Dallas, instead of saying batting avg. isn't important and then picking out a season from Juan Pierre,
how about you tell us batting avg. isn't important and then use Ted Williams 1941 season as an example?
I think the key here is that batting average in and of itself can be (and often is) very misleading, not that it is meaningless. You just have to consider and incorporate the more meaningful stats in addition to batting average. Ted Williams vs Juan Pierre is actually a great example that supports such evaluation.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Originally posted by: Darin Dallas, instead of saying batting avg. isn't important and then picking out a season from Juan Pierre, how about you tell us batting avg. isn't important and then use Ted Williams 1941 season as an example?
Ted Williams - 1941.
Came to bat 606 times. Got on base 335 times, led the league with a .553 OBP, 101 points over second place; at the time the highest OBP ever achieved and still the highest achieved without cheating.
Also led the league in slugging with a .735, 92 points higher than second place and with 150 extra bases in 456 ABs. His combined OPS of 1.287 was 204 points higher than second place and ranks behind only Ruth on the all-time non-cheater list.
His AIR that year was 108, meaning that it was about 8% easier to produce offense for him than an historically average player in a neutral park in a neutral era. DiMaggio - the player he beat by 204 points in OPS - had an AIR of 106, so only about 2% of the difference between them is due to park differences.
As clutch hitters, though, DiMaggio was better. Williams WPA was 6.1 to Joe's 7.3. And Joe was also an excellent center fielder while Ted was an adequate left fielder. As total players, Win Shares shows Williams barely edging out DiMaggio in 1941, 42 to 41. That's not a meaningful difference, and it should therefore come as no surprise that these two were neck and neck for the MVP that year. Two players with 40+ win shares competed for the MVP only two more times: in 1961 Mantle and Cash both lost to a far inferior Maris, and in 1962 Willie Mays and Frank Robinson both lost to a vastly inferior Maury Wills. I found this last bit interesting, though not relevant to Williams.
Now, if you need to know what Williams' batting average was before you can pass judgment on whether he had a good year or not, or how good it was, that's on you. I don't. What, exactly, does it add? I think in this case it neither adds nor subtracts anything. It's obvious that he had a great year whether you see his batting average or not. But in the case of Pierre, seeing his batting average makes a huge difference. It makes what was a poor season look like a good season, so seeing his batting average will make your determination of how good he was that year worse than it would have been if you hadn't seen it. And that's why I say that batting average is meaningless. It generally won't change your opinion of a season one way or the other, but when it does change it (for Pierre in one direction, Gene Tenace in the other direction) it will change it to be less accurate than it otherwise would have been. If you stop looking at batting average, you will have an equal or better understanding of how good any player was; it can't help you, it can only hurt you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: garnettstyleClemente was a World Series hero. Mantle never was because he struck out too many times.
Mantle struck out 23.5% of his ABs in the WS; that prevented him from ever being a hero. Reggie Jackson struck out 24.9% of his WS ABs, which prevented him from ever being a WS hero, too. Poor Reggie, if he had only listened to garnettstyle and hit more popups instead of striking out he might be known as "Mr. October" today.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: Darin Dallas, instead of saying batting avg. isn't important and then picking out a season from Juan Pierre, how about you tell us batting avg. isn't important and then use Ted Williams 1941 season as an example?
Batting average is of course important, but it only measures one aspect of a hitters ability. It's possible for a batter with a high batting average not be as valuable as one with a better OB%. Hitters with BOTH a high batting average and a good SLG% are much harder to find.
Sort by SLG% and you get a great list of hitters that were good at everything. The top 5 (I don't count Bonds) are amazing. How many would have known Greenberg was there? Hank had the lowest BA of the five at .313, pretty good hitter for average!
Sort by BA and there are a FEW who might be labeled over-rated. Keeler at #10 had a SLG of only .415 and OPS of .802 but he did steal 495 bases. Sisler, Lajoie, Gwynn, Anson and Carew all had pretty low SLG and OPS numbers as well. Most of these guys stole a lot of bases, 300 or more, so while they are open to being called "over-rated" as hitters, they were bringing other qualities to the equation.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiBatting average is of course important, but it only measures one aspect of a hitters ability. It's possible for a batter with a high batting average not be as valuable as one with a better OB%. Hitters with BOTH a high batting average and a good SLG% are much harder to find.
Sort by SLG% and you get a great list of hitters that were good at everything. The top 5 (I don't count Bonds) are amazing. How many would have known Greenberg was there? Hank had the lowest BA of the five at .313, pretty good hitter for average!
Sort by BA and there are a FEW who might be labeled over-rated. Keeler at #10 had a SLG of only .415 and OPS of .802 but he did steal 495 bases. Sisler, Lajoie, Gwynn, Anson and Carew all had pretty low SLG and OPS numbers as well. Most of these guys stole a lot of bases, 300 or more, so while they are open to being called "over-rated" as hitters, they were bringing other qualities to the equation.
You, and most everyone else, are missing my point. If you look at the top 10 in most any category and you're going to find a lot of great players - the greatest players are great at most things. But my point is that of all the things that you could look at, batting average is among the least important. If you look at OBP and slugging, then there is absolutely no reason to also look at batting average - OBP and slugging already include everything that batting average measures. That's not true of the other combinations; if you look at BA and OBP you've missed extra base hits, and if you look at BA and slugging, you've missed walks. In a vacuum, BA is a worthwhile statistic; it's certainly better than looking at triples, or walks, or a hundred other single stats. But that just begs the question - why do you want to operate in a vacuum? If you have OBP and slugging, then batting average is completely worthless - it adds absolutely nothing to what you already know.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Not missing your point, just saying BA is a good indicator of a hitters ability. Not necessarily the best, but it's still a valid stat. It's when I see people say it's meaningless..............that seems silly.
Personally I NEVER looked at batting average and nothing else to decide if I thought a player was a good hitter. The guy I followed had a pretty low batting average, but I thought he was better than people gave him credit for as a hitter.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
If you have OBP and slugging, then batting average is completely worthless - it adds absolutely nothing to what you already know.
EXACTLY!
Banzi, you ARE missing his point(again).
Batting average IS a worthless stat when you already have measurements that are 1)More valid, and 2)already include the small slice of info that batting average brings to the table.
If you recognize that Killebrew is better than most give him credit for, then you should already understand that batting average isn't needed, and you should already understand the value of walks...yet you continue to rail against those two things in one breath, and then in the next breath say how great Killebrew was(despite his low average, and his high walks(&OBP) elevating his value).
Again, there is no argument on what the value of walks, or singles, or home runs, outs made, etc.. are...the play by play has already nailed what those values are. Opinion plays zero role in those values.
Because so many batting averages are empty. Sort of like quarterback completion percentages. They only tell part of the story and often the wrong story
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: Darin Batting average is extremely important. It measures who is the best hitter in the game at reaching base safely when making contact with the baseball.
How can that not be important?
If you have OBP and slugging, then batting average is completely worthless - it adds absolutely nothing to what you already know.
EXACTLY!
Batting average IS a worthless stat when you already have measurements that are 1)More valid, and 2)already include the small slice of info that batting average brings to the table.
My statement was a fact, not opinion or speculation. Therefore, unimpeachable.
I'll repeat, It measures who is the best hitter in the game at reaching base safely when making contact with the baseball.
Stop arguing with it, its just a simple fact. General managers and scouts need this information to determine who they want on their team. Not important? Haha.
The play by play data shows the value of each offensive event: Out made, Base on Balls, Single, Double, Triple, HR. Any stat that does not incorporate each of those events, and with the appropriate value is basically a meaningless measurement.
Batting average does not come close to incorporating all of that info. OB% on its own doesn't either, but does more so than batting average. Slg% doesn't on its own either, but does more so than batting average. Ob%+SLG% pretty much hits the nail on the head, and lines up pretty nicely with the king of measurements(the play by play data). Therefore, it renders batting average meaningless because it is already accounted for TWICE(both in OB% and in SLG%). There is no need to look at it, or include it again.
Not missing the point guys. It really gets tiring when you say that people don't "get it" when they don't agree completely in your way of doing things.
As you say, BA is included in OBP. So you NEED BA to get where your going. Doesn't OBP value a walk the same as a single? Didn't you say a walk is NOT as valuable that a single? So in this basic example, a guy that walks IS gaining more value for his walks than another with a higher BA, but the SAME OBP, is getting for his singles. Please note SAME OBP.
Not going on opinion at all (wish you would stop claiming that as well, it's not the case). As you already correctly stated; "The place where walks truly do become less of a value is to the number eight hitter batting in front of the pitcher, or the 7th hitter in front of the weak hitting catcher and pitcher."
In my example, Lenny Green scored 15% more often when he walked than Killebrew, that's significant, and we're talking the early part of the batting order, if as you claim, (and I agree) it gets even more significant later in the order, this should be factored into the value and not ignored.
I would really like to see the stat; Runs Scored-HR compared to Hits+BB-HR, this would tell you if a player was giving you more value by walking than another by revealing how often he was driven in by other players. Until Bill James agrees with me, I am out of luck.
"If you recognize that Killebrew is better than most give him credit for, then you should already understand that batting average isn't needed, and you should already understand the value of walks...yet you continue to rail against those two things in one breath, and then in the next breath say how great Killebrew was(despite his low average, and his high walks(&OBP) elevating his value)."
If you are thinking this is what I am saying you are either absolutely, positively incorrect, or at the very least not really understanding what I am saying.
Years ago all people looked at was BA, I never agreed with that, and still don't, but it's still a great indicator of one important aspect of the game. I always knew a guy like Killebrew had more value than he was given, but now he's getting a LITTLE too much credit for his walks because, as I proved in an earlier post, he didn't come around to score as often as a batter hitting (walking) earlier in the order. With no good hitters behind him driving him in, a walk is not as valuable as one to Lenny Green or Rod Carew. Not opinion, fact. Just because there isn't a category that shows it, doesn't mean it isn't a valid point.
