Diamondbacks Bullpen

[shoewizard]

Why is it that the same people who decry the "overuse" in their minds of statistics to evaluate players are always the first ones to throw a players Batting Average out there when defending the players they like?

Some people who view themselves as "traditionalists", and eschew any form of modern performance analysis, will frequently then throw a 19th century stat at you in a debate.

For over 100 years, Batting Average has been the first measure that people have traditionally looked at when trying to gauge a players contributions on offense. Batting average, is always the first thing you see on television, the newspaper, and hear from the announcers on both TV and Radio. So it is certainly understandable why most people refer to Batting average first and foremost when trying to understand or establish a players value on offense.

However, Batting Average turns out to be a woefully inadequate and incomplete way to measure offensive value. And it's really quite simple to understand why.

1.) Batting average does not include Walks or Hit By Pitch in it's calculations.

2.) Batting average treats all hits as the same value, regardless if it's a single, double, triple or homerun.

So it is very common to see a player who might have a high batting average, but few walks and little power often be somewhat overated by many fans and even other players of the game. Heres why.


THE VALUEOF WALKS AND HBP
So...how is batting average calculated, and why doesn't it "work" as well as we thought:

Batting average is simply hits divided by at bats.
Example: 3 H / 10 AB = .300

But what is an at bat?
Well, "official at bats" do not include walks or hit by pitch. In batting average, a walk or a hit by pitch never happened.

Think about that a moment. All those walks and HBP are treated as non events by the metric called batting average. In BA these events have ZERO VALUE.

It should be obvious to almost any observer of the game that Walks and HBP have ALOT of value. Firstly, and most importantly, an out has been avoided. When you go to the plate, the first thing you are trying to do is avoid making an out. (You only get 27 in a 9 inn game of course). You also create a baserunner, (yourself) who has the potential to score later in the inning. And if there is a runner on first base, or a force at any base, those runners all advance a base. Another advantage is that the pitcher has to throw more pitches, causing him to perhaps tire earlier, and if the player who walked is the first runner on base that inning, the pitcher must then throw from the Stretch position, where many pitchers are less effective and lose velocity on their pitches to home plate. Finally, the runner now on first usually needs to be "held on". The act of the first baseman holding the runner on create an additional gap between the firstbaseman and the second baseman, making it more likely the next hitter can get a base hit.

The only difference between a walk and a single is that a forced runner cannot advance more than one base on a walk, and a non forced runner, does not advance at all.

So the old adage you heard from your little league coach was true

"A walks as good as a hit"......Well, almost as good. It has been calculated that a walk has roughtly 70% of the value of a single.

So if it walk or HBP has 70% the value of a single, doesn't it seem kind of silly to eliminate these events when evaluating a players contribution?
OF COURSE IT'S SILLY.

The solution: Use ON BASE PERCENTAGE instead

On base percentage is simply the percentage a player gets on base, regardless of how he got there. Another way to look at it is the percentage of times he avoided making an out. The formula is basically
hits plus walks plus hit by pitch, divided by at-bats plus walks plus hit by pitch




THE DIFFEREING VALUE OF HITS

The second major flaw of BA is it credits all hits the same. Clearly a homerun is worth more than a single, but batting average doesn't tell you that. Slugging percentage, however DOES.

Slugging Percentage is simply total bases divided by at bats.

Single = 1 base
Double= 2 base
Triple = 3 bases
Homer= 4 bases

Add up the total bases a player has accumulated through all his hits, and divide by at bats and you have a players slugging percentage.
In this way you can properly value the TYPE of hits a player is getting.

=======================


So, I would strongly encourage all people to rely LESS on batting average, and MORE on OBP and SLG to help them deterimine which players are making the strongest contributions on offense.

In doing so, you will certainly find that some players seem overvalued based on just their batting average, and you will also find that other players are undervalued, at least in popular perception.

[moviegeekjn]

[matt]

That belongs in the republic. I think it would be a great idea if either during ST or at some point in the season they took the time to provide a weekly column similar to things like what you posted.

[qudjy1]

I think its interesting that ESPN started putting OBP in their stat lines below a player when they come to bat.... hey... its a start...

[McCray]

excellent article, shoewizard.

i'm pretty new to stats -- i'm even pretty new to obp and slg, i'll admit. i've gotten pretty good with obp, but i'm still shaky with slg. what's a "good" slg percentage? i'm guess the answer to that varies by position, but what's good for corner OF? cf? if corner? if middle? c?
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

[shoewizard]

You can get league averages from here

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/teams/

[EvilJuan]

One of the greatest curses of any enterprise or institution is the attitude expressed through statements such as, "But we've always done it that way!"

Because a player's batting average has been used since the early days of baseball, to question the validity of this metric amounts to heresy -- at least, in certain circles. However, once its deficiencies have been explained, and the value of a different metric (or set of metrics) have been offered and explained, all but the most close-minded should be able to see the value of these new measures. (Thanks, shoe, for the excellent introduction to OBP and SLG.)

If the batting average were to disappear from box scores and TV at-bat displays, to be replaced by OBP, with some occasional explanation of how OBP is determined, it wouldn't take long for any furor about the loss of BA as "the" metric to die down...
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?

[shoewizard]

[shoewizard]

OPS By position, top to bottom (not including DH and pinch hitters)

[shoewizard]

OH...hey...if Foulpole checks in on this thread....

Remember the overbay debates?

