton of other advanced stats that are "better," it doesn't make batting average useless.

[User Name]

You're taking what i said out of context. I said that looking at it as "walk vs hit" instead of "BA vs OBP" is simplistic.

 

On the other point, i still don't see how batting average isn't nearly useless. You just said so yourself, there are a ton of metrics that are better.

[mvp 78]

My right hand is better than my left, it doesn't make my left hand useless.

[User Name]

Well if you were MegaMan X and you had a plasma cannon in your right arm and nothing on your left one, then we could talk. But you don't have a plasma cannon, so don't you talk to me.

[mvp 78]

OBP and SLG are far from the plasma cannons of advanced statistics. Batting average is like hoping on a Koopa in Mario. OBP is like the silver sword in Zelda.

[User Name]

Hopping on Koopas is gay, silver sword is badass. Case closed.

[mvp 78]

Except for level 3-1 where timing your hop right would give you infinite lives. Boom. Silver sword stinks.

[Bellhorn04]

I didn't think much of OPS when I first saw it. Adding two other stats together - you kidding me?

 

But now, f*** it, OPS seems about as good as you're going to get for a comprehensible number to compare hitters with. I can't deal with those ones that look like hieroglyphics.

[rjortiz]

The argument, however, doesn't boil down to "single vs walk". That's a simplistic way of looking at it. The debate is BA vs OBP and it's a no-contest in terms of measuring correlation regarding to run-scoring. Batting average, by itself, is a terrible tool to evaluate hitter productivity, since all it tells you is the amount of hits someone got over a certain number of at-bats. It doesn't tell you how many times he got on base overall, the type of hit, or if it did in any way lead to run-scoring. It's just a very incomplete statistic.

 

RJ, Bell, can you either of you give me a sound argument where batting average is a better measure of overall hitter productivity than any other decent measurement ? Because i don't see it.

 

I agree with you. I just saw the post about a single scoring two runs, and the question about the difference in value of singles and walks. Batting average is a very bad statistic, and it only lives because "Old Baseball Men" are terrified of high school mathematics. I remember the outrage when ESPN started showing OBP with the other traditional statistics. I can't imagine what is going through Harold Reynolds head when he sees wOBA. wOBA is just a linear equation. It's not calculus. You don't even need to do the math if you know how to use Excel. I can't think of any other reason why baseball analysts, or personnel would be against how the statistic is calculated. No one would disagree that certain events in baseball will lead to more runs on average. Why not use the statistic that considers that?

Edited May 14, 2014 by rjortiz

[rjortiz]

I didn't think much of OPS when I first saw it. Adding two other stats together - you kidding me?

 

But now, f*** it, OPS seems about as good as you're going to get for a comprehensible number to compare hitters with. I can't deal with those ones that look like hieroglyphics.

 

The two problems with OPS are that all events are not created equal, (OBP component) and OBP is much more valuable than SLG%. Despite that, it is better than every traditional statistic.

[reYoukilis]

What about RBI's? Sure it is dependent on other players but it also highlights that a player knows how to work a pitcher when the pitcher is in a vulnerable position unlike OPS. Not checking stats but that seems to be the difference between Papi and A-Rod. One plays his best when everything is on the line and the other does his best when nothing is on the line.

[mvp 78]

Ortiz - 7 seasons with 100+ RBI

ARod - 14 seasons with 100+ RBI

[jacksonianmarch]

A lot of younger viewers may not remember ARod's level of dominance. He was incredible in Seattle and Texas. He was good in 04, great from 05-09 and sucked since. Turns out, he cheated. But his numbers are amazingly good

[User Name]

Rodriguez does not have an OPS below .869 in any pressure situation over his career. The fallacy of clutch persists. His failures over a couple of AB's during the postseason (and cheating) ended up defining his career. The funny thing is that Captain Amazing was also pretty terrible in several of those postseason series, but he can do no wrong.

[Jasonbay44]

A lot of younger viewers may not remember ARod's level of dominance. He was incredible in Seattle and Texas. He was good in 04, great from 05-09 and sucked since. Turns out, he cheated. But his numbers are amazingly good

 

Yup there is no denying that. As much as I hate A-Rod, steroids or not he was ridiculously good.