I don't get it........................yeah, right!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: Justacommeman Because so many batting averages are empty. Sort of like quarterback completion percentages. They only tell part of the story and often the wrong story
mark
I don't think anyone is saying to look at BA and nothing else.
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiI don't think anyone is saying to look at BA and nothing else.
I'll try one last time.
Your statement above implies, correctly, that looking at any one stat - unless it's one of the modern complex ones like batter runs, etc. - will never paint the entire picture. So far, so good - you have agreed that there is always a need to consider at least two stats. Now, if you consider OBP and slugging you have considered pretty much everything that can be considered from basic stats (i.e., without looking at actual play-by-play data. So, once you've looked at OBP and slugging, there is no need to look at batting average - it adds nothing.
But, if you start by looking at batting average then there is no single stat that you can add to that that will paint a complete picture; if you add OBP, you're still missing extra bases, if you add slugging you're still missing walks, etc. So if you start with batting average you're still at least two stats short of a complete picture - which is exactly where you were before you looked at batting average. In other words, looking at batting average was worthless.
And that's what I mean by "worthless". Of course, batting average measures something of value, as does OBP, as does slugging, and as do walks, HBP, SF, and the hundreds of other stats that are out there. But there are better stats on the same page as BA on baseball-reference, and they're better stats that measure everything batting average measures and more. There is no reason to look at batting average when these other stats are already there. It adds no value. It is worthless.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
What about the fact that in OBP a walk is counted as a single, then you say it is actually worth 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember what the % is) of a single. Then you use it with SLG to determine who the better/more valuable/more productive player is, BUT you are ignoring the fact that the more walks the player has in this equation, the farther from a true value you have gone. To make a better comparison, a batters walk totals should be reduced by 1/3 or 1/4 then added to BA, then to SLG if you want a much more accurate value determination. You really disagree?
I'll ask you the same as Justacommeman;
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Batting average is the most recognizable statistic in the game.
But certainly not the most accurate.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
What about the fact that in OBP a walk is counted as a single, then you say it is actually worth 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember what the % is) of a single. Then you use it with SLG to determine who the better/more valuable/more productive player is, BUT you are ignoring the fact that the more walks the player has in this equation, the farther from a true value you have gone. To make a better comparison, a batters walk totals should be reduced by 1/3 or 1/4 then added to BA, then to SLG if you want a much more accurate value determination. You really disagree?
I'll ask you the same as Justacommeman;
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
you are on the right path. This is where secondary average will set you free
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Batting average is the most recognizable statistic in the game.
Sabermetrics, the study of baseball statistics, considers batting average a weak measure of performance because it does not correlate as well as other measures to runs scored, thereby causing it to have little predictive value. Batting average does not take into account walks or power, whereas other statistics such as on-base percentage and slugging percentage have been specifically designed to measure such concepts. Adding these statistics together form a player's On-base plus slugging or "OPS". This is commonly seen as a much better, though not perfect, indicator of a player's overall batting ability as it is a measure of hitting for average, hitting for power and drawing bases on balls.
Tons of germs of truth here. Don't be a lemming
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: JoeBanzai The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
Yeah, I give up. I addressed everything that you just said in the post I just made so now I know for certain that you aren't even reading what I write. That you go on to ask me more questions when you will surely ignore my answer is just annoying. Time to move on.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: garnettstyle Batting average is the most recognizable statistic in the game.
Sabermetrics, the study of baseball statistics, considers batting average a weak measure of performance because it does not correlate as well as other measures to runs scored, thereby causing it to have little predictive value. Batting average does not take into account walks or power, whereas other statistics such as on-base percentage and slugging percentage have been specifically designed to measure such concepts. Adding these statistics together form a player's On-base plus slugging or "OPS". This is commonly seen as a much better, though not perfect, indicator of a player's overall batting ability as it is a measure of hitting for average, hitting for power and drawing bases on balls.
Tons of germs of truth here. Don't be a lemming
mark
My statement is still true.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Originally posted by: garnettstyle Batting average is the most recognizable statistic in the game.
But certainly not the most accurate.
I see it as accurate and important in showing a BASIC factor in a hitters abilities. By no means does it show the important factor of SLG and only a partial picture of OBP.
It is a good indicator of a batters skill at making contact and getting on base that way. A lot of people think that's an important part of hitting. If the pitcher throws you strikes, you will not walk, that leaves being able to hit safely the only way to get on base.
I am only taking this position because of being informed that a walk had less value than a single by the "stat guys" and that makes sense. A follow up question would be is an IBB even less value than a regular BB? Common sense says so. At least to me.
Here's what an article originally published in Baseball Magazine said about the walk; "Grouping these
values in order, allowing to the home run
as the most important of all, the standard
value of 100%, we find the following
general comparison:
Home run …………100.0%
Triple……………… 74.1%
Double…………….. 50.6%
Single……………… 29.4%
Base on balls………. 16.4%"
By this account the walk is worth about 1/2 a single!!!!
How accurate is it to use OBP in the equation to evaluate a hitter when a walk is not as good as a hit, but OBP and then OPS places their value the same?
OPS is not accurate either, it gives too much value to a walk.
If you want better ways of measuring a hitter than BA alone absolutely! OPS seems flawed to me. Better than BA alone, but not good enough!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: JoeBanzai The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
Yeah, I give up. I addressed everything that you just said in the post I just made so now I know for certain that you aren't even reading what I write. That you go on to ask me more questions when you will surely ignore my answer is just annoying. Time to move on.
That's SO funny, I was going to say the exact same thing!
Good night.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: JoeBanzai The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
What about the fact that in OBP a walk is counted as a single, then you say it is actually worth 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember what the % is) of a single. Then you use it with SLG to determine who the better/more valuable/more productive player is, BUT you are ignoring the fact that the more walks the player has in this equation, the farther from a true value you have gone. To make a better comparison, a batters walk totals should be reduced by 1/3 or 1/4 then added to BA, then to SLG if you want a much more accurate value determination. You really disagree?
I'll ask you the same as Justacommeman;
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
you are on the right path. This is where secondary average will set you free
mark
Hi Mark,
I looked at secondary average and it is interesting. It looks like you still need to consider regular BA, but if you use both you seem to get a better picture of a hitters value. The problem is it isn't listed (or I don't know where to find it) so you have to figure it out by yourself.
What is even more revealing is that NO ONE answered the two simple questions I asked!!!!!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiHow accurate is it to use OBP in the equation to evaluate a hitter when a walk is not as good as a hit, but OBP and then OPS places their value the same?
Since you can't do the math yourself, I'll do it for you. A walk is a +1 in OBP but counts for nothing in SLG; a single counts as +1 in both OBP and SLG. So, a walk counts for half as much as a single in OPS. Since a walk is actually worth more than half of a single, OPS actually undervalues a walk a little, so your point about OPS overvaluing a walk was completely wrong. So, now that you understand how walks are valued in OBP and SLG, and therefore OPS, can I assume that you'll admit you've been wrong about every point you've made that followed from this original error? No, I didn't think so.
But thank you for this additional proof that looking at OBP and SLG (and a park/era adjustment, and men-on hitting) is the best way to evaluate a hitter, even if you still don't understand that this is what you've proved.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
What about the fact that in OBP a walk is counted as a single, then you say it is actually worth 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember what the % is) of a single. Then you use it with SLG to determine who the better/more valuable/more productive player is, BUT you are ignoring the fact that the more walks the player has in this equation, the farther from a true value you have gone. To make a better comparison, a batters walk totals should be reduced by 1/3 or 1/4 then added to BA, then to SLG if you want a much more accurate value determination. You really disagree?
I'll ask you the same as Justacommeman;
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
you are on the right path. This is where secondary average will set you free
mark
Hi Mark,
I looked at secondary average and it is interesting. It looks like you still need to consider regular BA, but if you use both you seem to get a better picture of a hitters value. The problem is it isn't listed (or I don't know where to find it) so you have to figure it out by yourself.
What is even more revealing is that NO ONE answered the two simple questions I asked!!!!!
Here is the the secondary average top 100. I did respond to your question.
From Baseball Alamanac.
