The most important STAT to signify performance

My votes:
Batting = OB%
Pitching = Pitches per inning

BaseballByTheYard.com

Batting: OBPS

Pitching: WHIP

The most important is: FUN

To scouts:
Hitting - HR
Pitching - velocity

I think a lot depends on the situation. Opinions on what is most important to signify performance can be subjective depending on whose looking at them. ERA, KO's and W for pitchers, BA, RBI and HR for position players are always most important on all levels and what usually determines if a player is successful or not at that level.

Would like PG's opinion on this one.

Batting OBP

Pitching I have always liked WHIP

Like TPM says, it depends on situation and who is looking... as well as how you are defining "strong performance".
For our HS players, our "Quality At-Bat" formula gives the most accurate picture of how well our hitters are doing. This factors in BB's XBH, hard-hit balls, working the count, etc. and penalizes particularly weak efforts such as popped up bunts.
For pitchers, it's WHIP.

call me old swchool but the "eye test is most vital to in looking at a player--- all statscan be manipulated while the eye test cannot

TRHIT -- I'm fascinated by your response. I've heard coaches say they can pick the team stud by watching the whol;e team get off the bus. Can you expand on what you mean? If you've done so elsewhere, point me to it? Thanks.

WHIP and OPS are probably the two best stats to provide a snapshot. If a pitcher is keeping runners off base chances are he's succeeding. OPS is a combination of on base percentage and slugging percentage.

However any stat by itself may be misleading. A pitcher with a low WHIP serving up three homers per nine innings probably isn't very successful. A hitter getting on base and hitting homers in the late innings of one sided games is not contributing. A couple of years ago Jason Varitek hit 80% of his homers in the 8th and 9th when the Sox were down by three or more.

Stats can also be very misleading if not in large enough numbers to prevent a couple of big games or poor games to skew the stats.

When making out a lineup I didn't look at stats. I judged who was swing the bat well or throwing well at the present time, or vice versa.

Stats mean something for sure. Stats can create interest, but you can not evaluate a player based on stats. From a scouting perspective certain stats mean more tha others for creating interest.

If someone has an unbelievable number of strikeouts, I want to see that pitcher. He probably has real good stuff. Then if his walk total is also very low, he becomes even more interesting. It could give me a reason to go see the pitcher. Then after seeing the pitcher it's all based on what you see.

If someone is hitting an unbelievable number of homeruns and extra base hits against decent competition, my first question is how big is the park. If the park is not a cracker box, I would want to see that hitter.

For players that are already known prospects, the stats mean more to me. I don't expect a top propsect to have bad stats in high school baseball. So when I see a high school hitter striking out a lot, not hitting for power, with a below average batting ave., It's a big red flag. If a pitching prospect isn't striking out a lot of high school hitters and giving up lots of hits, it's a big red flag.

Pitching to contact can be a good thing at the very highest levels. But when a recognized prospect isn't "missing" the bats of high school hitters, it makes you wonder.

Great stats by a top pitching prospect are expected. Only the bad stats are important to notice.

quote:

Originally posted by TRhit:
call me old swchool but the "eye test is most vital to in looking at a player--- all statscan be manipulated while the eye test cannot

TR is right, the eye test determines whether they can pick out Johnny Walker or Jim Beam from 90 yards.

Strictly to signify performance? Team wins.

There is nothing like the "eye test" as stats are so easily affected by outside factors and time.

Pitching; I like Batting average against. A low opposing average says he either hits his spot consistently or has good movement on his pitches; most likely both!

Hitting; This is so tough because batting average can be misleading depending on the number of at bats you are looking at. Over long periods it still the best indicator, short period not so much. OBP too can be misleading over a short period. Some guys walk too much for me depending upon their swing. I look at his K percentage to see how much contact he makes compared to his OBPS.

Just to be clear, my comments above are based on high school age. The higher the level of play the more important the stats are. If someone would happen to reach the very highest level, stats become extremely important. And there are stats for nearly everything imaginable.

