Possibly, if they took more pitches, yes.

 

But they don't. Because walking is a distinct skill a hitter has.

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)?

 

He should certainly not hit 2nd.

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.

Of course it is a positive, but I don't see his average or his BB rate significantly improving to where he becomes a player we need to keep around. He had a .326 OBP last year, batting in between serious hitters no less. Do you see him having a .280 average with his contact rates? If he doesn't do that, do you see him plopping another 25 BB from his progression from last year? One of those needs to happen to get to a beneficial OBP, and further with the average, he needs to get more hits because his 2007 XBH rate is not sustainable and that was the only thing keeping him decent last year. I think he could walk 60+, it's not a ferocious number to get too. But that isn't my concern, it's the XBH. His best feature as a player is his slugging potential from a historically non slugging position. He needs to raise the average 30-40 points to keep that slugging percentage where it is, to where it matters performance wise. If he does that, he can probably sustain being a low .800 OPS ballplayer that will be worth his arbitration. If not, he is dropping into the 700s very fast and will not be worth it. This is why I want to trade him. Taking a risk on Uggla to stay consistent, let alone improve, is not a good bet based on his skill set. It may very well backfire and he is somehow able to have a .480 slugging batting .240, or that average does become consistently .280, etc, but doing a basic 'risk assessment' from a front office perspective of his future, leads me to believe it was in our best interest to trade him for a package settled around a young C or 3B. I hope "everyone" proves me wrong on this and he keeps it up, because that means he might fight his way into the Hanley/Hermida/Maybin core if the Marlins are willing to pay, or, he keeps his trade value high so if we won't pay him, he'll still bring in the goods.

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.

 

Who're the top hitters in baseball, and what do they have in common, the ability to take a walk. An "eye" is just as important for taking walks as it is for SLG, because it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that hitters perform better in hitters counts. Fact is, most pitchers don't throw strikes all the time, as Lou said, so, being able to take pitches from good pitchers and make them throw more pitches to get them out of the game sooner is crucial to being a good hitter.

 

OBP > BA because OBP takes BA into consideration, and also everything else the hitter does to ultimately not make an out and contribute to his teams ability to score runs. In case you're still skeptical, there was a study done in Moneyball where Scott Hatteberg (A career .273 hitter) if cloned 9 times would arguably provide the best lineup in baseball (vs teams, because obviously 9 A-Rods would be better) based chiefly on his ability to not make outs... e.g. Having a good OBP.

 

Fact is, the worst thing you can do as a hitter is make an out... only marginally better is advancing a runner WHILE making an out. For example:

 

A runner on first with no outs is worth 0.85 runs, after a successful sac bunt, the runner is on second with one out, the run potential then becomes 0.65 runs. You've actually lowered your run potential.

 

These numbers are probably off, but not off enough to illustrate the point.

.baa is important.

 

if a guy can only hit .100, but walks enough to have a .400 OBP...well, pitchers just won't go outside the zone and he'd be left with a .100 OBP.

 

and likewise if a guy could hit .500 with balls in the zone, but barely takes pitches outside the zone, pitchers are just going to stay outside the zone and his .baa will drop.

 

the ability to hit for average and walk is what's important. A player who only walks and a player who can only hit for average are equally un-valuable.

That is what they call being a "good hitter". It is also what they call "common sense". I don't see any argument against your post. You win. Someone owes you a cookie. :thumbup

 

I'm too lazy to re-find who but there was someone continually saying .baa was worthless.

 

Hitting for average is not worthless.

That is what they call being a "good hitter". It is also what they call "common sense". I don't see any argument against your post. You win. Someone owes you a cookie. :thumbup

 

I'm too lazy to re-find who but there was someone continually saying .baa was worthless.

 

Hitting for average is not worthless.

I think using BA is a useless way to figure out if a player is good at baseball.

It's overrated, but it's far from "useless."

 

If a player can't hit a ball, the pitchers are just going to attack him. You're not going to get walks if you're not getting balls because there's no threat of putting a ball over the plate.

There is no player like that in MLB. Most players are going to be between .240 and .350. So you have to use those, and really, there are plenty of guys who can hit .240 and be way more valuable than the guys hitting .350. It doesn't really tell you anything about how good of a player he is, or how many runs he adds.

Well, it's foolish to only look at one stat anyway. just .baa doesn't justify a player, no. But I'd pray that a person doesn't look at one stat and nothing else. and .baa is an important stat, aswell as others, to judge and project a player.

 

And there's a reason there's no players in the MLB like that, because they don't make it.

I'd say WARP3 is a pretty good stat if you have to use just one.

There is no player like that in MLB. Most players are going to be between .240 and .350. So you have to use those, and really, there are plenty of guys who can hit .240 and be way more valuable than the guys hitting .350. It doesn't really tell you anything about how good of a player he is, or how many runs he adds.

 

I'm just curious - can you name some players that hit .240 that are have been more valuable than players that hit .350 in the history of baseball? And what players that hit .350 they are better than?

except warp3 uses fraa, which again is horrible

 

But overall I do agree that projecting how many wins a player adds based off runs created and runs prevented is a good idea, yes. But until a good runs prevented formula comes out, the stat can't be properlly fulfilled and is left to being "roughly"

Batting average is not a valuable stat. It tells you nothing of merit. OBP and SLG cover it much better, and one doesn't have to go all SABR and pull out WARP or OWP or RC/27 when one uses the OPS components.