Bonds .606 (.60648) 1
Babe Ruth .594 (.59388) 2
Ted Williams .553 (.55256) 3
Mark McGwire .539 (.53887) 4
Mickey Mantle .487 (.48679) 5
Jim Thome .485 (.48504) 6
Lou Gehrig .481 (.48094) 7
Ralph Kiner .467 (.46724) 8
Jimmie Foxx .464 (.46435) 9
Hank Greenberg .462 (.46178) 10
Frank Thomas .458 (.45835) 11
Mike Schmidt .450 (.45007) 12
Adam Dunn .450 (.44966) 13
Charlie Keller .444 (.44406) 14
Harmon Killebrew .444 (.44397) 15
Jeff Bagwell .439 (.43914) 16
Rickey Henderson .437 (.43737) 17
Manny Ramirez .435 (.43498) 18
Lance Berkman .434 (.43429) 19
Jason Giambi .429 (.42893) 20
Billy Hamilton .423 (.42262) 21
Joey Votto .422 (.42231) 22
Darryl Strawberry .420 (.41990) 23
Carlos Delgado .419 (.41920) 24
Mel Ott .419 (.41899) 25
David Ortiz .416 (.41639) 26
Jose Bautista .416 (.41607) 27
Joe Morgan .414 (.41360) 28
Albert Pujols .412 (.41217) 29
Willie Mays .412 (.41191) 30
Eddie Mathews .411 (.41080) 31
Gene Tenace .410 (.41002) 32
Alex Rodriguez .410 (.40982) 33
Willie McCovey .410 (.40954) 34
Mickey Tettleton .409 (.40868) 35
Larry Walker .407 (.40698) 36
Eric Davis .406 (.40594) 37
Chipper Jones .406 (.40572) 38
Dolph Camilli .403 (.40295) 39
Brian Giles .403 (.40279) 40
John McGraw .401 (.40061) 41
Ken Griffey, Jr. .400 (.39967) 42
Gary Sheffield .398 (.39839) 43
Troy Glaus .398 (.39815) 44
Frank Robinson .397 (.39746) 45
Carlos Pena .397 (.39705) 46
Dick Allen .396 (.39577) 47
Jack Clark .396 (.39550) 48
Russell Branyan .394 (.39400) 49
Jay Buhner .394 (.39398) 50
Albert Belle .394 (.39364) 51
Jose Canseco .393 (.39280) 52
Todd Helton .391 (.39136) 53
Jim Edmonds .391 (.39093) 54
Bobby Abreu .390 (.38962) 55
Pat Burrell .389 (.38942) 56
Hack Wilson .389 (.38929) 57
Jimmy Wynn .388 (.38840) 58
J.D. Drew .388 (.38798) 59
Johnny Mize .387 (.38693) 60
Duke Snider .387 (.38668) 61
Ryan Howard .385 (.38504) 62
Edgar Martinez .384 (.38444) 63
David Justice .383 (.38276) 64
Mark Teixeira .381 (.38143) 65
Bob Allison .381 (.38136) 66
Tim Salmon .381 (.38086) 67
Greg Vaughn .380 (.38047) 68
Sammy Sosa .380 (.38035) 69
Reggie Jackson .379 (.37895) 70
Prince Fielder .379 (.37853) 71
Stan Musial .378 (.37824) 72
Danny Tartabull .378 (.37797) 73
Mike Napoli .378 (.37772) 74
Fred McGriff .378 (.37764) 75
Roy Cullenbine .377 (.37690) 76
Hank Aaron .376 (.37642) 77
Ryan Klesko .376 (.37605) 78
Norm Cash .374 (.37435) 79
Bobby Bonds .374 (.37427) 80
Rob Deer .374 (.37387) 81
Travis Hafner .374 (.37365) 82
Ray Lankford .374 (.37359) 83
Joe DiMaggio .373 (.37311) 84
Jason Bay .373 (.37292) 85
Miguel Cabrera .372 (.37228) 86
Gorman Thomas .372 (.37203) 87
Larry Doby .372 (.37173) 88
Bob Johnson .370 (.36951) 89
Al Rosen .369 (.36886) 90
Howard Johnson .369 (.36862) 91
Tommy Henrich .368 (.36802) 92
Earl Torgeson .368 (.36788) 93
Rocky Colavito .368 (.36752) 94
Darren Daulton .366 (.36556) 95
Andre Thornton .366 (.36553) 96
Richie Sexson .365 (.36546) 97
Willie Stargell .365 (.36533) 98
Darrell Evans .365 (.36532) 99
Andrew McCutchen .365 (.36462) 100
Secondary average operates under the principle that batting average is an incomplete indicator of a hitter's ability since batting average does not account for power, plate discipline, and speed. According to Scott Gray (working with Bill James), "Secondary average is a much better indicator of offensive ability than batting average".
Since secondary average evaluates a player's offensive contribution independent of batting average, it can identify players who have low batting averages yet are still productive offensively. For example, in 1990, Bill James identified Eric Davis as the most productive batter with a career average below .275; in spite of his low batting average, Davis had a career secondary average of .504, which was the highest of any active player at the time. Batting average was not a great indicator of his true offensive value; secondary average was able to demonstrate his value more effectively.
BB+ (TB-H) + (SB-CS)/AB = Secondary Average
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
It's a mathematical calculation. Works the same for everyone. It doesn't discriminate. I like looking at the divergences in batting ave. vs secondary averages.
Batting averages will always be more appealing to the masses. It's simple and we all grew up with baseball cards and reading the minimal stats on the back.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: PSASAP If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
1. Being in "the lower third" of a top 100 list still means you're in the top 1% all-time. 2. The list is not ballpark or era adjusted 3. The list is a career list, and both Musial and Aaron stuck around for many years as their career averages dipped from their peak averages. 4. No single stat measures everything. As with OBP and SLG, secondary average should not be used all by itself, but rather in conjunction with batting average. Aaron and Musial are both in the top third of the top 100 on the all-time OPS+ list; if you combined batting average and secondary average and adjusted it for ballpark/era, they'd be in the top 33 of that list, too.
Also, if batting average is a better indicator of offensive ability, they why is Aaron not even in the top 100 on that list? If you look at only one stat - unless it's already a combination stat like OPS+ - you are missing so much that it shouldn't surprise you when some of the names on the list look out of place. But if you must look at only one stat, and your only two choices are batting average and secondary average, you should look at secondary average - it is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average for most players.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Originally posted by: PSASAP If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
Good question. I guess it might also mean that Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner were not too great as well. lol
Maybe I should invest in some Danny Tartabull cards
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Thanks for posting that, now at least I know secondary average is total crap and not worthy of looking into.
Is that Rob Deer of the .220 avg, .324 OBP, ahead of Joe DiMaggio?
Nice quote from Scott Gray, whoever he is. Thanks justcommen. According to Scott Gray (working with Bill James), "Secondary average is a much better indicator of offensive ability than batting average".
Originally posted by: PSASAP If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
Good question. I guess it might also mean that Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner were not too great as well. lol
Maybe I should invest in some Danny Tartabull cards
Cobb and Wagner didn't strike out enough to make the list. Rob Deer and Richie Sexson, not to mention Gorman Thomas could have taught them a thing or two about hitting. LOL!
Originally posted by: PSASAP If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
Good question. I guess it might also mean that Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner were not too great as well. lol
Maybe I should invest in some Danny Tartabull cards
Cobb and Wagner didn't strike out enough to make the list. Rob Deer and Richie Sexson, not to mention Gorman Thomas could have taught them a thing or two about hitting. LOL!
Lol
Or guys named Yastrzemski, Kaline, Bench, Rose, Clemente, Banks, and Brett.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
(Total bases- hits) + walks+ ( stolen bases- caught stealing) / AB = secondary average
Not complicated really. Again, you can't look at secondary average by itself nor should you look at batting average by itself. Unless of course you don't want the complete picture. In that case just LOL yourselves to death. Need to look at them together. Someone of the LOL Gang want to do Clemente's secondary average? It's just math. What do you get and why do you think it is what it is? Let's talk about that number. Unless of course you don't think power, plate discipline and speed are not worth looking at.
I'll wait for the Clemente number. If anyone needs help with the calculation I'm standing by
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiHow accurate is it to use OBP in the equation to evaluate a hitter when a walk is not as good as a hit, but OBP and then OPS places their value the same?
Since you can't do the math yourself, I'll do it for you. A walk is a +1 in OBP but counts for nothing in SLG; a single counts as +1 in both OBP and SLG. So, a walk counts for half as much as a single in OPS. Since a walk is actually worth more than half of a single, OPS actually undervalues a walk a little, so your point about OPS overvaluing a walk was completely wrong. So, now that you understand how walks are valued in OBP and SLG, and therefore OPS, can I assume that you'll admit you've been wrong about every point you've made that followed from this original error? No, I didn't think so.
But thank you for this additional proof that looking at OBP and SLG (and a park/era adjustment, and men-on hitting) is the best way to evaluate a hitter, even if you still don't understand that this is what you've proved.
That's simply the funniest thing I ever read. NOT hitting the ball is going to always count for nothing in slugging, because SLG measures HITTING the ball.
You are way over-complicating it. Two batters with the exact same OBP and SLG should not be equal if one has more walks than the other, because walks are not as good as hits.
A walk should be valued at less (1/2 seems like too much, but ok fine) than a single in an advanced OBP. You can't really change OBP, it is what it is.
Nice try though. It's been a long day, I needed a laugh! Thank you.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: Justacommeman It's just math
Hits/Ab = batting average
(Total bases- hits) + walks+ ( stolen bases- caught stealing) / AB = secondary average
Not complicated really. Again, you can't look at secondary average by itself nor should you look at batting average by itself. Unless of course you don't want the complete picture. In that case just LOL yourselves to death. Need to look at them together. Someone of the LOL Gang want to do Clemente's secondary average? It's just math. What do you get and why do you think it is what it is? Let's talk about that number. Unless of course you don't think power, plate discipline and speed are not worth looking at.
I'll wait for the Clemente number. If anyone needs help with the calculation I'm standing by
mark
Walks are valued equal to singles in this equation. Other than that, it looks pretty good. Obviously favors sluggers that walk a lot. There's Harmon at #15.
Other than R. Henderson and Joe Morgan not too many fast guys at/near top of list. Of course they were probably (?) the two best at stealing bases and hitting for power.
Too bad they didn't run too much during Clemente's era.
If Mantle would have been given the "green light" when he was young he would have been #1 I would guess.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: Justacommeman It's just math
Hits/Ab = batting average
(Total bases- hits) + walks+ ( stolen bases- caught stealing) / AB = secondary average
Not complicated really. Again, you can't look at secondary average by itself nor should you look at batting average by itself. Unless of course you don't want the complete picture. In that case just LOL yourselves to death. Need to look at them together. Someone of the LOL Gang want to do Clemente's secondary average? It's just math. What do you get and why do you think it is what it is? Let's talk about that number. Unless of course you don't think power, plate discipline and speed are not worth looking at.
I'll wait for the Clemente number. If anyone needs help with the calculation I'm standing by
mark
So secondary average is a good measuring stick for power, plate discipline, and speed, according to you. Lets take a look. Rob Deer- 43 stolen bases, 31 caught stealing Gorman Thomas- 50 sb, 49 caught stealing Richie Sexson- 14 sb, 13 caught
Amazing speed on display there, right justcommemerative? Secondary average mainly highlights hitters that hit a high percentage of home runs, strikeout a ton, and hardly hit any singles. Dave Kingman should be on the list.
I think the Clemente avg. is .227 according to the formula you posted. So secondary avg. turns Rob Deer into a great player like Roberto Clemente, and Clemente into Rob Deer, right? So its bizzaro world, to simplify.
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiNice try though. It's been a long day, I needed a laugh! Thank you.
