So Mazz is ranting about how batting average still matters, and to prove this he gave the following "example."
A guy that has a 350 on base and hits 300 is more valuable than a guy that has a 350 on base and hits 250.
Click.
Well I would take the 300/350 guy over the 250/350 guy every day of the week...since it is likely that the 300 hitter will have a much high slugging percentage...some of those extra hits could be extra base hits, or even singles that move runners up more than one base.
Well I would take the 300/350 guy over the 250/350 guy every day of the week...since it is likely that the 300 hitter will have a much high slugging percentage...some of those extra hits could be extra base hits, or even singles that move runners up more than one base.
Could go the other way too though, the guy that hits 250/350 could be a 50/145+ guy, and the 300/350 guy could be Juan Pierre/Luis Castillo. BA/OBP are important stats, but are not very helpful on their own.
Could go the other way too though, the guy that hits 250/350 could be a 50/145+ guy, and the 300/350 guy could be Juan Pierre/Luis Castillo. BA/OBP are important stats, but are not very helpful on their own.
True enough...it's all about what you do with the hits you do get.
Well I would take the 300/350 guy over the 250/350 guy every day of the week...since it is likely that the 300 hitter will have a much high slugging percentage...some of those extra hits could be extra base hits, or even singles that move runners up more than one base.
Lincecum is a Poor example this year but it kind of proves my point. Those pitchers are "great" because of the lineups they face. The NL on the whole has weaker lineups which lead to inflated pitching staffs. Look at CC sabathias stats in milwaukee. Stanton hasnt had to face deep rotations in the NL, more often than not hitters have a difficult time adjusting to the AL.
Also compared to what the jays have up, bogaerts, middlebrooks and salty was way more value then Henderson Alvarez and company. If that's what the marlins wanted from the sox, it's obvious they lowered their price for toronto
I'm sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Lincecum, Carpenter, Kershaw, etc etc etc are great because they play in the national league? Come on...
If I've learned anything about baseball in the last few days, it's that Keith Law is one of the biggest jerks in the history of the world.
Such arrogrance for a guy whose track record in baseball was to help build the "juggernaut" mid-2000s Toronto Blue Jays. I forget, how many World Series did they win in that time to cause Law to be so dismissive of everyone else? Which Blue Jays AL East pennant during the period was the one that made him think he was better than everyone else?
How about you tell us what the point is then, because situationally, I'd say UNBBF is exactly right. The advantage may be marginal enough that other, bigger factors might be sufficient to counter it, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an advantage to being able to hit for a high batting average.
Situationally, given a constant OBP, a higher AVG does provide more offense on the whole. And generally speaking, a player that hits for a high average has a much, much easier time generating an excellent OBP, so both in the specific and in the general sense, Mazz is right.
I would love to hear John Farrell interview getting his thoughts on his former team making all these moves after he leaves
Imagine if he could say 'great move for the Blue Jays. We were very interested in Josh Johnson ourselves, but maybe after this season when he becomes a FA if he doesn't resign with Toronto, we can revisit him'.
I'm sure a lot of people will be interested in how Johnson likes, perfoms in the AL East; not the least of which will be Boston and New York.
If I've learned anything about baseball in the last few days, it's that Keith Law is one of the biggest jerks in the history of the world.
Such arrogrance for a guy whose track record in baseball was to help build the "juggernaut" mid-2000s Toronto Blue Jays. I forget, how many World Series did they win in that time to cause Law to be so dismissive of everyone else? Which Blue Jays AL East pennant during the period was the one that made him think he was better than everyone else?
How about you tell us what the point is then, because situationally, I'd say UNBBF is exactly right. The advantage may be marginal enough that other, bigger factors might be sufficient to counter it, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an advantage to being able to hit for a high batting average.
Situationally, given a constant OBP, a higher AVG does provide more offense on the whole. And generally speaking, a player that hits for a high average has a much, much easier time generating an excellent OBP, so both in the specific and in the general sense, Mazz is right.
Congrats on woefully missing the point too.
Mazz was railing against Sabrematicians that say batting average doesn't matter. So what do they say matters? On base.
So how did Mazz argue his point? By giving you two players with the same OBP. There isn't a ****ing stats guy that wouldn't agree with Mazz's silly hypothetical. If both guys are at 350 OBP everyone would take the 300 hitter, obviously. It is such a "no ****" argument that it is dumb and doesn't prove his point or disprove the batting average isn't that important guys.
he needed to give a hypothetical like a 250 average with a 400 OBP vs a 300 hitter with a 350 OBP for it to have any merit.
If I've learned anything about baseball in the last few days, it's that Keith Law is one of the biggest jerks in the history of the world.
Such arrogrance for a guy whose track record in baseball was to help build the "juggernaut" mid-2000s Toronto Blue Jays. I forget, how many World Series did they win in that time to cause Law to be so dismissive of everyone else? Which Blue Jays AL East pennant during the period was the one that made him think he was better than everyone else?
Mazz was railing against Sabrematicians that say batting average doesn't matter. So what do they say matters? On base.
So how did Mazz argue his point? By giving you two players with the same OBP. There isn't a ****ing stats guy that wouldn't agree with Mazz's silly hypothetical. If both guys are at 350 OBP everyone would take the 300 hitter, obviously. It is such a "no ****" argument that it is dumb and doesn't prove his point or disprove the batting average isn't that important guys.
he needed to give a hypothetical like a 250 average with a 400 OBP vs a 300 hitter with a 350 OBP for it to have any merit.
Mike... It embarrasses me that you had to explain that.
Mazz was railing against Sabrematicians that say batting average doesn't matter. So what do they say matters? On base.
So how did Mazz argue his point? By giving you two players with the same OBP. There isn't a ****ing stats guy that wouldn't agree with Mazz's silly hypothetical. If both guys are at 350 OBP everyone would take the 300 hitter, obviously. It is such a "no ****" argument that it is dumb and doesn't prove his point or disprove the batting average isn't that important guys.
he needed to give a hypothetical like a 250 average with a 400 OBP vs a 300 hitter with a 350 OBP for it to have any merit.
I always thought Sabremeticians preached WAR and UZR and all that incalcuable head ache inducing math? OBP has been around forever. maybe they just emphasize it more then others do? is that all it takes to be a Sabreman? just take a stance on an underappreciated stat? I'll say that i think batting average with runners in scoring position in games decided by under 3 runs past the 7th inning is the most important thing to determine clutch play. no one ever calculates something that is that specific. yet perhaps it will tell a story...
