Batting Stats what do you think is most important?
bighurt2000
Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Just curious when looking at a baseball players career batting stats, what do you think
is the most important stat/stats when determing how good a hitter is?
I guess for me I think the most important stats are RBI and Runs scored. To me these stats
tell the true story on a players importants when comes down to helping his team win games.
What do you guys think?
is the most important stat/stats when determing how good a hitter is?
I guess for me I think the most important stats are RBI and Runs scored. To me these stats
tell the true story on a players importants when comes down to helping his team win games.
What do you guys think?
0
Comments
Average
Home Runs
On Base %
RBI
Slugging percentage and some of these new ones that I don't even recognize have merit, but I get lost in them. I also have to understand where that player is batting in the order and what team he's on. Some guys are getting fancier "new stats" on situational occurrances of others.
When I saw that Jeff Franceour was considered one of the most unproductive players in MLB because of his OBP% --- I shook my head.
As well, give me Ichiro or Joe Mauer in my lineup as opposed to a bunch of hyped stat guys anyday.
Erik
I agree avg. is impotant but I sometimes think that avg. can be wasted or over rated
if a player is not hitting in the 3,4,5 spot in the lineup. I guess it all depends on what
spot in the lineup your hitting at and who is in front and behind you.
Home runs are good but I think that pitchers today are at a big disadvantage with the
longball with the smaller ballparks, lower mound, 100 pitch count. Also all the hitters are
lifting weights and some on the juice it all adds up to more home runs. But then again the
we all know how the game has changed over the years.
I like watching Ichiro he is a great leadoff hitter great avg., great speed on the bases, scores
alot of runs but being the lead of hitter he is limited in driving in rbi's. If he just had a little more
power wow that would be something.
I think even the old school guys recognize the limitations and lineup bias of RBI, though over the course of a career it may even out a bit.
About twenty five years ago, I used to have debates with many people(surprised huh), and all we had at our disposal were the back of the baseball card numbers. We always use to argue about RBI..."this guy had more men on base. This guy had a better lineup that is why he had more RBI." "Yeah, he had a lot of hits and high AVG, but how many runs exactly did that lead to?" Or, "He hit a lot of HR, but he hit them in lopsided games so it didn't mean much." Or "YEah, but he never strikes out, so he is much more valuable than your 100 strikeout guy."
Those were many guesses and baseless assumptions that were made. With the play by play examination, we now know the answers to every one of those guesses. It isn't a mystery anymore, as we know the value of a single vs. a HR, or a K vs a ground out. We know exactly how many times a low strikeout guy moved a runner up, as opposed to a 150 K guy. Now, one cannot say, "well Buckner never struck out, and Schmidt did all the time, so that closes the gap big time in their value." Unless of course, one can show exactly how many times Buckner moved up runners on productive outs and compare it to Schmidt. IN reality, it is a minute difference, and we can look at EVERY SINGLE at bat of each of those players to show it.
Fans are accustomed to using the traditional numbers, and they don't paint a terrible picture. A guy who has 450 HR he was pretty good. The stats you look at largely depends on what you are trying to accomplish. A GM will have a different agenda than most fans, as will an opportune money enhancer
MIKESCHMIDT, it is a good thing that better research was done, and things like OPS were recognized, as it truly shows how great a hitter that your namesake is!! Schmidt, and along with Killebrew, have often been deemed the redheaded stepchild by many fans viewpoint, because they always cite their low AVG and multitude of K's. I'm not saying fans say they are bad, but they get dispresected when compared to other 'greats'. The play by play, shows the truth. Still now, there are people who say that Ichiro was/is a better hitter than Mike Schmidt. They seem to forget that the goal of hitting is not simply to touch the ball with the bat, but to create runs. THe play by play, and the good total measurements, show which hitter is creating more runs.
Of course, measuring Schmidt vs. Ichiro is a cross era measurement, and that brings on a new set of logistical problems to work through...problems that many of the best stat guys are lost on, and still don't recognize. This is the area of study I like to delve into.
