[OBP] It's a good stat, but there are too many variables to make it more important than BA.

 

I disagree.

 

Why are there any more variables in on-base percentage than there are in batting average?

 

Just off the top of my head, I can think of a few variables with BA.

 

1) A hit can be determined by an official scorer who thought a ball put in play was questionably handled by a fielder.

 

2) A player can get a hit that would normally be an out if the fielders are alligned in a different way. (i.e, a shift)

 

3) A player can get a hit on a ball put in play that was lazily handled by a fielder. (i.e., an outfielder doesn't dive for a ball)

 

4)A player can get a hit off of a pitcher that is more easily prone to giving up hits than others, just as a player can get on base against a pitcher that is more easily prone to letting players get on base than others.

 

5)A player can get a "lucky" hit, i.e the wind pushes the ball, a bloop hit, etc.

 

 

There are variables with on base percentage too, such as reaching base on an error, AND a lot of the aforementioned variables. But really, If anything, batting average has more variables than on-base percentage. But I think it's about even.

Probably one of those guys who thinks batting average is worthless because it doesn't take walks into account. I dunno, I think walks are more of a screw up by the pitcher than something special the hitter did. When Dontrelle Willis walked seven guys the other day, does that mean Chicago's hitters are GREAT? No.......it means Willis is bad. Walks are the overrated statistic as far as measuring a hitter.

So Barry Bonds doesn't do anything? Let's not even use an extreme example, Kevin Youkils? Pat Burrell? Batters who work counts consistently don't have better BB rates? You are looking at to isolated of an event, a bad start by a bad pitcher, rather than the cumulation of what a hitter does here. Walks are a skill. And it is a very valuable one. It is also predictable based on a guys skill set, and an EXCELLENT statistic at measuring a hitter.

 

Walks are less of a skill than hits are. While some hitters are more effective at getting them, it still requires the pitcher to throw balls. Very few teams win the world series because they have a bunch of guys who can walk well, they will because they've got guys who can get the big hits.

 

Its funny, Ive never seen any sports station run a greatest walks episode. Kevin Youkilis is a good role player, but there is still something to be said about guys who can actually drive in runs. A walk doesnt drive in a run unless the bases are loaded. A hit can knock in many very quickly while putting another runner in position to score.

 

The bottom line is this- a ball is still usually a mistake by a pitcher. When it comes down to it, major league ball players need to be able to get on base against the pitchers who don't make the mistakes. The ability to hit is somewhat independent of what the pitcher does- a great hitter can get a hit out of any pitch while a guy can't simply walk on any pitch. Players who can hit will always be more valuable than those who can only walk and anyone who has actually played baseball can understand why.

There are so many problems with this. First, you are assuming pitchers want to throw strikes every pitch. They don't. A lot of the time they want batters to swing at junk so they can get strikes and outs without having to pitch something in the zone, that has a higher probability of getting rocked. Laying off of these pitches just out of the zone, is a skill. And it's an important one. Saying a broad statement of, "guys who can hit are always more valuable than those who can only walk" is crazy. Yea, you want guys who hit, it's not an exclusive quality of offensive performance. Taking pitches and walking, which get you into the bullpen earlier, put you in a strong position to win games. Plus, you make less outs which is the most important thing you can do. And further, what do you mean by hit? Michael Young gets a lot of hits, but he isn't as good as Tulowitzki who batted 25 points less. So many factors in judging offense besides "ability to hit." You are way to broad. Second, few teams win world series because they have a bunch of guys who can walk? Boston mocks you. And besides that point, we can't say walks OR hits wins. I would say pitching is pretty important. Third, because a sports station doesn't run 'greatest walks' means that they are not important and don't have a massive contribution to a teams ability of NOT MAKING OUTS, the most important thing a batter can do every AB. This point is irrelevant. My head hurts.

its also rare for a team to win anything when leading the league in strikeouts and errors :thumbup

Again, funny that you harp on about errors as if you're talking defense and Uggla is the IF you target. If you want to improve our IF defense, Uggla is the last guy to go to, not the first.

And I'll agree with you about how important it is to hit. And remind you again that Uggla had more extra base hits than any other ML 2B last year.

For his Minor league career he was a 270-280 avg hitter with a 330-350 OBP. His rookie year was in line with that, not some shocking aberration. Last year was seemingly a down year, but I think that had to do with his focus on hitting 30 HRs. And even given the drop in avg, his OPS dropped less tha 15pts.

