Whom Do You Choose to Tie the Game?

[LouGehrig]

Asking how many ABs Michael Young or Ichiro or Pete Rose had in a 200 hit season leads one to a statistic called "Batting Average."

There are runners on third and second. Our team is behind by a run in the ninth inning with two outs. The choice of hitter is one of the Eddie's -- Stanky or Yost, Max Bishop, or Lloyd Waner. The on deck hitter is George Sisler.

Whom do select to bat with the runners in scoring position, Stanky, Yost, Bishop, or Waner.

Stanky .268/.410
Yost .254/.394
Bishop .271/.423
Waner .316/.353
Sisler .340/.379

[SamtheBravesFan]

Waner, of course. The situation calls for the person most likely to get a hit, and Waner can do that. If this is supposed to prove something, please enlighten me on what it is.

[LouGehrig]

I am sick of all this OBA. Now, I DO agree that OBA and SA are vital statistics, but there are key situations in which batting average is more critical. Over the last few decades, the constant denigrating of BA has made many modern fans almost entirely dismiss it. It will always have its place as an important measurement.

Statistics must taken as an enitity and applied to different situations. Stanky was great as a lead off man, but there are situations in which getting on base by a walk is not good, when compared to a hit.

With a runner of first and less than two outs, a single might get the runner to third. A walk almost never will.

[KCGHOST]

No matter the situation it doesn't change the quality of the hitter. If you'd rather have Lloyd Waner for the long haul rather than Eddie Yost that's your business. But to construct a very limited event scenario and say that justifies it is rather a stretch.

In fact in this case it could easily be argued that the advantage of Waner batting in that situation is offset by the advantage Stanky has in the prior innings (i.e. you would already have scored one more run earlier in the game and you wouldn't be behind).

[SamtheBravesFan]

No matter the situation it doesn't change the quality of the hitter. If you'd rather have Lloyd Waner for the long haul rather than Eddie Yost that's your business. But to construct a very limited event scenario and say that justifies it is rather a stretch.

In fact in this case it could easily be argued that the advantage of Waner batting in that situation is offset by the advantage Stanky has in the prior innings (i.e. you would already have scored one more run earlier in the game and you wouldn't be behind).

That would be true. LouGehrig, whether you want to believe it or not, on-base percentage might actually show that a player is a better batter and would come through in that situation. Even here, the player with the higher on-base percentage might have a better chance of coming through in that situation because he'd be more likely to wait for a pitch he wants to hit.

In this limited situation without any other context, I HAD to take Waner. I had no other choice.

[LouGehrig]

No matter the situation it doesn't change the quality of the hitter. If you'd rather have Lloyd Waner for the long haul rather than Eddie Yost that's your business. But to construct a very limited event scenario and say that justifies it is rather a stretch.

In fact in this case it could easily be argued that the advantage of Waner batting in that situation is offset by the advantage Stanky has in the prior innings (i.e. you would already have scored one more run earlier in the game and you wouldn't be behind).

You are not accepting the premise, which is your right, but based upon the premise presented, in this situation, there is a better chance of success with Waner.

The premise does not involve the long haul, which requires an entirely different analysis.

The premise does not involve prior innings. It is possible that all the players involved were not in the game previously.

A point is being made. A generalization is NOT being claimed.

[LouGehrig]

That would be true. LouGehrig, whether you want to believe it or not, on-base percentage might actually show that a player is a better batter and would come through in that situation. Even here, the player with the higher on-base percentage might have a better chance of coming through in that situation because he'd be more likely to wait for a pitch he wants to hit.

Then why does he have such a relatively low BA?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Then why does he have such a relatively low BA?

Simply because he takes walks. They don't add to batting average, so that keeps it down a bit.

[LouGehrig]

Simply because he takes walks. They don't add to batting average, so that keeps it down a bit.

I seem to be having some trouble following the concept. I thought that a walk has no effect on batting average.

A player who hits .200 hits safely 2 times for every 10 official at bats, and a player who hits .300 hits safely 3 times for every 10 official at bats.

Does your explanation mean that a .200 hitter who takes a walk would have gotten a hit that at bat and would have also been a .300 hitter?

[SamtheBravesFan]

I seem to be having some trouble following the concept. I thought that a walk has no effect on batting average.

A player who hits .200 hits safely 2 times for every 10 official at bats, and a player who hits .300 hits safely 3 times for every 10 official at bats.

Does your explanation mean that a .200 hitter who takes a walk would have gotten a hit that at bat and would have also been a .300 hitter?

No, I'm specifically referring to their approach at the plate. I just went about it wrong. If someone has a batting average very close to their on-base percentage (lets say .300/.330), that most likely means he's a hacker. If a person has an on-base percentage not very close to their batting average (.270/.370), that most likely means that they're more selective at the plate. There are a lot more factors that should go into the situation besides batting average.

[LouGehrig]

Agree completely. The problem is that in certain situations, often that mean the difference between winning or losing, a walk is not as good as a hit.

[Calif_Eagle]

Asking how many ABs Michael Young or Ichiro or Pete Rose had in a 200 hit season leads one to a statistic called "Batting Average."

There are runners on third and second. Our team is behind by a run in the ninth inning with two outs. The choice of hitter is one of the Eddie's -- Stanky or Yost, Max Bishop, or Lloyd Waner. The on deck hitter is George Sisler.

Whom do select to bat with the runners in scoring position, Stanky, Yost, Bishop, or Waner.

Stanky .268/.410
Yost .254/.394
Bishop .271/.423
Waner .316/.353
Sisler .340/.379

Looking at the 37 point spread Waner has between his BA and his OBP, which is worse than Sisler's 39 point spread, If I am the pitcher in this situation I am going to throw just off the plate on every pitch. If Waner walks, I have a force at any base and another impatient hitter coming up in Sisler. If Waner swings, its probably at a bad ball (unless one gets away from me, in baseball anything CAN happen.) and if he makes contact I then have a .684 chance that I am retiring him for the last out, probably even higher than that, considering that .316 ave has to include hitting many balls more or less right in his wheelhouse.

Keeping the inning alive, you might be served better to bat Bishop or Stanky rather than Waner. And you might want to check your bench if one of them walks or reaches base without the tying run scoring to see if you have a hitter with more plate discipline &/or power to bat for Sisler. (This bench seems to have a lot of All-Star caliber hitters already, maybe theres a G. H. Ruth skulking around down in the runway...? )

[SamtheBravesFan]

Agree completely. The problem is that in certain situations, often that mean the difference between winning or losing, a walk is not as good as a hit.

Of course not, but the problem with that is a hacker is usually not as good as a selective hitter. I'd rather have someone attempt to try to pick a pitch and make the pitcher throw a mistake than a batter who flails at most everything and can be coaxed to chase pitches easily. The selective batter isn't going to go up there and attempt to get a walk. He's going to go up there and say "Attempt to get a single. If he gives you a walk, take it." That's where your premise is flawed.