<< <i>I guess for me I think the most important stats are RBI and Runs scored. To me these stats
tell the true story on a players importants when comes down to helping his team win games. >>
RBI's and runs scored depend way too much on the team.
I'll also go with OPS.
RBI is such a misleading stat, and, has been discussed, is dependent more on the lineup than a player's ability to get hits to drive in runs.
Since 1901, and even before..................
The most runs scored determines who the winner of a game is.
Homers , BA, RBIs, stolen bases, Slg pct. game winning RBIs, Etc., and any exotic Jamesism-like stats including home field hot dog vendor sales in parks with results above average as opposed to popcorn sales in extra inning games, are important and do contribute to the outcome of the game, via runs scored.
The stat of runs produced, runs scored plus runs driven in, minus homeruns, is probably the best evaluator of a hitter's real worth. Let's not overlook the forrest for the trees, if only one stat is used, it MUST be runs scored, the only stat which effects the outcome of the ballgame.
<< <i> The stat of runs produced, runs scored plus runs driven in, minus homeruns, is probably the best evaluator of a hitter's real worth. Let's not overlook the forrest for the trees, if only one stat is used, it MUST be runs scored, the only stat which effects the outcome of the ballgame. >>
This thread is about “what do you think is the most important stat/stats when determing how good a hitter is?”
This is about individual stats not team stats. RBIs and runs scored are correlated to the skill of the hitter, but there’s a stronger dependence on how good the hitters are before them (RBIs) and how good the hitters are after them (runs).
According to your logic, a bad hitter on a good team would be better than a good hitter on a bad team.
<< <i>and any exotic Jamesism-like stats including home field hot dog vendor sales in parks with results above average as opposed to popcorn sales in extra inning games >>
BA, W v K, SB, & OBP
OMG WTF LOL!
It shows the all-time OPS leaders. While it is hard to argue against the top 10 of all-time, I looked a bit further. It has Brian Giles ahead of Ty Cobb, Edgar Martinez ahead of Hank Aaron and Jim Edmonds ahead of Frank Robinson. Something seems off with this stat.
Mo Vaughn ahead of Harmon Killebrew... hmmm --- However, Rod Carew's OPS is higher than Pete Rose, which vindicates my opinion of comparing the 2 hitters. A bit more higher...
Like I said, I'll stick with the BA, RBIs, Runs, Homers, Doubles, Triples and Walk vs. Strikeouts.
That being said, the web site does say "OPS - It doesn't appear here, but OPS is On-Base Percentage + Slugging Percentage. It is a pretty good estimate of offensive ability."
What makes the game great --- Lots of debate.
Not all players have the same physical abilities.
Erik
Much like total hits. Julio Franco has more hits than Mickey Mantle
In a given year, OPS+ tells a good story. When you start measuring careers, you get into different measurements.
The linear weight play by play info is a combination of rate and counting stats...the best of both worlds. When this information is derived from the actual play by play data of what occured, then there is absolutely no other traditional measurment in the same ballpark.
Estang mentions sticking with BA, HR, Doubles, Triples, and BB. Well those are all key components already, though the linear weights gives a real weight assigned to each event, as opposed to the guessing that typically went on. Strikouts too, though the negative value is waaaay overblown(compared to a contact out).
We know what a typical single is worth, a typical double, HR, BB, etc.. The best measurments examines exactly in the situation it occured to give the true impact a player had on creating RUNS, and runs are the currency of the game(not the stat of Runs, as that is very influenced by other factors out of the batters ability).
Those measurments will tell the truth on guys like Cobb vs. Giles, or Rose etc...though different eras do create havoc for sure, and that is being sorted out now.