You're welcome. Maybe you can return the favor by actually pointing what part of what I said you found so funny. Was it the part where I pointed out how stupid you are? That part made me laugh, too. Right?
Now you've said that players with the exact same OBP and slugging aren't equal - the one with the most walks is worse. I could be cruel and ask you to construct an example of two players with identical OBP and slugging, but I don't want to wait the three years it would take you to do it. But I would like to point out that when you say "walks are not as good as hits" that you're being stupid again. Because the only way for two players to have the same OBP and slugging is for the player with the most walks to also have more extra base hits. I think you are picturing replacing walks with singles, but the math doesn't work that way. You have to replace a combination of walks and extra base hits with singles. So while it is true that walks aren't as good as singles, it is also true that singles aren't as good as doubles, triples and homers and you simply ignored that part of it. If you do the math right (LOL, I'm joking - I mean if you find someone else to do the math right for you), you'll find that the part you understand and the part you don't understand balance out very closely. Players with the same OPS - all else equal - will be about the same in terms of offensive production.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Clemente .227? When you subtract his hits from his total bases you get a pretty low (99) number, with few walks and steals to add, the number doesn't climb too much higher at 146. Killebrew is at 145 before adding BB, which gets Harmon to 249. Singles hitters with a lot of at bats are going to be destroyed here! Even with +26 in SB Ichiro is at a pathetic .196. Ichiro got 643 AB per 162 games, Clemente 629 while Killebrew was at 542. Mantle 547, Williams 545.
Shouldn't they be using PA instead of AB? Wasn't this brought up before? Doesn't this "reward" a guy twice for a walk by reducing the denominator while increasing the numerator by the (almost) same amount? Of course we are valuing a walk as a total base in this equation as well, and that doesn't look right to me either (big surprise there). Eliminate the singles and then add in walks at the same value? Looks like a load of you know what to me. If you set up your formula in a way you want to prove your point it should work all the time. We should add sacrifice flies too, let's not forget about that!
I guess I shouldn't complain, this formula makes my favorite player look REALLY good! TGTBT!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiNice try though. It's been a long day, I needed a laugh! Thank you.
You're welcome. Maybe you can return the favor by actually pointing what part of what I said you found so funny. Was it the part where I pointed out how stupid you are? That part made me laugh, too. Right?
Now you've said that players with the exact same OBP and slugging aren't equal - the one with the most walks is worse. I could be cruel and ask you to construct an example of two players with identical OBP and slugging, but I don't want to wait the three years it would take you to do it. But I would like to point out that when you say "walks are not as good as hits" that you're being stupid again. Because the only way for two players to have the same OBP and slugging is for the player with the most walks to also have more extra base hits. I think you are picturing replacing walks with singles, but the math doesn't work that way. You have to replace a combination of walks and extra base hits with singles. So while it is true that walks aren't as good as singles, it is also true that singles aren't as good as doubles, triples and homers and you simply ignored that part of it. If you do the math right (LOL, I'm joking - I mean if you find someone else to do the math right for you), you'll find that the part you understand and the part you don't understand balance out very closely. Players with the same OPS - all else equal - will be about the same in terms of offensive production.
Thanks for finally agreeing that walks are not as good as singles.
I will not stoop to your name calling though, that's not really much of an indication of intelligence.
Have a nice night.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Dave Kingman- career .236 hitter, career OBP of .302, 85 sb, 49 caught stealing.
.338 secondary average, which I'm assuming is really high, since it isn't far below the top 100.
How can secondary average purport to measure a combination of power, plate discipline, and speed accurately when Kingman ranks so high?
He had power, he did not have plate discipline(.302 OBP), and he did not have speed.
secondary average only got 1 out of 3 correct.
Kingman is well outside the top 100. Number 161 to be exact.
Look at his homers which you under value based on your posts in my opinion. You also seem to think fly outs, ground outs and pop outs are somehow more redeemable then strikeouts for whatever reason. Go back and read skins posts. He said it best.
Again, it's just another tool in the evelution belt. Saber-metrics are used by all teams these days.
Why so hard headed? It's just a different point of view.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: JoeBanzaiThanks for finally agreeing that walks are not as good as singles.
I will not stoop to your name calling though, that's not really much of an indication of intelligence.
Have a nice night.
For the love of God, I said a walk wasn't worth as much as a single from the beginning, and repeated it several times. So which is it, you don't understand what I say, in which case my "name calling" is just an accurate description, or you aren't reading what I write but pretending that you are, in which case I'll call you different names. Since you identified the name calling I'm pretty sure option #2 is off the table, though. Which leaves option #1.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Clemente .227? When you subtract his hits from his total bases you get a pretty low (99) number, with few walks and steals to add, the number doesn't climb too much higher at 146. Killebrew is at 145 before adding BB, which gets Harmon to 249. Singles hitters with a lot of at bats are going to be destroyed here! Even with +26 in SB Ichiro is at a pathetic .196. Ichiro got 643 AB per 162 games, Clemente 629 while Killebrew was at 542. Mantle 547, Williams 545.
Shouldn't they be using PA instead of AB? Wasn't this brought up before? Doesn't this "reward" a guy twice for a walk by reducing the denominator while increasing the numerator by the (almost) same amount? Of course we are valuing a walk as a total base in this equation as well, and that doesn't look right to me either (big surprise there). Eliminate the singles and then add in walks at the same value? Looks like a load of you know what to me. If you set up your formula in a way you want to prove your point it should work all the time. We should add sacrifice flies too, let's not forget about that!
I guess I shouldn't complain, this formula makes my favorite player look REALLY good! TGTBT!
Your math is strong ; )
Remember the old adeage, " a walk as good as hit" we all learned as a kid? Well it almost is and secondary average accounts for it.
Have a good night
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Originally posted by: JoeBanzai Clemente .227? When you subtract his hits from his total bases you get a pretty low (99) number, with few walks and steals to add, the number doesn't climb too much higher at 146. Killebrew is at 145 before adding BB, which gets Harmon to 249. Singles hitters with a lot of at bats are going to be destroyed here! Even with +26 in SB Ichiro is at a pathetic .196. Ichiro got 643 AB per 162 games, Clemente 629 while Killebrew was at 542. Mantle 547, Williams 545.
Shouldn't they be using PA instead of AB? Wasn't this brought up before? Doesn't this "reward" a guy twice for a walk by reducing the denominator while increasing the numerator by the (almost) same amount? Of course we are valuing a walk as a total base in this equation as well, and that doesn't look right to me either (big surprise there). Eliminate the singles and then add in walks at the same value? Looks like a load of you know what to me. If you set up your formula in a way you want to prove your point it should work all the time. We should add sacrifice flies too, let's not forget about that!
I guess I shouldn't complain, this formula makes my favorite player look REALLY good! TGTBT!
Clemente had 4492 total bases minus 3000 hits= 1492 Then add 621 walks and 37 stolen bases, (successful attempts minus caught stealing). Add those three numbers and you get 2150. divide by his at bats, 9454 and you get .227
The trouble with secondary avg. is it penalizes players with a lot of hits way too much. For instance, Clemente had 3000 hits, and you have to subtract all those hits and replace them with 621 walks. Just out of curiousity I'm going to figure Pete Rose's. Must be pretty low for the all time hit king!
.221 for Pete Rose. And he actually had a decent amount of walks. It just crushes players with a lot of hits, great tribute to Musial and Aaron that they are in the top 100.
(Total bases- hits) + walks+ ( stolen bases- caught stealing) / AB = secondary average
Not complicated really. Again, you can't look at secondary average by itself nor should you look at batting average by itself. Unless of course you don't want the complete picture. In that case just LOL yourselves to death. Need to look at them together. Someone of the LOL Gang want to do Clemente's secondary average? It's just math. What do you get and why do you think it is what it is? Let's talk about that number. Unless of course you don't think power, plate discipline and speed are not worth looking at.
I'll wait for the Clemente number. If anyone needs help with the calculation I'm standing by
mark
So secondary average is a good measuring stick for power, plate discipline, and speed, according to you.
Lets take a look.
Rob Deer- 43 stolen bases, 31 caught stealing
Gorman Thomas- 50 sb, 49 caught stealing
Richie Sexson- 14 sb, 13 caught
Amazing speed on display there, right justcommemerative?
Secondary average mainly highlights hitters that hit a high percentage of home runs,
strikeout a ton, and hardly hit any singles. Dave Kingman should be on the list.
I think the Clemente avg. is .227 according to the formula you posted.
So secondary avg. turns Rob Deer into a great player like Roberto Clemente,
and Clemente into Rob Deer, right?
So its bizzaro world, to simplify.
Edited to say: LOL
Nope. No one is saying that. Only you. As stated SEVERAL times you can't only look at batting average or secondary average by itself as you leave yourself open for a distorted picture. You keep looking for secondary average distortions. What about all the batting average distortions? All the empty batting averages. I care to look at both. You get a clearer picture..
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Fair enough Mark. Like you say its just math. But my only complaint with secondary avg. is if it is supposed to measure a players' combination of power, plate discipline, and speed I just don't think it does a very good job of it, maybe with the exception of certain players like Joe Morgan and Rickey.
Originally posted by: Darin.221 for Pete Rose. And he actually had a decent amount of walks. It just crushes players with a lot of hits, great tribute to Musial and Aaron that they are in the top 100.
No, it "crushes" players who hit mostly singles; it shows a clearer picture of the value of players whose hits are for extra bases. Which, if you'll only take five seconds to think about it, makes sense. For players who hit mostly singles, batting average is capturing most of their value. For players who hit mostly extra base hits, batting average is treating all of their hits the same as singles and missing most of their value.
And a top 100 list may be interesting but its absolutely useless without an era adjustment. Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner are among the greatest hitters ever, and their secondary averages were among the highest of their time. But it simply wasn't possible to hit as many home runs then as it is now, and the home runs (and double and triples) that they did hit were significantly more valuable than the same hits today. Babe Ruth tops the list because Babe Ruth tops every list, but there's only one player on the list for the 50 years of baseball that happened before him - Billy Hamilton - and he probably shouldn't be on there. "Caught stealing" wasn't an official stat when Hamilton played so he's credited with 900+ SB and zero CS.
