The 2018 and 2019 Phillies have proven without a doubt that batting average matters. They see a lot of pitches, work the count, draw a lot of walks and have good OBP, yet they have not been a good offensive team. You have to have guys who can get hits when there are runners on base.
Tango feels batting average should be retired because it's less relevant than other stats in creating runs, and creating/preventing runs is the most important thing about baseball. In this, he's basically following Bill James' line from decades ago. But are they right? Or is creating runs the sine qua non of baseball?
What about creating fun?
You draw crowds by winning; and you win by creating/preventing runs. But could a team become so boringly efficient, drawing walk after walk after walk, that they actually *lose* crowds? I've often wondered that. And maybe we're reaching that point.
A walk is (almost) as good as a single ... unless you care about fun. Then a single is way better.
"That’s why the batting average is inconsequential." -- This is just stupid. I mean, it's Tom Tango, so I guess I need to read the whole thing. But nothing from the top to this point in Joe's article gives any evidence that batting average is inconsequential. All that is shown is that a 50-point gap in BA can be outweighed by getting more walks, HR, and triples. Well, duh. Everyone knows that.
I'd bet that the truth is that BA tells about 35% of the value of a hitter. Maybe in the 1970's, people thought it was about 60%. But it's sure not 0%, which Tango is saying.
It should read "Batting average is inconsequential when the OBP and Slugging are the same". If two guys have a hundred PAs, and one hits 333/.400/.500 and the other one hits .250/.400/.500, their offensive value is the same. The first guy would have (AB-H-2B-3B-HR-BB) 90-30-4-1-3-10, and the second guy would have 80-20-6-1-4-20. Using linear weights, the value of both of those come out to 38.2. They both make the same number of outs. At the plate, they are worth exactly the same.
Excellent piece, Joe. Personally, I will always favor the shorthand that batting average provides. It was an easy hook in explaining to my daughters about the effectiveness of various hitters. And when they see their team’s softball stats, the first column they look at is BA.
I wonder if he would have retired a couple years ago if he didn't have the crazy long term deal (which he wanted at the time) He was a lock for the Hall after year 10. One example: Most extra base hits the first 10 years of a career: Pujols - 849. 2nd place is Ted Williams, 99 behind at 750.
It has been said time and time again, including recently by the brilliant Ellen Adair in the hilarious Poscast, but value towards winning games does not necessarily equal value towards aesthetics or entertainment. A recent change in the minutia of the calculation changed the beauty of a nearly perfect comparison: Juan Pierre and Adam Dunn had (until the recalculation) exactly the same career bWAR; they are now off by 0.3 over a combined 15,000 at bats. But Pierre, who hit .295, didn't strike out at all, and ran like the wind, was much more entertaining than Dunn, who batted .237, struck out a historic amount, and ran as if he was carrying Prince Fielder on his back. Batting average - or more specifically balls in play - may not be more valuable to the team's won-lost record, but it sure is to my enthusiasm.
First, I agree with you, Joe, that while batting average might not be all that relevant to an analysis of the quality of a hitter, it sure as heck is relevant to my enjoyment of a hitter. Give me Don Mattingly every day of the week. I am much, much more entertained by contact/line drive baseball than grip-it-and-rip-it baseball.
The one area on quality that I question is consistency. I suppose I should read Tango's piece, since maybe it addresses this, but I wonder if you gain something from the Mattingly-type player in his consistency. In order for Mattingly and Strawberry to be equal hitters, Mattingly is doing good things a bit more often. Those good things are each of slightly lesser value, but he's more likely to do something positive in any given plate appearance. Does that have any value outside of what's baked into the runs created numbers? Does it have any value to team-building or lineup construction? Or is that all already accounted for? From an aesthetic and entertainment standpoint, give me the consistent guy rather than the boom-or-bust guy, but I don't know if having one or the other actually helps a team in a meaningful way.
High peaks & low valleys are always more valuable than consistency in baseball. Well, I think so. A team that has a higher std. dev. in wins over a period of years will make the playoffs more than a team with a lower one. I believe there was a study that showed that, but there doesn't really need to be one. That effect should go all the way down to individual players. If you want to finish first, you usually need a few career years. Now that would be a nice study.
The 2018 and 2019 Phillies have proven without a doubt that batting average matters. They see a lot of pitches, work the count, draw a lot of walks and have good OBP, yet they have not been a good offensive team. You have to have guys who can get hits when there are runners on base.