He had an off year, and he's a slow starter. He'll pick it up by the end of the month, have a good May, and then even out back to normal. Maybe not quite to his 06 numbers, but I would think something in the range of 260-275.

 

Another side note on the walks vs hits discussion - not everyone can be Vlad Guerrero. If a pitcher pitches poorly or around a hot hitter you can't blame the hitter for not being able to collect another hit. Obviously, a hitter will be pitched to more when they are slumping as well.

no no no...i was more or less picking on bobbob about this belief that defense and strike outs are irrelevant...i personally think danny is our best defender...which isnt saying much for the rest of the guys

no no no...i was more or less picking on bobbob about this belief that defense and strike outs are irrelevant...i personally think danny is our best defender...which isnt saying much for the rest of the guys

 

Not irrelevant. Their impact is overstated, especially strikeouts. I've warmed up to the necessity of defense, but I still think great pitching will make a team's defense look better by keeping their chances down.

no no no...i was more or less picking on bobbob about this belief that defense and strike outs are irrelevant...i personally think danny is our best defender...which isnt saying much for the rest of the guys

 

Not irrelevant. Their impact is overstated, especially strikeouts. I've warmed up to the necessity of defense, but I still think great pitching will make a team's defense look better by keeping their chances down.

fair enough...but a team that K's alot...or at least as much as we do...will never have a chance of doing very much in terms of wins...but IMO...a good defense will make your pitchers look alot better....especially if you have pitchers who can keep the ball in the park

no no no...i was more or less picking on bobbob about this belief that defense and strike outs are irrelevant...i personally think danny is our best defender...which isnt saying much for the rest of the guys

 

Not irrelevant. Their impact is overstated, especially strikeouts. I've warmed up to the necessity of defense, but I still think great pitching will make a team's defense look better by keeping their chances down.

fair enough...but a team that K's alot...or at least as much as we do...will never have a chance of doing very much in terms of wins...but IMO...a good defense will make your pitchers look alot better....especially if you have pitchers who can keep the ball in the park

 

If you have pitchers who keep the ball in the park, don't walk guys, and do strike guys out, you take the defense out of it.

 

And we've done this dance before, teams can win if they strike out, but only if they do everything else well. But teams that don't strike out won't win unless they do everything else well. The strikeouts are almost a non-factor.

no no no...i was more or less picking on bobbob about this belief that defense and strike outs are irrelevant...i personally think danny is our best defender...which isnt saying much for the rest of the guys

 

Not irrelevant. Their impact is overstated, especially strikeouts. I've warmed up to the necessity of defense, but I still think great pitching will make a team's defense look better by keeping their chances down.

fair enough...but a team that K's alot...or at least as much as we do...will never have a chance of doing very much in terms of wins...but IMO...a good defense will make your pitchers look alot better....especially if you have pitchers who can keep the ball in the park

 

If you have pitchers who keep the ball in the park, don't walk guys, and do strike guys out, you take the defense out of it.

 

And we've done this dance before, teams can win if they strike out, but only if they do everything else well. But teams that don't strike out won't win unless they do everything else well. The strikeouts are almost a non-factor.

see im not enamoured with the strike out as far as pitchers go...are they nice to have? would i love to have a guy like beckett back or whomever? sure...but i prefer a starter with good control around the plate and keeps the ball in the ballpark(and so do the fielders behind him)...

 

and i have yet to see a team that strikes out alot and does everything else well that won a world series...if you strike out alot, you have holeS in your swing, which means they probably arent good at bunting, dont have alot of sacrifice flies, and dont have alot of productive outs in general...

see im not enamoured with the strike out as far as pitchers go...are they nice to have? would i love to have a guy like beckett back or whomever? sure...but i prefer a starter with good control around the plate and keeps the ball in the ballpark(and so do the fielders behind him)...

 

and i have yet to see a team that strikes out alot and does everything else well that won a world series...if you strike out alot, you have holeS in your swing, which means they probably arent good at bunting, dont have alot of sacrifice flies, and dont have alot of productive outs in general...

 

Of two pitchers with the same control and home run rates, the one with more strikeouts will be the better pitcher. Stop acting like it's an either or thing.

 

And bunting, sac flies, productive outs, etc. are all overrated. We've done this song and dance too, and I'm not going to change my mind. I'll take Adam Dunn, you can have Alfredo Amezaga.

see im not enamoured with the strike out as far as pitchers go...are they nice to have? would i love to have a guy like beckett back or whomever? sure...but i prefer a starter with good control around the plate and keeps the ball in the ballpark(and so do the fielders behind him)...