Let's not beat around the bush any longer. For pitchers it is his ERA and for batters it is their batting average. There is a strong reason why those tow stats are brought forward on the first line of every player starting a game or coming into the game. You can tell almost everything by those two stats- they are the most important. For instance, in our HS season so far our team has a combined 2.33 era by the pitching staff. Just looking at the other stats doesn't tell if their is a problem with the pitching though. For instance, one of the pitchers has the highest "whip" on the team. He also has the second highest "baa" of .341. That same player also has the most runs scored on him of 12 runs through his 3 games of work. Now, setting those stats aside, that same player has a 2-1 record and a perfect 0.00 era! So if we were just judging how good the pitcher is off of his "whip" it is not going to have much relevence when you factor other important things into it such as fielding errors which lead to prolonged innings and unearned runs. A pitchers job is primarily to keep the other team from scoring and hence- why his "era" is the most important stat. A low era tells people that he is effective at doing his primary job- keeping others from scoring! The same can be said with the offense with a players batting average. As a batter your primary job is to get base hits. Good pitchers will not walk very many batters and thus why you need a good batting average to advance and play every day. If you are a good hitter you not only get to start every day but you also get to bat higher up in the order.

So, for a pitcher it is definitely his era and for a batter it is his batting average.

Skylark- Over the last few decades it has been widely reviewed that batting average is a woefully arbitrary statistic and not an accurate measure of offensive prowess at all. There are many uncontrollable factors involved in hitting in order to attribute batting average to determining the quality of a hitter. In fact, as a coach, I'd urge players to never pay attention to batting averages. It is an irrelevant statistic that has little meaning on the outcome of the game or the impact that a particular player has on that result. OPS is a much better offensive measure, without getting too deep into sabermetric variables such as BABIP or BsR.

I do agree that ERA is a crucial element to a pitcher's statistical analysis, although from a scouting standpoint, as PG pointed out, it means less as the level of baseball decreases (just as offensive statistics do as well). There are several statistics that come into play as well for pitches, but by all indications are largely centered around ERA, and thus that leads me to believe that ERA is the base for most of the pitching stat analysis.

What's the most important color in the rainbow?

Sorry, but this is a pointless question. Players have stat lines because no single stat can tell the whole story.

Skylark, do you really think batting average tells you almost everything you need to know?

I'm thinking of a well known former major leaguer with a career average of .267. How good of a hitter was he?

They have lots of interesting stats such as ops but there is a reason you do not see that on a players stat line ina mlb game. Why? because his batting average is still most important.

Skylark,

No, that is not why. The reason you see batting average listed in a player's stat line is because for nearly a century, it was widely accepted that batting average is the most important statistic in a player's repertoire. Therefore, it is the stat that most layman fans in the general public understand and relate to the easiest. I would bet everything I own that there is not a single MLB GM that takes batting average into consideration more than the other stats listed above. The reason for that? Because it is pretty much irrelevant.

Skylark,

Will you tell me how good that .267 hitter was?

Come on, if batting average is such a defining stat, this should be an easy question.

Offense. Ops
Pitching. Velocity and the follow up stat, strike pct.

Swampboy- Johnny Bench, Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt?

How about these guys:

Eddie Matthews- .271 BA
Joe Morgan- .271 BA
Willie McCovery- .270 BA
Carlton Fisk- .269 BA
Gary Carter- .262 BA
Reggie Jackson- .262 BA
Ozzie Smith- .262 BA
Bill Mazeroski- .260 BA
Harmon Killebrew- .256 BA

Good thing batting average is the most important offensive statistic. If it wasn't those average hitters I just listed above might make the Hall of Fame...

JH,
Depending on how Skylark answered, my mystery player was going to be either Mike Schmidt or Mackey Sasser. One was an all-time great; the other famous for double clutching his return throws. Both batted .267 for their careers.

quote:

Originally posted by Swampboy:
Players have stat lines because no single stat can tell the whole story.