<< <i>It [OPS] has Brian Giles ahead of Ty Cobb, ... >>
1. Brian Giles is a stud; he's been on crappy teams much of his career so he's gone relatively unnoticed, but he's a great player
2. OPS is better (by far) than any stat on a baseball card, but OPS+ is better (by far) than OPS. And if you look at OPS+, Cobb beats Giles easily, even with all the "old man years" that dragged Cobb down at the end. Likewise, Aaron beats Martinez in OPS+, and Frank Robinson beats Edmonds in OPS+. Skinpinch is certainly correct that there are flaws in even OPS+, but they are miniscule in comparison to the flaws in any single baseball card stat. The greatest flaw - when deciding which of two hitters is "better" - is that it takes no account of longevity; but if you are comparing two players with comparably lengthy careers, even across eras, I have yet to find a case where a comparison of OPS+ gives an obviously wrong answer.
shouldn't some formula be used to correct that?
Steve
<< <i>My question regarding the comparison of Giles and Cobb is how can one say that Giles OPS is better then Cobbs when Cobb played in the deadball era? It would seem to me that Giles should have the better OPS.
shouldn't some formula be used to correct that?
Steve >>
That's exactly what OPS+ does; it corrects not only for different eras but also different ballparks. For example, Jim Rice beats Ken Singleton by 30 points in OPS, but Singleton beats him in OPS+. Same situation for Tony Oliva, Jim Wynn, Fred Lynn, Reggie Jackson, Gene Tenace, Rod Carew, Frank Howard, and I could probably go on all day. None of those names surprise me, but for people going by baseball card stats alone it is probably surprising to most that many or all of these hitters were more productive than Rice.
Big baseball card stats can identify players who played in circumstances where it was easy to score runs as well as they identify great players; without some adjustment, and OPS+ is the easiest to find, there is no way to know which it is.
The book Total Baseball is the creator of Batter runs. It was the best method, and still is for the older players where play by play info is not available. The two main problems is that it doesn't account for each situation, nor does it do a good job of cross-era comparisons.
But the best numbers are the one that account for every at bat in every situation, as they reflect the true value of the hitter. One of the problems with OPS is that it doesn't account for the fact that a disproportionate amount of walks(to the bigger hitters) occur with two outs. A two out walk is not as valuable as a zero out walk for obvious reasons. OPS treats each walk the same, but they are not.
Baseball is played by the situation, and each event has different meaning in the various situations that arise. This paly by play info is available as far back as the late 50's.
I think what many of the traditionalists are really hinting at is that they could tell you the best three hitters of all-time by simply looking at the traditional stats. Well, for the most part, they could. But on the same side of the coin, they fall victims to the Jim Rice example too.
P.S. Peak and longevity become a factor in all evaluations. I was going to do an exercise on how to look at different players with regard to how good they are, and what constitutes good(or HOF).
Isn't the measurement that OPS+ uses for ballparks a generic number? Some hitters benefit far more playing in a certain park than others. Wade Boggs and Fred Lynn were doubly blessed at Fenway. They faced more righthanded pitchers than most hitters and they got to take advantage of the wall and the small foul territory. Their advantage at Fenway is far greater than any other hitters in that park. Ted Williams, on the other hand, gets punished for playing in Fenway despite the fact he was a better hitter on the road. OPS+ would lower Williams value in Fenway when in reality had he played his career at Yankee Stadium he would have posted even better numbers.
As an aside on Jim Rice - his best park to hit in was not Fenway Park. It was actually Yankee Stadium where in 280 career at bats he has a .386 OBP and a .661 SLG. While that may be a small number of at bats, had he played his career at Yankee Stadium in the 70's he might have put up similar over-all numbers (to what he did as a Red Sox). In Yankee Stadium he would have faced far more lefthanded pitchers than he did at Fenway and he was more productive versus lefties. For every 330 foot homer to left that Rice would have lost in Yankee Stadium he would have gained by hitting 340 foot pop ups to right field. I think his hitting charts in the 80's, at least, indicated more than 60% of his flyballs were going to right and right center.