So finding and laughing at oddities on the Top 100 secondary average list is pointless since it's apples and oranges to compare secondary averages across eras, and often even across teams. Used correctly, secondary average is a very useful stat, and a stat that usually better measures a player's value than batting average. Dave Kingman had a batting average of .236 and Don Kessinger had a batting average of .252 - how do they compare as hitters? Kingman's secondary average was .338 and Kessinger's was .151. In this case, as in most cases, it is the secondary average that gives you the better picture; Kingman was a much better hitter than Kessinger.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Dallas, instead of saying batting avg. isn't important and then picking out a season from Juan Pierre,
how about you tell us batting avg. isn't important and then use Ted Williams 1941 season as an example?
I think the key here is that batting average in and of itself can be (and often is) very misleading, not that it is meaningless. You just have to consider and incorporate the more meaningful stats in addition to batting average. Ted Williams vs Juan Pierre is actually a great example that supports such evaluation.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dallas, instead of saying batting avg. isn't important and then picking out a season from Juan Pierre,
how about you tell us batting avg. isn't important and then use Ted Williams 1941 season as an example?
Ted Williams - 1941.
Came to bat 606 times. Got on base 335 times, led the league with a .553 OBP, 101 points over second place; at the time the highest OBP ever achieved and still the highest achieved without cheating.
Also led the league in slugging with a .735, 92 points higher than second place and with 150 extra bases in 456 ABs. His combined OPS of 1.287 was 204 points higher than second place and ranks behind only Ruth on the all-time non-cheater list.
His AIR that year was 108, meaning that it was about 8% easier to produce offense for him than an historically average player in a neutral park in a neutral era. DiMaggio - the player he beat by 204 points in OPS - had an AIR of 106, so only about 2% of the difference between them is due to park differences.
As clutch hitters, though, DiMaggio was better. Williams WPA was 6.1 to Joe's 7.3. And Joe was also an excellent center fielder while Ted was an adequate left fielder. As total players, Win Shares shows Williams barely edging out DiMaggio in 1941, 42 to 41. That's not a meaningful difference, and it should therefore come as no surprise that these two were neck and neck for the MVP that year. Two players with 40+ win shares competed for the MVP only two more times: in 1961 Mantle and Cash both lost to a far inferior Maris, and in 1962 Willie Mays and Frank Robinson both lost to a vastly inferior Maury Wills. I found this last bit interesting, though not relevant to Williams.
Now, if you need to know what Williams' batting average was before you can pass judgment on whether he had a good year or not, or how good it was, that's on you. I don't. What, exactly, does it add? I think in this case it neither adds nor subtracts anything. It's obvious that he had a great year whether you see his batting average or not. But in the case of Pierre, seeing his batting average makes a huge difference. It makes what was a poor season look like a good season, so seeing his batting average will make your determination of how good he was that year worse than it would have been if you hadn't seen it. And that's why I say that batting average is meaningless. It generally won't change your opinion of a season one way or the other, but when it does change it (for Pierre in one direction, Gene Tenace in the other direction) it will change it to be less accurate than it otherwise would have been. If you stop looking at batting average, you will have an equal or better understanding of how good any player was; it can't help you, it can only hurt you.
Mantle struck out 23.5% of his ABs in the WS; that prevented him from ever being a hero. Reggie Jackson struck out 24.9% of his WS ABs, which prevented him from ever being a WS hero, too. Poor Reggie, if he had only listened to garnettstyle and hit more popups instead of striking out he might be known as "Mr. October" today.
Dallas, instead of saying batting avg. isn't important and then picking out a season from Juan Pierre,
how about you tell us batting avg. isn't important and then use Ted Williams 1941 season as an example?
Batting average is of course important, but it only measures one aspect of a hitters ability. It's possible for a batter with a high batting average not be as valuable as one with a better OB%. Hitters with BOTH a high batting average and a good SLG% are much harder to find.
Sort by SLG% and you get a great list of hitters that were good at everything. The top 5 (I don't count Bonds) are amazing. How many would have known Greenberg was there? Hank had the lowest BA of the five at .313, pretty good hitter for average!
Sort by BA and there are a FEW who might be labeled over-rated. Keeler at #10 had a SLG of only .415 and OPS of .802 but he did steal 495 bases. Sisler, Lajoie, Gwynn, Anson and Carew all had pretty low SLG and OPS numbers as well. Most of these guys stole a lot of bases, 300 or more, so while they are open to being called "over-rated" as hitters, they were bringing other qualities to the equation.
Sort by SLG% and you get a great list of hitters that were good at everything. The top 5 (I don't count Bonds) are amazing. How many would have known Greenberg was there? Hank had the lowest BA of the five at .313, pretty good hitter for average!
Sort by BA and there are a FEW who might be labeled over-rated. Keeler at #10 had a SLG of only .415 and OPS of .802 but he did steal 495 bases. Sisler, Lajoie, Gwynn, Anson and Carew all had pretty low SLG and OPS numbers as well. Most of these guys stole a lot of bases, 300 or more, so while they are open to being called "over-rated" as hitters, they were bringing other qualities to the equation.
You, and most everyone else, are missing my point. If you look at the top 10 in most any category and you're going to find a lot of great players - the greatest players are great at most things. But my point is that of all the things that you could look at, batting average is among the least important. If you look at OBP and slugging, then there is absolutely no reason to also look at batting average - OBP and slugging already include everything that batting average measures. That's not true of the other combinations; if you look at BA and OBP you've missed extra base hits, and if you look at BA and slugging, you've missed walks. In a vacuum, BA is a worthwhile statistic; it's certainly better than looking at triples, or walks, or a hundred other single stats. But that just begs the question - why do you want to operate in a vacuum? If you have OBP and slugging, then batting average is completely worthless - it adds absolutely nothing to what you already know.
Personally I NEVER looked at batting average and nothing else to decide if I thought a player was a good hitter. The guy I followed had a pretty low batting average, but I thought he was better than people gave him credit for as a hitter.
EXACTLY!
Banzi, you ARE missing his point(again).
Batting average IS a worthless stat when you already have measurements that are
1)More valid, and 2)already include the small slice of info that batting average brings to the table.
If you recognize that Killebrew is better than most give him credit for, then you should already understand that batting average isn't needed, and you should already understand the value of walks...yet you continue to rail against those two things in one breath, and then in the next breath say how great Killebrew was(despite his low average, and his high walks(&OBP) elevating his value).
Again, there is no argument on what the value of walks, or singles, or home runs, outs made, etc.. are...the play by play has already nailed what those values are. Opinion plays zero role in those values.
It measures who is the best hitter in the game at reaching base safely when making contact with the baseball.
How can that not be important?
Stupid list…. Mistlin
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Batting average is extremely important.
It measures who is the best hitter in the game at reaching base safely when making contact with the baseball.
How can that not be important?
EXACTLY!
Batting average IS a worthless stat when you already have measurements that are
1)More valid, and 2)already include the small slice of info that batting average brings to the table.
I'll repeat, It measures who is the best hitter in the game at reaching base safely when making contact with the baseball.
Stop arguing with it, its just a simple fact.
General managers and scouts need this information to determine who they want on their team.
Not important? Haha.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Batting average does not come close to incorporating all of that info. OB% on its own doesn't either, but does more so than batting average. Slg% doesn't on its own either, but does more so than batting average. Ob%+SLG% pretty much hits the nail on the head, and lines up pretty nicely with the king of measurements(the play by play data). Therefore, it renders batting average meaningless because it is already accounted for TWICE(both in OB% and in SLG%). There is no need to look at it, or include it again.
As you say, BA is included in OBP. So you NEED BA to get where your going. Doesn't OBP value a walk the same as a single? Didn't you say a walk is NOT as valuable that a single? So in this basic example, a guy that walks IS gaining more value for his walks than another with a higher BA, but the SAME OBP, is getting for his singles. Please note SAME OBP.
Not going on opinion at all (wish you would stop claiming that as well, it's not the case). As you already correctly stated; "The place where walks truly do become less of a value is to the number eight hitter batting in front of the pitcher, or the 7th hitter in front of the weak hitting catcher and pitcher."
In my example, Lenny Green scored 15% more often when he walked than Killebrew, that's significant, and we're talking the early part of the batting order, if as you claim, (and I agree) it gets even more significant later in the order, this should be factored into the value and not ignored.
I would really like to see the stat; Runs Scored-HR compared to Hits+BB-HR, this would tell you if a player was giving you more value by walking than another by revealing how often he was driven in by other players. Until Bill James agrees with me, I am out of luck.
"If you recognize that Killebrew is better than most give him credit for, then you should already understand that batting average isn't needed, and you should already understand the value of walks...yet you continue to rail against those two things in one breath, and then in the next breath say how great Killebrew was(despite his low average, and his high walks(&OBP) elevating his value)."
If you are thinking this is what I am saying you are either absolutely, positively incorrect, or at the very least not really understanding what I am saying.
Years ago all people looked at was BA, I never agreed with that, and still don't, but it's still a great indicator of one important aspect of the game. I always knew a guy like Killebrew had more value than he was given, but now he's getting a LITTLE too much credit for his walks because, as I proved in an earlier post, he didn't come around to score as often as a batter hitting (walking) earlier in the order. With no good hitters behind him driving him in, a walk is not as valuable as one to Lenny Green or Rod Carew. Not opinion, fact. Just because there isn't a category that shows it, doesn't mean it isn't a valid point.
I don't get it........................yeah, right!
Because so many batting averages are empty. Sort of like quarterback completion percentages. They only tell part of the story and often the wrong story
mark
I don't think anyone is saying to look at BA and nothing else.
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
I'll try one last time.