I hated to cut off the rest of your comments but this is correct on any level.

All stats are subjective, a good ERA may mean that the defense behind the pitcher is outstanding, a good BA may mean that the player is playing against weaker competition, that is why all star honors are awarded for W and HR.

PG is correct in after teh HS level stats get more complicated, in pro ball pitchers are even awarded stats for park factors and things he can't control (like fielding, etc).

Swampboy- I have an interesting personal story about Mackey Sasser, but nonetheless a very good point my friend.

IMO on the Pitching side it is not ERA.....

Many a good starter, with a low ERA owe that ERA to the guy that came in behind them and worked the starter out of his jam.... and as TPM notes, defense also contributes.

To me.. the one single stat that stares me in the face which the pitcher alone solely controls is STRIKES OUT PER INNING.....

When I look at pitching stats, I automatically compare K's to the number of innings pitched.

Then I look to walks per inning...

We all know there are times in a game when you need your pitcher to strike out the batter....

That's just me....

Flying Dutchman- While I agree that ERA is not the sole determining factor in a pitcher's performance, I disagree that strikeouts are. Greg Maddux only struck out more than 200 hitters once in his career and never led the league in K's, yet is widely considered to be one of, if not the greatest pitcher ever.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Swampboy- Johnny Bench, Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt?

How about these guys:

Eddie Matthews- .271 BA
Joe Morgan- .271 BA
Willie McCovery- .270 BA
Carlton Fisk- .269 BA
Gary Carter- .262 BA
Reggie Jackson- .262 BA
Ozzie Smith- .262 BA
Bill Mazeroski- .260 BA
Harmon Killebrew- .256 BA

Good thing batting average is the most important offensive statistic. If it wasn't those average hitters I just listed above might make the Hall of Fame...

Schmidt was great when the game was NOT on the line.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Flying Dutchman- While I agree that ERA is not the sole determining factor in a pitcher's performance, I disagree that strikeouts are. Greg Maddux only struck out more than 200 hitters once in his career and never led the league in K's, yet is widely considered to be one of, if not the greatest pitcher ever.

Great point. The strike outs per inning doesn't apply to the ground ball guy. That's why they are all subjective. In pro ball WHIP is included in stats as is GO/AO. By looking at those stats it tells a whole story about what type of pitcher he is. Innings pitched is important as well, if you have a guy that put in over 200 innings in a season and has a higher ERA than some, that guy will find a job anywhere! Now if he won almost every start, he copuld be in line for a Cy Young award.

Amother good point about the ERA, a pitcher may leave with the bases loaded, if the reliever does his job he will save the starters ERA.

JH is correct as to why they post the stats they do on the TV screen, it makes it very uncomplicated to the average joe. If you get itno serious discussions with some fans who are serious about how prospects are ranked, they talk a whole other language most won't understand.

Humm... I know a few professional ball players that just can't crack into the big leagues because of one basic thing. And what is that? Their batting average! They have been told several times they need to be more consistent with their bats- raise their average up. That is all that keeps them from breaking into the big league ball- they do not have a good enough average playing AA and AAA ball. A batters number one stat will always be seen as his batting average in general. Coaches look at all the stats but in general they first look at the batting average and on base percentage stats. They then shuffle players around the lineup or even out of the lineup based on that in general.

With pitching stats the first thing I compare is the earned runs with the unearned runs- that tells me a lot about how effective the pitching is coupled with the defense behind them. Baseball to me is about problem management- fix the problems and you increase the odds of winning and being successful. So, if I see that there are 31 runs scored on you and only 12 are earned through 6 or eight games, then I then look to the defense to fix the problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Skylark:

Humm... I know a few professional ball players that just can't crack into the big leagues because of one basic thing. And what is that? Their batting average! They have been told several times they need to be more consistent with their bats- raise their average up. That is all that keeps them from breaking into the big league ball- they do not have a good enough average playing AA and AAA ball. A batters number one stat will always be seen as his batting average in general. Coaches look at all the stats but in general they first look at the batting average and on base percentage stats. They then shuffle players around the lineup or even out of the lineup based on that in general.