Major league average for a first basemans OPS is .847

Overbay had a .880 OPS this year

His OPS+ was 123

Still think he is not an above average hitting firstbaseman?

[McCray]

thanks for the help, shoewiz. i tinkered on your link for a while, but i suck at the internet and i gave up.

i think my internets tube is clogged.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

[stu]

Out of 24 qualifed 1b's, Overbay was 12th this year in OPS.

link

Out of 8 in the AL, he was 5th. Depending on what you mean by average, this sounds pretty average.

I agree you need to look at cost and with the concept that average among regular hitters at 300k is very valuable.

[Dylan]

Bill James wrote in the 1985 baseball abstract:

[shoewizard]

[stu]

I'd say among regular 1b's Overbay was pretty average. The problem with the technical definition of average is that it lumps all of the less than replacement players into it. This can be misleading if you want to win a championship.

[shoewizard]

Stu.....847 is the AVERAGE for a first baseman...not a replacement level first baseman. You are tossing in replacement level, as if we were comparing Overbay to the replacement level for first base. We aren't. We are comparing him to average.

Speculating on what type of first baseman a team needs to have to be a playoff team is both speculative and misleading.

It is very misleading to try to make a point that a guy with an OPS 33 points above league average for his position, and an overall 123 OPS+ is below average, or even average.

If you want to start talking about Replacement level, how about referencing BP's hitting stats

Overbay had 36 batting runs above replacement level and 18 batting runs above average.

He had a .285 Eqa. the postion average for Eqa is .279

Overbay may not be MILES above league average, but he is above average, and has been 2 of the last 3 years.

Trying to make a case that he is average or below contradicts every piece of objective evidence. All you have is a "ranking among qualified first baseman" , which is the ultimate in misleading and incomplete.

But I know the contrarian in you can't help it.

[matt]

I think you are both right, it just depends on how you are looking at it. If you are looking at anyone who played 1B at all, he's above average. If you look at people who played it every day, he was in the middle of the pack.

[shoewizard]

Some teams use platoons to maximize production.

There can be no arguement what the average OPS is for a first baseman in the major leagues. It's .847

And there can be no arguement that Overbay had an OPS above that average. It's .880

Stu's point is that he does not believe that league average has much value to a supposed winning team, and therfore he does not value a player that is only somewhat above average for the position.

[stu]

i think Matt is right. It depends on how you look at it. I think it is more useful to look at Overbay in comparison the regular 1b to see if you need any imrpovemtn at the position. You think above average (which includes all the dogs) is just fine. Just a different outlook.

Stu.....847 is the AVERAGE for a first baseman...not a replacement level first baseman. You are tossing in replacement level, as if we were comparing Overbay to the replacement level for first base. We aren't. We are comparing him to average.

No. I am saying that all the replacement and below level dogs who played first drag the average down. I think if you want a championship team, you should look at how he performs against the regulars, not against an arbitrary average.

Also the 3 1b's just below Overbay (Gonzlaez, Garciaparra and Sexsson) played in severe pitchers' parks. Toronto was about a 103. If you take park into account you move Overby into the 15 range.

I thought your piece on batting average was great.

IOW, the comparison should be to players who have been selected to play 1b full time, not to numbers that include every Tom, Dick and Harry who played 1b that season. I think if teams are looking at the average, they are going Brookenize themselves.

Also 33 OPS is about 3.75% I think some people get hung on on minor differences. That a player is 4% above average for one season may technically make him "above average" for that season, but I think his true talent level is more correctly described as about average.

[shoewizard]

Well, perhaps you don't recall the context of the earlier discussion.

Dylan and I were debating FP over the fact that the D backs traded away a guy that was at least league average or better who was making league minimum because they did not have the patience to let him develop.

In this thread, my intent wat not really to discuss the relative merit of average, you introduced that element.

BTW, overbay has been above average in 2 of the last 3 seasons, and average for the middle one.

[stu]

What I was trying to get at was what do people mean when they say average. Is it everybody who has played the position or just those who play it on a regular basis. I agree that your definition is technically the correct one, but I don't think that is what most people mean. Maybe the mean mean, mode or median.

I think mean is average, but it sounded cool to say mean mean.

And is that average park adjusted?

[shoewizard]

Well, since you want to bring up park adjustments....fine, that works for me. Because it pretty much KILLS your arguement.

Using OPS+, Overbay actually moves up a spot from 12th to 11th

[stu]

I have agreed that by your technical defintion of average, which you have now posted a dozen times Overbay is "above average" for this season by these numbers. However, the differecne is so small that I think "about average" is a more accurate term to describe him.

He has played four seasons. In two he was average or below. In two he was about 4% above average. If you want to say above average in two out four seasons, go ahead.

[AZ SnakePit]

Great post, Shoe. Can you either repost it as a diary on AZ SnakePit or give me permission to do so [the former would let you at least have your name as the poster!]. I'll then add a permanent link to it on the sidebar there, as it's an ideal introduction to the topic.
_________________
Jim McLennan
AZ SnakePit

[stu]

Well, since you want to bring up park adjustments....fine, that works for me. Because it pretty much KILLS your arguement.

This p[retty much shows the differecne in our view of stats. You view one place as "killing" my argument. My view is that one place doesn't mean squat. One season's numbers can be misleading. The difference between these palces are small as to virtually meaningless IMO.

A player who has a 880 is not that much different from a 860 OPS. To make these minute distictions IMO obscures the true nature of a player.

But that is just my opinion. You obvioulsy disagree.