Your statement above implies, correctly, that looking at any one stat - unless it's one of the modern complex ones like batter runs, etc. - will never paint the entire picture. So far, so good - you have agreed that there is always a need to consider at least two stats. Now, if you consider OBP and slugging you have considered pretty much everything that can be considered from basic stats (i.e., without looking at actual play-by-play data. So, once you've looked at OBP and slugging, there is no need to look at batting average - it adds nothing.
But, if you start by looking at batting average then there is no single stat that you can add to that that will paint a complete picture; if you add OBP, you're still missing extra bases, if you add slugging you're still missing walks, etc. So if you start with batting average you're still at least two stats short of a complete picture - which is exactly where you were before you looked at batting average. In other words, looking at batting average was worthless.
And that's what I mean by "worthless". Of course, batting average measures something of value, as does OBP, as does slugging, and as do walks, HBP, SF, and the hundreds of other stats that are out there. But there are better stats on the same page as BA on baseball-reference, and they're better stats that measure everything batting average measures and more. There is no reason to look at batting average when these other stats are already there. It adds no value. It is worthless.
What about the fact that in OBP a walk is counted as a single, then you say it is actually worth 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember what the % is) of a single. Then you use it with SLG to determine who the better/more valuable/more productive player is, BUT you are ignoring the fact that the more walks the player has in this equation, the farther from a true value you have gone. To make a better comparison, a batters walk totals should be reduced by 1/3 or 1/4 then added to BA, then to SLG if you want a much more accurate value determination. You really disagree?
I'll ask you the same as Justacommeman;
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Batting average is the most recognizable statistic in the game.
But certainly not the most accurate.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
What about the fact that in OBP a walk is counted as a single, then you say it is actually worth 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember what the % is) of a single. Then you use it with SLG to determine who the better/more valuable/more productive player is, BUT you are ignoring the fact that the more walks the player has in this equation, the farther from a true value you have gone. To make a better comparison, a batters walk totals should be reduced by 1/3 or 1/4 then added to BA, then to SLG if you want a much more accurate value determination. You really disagree?
I'll ask you the same as Justacommeman;
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
you are on the right path. This is where secondary average will set you free
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Batting average is the most recognizable statistic in the game.
Sabermetrics, the study of baseball statistics, considers batting average a weak measure of performance because it does not correlate as well as other measures to runs scored, thereby causing it to have little predictive value. Batting average does not take into account walks or power, whereas other statistics such as on-base percentage and slugging percentage have been specifically designed to measure such concepts. Adding these statistics together form a player's On-base plus slugging or "OPS". This is commonly seen as a much better, though not perfect, indicator of a player's overall batting ability as it is a measure of hitting for average, hitting for power and drawing bases on balls.
Tons of germs of truth here. Don't be a lemming
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
Yeah, I give up. I addressed everything that you just said in the post I just made so now I know for certain that you aren't even reading what I write. That you go on to ask me more questions when you will surely ignore my answer is just annoying. Time to move on.
Batting average is the most recognizable statistic in the game.
Sabermetrics, the study of baseball statistics, considers batting average a weak measure of performance because it does not correlate as well as other measures to runs scored, thereby causing it to have little predictive value. Batting average does not take into account walks or power, whereas other statistics such as on-base percentage and slugging percentage have been specifically designed to measure such concepts. Adding these statistics together form a player's On-base plus slugging or "OPS". This is commonly seen as a much better, though not perfect, indicator of a player's overall batting ability as it is a measure of hitting for average, hitting for power and drawing bases on balls.
Tons of germs of truth here. Don't be a lemming
mark
My statement is still true.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Batting average is the most recognizable statistic in the game.
But certainly not the most accurate.
I see it as accurate and important in showing a BASIC factor in a hitters abilities. By no means does it show the important factor of SLG and only a partial picture of OBP.
It is a good indicator of a batters skill at making contact and getting on base that way. A lot of people think that's an important part of hitting. If the pitcher throws you strikes, you will not walk, that leaves being able to hit safely the only way to get on base.
I am only taking this position because of being informed that a walk had less value than a single by the "stat guys" and that makes sense. A follow up question would be is an IBB even less value than a regular BB? Common sense says so. At least to me.
Here's what an article originally published in Baseball Magazine said about the walk; "Grouping these
values in order, allowing to the home run
as the most important of all, the standard
value of 100%, we find the following
general comparison:
Home run …………100.0%
Triple……………… 74.1%
Double…………….. 50.6%
Single……………… 29.4%
Base on balls………. 16.4%"
By this account the walk is worth about 1/2 a single!!!!
How accurate is it to use OBP in the equation to evaluate a hitter when a walk is not as good as a hit, but OBP and then OPS places their value the same?
OPS is not accurate either, it gives too much value to a walk.
If you want better ways of measuring a hitter than BA alone absolutely! OPS seems flawed to me. Better than BA alone, but not good enough!
The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
Yeah, I give up. I addressed everything that you just said in the post I just made so now I know for certain that you aren't even reading what I write. That you go on to ask me more questions when you will surely ignore my answer is just annoying. Time to move on.
That's SO funny, I was going to say the exact same thing!
Good night.
The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
What about the fact that in OBP a walk is counted as a single, then you say it is actually worth 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember what the % is) of a single. Then you use it with SLG to determine who the better/more valuable/more productive player is, BUT you are ignoring the fact that the more walks the player has in this equation, the farther from a true value you have gone. To make a better comparison, a batters walk totals should be reduced by 1/3 or 1/4 then added to BA, then to SLG if you want a much more accurate value determination. You really disagree?
I'll ask you the same as Justacommeman;
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
you are on the right path. This is where secondary average will set you free
mark
Hi Mark,
I looked at secondary average and it is interesting. It looks like you still need to consider regular BA, but if you use both you seem to get a better picture of a hitters value. The problem is it isn't listed (or I don't know where to find it) so you have to figure it out by yourself.
What is even more revealing is that NO ONE answered the two simple questions I asked!!!!!
Since you can't do the math yourself, I'll do it for you. A walk is a +1 in OBP but counts for nothing in SLG; a single counts as +1 in both OBP and SLG. So, a walk counts for half as much as a single in OPS. Since a walk is actually worth more than half of a single, OPS actually undervalues a walk a little, so your point about OPS overvaluing a walk was completely wrong. So, now that you understand how walks are valued in OBP and SLG, and therefore OPS, can I assume that you'll admit you've been wrong about every point you've made that followed from this original error? No, I didn't think so.
But thank you for this additional proof that looking at OBP and SLG (and a park/era adjustment, and men-on hitting) is the best way to evaluate a hitter, even if you still don't understand that this is what you've proved.
The BA is part of OBP, the biggest part usually, so when you say it's worthless, that's just a silly thing to say, unless you are really just "stirring the pot".
What about the fact that in OBP a walk is counted as a single, then you say it is actually worth 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember what the % is) of a single. Then you use it with SLG to determine who the better/more valuable/more productive player is, BUT you are ignoring the fact that the more walks the player has in this equation, the farther from a true value you have gone. To make a better comparison, a batters walk totals should be reduced by 1/3 or 1/4 then added to BA, then to SLG if you want a much more accurate value determination. You really disagree?
I'll ask you the same as Justacommeman;
Given two players with similar OBP, who would you choose, the one with higher BA or the one with more walks? This would be two guys with similar SLG% as well, not Clemente/Mantle.
Second question; Would it matter if they were a leadoff guy and a #3 hitter?
you are on the right path. This is where secondary average will set you free
mark
Hi Mark,
I looked at secondary average and it is interesting. It looks like you still need to consider regular BA, but if you use both you seem to get a better picture of a hitters value. The problem is it isn't listed (or I don't know where to find it) so you have to figure it out by yourself.
What is even more revealing is that NO ONE answered the two simple questions I asked!!!!!
Here is the the secondary average top 100. I did respond to your question.
From Baseball Alamanac.