 

and i have yet to see a team that strikes out alot and does everything else well that won a world series...if you strike out alot, you have holeS in your swing, which means they probably arent good at bunting, dont have alot of sacrifice flies, and dont have alot of productive outs in general...

 

Of two pitchers with the same control and home run rates, the one with more strikeouts will be the better pitcher. Stop acting like it's an either or thing.

 

And bunting, sac flies, productive outs, etc. are all overrated. We've done this song and dance too, and I'm not going to change my mind. I'll take Adam Dunn, you can have Alfredo Amezaga.

stop acting like im hoping that mark redman will come back to be a pitcher for us...a pitcher that works quickly, keeps his defense behind him at attention and keeps the ball the in the park is the pitcher i want, irregardless of how he gets the outs

 

and no...bunting, sac flies and productive outs are not overrated...they are the difference between winning and losing close games more than their fair share of the time, you CANNOT sit back and wait for the homerun all the freakin time, especially not in our park...and yeah ok...you will have to point out where i said i would take pasta over dunn...because i know its not in there...does a team need sluggers? absolutely...but it also needs role players who can do little things well...notice how many close and late playoff games the yankees have won this decade? its because they are too damn busy looking for your slugger rather good complimentary players who can do the little things

 

with a basketball analogy, you are enamoured with guys who can only dunk and shoot 3's...when i prefer a guy with a great mid range jumpshot...whatever...its a difference in opinion of how teams are built...but do the red sox win the world series without youk or pedroia or lowell last year? nope...not even close...and guess what they are good at? working counts, hitting doubles, moving runners, productive outs and playing great defense...give me a lineup with those kinda guys over a lineup of adam dunns any day of the week

Uggla is awful! He will never sniff another all-star game again...

[and no...bunting, sac flies and productive outs are not overrated...they are the difference between winning and losing close games more than their fair share of the time, you CANNOT sit back and wait for the homerun all the freakin time, especially not in our park...

 

SH/SF do not correlate to either wins or runs.

We also don't have to sit back and wait for the HR when we could just enjoy any non-out. Take any of your bunt the man over from first situations, then identify the one what isn't better with a walk or hit.

SH/SF do not correlate to either wins or runs.

 

:blink:

 

You sure about that, chief?

 

A guy hits a sac fly, a run scores. How does that not correlate to runs?

And to add to that...

 

Let's say the game is tied in the bottom of the ninth, and there is a runner on third with 1 out. The batter hit's a fly ball to right field, the runner tags up, scores a run, and wins the ballgame.

 

So...How do sacrifice flies "not correlate to either wins or runs"?

SH/SF do not correlate to either wins or runs.

 

:blink:

 

You sure about that, chief?

 

A guy hits a sac fly, a run scores. How does that not correlate to runs?

exactly...i have no idea what is so difficult to comprehend about that :blink: :blink: :blink:

Over the course of a season, there is a very small correlation between a team's ability to sacrifice bunt/hit and it's ability to score runs and win games. Sure, in that situation it does. But over the course of the year you end up costing your team more runs.

And to add to that...

 

Let's say the game is tied in the bottom of the ninth, and there is a runner on third with 1 out. The batter hit's a fly ball to right field, the runner tags up, scores a run, and wins the ballgame.

 

So...How do sacrifice flies "not correlate to either wins or runs"?

 

Because the just don't. For every situation that you just described, there are multiple examples of getting only 1 run out of bases loaded no outs / 1 out rather than 2-5.

 

If you put ranking in SF/SH against runs and wins, you will find no positive correlation at all. In fact some seasons you can easily find an inverse relationship. Even last season, the National League playoff teams did not see a relationship between SH/SF and success.

Probably one of those guys who thinks batting average is worthless because it doesn't take walks into account. I dunno, I think walks are more of a screw up by the pitcher than something special the hitter did. When Dontrelle Willis walked seven guys the other day, does that mean Chicago's hitters are GREAT? No.......it means Willis is bad. Walks are the overrated statistic as far as measuring a hitter.

 

 

WOW! I can tell you just watch the game opposed to actually playing it. Walks are based upon a hitters eye at the plate, they are specialist in fighting off inside pitches and staying away from outside pitches Thus working the pitcher so hard that they end up walking them. Only downfall to Uggla is that he strikeouts alot, but as he matures, he will gain much more patience at the plate and this can be scary to even the best pitchers in the game. It all comes with youth and goes as the years pass by.