[Spudboy]

I remember having a conversation about OBP with one of the posters in this conversation in the spring of 2013. Most everyone on this board was really down on Jonny Gomes. At the time Gomes was hitting about the Mendoza line. I pointed out to this poster ( who knows quite a bit about baseball stats ) that Gomes was second on the team in walks and because of it his OBP was about .330 ( not great, but much better than "hitting" only .200 ).

 

The old guard is slow to change. OBP is not yet widely used by many fans or the electronic media. Never the less, it is a far better way of quickly assessing a player's offensive value than BA.

 

The same with WHIP (a great quick measure of a pitcher's effectiveness ). I wish more game broadcasts would show WHIP instead of ERA, too.

[User Name]

The difference between WHIP and OBP is that WHIP doesn't necessarily convey a pitcher's effectiveness by itself. There are pitchers who have a decent career WHIP, but have unsightly ERA's. This happens because WHIP does not distinguish between kinds of hits. A pitcher that doesn't give up walks or a lot of singles but gives up an above average amount of bombs and XBH is not necessarily effective.

[Spudboy]

The difference between WHIP and OBP is that WHIP doesn't necessarily convey a pitcher's effectiveness by itself. There are pitchers who have a decent career WHIP, but have unsightly ERA's. This happens because WHIP does not distinguish between kinds of hits. A pitcher that doesn't give up walks or a lot of singles but gives up an above average amount of bombs and XBH is not necessarily effective.

 

I did not intend to imply that WHIP by itself was the best way to evaluate a pitcher.

 

I mentioned WHIP because like OBP, it is a useful metric that has not gained widespread usage during broadcasts. And that is something that I would like to see change.

[User Name]

I did not intend to imply that WHIP by itself was the best way to evaluate a pitcher.

 

I mentioned WHIP because like OBP, it is a useful metric that has not gained widespread usage during broadcasts. And that is something that I would like to see change.

 

I think OBP has gained a bit more traction, but WHIP is not far behind.

[a700hitter]

I remember having a conversation about OBP with one of the posters in this conversation in the spring of 2013. Most everyone on this board was really down on Jonny Gomes. At the time Gomes was hitting about the Mendoza line. I pointed out to this poster ( who knows quite a bit about baseball stats ) that Gomes was second on the team in walks and because of it his OBP was about .330 ( not great, but much better than "hitting" only .200 ).

 

The old guard is slow to change. OBP is not yet widely used by many fans or the electronic media. Never the less, it is a far better way of quickly assessing a player's offensive value than BA.

 

The same with WHIP (a great quick measure of a pitcher's effectiveness ). I wish more game broadcasts would show WHIP instead of ERA, too.

I don't know what OBP vs. BA average has to do with old guard vs. new guard. It's not like OBP is a new metric. My dad (if he were alive today he would be 95) taught me about OBP and how BA doesn't tell you the whole story.

[Station 13]

WHIP is listed recently on ESPN. I haven't seen it outside of the Mets and Jays broadcast from locals. It will gain some traction as WAR did overtime. Edited May 14, 2014 by Station 13

[jacksonianmarch]

WHIP, K/9IP and K/BB are the most important pitching stats, IMO. Which is so mind boggling as to how Phil Hughes managed to suck so much when he had all three in the plus column for us

[User Name]

I don't know what OBP vs. BA average has to do with old guard vs. new guard. It's not like OBP is a new metric. My dad (if he were alive today he would be 95) taught me about OBP and how BA doesn't tell you the whole story.

 

This is one of the rare occurrences where i agree with a700. My dad's older than both of you and he's not an "advanced metrics" guy, but he understands OBP and OPS and how getting on base correlates with run production. All of his old-timey friends also follow along the same line of thought.

[User Name]

WHIP, K/9IP and K/BB are the most important pitching stats, IMO. Which is so mind boggling as to how Phil Hughes managed to suck so much when he had all three in the plus column for us

 

Because of what i said above, and it's what i like to call "Javier Vasquez syndrome". A pitcher with the ability to K guys, and be stingy with walks and hits, but just gives up so many XBH (in Hughes' case because of FB tendencies) that it negates any other statistical positives he may have.

[reYoukilis]

Rodriguez does not have an OPS below .869 in any pressure situation over his career. The fallacy of clutch persists. His failures over a couple of AB's during the postseason (and cheating) ended up defining his career. The funny thing is that Captain Amazing was also pretty terrible in several of those postseason series, but he can do no wrong.

What do you mean by "the fallacy of clutch persists" and how do you get stats for only pressure situations?