Bonds .606 (.60648) 1
Babe Ruth .594 (.59388) 2
Ted Williams .553 (.55256) 3
Mark McGwire .539 (.53887) 4
Mickey Mantle .487 (.48679) 5
Jim Thome .485 (.48504) 6
Lou Gehrig .481 (.48094) 7
Ralph Kiner .467 (.46724) 8
Jimmie Foxx .464 (.46435) 9
Hank Greenberg .462 (.46178) 10
Frank Thomas .458 (.45835) 11
Mike Schmidt .450 (.45007) 12
Adam Dunn .450 (.44966) 13
Charlie Keller .444 (.44406) 14
Harmon Killebrew .444 (.44397) 15
Jeff Bagwell .439 (.43914) 16
Rickey Henderson .437 (.43737) 17
Manny Ramirez .435 (.43498) 18
Lance Berkman .434 (.43429) 19
Jason Giambi .429 (.42893) 20
Billy Hamilton .423 (.42262) 21
Joey Votto .422 (.42231) 22
Darryl Strawberry .420 (.41990) 23
Carlos Delgado .419 (.41920) 24
Mel Ott .419 (.41899) 25
David Ortiz .416 (.41639) 26
Jose Bautista .416 (.41607) 27
Joe Morgan .414 (.41360) 28
Albert Pujols .412 (.41217) 29
Willie Mays .412 (.41191) 30
Eddie Mathews .411 (.41080) 31
Gene Tenace .410 (.41002) 32
Alex Rodriguez .410 (.40982) 33
Willie McCovey .410 (.40954) 34
Mickey Tettleton .409 (.40868) 35
Larry Walker .407 (.40698) 36
Eric Davis .406 (.40594) 37
Chipper Jones .406 (.40572) 38
Dolph Camilli .403 (.40295) 39
Brian Giles .403 (.40279) 40
John McGraw .401 (.40061) 41
Ken Griffey, Jr. .400 (.39967) 42
Gary Sheffield .398 (.39839) 43
Troy Glaus .398 (.39815) 44
Frank Robinson .397 (.39746) 45
Carlos Pena .397 (.39705) 46
Dick Allen .396 (.39577) 47
Jack Clark .396 (.39550) 48
Russell Branyan .394 (.39400) 49
Jay Buhner .394 (.39398) 50
Albert Belle .394 (.39364) 51
Jose Canseco .393 (.39280) 52
Todd Helton .391 (.39136) 53
Jim Edmonds .391 (.39093) 54
Bobby Abreu .390 (.38962) 55
Pat Burrell .389 (.38942) 56
Hack Wilson .389 (.38929) 57
Jimmy Wynn .388 (.38840) 58
J.D. Drew .388 (.38798) 59
Johnny Mize .387 (.38693) 60
Duke Snider .387 (.38668) 61
Ryan Howard .385 (.38504) 62
Edgar Martinez .384 (.38444) 63
David Justice .383 (.38276) 64
Mark Teixeira .381 (.38143) 65
Bob Allison .381 (.38136) 66
Tim Salmon .381 (.38086) 67
Greg Vaughn .380 (.38047) 68
Sammy Sosa .380 (.38035) 69
Reggie Jackson .379 (.37895) 70
Prince Fielder .379 (.37853) 71
Stan Musial .378 (.37824) 72
Danny Tartabull .378 (.37797) 73
Mike Napoli .378 (.37772) 74
Fred McGriff .378 (.37764) 75
Roy Cullenbine .377 (.37690) 76
Hank Aaron .376 (.37642) 77
Ryan Klesko .376 (.37605) 78
Norm Cash .374 (.37435) 79
Bobby Bonds .374 (.37427) 80
Rob Deer .374 (.37387) 81
Travis Hafner .374 (.37365) 82
Ray Lankford .374 (.37359) 83
Joe DiMaggio .373 (.37311) 84
Jason Bay .373 (.37292) 85
Miguel Cabrera .372 (.37228) 86
Gorman Thomas .372 (.37203) 87
Larry Doby .372 (.37173) 88
Bob Johnson .370 (.36951) 89
Al Rosen .369 (.36886) 90
Howard Johnson .369 (.36862) 91
Tommy Henrich .368 (.36802) 92
Earl Torgeson .368 (.36788) 93
Rocky Colavito .368 (.36752) 94
Darren Daulton .366 (.36556) 95
Andre Thornton .366 (.36553) 96
Richie Sexson .365 (.36546) 97
Willie Stargell .365 (.36533) 98
Darrell Evans .365 (.36532) 99
Andrew McCutchen .365 (.36462) 100
Secondary average operates under the principle that batting average is an incomplete indicator of a hitter's ability since batting average does not account for power, plate discipline, and speed. According to Scott Gray (working with Bill James), "Secondary average is a much better indicator of offensive ability than batting average".
Since secondary average evaluates a player's offensive contribution independent of batting average, it can identify players who have low batting averages yet are still productive offensively. For example, in 1990, Bill James identified Eric Davis as the most productive batter with a career average below .275; in spite of his low batting average, Davis had a career secondary average of .504, which was the highest of any active player at the time. Batting average was not a great indicator of his true offensive value; secondary average was able to demonstrate his value more effectively.
BB+ (TB-H) + (SB-CS)/AB = Secondary Average
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
It's a mathematical calculation. Works the same for everyone. It doesn't discriminate. I like looking at the divergences in batting ave. vs secondary averages.
Batting averages will always be more appealing to the masses. It's simple and we all grew up with baseball cards and reading the minimal stats on the back.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
1. Being in "the lower third" of a top 100 list still means you're in the top 1% all-time.
2. The list is not ballpark or era adjusted
3. The list is a career list, and both Musial and Aaron stuck around for many years as their career averages dipped from their peak averages.
4. No single stat measures everything. As with OBP and SLG, secondary average should not be used all by itself, but rather in conjunction with batting average. Aaron and Musial are both in the top third of the top 100 on the all-time OPS+ list; if you combined batting average and secondary average and adjusted it for ballpark/era, they'd be in the top 33 of that list, too.
Also, if batting average is a better indicator of offensive ability, they why is Aaron not even in the top 100 on that list? If you look at only one stat - unless it's already a combination stat like OPS+ - you are missing so much that it shouldn't surprise you when some of the names on the list look out of place. But if you must look at only one stat, and your only two choices are batting average and secondary average, you should look at secondary average - it is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average for most players.
If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
Good question. I guess it might also mean that Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner were not too great as well. lol
Maybe I should invest in some Danny Tartabull cards
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Is that Rob Deer of the .220 avg, .324 OBP, ahead of Joe DiMaggio?
Nice quote from Scott Gray, whoever he is. Thanks justcommen.
According to Scott Gray (working with Bill James), "Secondary average is a much better indicator of offensive ability than batting average".
Stupid list…. Mistlin
If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
Good question. I guess it might also mean that Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner were not too great as well. lol
Maybe I should invest in some Danny Tartabull cards
Cobb and Wagner didn't strike out enough to make the list.
Rob Deer and Richie Sexson, not to mention Gorman Thomas could
have taught them a thing or two about hitting. LOL!
Stupid list…. Mistlin
If secondary average is a better indicator of offensive ability than batting average, then why are Stan Musial and Hank Aaron, undoubtedly two of the top ten hitters if all time, buried in the lower third of that list?
Good question. I guess it might also mean that Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner were not too great as well. lol
Maybe I should invest in some Danny Tartabull cards
Cobb and Wagner didn't strike out enough to make the list.
Rob Deer and Richie Sexson, not to mention Gorman Thomas could
have taught them a thing or two about hitting. LOL!
Lol
Or guys named Yastrzemski, Kaline, Bench, Rose, Clemente, Banks, and Brett.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Hits/Ab = batting average
(Total bases- hits) + walks+ ( stolen bases- caught stealing) / AB = secondary average
Not complicated really. Again, you can't look at secondary average by itself nor should you look at batting average by itself. Unless of course you don't want the complete picture. In that case just LOL yourselves to death. Need to look at them together. Someone of the LOL Gang want to do Clemente's secondary average? It's just math. What do you get and why do you think it is what it is? Let's talk about that number. Unless of course you don't think power, plate discipline and speed are not worth looking at.
I'll wait for the Clemente number. If anyone needs help with the calculation I'm standing by
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Since you can't do the math yourself, I'll do it for you. A walk is a +1 in OBP but counts for nothing in SLG; a single counts as +1 in both OBP and SLG. So, a walk counts for half as much as a single in OPS. Since a walk is actually worth more than half of a single, OPS actually undervalues a walk a little, so your point about OPS overvaluing a walk was completely wrong. So, now that you understand how walks are valued in OBP and SLG, and therefore OPS, can I assume that you'll admit you've been wrong about every point you've made that followed from this original error? No, I didn't think so.
But thank you for this additional proof that looking at OBP and SLG (and a park/era adjustment, and men-on hitting) is the best way to evaluate a hitter, even if you still don't understand that this is what you've proved.
That's simply the funniest thing I ever read. NOT hitting the ball is going to always count for nothing in slugging, because SLG measures HITTING the ball.
You are way over-complicating it. Two batters with the exact same OBP and SLG should not be equal if one has more walks than the other, because walks are not as good as hits.
A walk should be valued at less (1/2 seems like too much, but ok fine) than a single in an advanced OBP. You can't really change OBP, it is what it is.
Nice try though. It's been a long day, I needed a laugh! Thank you.
It's just math
Hits/Ab = batting average
(Total bases- hits) + walks+ ( stolen bases- caught stealing) / AB = secondary average
Not complicated really. Again, you can't look at secondary average by itself nor should you look at batting average by itself. Unless of course you don't want the complete picture. In that case just LOL yourselves to death. Need to look at them together. Someone of the LOL Gang want to do Clemente's secondary average? It's just math. What do you get and why do you think it is what it is? Let's talk about that number. Unless of course you don't think power, plate discipline and speed are not worth looking at.
I'll wait for the Clemente number. If anyone needs help with the calculation I'm standing by
mark
Walks are valued equal to singles in this equation. Other than that, it looks pretty good. Obviously favors sluggers that walk a lot. There's Harmon at #15.
Other than R. Henderson and Joe Morgan not too many fast guys at/near top of list. Of course they were probably (?) the two best at stealing bases and hitting for power.
Too bad they didn't run too much during Clemente's era.
If Mantle would have been given the "green light" when he was young he would have been #1 I would guess.
It's just math
Hits/Ab = batting average
(Total bases- hits) + walks+ ( stolen bases- caught stealing) / AB = secondary average
Not complicated really. Again, you can't look at secondary average by itself nor should you look at batting average by itself. Unless of course you don't want the complete picture. In that case just LOL yourselves to death. Need to look at them together. Someone of the LOL Gang want to do Clemente's secondary average? It's just math. What do you get and why do you think it is what it is? Let's talk about that number. Unless of course you don't think power, plate discipline and speed are not worth looking at.
I'll wait for the Clemente number. If anyone needs help with the calculation I'm standing by
mark
So secondary average is a good measuring stick for power, plate discipline, and speed, according to you.
Lets take a look.
Rob Deer- 43 stolen bases, 31 caught stealing
Gorman Thomas- 50 sb, 49 caught stealing
Richie Sexson- 14 sb, 13 caught
Amazing speed on display there, right justcommemerative?
Secondary average mainly highlights hitters that hit a high percentage of home runs,
strikeout a ton, and hardly hit any singles. Dave Kingman should be on the list.
I think the Clemente avg. is .227 according to the formula you posted.
So secondary avg. turns Rob Deer into a great player like Roberto Clemente,
and Clemente into Rob Deer, right?
So its bizzaro world, to simplify.
Edited to say: LOL
Stupid list…. Mistlin
Dave Kingman- career .236 hitter, career OBP of .302, 85 sb, 49 caught stealing.
.338 secondary average, which I'm assuming is really high, since it isn't far below the top 100.
How can secondary average purport to measure a combination of power, plate discipline, and speed accurately when Kingman ranks so high?
He had power, he did not have plate discipline(.302 OBP), and he did not have speed.
secondary average only got 1 out of 3 correct.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
You're welcome. Maybe you can return the favor by actually pointing what part of what I said you found so funny. Was it the part where I pointed out how stupid you are? That part made me laugh, too. Right?
