Actually, I was trying to say that both high batting average and high on base percentages in many cases does not give a good read on a team’s ability to score runs.

It’s the clutch hitting and the ability to utilize the opportunities one creates (let it be a lot or very little) as often as possible. If a team can score five runs in an inning, bunching up it’s hits, it’s obviously better than getting four runs and leaving numerous runners on base instead. That’s why in the post-game summary the broadcasters always include how many runners the teams left on base. High OBP often results in wasted base runners.

I always refer to the guys with low batting averages who got their hits when it counted (i.e., Joe Rudi) or their home runs when it counted most (i.e, Harmon Killebrew in lieu of Dave Kingman). Low batting averages don’t indicate one’s ability to come through when it counts and with the game on the line in the late innings.

And it so much depends upon the makeup of the team. One that relies upon speed and moving runners over and tight pitching won’t be up there with the league leaders in scoring, batting average or OBP yet can win a division like the Phillies, who didn’t bash anybody out of existence like years before but won the division because of that great rotation that did wonders pitching in a band box. Even better, take the old Los Angeles Dodgers clubs of the sixites – Hall of fame type pitching, great defense and great speed yet no power and few who hit for average so they were near the bottom in scoring. Those Dodger teams just squeaked out victory after victory. Any other pitching staff and they would have been a second division club (for anyone in this day and age of six divisions and four wildcards asking what “second” division” is – that was a term used when there were ten clubs in the league with no divisions and thus those who finished sixth or lower were considered “second” division).

The big joke came from Don Drysdale when he did not make a road trip but was told Sandy Koufax just no hit the Phillies. Drysdale’s remark was “did he win?”

Notice in all this conversation, there were no references to stats? No need for it. That’s when looking at players and a team, the more one truly knows about baseball, the less one refers to stats except when talking about the record books – that’s why there is still the age old debate of who was better – Willie, Mickey or the Duke? Stats are good for profiling but anyone on a professional level who depends upon them heavily – and what they reveal in computer analysis – obviously knows less of the game than one who says “Computer? We don’t need no stinkin’ computer” (with apologies to Mr. Houston).

But is Ike wearing a Cowboys t-shirt? Damn.

I don’t have a problem with teams using it because they’re having success with it. If teams that are not using them and having success than nobody should have a problem with that either. I don’t know why people get so bent out of shape either way. As a GM you do whatever you think you need to do to make informed decisions.

I do believe and have for a long time that both OB% and Slug% are more important to run production than batting average. I’ve felt that way long before Sandy Alderson was the GM.
What you said, You’ll take Beltran over Murphy is pretty much what I’m saying. you take the higher OPS guy. That’s pretty much all I’m trying to get at. The higher the OPS the better the hitter. There are no high OPS guys that aren’t good hitters.

I know the 09 team had most of the lineup out for most of the year but even so they still led the NL in batting avg. Even though the regulars were out they still hit for a high average, highest in the league and they couldn’t score runs because they had no power and were only a little above average getting on base. Some teams regular lineups are like that with no injuries and they can’t score runs.

That’s why I’ll take the high Slug% over the high batting average 100% of the time. I’ll take the 500 slug% over the 300 avg any day. I’ll take a 285/385/525 over the 310/340/470 all the time.

I like the comparison you made between McGriff and Gwynn. Normally I take the higher OPS but in this case it’s a toss up. When you’re talking about a 338 career avg, 388 OB and 459 Slug that’s pretty tough to pass up. Gwynn rarely ever struckout and McGriff was a K machine but a ton power. 282/377/509. That’s a much tougher call than Beltran vs Murphy.

Now if you went Strawberry vs Gwynn, both RFers, Straw being pre drugs and booze 83-91. I probably take Straws prime years over Gwynn.

The other day Metsie said he would take Reyes’ 292/341/441 over Rickey Hendersons 285/408/431. He’d rather have the extra 7 points in BA instead of the extra 68 points in Rickey’s OB. The fact that he would take Reyes over Rickey is nuts enough let alone the 68 points in OB.

