Skip to main content

Reply to "Poll - Trout, Cabrera or other for AL MVP"

quote:
Originally posted by 2013LHP:
quote:

"Batting average isn't relevant" seems to be uttered mostly when the average is low, relatively speaking. So, if we ever have another .400 hitter, that stat won't matter? "Home Runs are only relevant to those that don't understand." Perhaps, certainly they are relevant to those playing the game, and PAYING those that play the game.

Moreover, if we get a pitcher next year that wins more than 30 games (hasn't been done in over 45 yrs., akin to the current TRIPLE CROWN accomplishment) he may NOT be worthy of the Cy Young Award? I guess so, right. I mean really, we all know that wins aren't really an accurate measure of a pitchers performance. Wins, like batting average, see to become meaningless to those that want to support the performance of a player that doesn't have either many wins, or a high batting average, or not many home runs, or few RBI's??


If we ever have a .400 hitter, that will be an amazing accomplishment. But the fact is, a .400 average doesn't = best hitter. Bonds has a career OBP of .444 (6th highest all time), but an average under .300. On the other hand, people are in awe over Jeter's season this year because he's hitting .320. He has a .362 OBP. It's pretty obvious that batting average isn't a telling stat in terms of value.

If a pitcher wins 30 games with a 3.00 ERA, why would he deserve to win the Cy Young if another pitcher went 10-20 with a 2.20 ERA? Pitchers are supposed to give up the least amount of runs possible.

Instead of looking at the whole picture, people are referencing stats that obviously don't even come close to accurately describing a player. "Oh, he's a 20 game winner while the other guy isn't.. he should win the Cy Young." 50 years ago people judged pitchers by wins. 50 years ago people judged hitters by the simple Triple Crown stats. Is it impossible for people to recognize that these aren't the best ways to judge players anymore..?
There are many ways to interpret stats. A good example was Jim Merritt pitching for the Big Red Machine. He won 20 games with a 4.00 ERA. At that point in time 4.00 was considered way below average. But an argument could be in the concept of the makeup of the team, the bottom line is the team won when he pitched.

Going the other way with stats I remember once reading an article Matty Alou's league leading .342 was a very ineffective .300 hitter. On a Pirates team that scored a lot of runs he only scored 86 and drove in 27. The following year he hit .332 with only 59 runs and 52 rbi's.

What this all does is allow for debate. It adds to the fun and interest of baseball.

I do believe if someone hits .400 chances are he'll be an excellent hitter. He'll probably be a fast contact hitter than a masher. It probably won't be a player who strikes out 140 times. That said, it's possible someone who hits .280 with 50 homers and 140 rbi's may be helping his team more.
×
×
×
×