Also, does anybody know the homepark advantage an average hitter receives? Assuming every park where exactly the same home teams would still win more than 50% of the time. How much better does an average hitter hit at home without the benefit of playing in Coors or Fenway?
I'm not sure how he would face more lefties at Yankee Stadium. Teams in his era simply let their pitchers take their turns in the rotation(except the fifth guy for some teams). During a relief situation, he would face the righty, regardless of the stadium.
Aro, the numbers at Yankee stadium are too small a sample as you said. If you looked at his numbers at KC .220/.272/.354, would it be safe to say that he would be that type of hitter there?
Dwight Evans sees a similar drastic split as rice, and is also a RH hitter. His Yankee stadium numbers are...214/.323 /.381.
You are certainly accurate in that some hitters do get unfairly penalized by a ballpark adjustment. Some parks don't help hitters as much as others. Rickey henderson gets a big ballpark adjustmen for Oakland, but his biggest asset is base on balls, and Oakland doesn't help that area as much as other areas of measurment. He is getting an artificial boost.
As for Rice or Evans, they both show drastic home/road splits, and when Fenway is compared with all players in all parks it also shows big home/road splits. It would be very hard to argue against them not receiving a big benefit by hitting half their games there.
TED WILLIAMS: He wasn't a better hitter on the road...ROAD OPS of 1.082, HOME OPS of 1.150. About 7% difference. As you can see though, it isn't as drastic as the RH pull guys. But when you account for guys hitting better at home, then Ted Williams should not be getting punished as much as other players as Aro has said. Yaz has a drastic home/road split of .908/.782, about 16% difference.
The Yankees because of their left-handed power and that short porch in right in the 70's faced a lot more lefties especially in Yankee Stadium. In 78 for instance Reggie and Nettles both had more at bats against left-handed pitching than righties. I would doubt that too many teams have ever seen more lefties. Anyway, while I still think Rice would have hit well in Yankee Stadium, it is clear that his numbers drop off considerably everywhere else so other than Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park he is just a .330 OBP, .450 SLG type outfielder. Off memory alone I remember most Red Sox struggling in Kansas City in that era. Big park, artificial turf, tough pitching staff of the Royals.
I think Evans was more of a pull hitter than Rice so he would have got killed in Yankee Stadium where many of his Fenway homers would be outs.
Where did you get Williams career OPS splits? Those are not the numbers I have.
I agree that the typical ballpark adjustment isn't fair to a lot of players(or gives too much of a boost), and that a lot of it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. I've always said the same thing about Williams as you have.
Here are a few highlights for Williams home/road splits...
HR
HOME 248, AWAY 273
DOUBLES
HOME 319, AWAY 206
AVG
HOME .361, AWAY .328
HOME SLG .652, ROAD .615
All what one would probably expect knowing the park, and the specific hitter. Harder to hit the home runs to deep right for this pull hitter, but some of those still turn into doubles(plus the green monster turning a few extra doubles). I'm sure the little foul territory has a big impact on the average. Overall Williams wasn't helped to the same degree as the majority of hitters who thrived there. Yet he gets the same ballpark downgrade as those players.
Different story for Yaz
HR
HOME 237, AWAY 215
DOUBLES
HOME 382, AWAY 264
AVG
HOME .306, AWAY .264
HOME SLUG .503, ROAD .422
AND RICE.....
HR
HOME 208, AWAY 175
DOUBLES
HOME 207, AWAY 166
AVG
HOME .320, AWAY .277
HOME SLUG .546, ROAD .459
Boggs Slugged .527 at Fenway, and appx .395 everywhere else. Doubles seem to be enhanced the most(which adds to SLUG of course). It must be noted about Boggs though, that his everywhere else numbers include his old man years when he was not at Fenway at home, and thus heavily influence that number. To be accurate, only his years as a Red Sox player should be looked at. If someone is willing to take out the calculator...
Dave