 

There are players that have an mediocre or even 'bad' batting average but who have a great OPS. These are valuable players.

There are players that have a good batting average, and do not have even a good OPS. Those are not valuable players.

Just go to OPS and skip the middleman.

There is no player like that in MLB. Most players are going to be between .240 and .350. So you have to use those, and really, there are plenty of guys who can hit .240 and be way more valuable than the guys hitting .350. It doesn't really tell you anything about how good of a player he is, or how many runs he adds.

 

I'm just curious - can you name some players that hit .240 that are have been more valuable than players that hit .350 in the history of baseball? And what players that hit .350 they are better than?

 

Strictly speaking of what a player does at the plate and only at the plate, Adam Dunn's 2006 (In which he hit .234) was slightly more valueable than Ichiro Suzuki's 2007 (In which he hit .351).

 

However, Ichiro is vastly more valueable than Dunn when it comes to overall game, due to his speed and great ability to steal bases at a very high % and the extremely vast difference in defense (Where you're talking about somewhere in the range of a 25-35 run difference).

 

But if all those things were equal, Dunn would have been more valueable.

Strictly speaking of what a player does at the plate and only at the plate, Adam Dunn's 2006 (In which he hit .234) was slightly more valueable than Ichiro Suzuki's 2007 (In which he hit .351).

 

However, Ichiro is vastly more valueable than Dunn when it comes to overall game, due to his speed and great ability to steal bases at a very high % and the extremely vast difference in defense (Where you're talking about somewhere in the range of a 25-35 run difference).

 

But if all those things were equal, Dunn would have been more valueable.

 

But their BAA are completely useless in telling you anything.

Batting average is not a valuable stat. It tells you nothing of merit. OBP and SLG cover it much better, and one doesn't have to go all SABR and pull out WARP or OWP or RC/27 when one uses the OPS components.

 

There are players that have an mediocre or even 'bad' batting average but who have a great OPS. These are valuable players.

There are players that have a good batting average, and do not have even a good OPS. Those are not valuable players.

Just go to OPS and skip the middleman.

 

 

Except OPS isn't all that good and there's a lot of things that affect it. Projecting a player based soley off OPS is a horrible idea.

 

I'm not saying baa is some amazing stat but calling it useless it just as false as calling it the best.

When comparing Ichiro's 2007 to Dunn's 2006, .baa doesn't mean much no.

 

But calling .baa useless because of one instance is rather eh though lol

There is no player like that in MLB. Most players are going to be between .240 and .350. So you have to use those, and really, there are plenty of guys who can hit .240 and be way more valuable than the guys hitting .350. It doesn't really tell you anything about how good of a player he is, or how many runs he adds.

 

I'm just curious - can you name some players that hit .240 that are have been more valuable than players that hit .350 in the history of baseball? And what players that hit .350 they are better than?

 

Strictly speaking of what a player does at the plate and only at the plate, Adam Dunn's 2006 (In which he hit .234) was slightly more valueable than Ichiro Suzuki's 2007 (In which he hit .351).

 

However, Ichiro is vastly more valueable than Dunn when it comes to overall game, due to his speed and great ability to steal bases at a very high % and the extremely vast difference in defense (Where you're talking about somewhere in the range of a 25-35 run difference).

 

But if all those things were equal, Dunn would have been more valueable.

 

I understand the jist of your post- Dunn hitting .234 doesn't make him a horrible player. But still, Ichiro had a much higher OBP despite the amount that Dunn walked, and he scored more runs as well. A walk is not as valuable as a base hit because it doesn't move runners the way that a base hit can.

Except OPS isn't all that good and there's a lot of things that affect it. Projecting a player based soley off OPS is a horrible idea.

 

I'm not saying baa is some amazing stat but calling it useless it just as false as calling it the best.

 

Batting average has all of the flaws of OPS and none of the advantages. It is useless. It is an antiquated relic of a time before the game was understood, or even measured - it was created in an attempt to measure the game. It represents the cubit of baseball, there is just so much more to go with nowadays. So yes, it is useless. There are other things to consider with a player (base running, defense, etc) but those are not hitting stats.

 

OPS is pretty consistent to runs scored, batting average has little relationship. Last years MLB stats show that the top 8 OPS teams are the top 8 run scoring teams in each league. No such correlation exists among BA leaders.

I never said anything about ba correlating to runs scored..........

 

but the rate in which a player gets hit is not useless.

 

It's main advantage comes towards projections.

I never said anything about ba correlating to runs scored..........

 

I thought the game was about scoring / preventing runs.

Just to clarify - I'm not all about batting average. I just thought bobbob's comment that there are "plenty of guys who can hit .240 and be way more valuable than the guys hitting .350" is BS and cannot be backed up historically outside of maybe a few random anomalies.

Just to clarify - I'm not all about batting average. I just thought bobbob's comment that there are "plenty of guys who can hit .240 and be way more valuable than the guys hitting .350" is BS and cannot be backed up historically outside of maybe a few random anomalies.

 

It was obviously hyperbole. But .270 vs. .320 is easy to demonstrate.

I never said anything about ba correlating to runs scored..........

 

I thought the game was about scoring / preventing runs.