Being consistent at the plate is vastly different than raising a batting average. I'd encourage you to reach out to those professional players and coaches that you know and pose the OP to them.

A 300 BA means that the guy got on base by hitting 3 out of 10 times?

How many times within that did he get on base by walks, or did he strike out the other 7? Did hit a HR, single, triple did he drive in runs? Did he steal, was he caught or successful, did he cross home plate?

There's just a whole lot more to it (yes I know you are now including OB%).

quote:

Originally posted by TPM:
I hated to cut off the rest of your comments but this is correct on any level.

No matter how much anyone may disagree, that’s a basic truth. And the reason no single stat can tell the “whole story”, is because there’s not just one perspective on which to make the judgment.

There are literally hundreds of metrics, literally hundreds of ways to look at them relative to other things, and literally hundreds of different philosophies that change emphasis on either one of the other things. IOW, everyone has their own reasons for looking at stats, and their own feeling about the value of each one.

In the end, if whatever metric you look at to help you make decisions seems to do a good job, it’s the best metric for you.

quote:

All stats are subjective…

After agreeing with your 1st statement so completely, I almost hate to so totally disagree with this one.

Not ALL stats are subjective. A stat becomes subjective when it can be influenced by the scorer’s judgment, but there are a few where there’s absolutely no judgment on the part of the scorer involved. The following are the ones I provide.

http://www.infosports.com/scorekeeper/images/obj.pdf

Now it is possible for there to be a mistake in data entry, but there’s just no way I know of to argue with them, at least in for the “normal” applications. FI, its possible an inside the park home run was really a triple and an error, but the number of them compared to the total number is insignificant.

Overall, its really interesting to look at those two metrics before looking at the standard ones.

quote:

PG is correct in after teh HS level stats get more complicated, in pro ball pitchers are even awarded stats for park factors and things he can't control (like fielding, etc).

Its not that they get more complicated, but rather more refined, and the reason isn’t that HS stats couldn’t be computed exactly the same way, i.e. ball park factors and linear weights for example. Its just that there’s no mandatory reporting of statistics to a single location, so there’s no way to compute those things.

As a kid I read every sports magazine I could get my hands on. I remember an article about Matty Alou's league leading .342 in 1966 being one of the most ineffective .300+ in the history of baseball. He only scored 86 runs hitting in front of Clemente and Stargell who both had 100+ rbi's. On a team that from top to bottom averaged .279, Alou only had 27 rbi's.

The reason "blown save" became a stat is a reliever coming in and failing rarely had it reflected in his ERA.

quote:

Originally posted by J H:
Skylark,

I would bet everything I own that there is not a single MLB GM that takes batting average into consideration more than the other stats listed above. The reason for that? Because it is pretty much irrelevant.

Maybe there is hope for Pop up after all????

PUHD- LOL ^

quote:

call me old swchool but the "eye test is most vital to in looking at a player--- all statscan be manipulated while the eye test cannot

I agree to a point. It depends on whose eyes. I've been next to some people & wasn't sure we were watching the same game!!

The correct answer is: Games Played


TOP Ten
1. Pete Rose (24) 3562 B
2. Carl Yastrzemski+ (23) 3308 L
3. Hank Aaron+ (23) 3298 R
4. Rickey Henderson+ (25) 3081 R
5. Ty Cobb+ (24) 3034 L
6. Eddie Murray+ (21) 3026 B
Stan Musial+ (22) 3026 L
8. Cal Ripken+ (21) 3001 R
9. Willie Mays+ (22) 2992 R
10. Barry Binds (22) 2986 L