July 18, 201214 yr In 76 games with 291 pro-rated at bats, Andrew McCutchen would need to go 125/291, batting .430 in in that span to raise his average to .400. I hope you realize how stupid this question is now. On a brighter note, Dr Beinfest is now in the 10k club. A speech will follow tonight.
July 18, 201214 yr In 76 games with 291 pro-rated at bats, Andrew McCutchen would need to go 125/291, batting .430 in in that span to raise his average to .400. I hope you realize how stupid this question is now. On a brighter note, Dr Beinfest is now in the 10k club. A speech will follow tonight. Your speeches suck!
July 18, 201214 yr Author In 76 games with 291 pro-rated at bats, Andrew McCutchen would need to go 125/291, batting .430 in in that span to raise his average to .400. I hope you realize how stupid this question is now. On a brighter note, Dr Beinfest is now in the 10k club. A speech will follow tonight. I know it's far fetched but it's not impossible. The one thing that he has going for him is his speed. I don't think he will but it would be nice to see. And stupid is as stupid does. PS: Happy 10,000.
July 18, 201214 yr Well you seem like an okay person, Mr. Man. I also like titles in usernames, as you may have noticed. Thank you for your well regards to #10,000. Stupid is indeed as stupid does. And I love the selection of avatar. But anyways, back on topic... it might even seem far-fetched but not impossible. I'm going to try and give you an idea as to why it's not completely impossible, but improbable enough that we shouldn't be questioning it. 17 games of Andrew McCutchen's 86 games this seasons have been 0-for's. 0-60. Now I know it's not fair to simply ignore those games, but imagine what he'd be batting right now if he didn't have those games... .453! But he obviously has those games. His batting average for all games with 1 or more hits is .453. Assuming he has the same rate of 0-for's and the same ABs per 0-for, he'd need to have a batting average of .525 removing 0-53 in 15 games. What if he knocked out 2 of those games this week? Those 0-for games are going to happen. Have you ever heard of a player batting .500 in 61 games in one half of the season? That's absurd!
July 18, 201214 yr Author Well you seem like an okay person, Mr. Man. I also like titles in usernames, as you may have noticed. Thank you for your well regards to #10,000. Stupid is indeed as stupid does. And I love the selection of avatar. But anyways, back on topic... it might even seem far-fetched but not impossible. I'm going to try and give you an idea as to why it's not completely impossible, but improbable enough that we shouldn't be questioning it. 17 games of Andrew McCutchen's 86 games this seasons have been 0-for's. 0-60. Now I know it's not fair to simply ignore those games, but imagine what he'd be batting right now if he didn't have those games... .453! But he obviously has those games. His batting average for all games with 1 or more hits is .453. Assuming he has the same rate of 0-for's and the same ABs per 0-for, he'd need to have a batting average of .525 removing 0-53 in 15 games. What if he knocked out 2 of those games this week? Those 0-for games are going to happen. Have you ever heard of a player batting .500 in 61 games in one half of the season? That's absurd! You make some good points. I like to think it will be more determined by the pitchers he will see, the media scrutiny(and social media), the fact that they are in a playoff race as opposed to just playing out the season, and again his speed as opposed to say someone like Tony Gwynn, among other factors.
July 19, 201214 yr If it is to ever happen, you need to already be batting .400 at this point in the season. There's no room for error all season if you're going to bat .400.
July 24, 201214 yr I feel like Trout might one day give it a good run to hit .400. The kid is unbelievable
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.