Only downfall to Uggla is that he strikeouts alot, but as he matures, he will gain much more patience at the plate and this can be scary to even the best pitchers in the game. It all comes with youth and goes as the years pass by.

 

I would like to point out that Uggla walked 68 times last season. Once (and I do mean once, not if) he gets his BA up to .275-.280 he will easily be a .350 OBP player.

Probably one of those guys who thinks batting average is worthless because it doesn't take walks into account. I dunno, I think walks are more of a screw up by the pitcher than something special the hitter did. When Dontrelle Willis walked seven guys the other day, does that mean Chicago's hitters are GREAT? No.......it means Willis is bad. Walks are the overrated statistic as far as measuring a hitter.

So Barry Bonds doesn't do anything? Let's not even use an extreme example, Kevin Youkils? Pat Burrell? Batters who work counts consistently don't have better BB rates? You are looking at to isolated of an event, a bad start by a bad pitcher, rather than the cumulation of what a hitter does here. Walks are a skill. And it is a very valuable one. It is also predictable based on a guys skill set, and an EXCELLENT statistic at measuring a hitter.

 

 

Seems then that with Uggla's rather significant improvement in walk #s, that would be a positive for you? Or do you just think that won't last? If he's going to be an all-or-nothing swinger, I'd certainly want him to draw walks - which he seemed to do last season even as his average dipped.

A little late on this thread but I just wanted to make the point that a demotion from the 2 to 5/6 spot in the lineup is not a negative demotion. In other words, the type of player he is just doesn't inherently belong that high up in the order.

Dan Uggla is one of my favorites on the team. He plays intense, and I like that.

With that said, you'll hear complaints from me, as long as he hits 2nd in the lineup.

 

The most K's in MLB + a mediocre .OBP DO NOT = a 2nd hitter, sorry. Not to mention, he has average speed, to say the least.

 

Can we hit him 6th, please (Freddi)?

Probably one of those guys who thinks batting average is worthless because it doesn't take walks into account. I dunno, I think walks are more of a screw up by the pitcher than something special the hitter did. When Dontrelle Willis walked seven guys the other day, does that mean Chicago's hitters are GREAT? No.......it means Willis is bad. Walks are the overrated statistic as far as measuring a hitter.

 

 

WOW! I can tell you just watch the game opposed to actually playing it. Walks are based upon a hitters eye at the plate, they are specialist in fighting off inside pitches and staying away from outside pitches Thus working the pitcher so hard that they end up walking them. Only downfall to Uggla is that he strikeouts alot, but as he matures, he will gain much more patience at the plate and this can be scary to even the best pitchers in the game. It all comes with youth and goes as the years pass by.

 

And yet there's a LOT of poor pitching in major league baseball. There's a lot of bad pitchers. What do most of them have in common? They walk a lot of hitters. Its not because the hitters make them work more, its because the pitchers are bad. Yeah, it is skill to get a walk off a guy who doesn't walk many people. Those are the quality pitchers in the major leagues, which are few and far between. The Marlins pitching staff walks TONS of people. Its NOT because of our opponents have great hitters. Its because our pitching staff is very young and very bad right now.

A little late on this thread but I just wanted to make the point that a demotion from the 2 to 5/6 spot in the lineup is not a negative demotion. In other words, the type of player he is just doesn't inherently belong that high up in the order.

 

This is a good mentality, as lame as it may sound, that Ryan Howard commercial where he says "Everyone bats cleanup" is a great mentality to have. Every spot in the lineup has the exact same pre-reqs: Attempt to not make an out, as a result, reach base... drive in runners ahead of you... work the pitcher...

 

Some spots in the order stress OBP (leadoff, 2, 8 and 9) and some stress SLG (3-6 or 7), but they all share the same goals. Don't make outs, drive in and score runs.

And yet there's a LOT of poor pitching in major league baseball. There's a lot of bad pitchers. What do most of them have in common? They walk a lot of hitters. Its not because the hitters make them work more, its because the pitchers are bad. Yeah, it is skill to get a walk off a guy who doesn't walk many people. Those are the quality pitchers in the major leagues, which are few and far between. The Marlins pitching staff walks TONS of people. Its NOT because of our opponents have great hitters. Its because our pitching staff is very young and very bad right now.

 

Then how do you explain why hitters are so consistent with walks? A hitter who walks a lot one year generally walks alot from year to year. He just happens to face pitchers who can't throw strikes? Shouldn't the guys directly in front and behind him have similar walk numbers?

Possibly, if they took more pitches, yes.