Now you've said that players with the exact same OBP and slugging aren't equal - the one with the most walks is worse. I could be cruel and ask you to construct an example of two players with identical OBP and slugging, but I don't want to wait the three years it would take you to do it. But I would like to point out that when you say "walks are not as good as hits" that you're being stupid again. Because the only way for two players to have the same OBP and slugging is for the player with the most walks to also have more extra base hits. I think you are picturing replacing walks with singles, but the math doesn't work that way. You have to replace a combination of walks and extra base hits with singles. So while it is true that walks aren't as good as singles, it is also true that singles aren't as good as doubles, triples and homers and you simply ignored that part of it. If you do the math right (LOL, I'm joking - I mean if you find someone else to do the math right for you), you'll find that the part you understand and the part you don't understand balance out very closely. Players with the same OPS - all else equal - will be about the same in terms of offensive production.
Shouldn't they be using PA instead of AB? Wasn't this brought up before? Doesn't this "reward" a guy twice for a walk by reducing the denominator while increasing the numerator by the (almost) same amount? Of course we are valuing a walk as a total base in this equation as well, and that doesn't look right to me either (big surprise there). Eliminate the singles and then add in walks at the same value? Looks like a load of you know what to me. If you set up your formula in a way you want to prove your point it should work all the time. We should add sacrifice flies too, let's not forget about that!
I guess I shouldn't complain, this formula makes my favorite player look REALLY good! TGTBT!
You're welcome. Maybe you can return the favor by actually pointing what part of what I said you found so funny. Was it the part where I pointed out how stupid you are? That part made me laugh, too. Right?
Now you've said that players with the exact same OBP and slugging aren't equal - the one with the most walks is worse. I could be cruel and ask you to construct an example of two players with identical OBP and slugging, but I don't want to wait the three years it would take you to do it. But I would like to point out that when you say "walks are not as good as hits" that you're being stupid again. Because the only way for two players to have the same OBP and slugging is for the player with the most walks to also have more extra base hits. I think you are picturing replacing walks with singles, but the math doesn't work that way. You have to replace a combination of walks and extra base hits with singles. So while it is true that walks aren't as good as singles, it is also true that singles aren't as good as doubles, triples and homers and you simply ignored that part of it. If you do the math right (LOL, I'm joking - I mean if you find someone else to do the math right for you), you'll find that the part you understand and the part you don't understand balance out very closely. Players with the same OPS - all else equal - will be about the same in terms of offensive production.
Thanks for finally agreeing that walks are not as good as singles.
I will not stoop to your name calling though, that's not really much of an indication of intelligence.
Have a nice night.
Here's a good example of secondary average.
Dave Kingman- career .236 hitter, career OBP of .302, 85 sb, 49 caught stealing.
.338 secondary average, which I'm assuming is really high, since it isn't far below the top 100.
How can secondary average purport to measure a combination of power, plate discipline, and speed accurately when Kingman ranks so high?
He had power, he did not have plate discipline(.302 OBP), and he did not have speed.
secondary average only got 1 out of 3 correct.
Kingman is well outside the top 100. Number 161 to be exact.
Look at his homers which you under value based on your posts in my opinion. You also seem to think fly outs, ground outs and pop outs are somehow more redeemable then strikeouts for whatever reason. Go back and read skins posts. He said it best.
Again, it's just another tool in the evelution belt. Saber-metrics are used by all teams these days.
Why so hard headed? It's just a different point of view.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I will not stoop to your name calling though, that's not really much of an indication of intelligence.
Have a nice night.
For the love of God, I said a walk wasn't worth as much as a single from the beginning, and repeated it several times. So which is it, you don't understand what I say, in which case my "name calling" is just an accurate description, or you aren't reading what I write but pretending that you are, in which case I'll call you different names. Since you identified the name calling I'm pretty sure option #2 is off the table, though. Which leaves option #1.
Clemente .227? When you subtract his hits from his total bases you get a pretty low (99) number, with few walks and steals to add, the number doesn't climb too much higher at 146. Killebrew is at 145 before adding BB, which gets Harmon to 249. Singles hitters with a lot of at bats are going to be destroyed here! Even with +26 in SB Ichiro is at a pathetic .196. Ichiro got 643 AB per 162 games, Clemente 629 while Killebrew was at 542. Mantle 547, Williams 545.
Shouldn't they be using PA instead of AB? Wasn't this brought up before? Doesn't this "reward" a guy twice for a walk by reducing the denominator while increasing the numerator by the (almost) same amount? Of course we are valuing a walk as a total base in this equation as well, and that doesn't look right to me either (big surprise there). Eliminate the singles and then add in walks at the same value? Looks like a load of you know what to me. If you set up your formula in a way you want to prove your point it should work all the time. We should add sacrifice flies too, let's not forget about that!
I guess I shouldn't complain, this formula makes my favorite player look REALLY good! TGTBT!
Your math is strong ; )
Remember the old adeage, " a walk as good as hit" we all learned as a kid? Well it almost is and secondary average accounts for it.
Have a good night
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Clemente .227? When you subtract his hits from his total bases you get a pretty low (99) number, with few walks and steals to add, the number doesn't climb too much higher at 146. Killebrew is at 145 before adding BB, which gets Harmon to 249. Singles hitters with a lot of at bats are going to be destroyed here! Even with +26 in SB Ichiro is at a pathetic .196. Ichiro got 643 AB per 162 games, Clemente 629 while Killebrew was at 542. Mantle 547, Williams 545.
Shouldn't they be using PA instead of AB? Wasn't this brought up before? Doesn't this "reward" a guy twice for a walk by reducing the denominator while increasing the numerator by the (almost) same amount? Of course we are valuing a walk as a total base in this equation as well, and that doesn't look right to me either (big surprise there). Eliminate the singles and then add in walks at the same value? Looks like a load of you know what to me. If you set up your formula in a way you want to prove your point it should work all the time. We should add sacrifice flies too, let's not forget about that!
I guess I shouldn't complain, this formula makes my favorite player look REALLY good! TGTBT!
Clemente had 4492 total bases minus 3000 hits= 1492
Then add 621 walks and 37 stolen bases, (successful attempts minus caught stealing).
Add those three numbers and you get 2150. divide by his at bats, 9454 and you
get .227
The trouble with secondary avg. is it penalizes players with a lot of hits way too much.
For instance, Clemente had 3000 hits, and you have to subtract all those hits
and replace them with 621 walks. Just out of curiousity I'm going to figure Pete Rose's.
Must be pretty low for the all time hit king!
.221 for Pete Rose. And he actually had a decent amount of walks.
It just crushes players with a lot of hits, great tribute to Musial and Aaron
that they are in the top 100.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
It's just math
Hits/Ab = batting average
(Total bases- hits) + walks+ ( stolen bases- caught stealing) / AB = secondary average
Not complicated really. Again, you can't look at secondary average by itself nor should you look at batting average by itself. Unless of course you don't want the complete picture. In that case just LOL yourselves to death. Need to look at them together. Someone of the LOL Gang want to do Clemente's secondary average? It's just math. What do you get and why do you think it is what it is? Let's talk about that number. Unless of course you don't think power, plate discipline and speed are not worth looking at.
I'll wait for the Clemente number. If anyone needs help with the calculation I'm standing by
mark
So secondary average is a good measuring stick for power, plate discipline, and speed, according to you.
Lets take a look.
Rob Deer- 43 stolen bases, 31 caught stealing
Gorman Thomas- 50 sb, 49 caught stealing
Richie Sexson- 14 sb, 13 caught
Amazing speed on display there, right justcommemerative?
Secondary average mainly highlights hitters that hit a high percentage of home runs,
strikeout a ton, and hardly hit any singles. Dave Kingman should be on the list.
I think the Clemente avg. is .227 according to the formula you posted.
So secondary avg. turns Rob Deer into a great player like Roberto Clemente,
and Clemente into Rob Deer, right?
So its bizzaro world, to simplify.
Edited to say: LOL
Nope. No one is saying that. Only you. As stated SEVERAL times you can't only look at batting average or secondary average by itself as you leave yourself open for a distorted picture. You keep looking for secondary average distortions. What about all the batting average distortions? All the empty batting averages. I care to look at both. You get a clearer picture..
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
But my only complaint with secondary avg. is if it is supposed to measure a players' combination of power, plate discipline, and speed
I just don't think it does a very good job of it, maybe with the exception of certain players like Joe Morgan and Rickey.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
It just crushes players with a lot of hits, great tribute to Musial and Aaron
that they are in the top 100.
No, it "crushes" players who hit mostly singles; it shows a clearer picture of the value of players whose hits are for extra bases. Which, if you'll only take five seconds to think about it, makes sense. For players who hit mostly singles, batting average is capturing most of their value. For players who hit mostly extra base hits, batting average is treating all of their hits the same as singles and missing most of their value.
And a top 100 list may be interesting but its absolutely useless without an era adjustment. Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner are among the greatest hitters ever, and their secondary averages were among the highest of their time. But it simply wasn't possible to hit as many home runs then as it is now, and the home runs (and double and triples) that they did hit were significantly more valuable than the same hits today. Babe Ruth tops the list because Babe Ruth tops every list, but there's only one player on the list for the 50 years of baseball that happened before him - Billy Hamilton - and he probably shouldn't be on there. "Caught stealing" wasn't an official stat when Hamilton played so he's credited with 900+ SB and zero CS.
So finding and laughing at oddities on the Top 100 secondary average list is pointless since it's apples and oranges to compare secondary averages across eras, and often even across teams. Used correctly, secondary average is a very useful stat, and a stat that usually better measures a player's value than batting average. Dave Kingman had a batting average of .236 and Don Kessinger had a batting average of .252 - how do they compare as hitters? Kingman's secondary average was .338 and Kessinger's was .151. In this case, as in most cases, it is the secondary average that gives you the better picture; Kingman was a much better hitter than Kessinger.