The Hot Corner: Batting Titles

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 21, 2007 5:08 PM EDT

Jake posted one of these a while ago about whether or not Jim Leyland was a Hall of Fame manager, well I pose this question: Should batting titles be determined by current measure, batting average or on-base percentage?

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Batting average

I believe that the current stat for Batting Titles, being Batting average, should be kept.

Why?

Players like Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi don't even swing a bat at pitches out of the zone. They'll choose to walk and only hit when it's a meatball/mistake-type of pitch. While that's going to help you in the long-run, you're taking the fun out of the game and decreases your chances of winning a batting title.

I enjoyed watching Mauer collect hits last year and narrowly got enough ABs, due to him being a catcher, to earn the batting title.

While it's nice in 10 by 10 fantasy leagues to see your player have a .400 OBP, it's fun to see a player attempt at making a run at a .400 batting average.

by Jacob Larsen on Apr 21, 2007 5:14 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Batting average

Eh I'll play devil's advocate here.

OBP factors in walks, why punish a guy like Bonds for being intimidating or having a good eye?

In theory every hit that doesn't leave the park is 'luck' that it landed in between fielders or just shy, now I don't necesarily agree with that logic, but you can make the case.

It's not as if you're truly harming a Mauer type, since usually the batting title winner will have a pretty large OBP as well, it just seperates the boys from the men in terms of overall hitters.

Perhaps the better question would've been, "Do we need a recognition for the player with the highest OBP?"

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 21, 2007 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Look at Adam Dunn

Consistently a .400+ OBP guy, but his batting average is somewhere around .250. He's good at getting on-base, but just as good at striking out.

There's much more luck at getting a hit than drawing a walk. Playing softball, I learned that I could get on-base in 3 out of 5 ABs without even taking my bat off of my shoulders. That's not intimidating, now is it?

by Jacob Larsen on Apr 21, 2007 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: Look at Adam Dunn

Good point, however over a 162 game season against top level competition you're going to get a mix of wild things like Danny Cabrera and Edwin Jackson along with artists like Santana and Halladay, so they'll even out.

I get the luck theory in terms of walk, since it's all subjective on the umpires close calls, though in Bonds case just look at the IBB, that's the intimdation factor, meaning it doesn't exist for every player with high walk totals.

by R.J. Anderson on Apr 21, 2007 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Average

Batting titles should still be determined by average. While I generally agree that average is over-rated, for example I'd obviously rather a .270 hitter with a .380 OBP than a .300 hitter with a .330 OBP given similar SLG.

A single is still better than a walk. So being that is true, and guys winning the batting titles almost always hit over .340, that's a very valueble thing. I'd take the guy with the .340+ average who's OBP is only .370 over a guy with a .300 average and OBP is .400 because the amount of hits the guy is getting is making up for him making more outs.

by Tyler on Apr 21, 2007 5:14 PM EDT reply actions

Average

This question splits for me. On the one hand, I feel that the Batting Title should stay determined by Batting Average, because it does take a measure of which player is the best hitter, and that is best measured by BA. That said, it is an irrelevant award that I personally don't care about because of its emphasis on BA.

However, that said, you are still wrong Tyler, which you seem to be making a habit of... :)

In a direct matchup, of course a single is better than a walk because it gives any baserunners that may be aboard the opportunity to advance. However when you extrapolate all of a player's hits and all of a player's walks over a full season, this comparison is simplistic and irrelevant. A lot of singles come with....

No one on base
Runners on base that do not move on a single any more than they would a walk

Ultimately for the batter involved, a higher on base percentage means that the player in question is putting himself on more often and giving his team the potential to score a run, but more importantly, he is not creating an out, thus allowing the theoretically infinite supply of outs to remain cut. The situation you cite is of one player with a very good average and an exemplary OBP, and the other player has an exemplary average as well as an exemplary OBP because of that average. Therein lies the problem. But still, using that comparison, Player B does not create an out 20 more times over the course of a 625 PA season, and while that may not seem significant, we also don't know how many of Player A's singles were in garbage time and whether he could make up that difference, nor are we aware of their slugging percentages. Evaluating based on the hypothetical you suggest is difficult for these reasons. You can throw BABIP in there as well as a possible sabotage agent.

However I would add that I'd rather have a player with a .100 IsoD than one with a .30 IsoD, because I know that while a string of bad luck can bring down Player A's batting average immensely, the same could happen to Player B, however he would have something to fall back on. Cut each BA .50 points, we'll say .340 in Player A's case, and you are left with a .320 OBP vs. a .350 OBP for a similar reduction for Player B. That is a huge difference, and Player B is the far safer choice, and depending on the circumstances, more valuable to his team.

by Patrick L. Kennedy on Apr 21, 2007 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Re: The Hot Corner: Batting Titles

Maybe the "batting title" should go to the hitter who makes the lowest % of outs in a season over a legitimate number of plate appearances. For example, suppose one batter (A) has 650 plate appearances in which he gets 185 hits and 85 walks and hits into 10 double plays while a second batter (B) in 650 PAs gets 200 hits and 40 walks and hits into 25 double plays. (I will leave out sacrifices and HBP for the moment.) That means that player A has an out percentage of .600 while player B has an out % of .669. If they are first and second in the batting title race, using this method, player A wins the title even though player B has a BA of .3278 to A's .3274.

Actually, rather than eliminate BA, which has sentimental value, why not just elevate OBP into an award?

by bobr on Apr 21, 2007 8:44 PM EDT reply actions