Exactly. I read an atricle on ESPN titled “Nicer numbers likely coming for Niese”. And it said that he would have nicer numbers because of FIP. But anyone who has watched him pitch and knows anything about him, would know that he is going to have nicer numbers this year because he’s a very talented pitcher – He’s a big lefthander with a nasty curveball that at times last year showed flashes where he looked really good. And he’s only 25 years old.

So, I know he should pitch better than last year. I don’t need FIP to tell me that because I already knew that by simply watching him pitch.

name ONE SINGLE player who had an OB% lower than his BA!
Name one .300 hitter you would not take because his OBP is only .300!

Comon my OBP tell us all who had a good average but horrible OBP!

See ya next week I hope….

And if thats not enough to keep you away try this…
TORONTO BLUE JAYS!

But also don’t forget that the 2009 Mets had all their RBI guys hurt that year.

So to me it just comes down to the types of hitters you prefer, or the types of hitters these guys are in these types of arguments. But the difference is now the players become lost in these types of debates these days because the debates are so statistically driven people forget what it’s really about.
And that goes back to what i say about sabermetrics. 1) To me it’s the “scientific study” of marginal baseball players because you don’t need saber to scout what you think are studs. Plain old good scouting can do that and 2) More often than not you always wind up back where you started when you start over-analyzing..and probably more often than not you over-analyze yourself out of making what should have been a good decision to begin with.

“How’s the ankle?”
Ike: “Dude, better than Ryan Howard’s”

And players shouldn’t focus on their numbers. Just do what they do best. If you are an OBP guy, you know when and how you are getting on base. If you are a power guy, you know when you are hitting the ball far.

Don’t focus on specific numbers. Just focus on doing the best you can.

As for clutch if you have a high BA then you have a one in three chance of doing something good in clutch situations.
Having a good OBP does, having Speed doesn’t, Most runners are left in scoring position because the guys after them didn’t get a hit!

The Law of averages says even if the guy immediatly after didn’t get a hit the guy after him will!

The most basic thing about offense is hitting, what hit it actually is does not matter as much as the hit itself.

The situation is irrelevant and only complimentary to what the batter does!
Even if he doesn’t drive in the run he is now a runner that can be driven in and advanced the guy who was on at least one base closer to scoring!

You see three run 10 hit linescores not because of anything other than one guy got a hit and the three guys after him did not!
But if those guys all hit .300 chances are very likely one of those three are going to get a hit to drive in that run!
And if their 2 outs in 3 ABs all happen in the same inning the law of averages say you will get those runs in another inning!

If everyone has a high BA then how many get left on is irrelevant because you will still be scoring those runs at some point.

On that point I have to take an opposite side of the fence opinion – so just don’t kill me on this.

Having high batting averages in the lineup assures little because you left out the equation of power, speed on the basepaths and clutch hitting. We’ve seen where the Mets and so many other teams leave too many runners in scoring position on base.

How often do we see a line score of something like 3 runs, 10 hits (plus a few walks for good measure) compared to 6 runs, 8 hits (plus those couple of walks too)? Extra base hits and clutch hitting can produce multiple runs on just a few hits. Whereas, one could get three straight singles due to a slow lead runner and leave the bases loaded, when, on the other hand, one could get a single and a home run and there we have two runs on two hits, instead of no runs on three hits.

There is also the old Dodger Maury Wills home run. Wills would get a walk, steal second, go to third on the throw going into the outfield and then score on a sacrifice.

I was also at a game in 1965 and can’t forget the headline in the next day’s paper: “CUBS THREE HIT ATTACKS SINKS METS 7-1″. The few cub hits came at the most opportune time after some walks and errors and if I recall at least two of them were home runs.

Joe

If you combine that with the additional ability to get OB at a high clip like a Keith Hernandez for example then you have a real tough out in the heart of your line up and that’s the glue in your lineup.

Obviously the WRONG thing and that is why he is failing!

Focus on the BA and all the rest falls into place and even if you don’t wind up with the numbers you were looking for at least you have that BA to hang your hat on and get people off your back!