Tango feels batting average should be retired because it's less relevant than other stats in creating runs, and creating/preventing runs is the most important thing about baseball. In this, he's basically following Bill James' line from decades ago. But are they right? Or is creating runs the sine qua non of baseball?
What about creating fun?
You draw crowds by winning; and you win by creating/preventing runs. But could a team become so boringly efficient, drawing walk after walk after walk, that they actually *lose* crowds? I've often wondered that. And maybe we're reaching that point.
A walk is (almost) as good as a single ... unless you care about fun. Then a single is way better.
"That’s why the batting average is inconsequential." -- This is just stupid. I mean, it's Tom Tango, so I guess I need to read the whole thing. But nothing from the top to this point in Joe's article gives any evidence that batting average is inconsequential. All that is shown is that a 50-point gap in BA can be outweighed by getting more walks, HR, and triples. Well, duh. Everyone knows that.
I'd bet that the truth is that BA tells about 35% of the value of a hitter. Maybe in the 1970's, people thought it was about 60%. But it's sure not 0%, which Tango is saying.
It should read "Batting average is inconsequential when the OBP and Slugging are the same". If two guys have a hundred PAs, and one hits 333/.400/.500 and the other one hits .250/.400/.500, their offensive value is the same. The first guy would have (AB-H-2B-3B-HR-BB) 90-30-4-1-3-10, and the second guy would have 80-20-6-1-4-20. Using linear weights, the value of both of those come out to 38.2. They both make the same number of outs. At the plate, they are worth exactly the same.
Aha, thanks.
Excellent piece, Joe. Personally, I will always favor the shorthand that batting average provides. It was an easy hook in explaining to my daughters about the effectiveness of various hitters. And when they see their team’s softball stats, the first column they look at is BA.
I’m still going to be a little bummed when Pujols’ career average dips below .300 which could be in a matter of days.
I wonder if he would have retired a couple years ago if he didn't have the crazy long term deal (which he wanted at the time) He was a lock for the Hall after year 10. One example: Most extra base hits the first 10 years of a career: Pujols - 849. 2nd place is Ted Williams, 99 behind at 750.
I have wondered the same thing. He is a shadow of his former self but that is a lot of money to walk away from, even for a rich man.
I was bummed when his career OBP dipped below .400 too. But, no matter what, he was a lock for the Hall after those first 10 seasons.
It has been said time and time again, including recently by the brilliant Ellen Adair in the hilarious Poscast, but value towards winning games does not necessarily equal value towards aesthetics or entertainment. A recent change in the minutia of the calculation changed the beauty of a nearly perfect comparison: Juan Pierre and Adam Dunn had (until the recalculation) exactly the same career bWAR; they are now off by 0.3 over a combined 15,000 at bats. But Pierre, who hit .295, didn't strike out at all, and ran like the wind, was much more entertaining than Dunn, who batted .237, struck out a historic amount, and ran as if he was carrying Prince Fielder on his back. Batting average - or more specifically balls in play - may not be more valuable to the team's won-lost record, but it sure is to my enthusiasm.
First, I agree with you, Joe, that while batting average might not be all that relevant to an analysis of the quality of a hitter, it sure as heck is relevant to my enjoyment of a hitter. Give me Don Mattingly every day of the week. I am much, much more entertained by contact/line drive baseball than grip-it-and-rip-it baseball.
The one area on quality that I question is consistency. I suppose I should read Tango's piece, since maybe it addresses this, but I wonder if you gain something from the Mattingly-type player in his consistency. In order for Mattingly and Strawberry to be equal hitters, Mattingly is doing good things a bit more often. Those good things are each of slightly lesser value, but he's more likely to do something positive in any given plate appearance. Does that have any value outside of what's baked into the runs created numbers? Does it have any value to team-building or lineup construction? Or is that all already accounted for? From an aesthetic and entertainment standpoint, give me the consistent guy rather than the boom-or-bust guy, but I don't know if having one or the other actually helps a team in a meaningful way.
High peaks & low valleys are always more valuable than consistency in baseball. Well, I think so. A team that has a higher std. dev. in wins over a period of years will make the playoffs more than a team with a lower one. I believe there was a study that showed that, but there doesn't really need to be one. That effect should go all the way down to individual players. If you want to finish first, you usually need a few career years. Now that would be a nice study.