Which trait for a hitter is more "valuable"?

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
What’s a more valuable trait for a hitter to possess?

A) To get “BASE HITS” with runners on either 2nd, 3rd, or both, or;

B) to be able to move the lead runner up, whether by getting a hit, reaching on an error, walking, getting hit by a pitch, reaching on a fielder’s choice, or by defensive interference?

Both are good. But getting hits with runners on 2nd, 3rd, or both is better. Because RUNS win ball games.

quote:

Originally posted by Low Finish:
Both are good. But getting hits with runners on 2nd, 3rd, or both is better. Because RUNS win ball games.

It sounds as though your assumption is that all hits WRISP produce runs and no non-hits ever contribute to runs. Am I misinterpreting what you’re saying?

I'm trying hard not to be unflattering or insulting.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:
What’s a more valuable trait for a hitter to possess?

A) To get “BASE HITS” with runners on either 2nd, 3rd, or both, or;

B) to be able to move the lead runner up, whether by getting a hit, reaching on an error, walking, getting hit by a pitch, reaching on a fielder’s choice, or by defensive interference?

I am perplexed!
What hitter "trait" equates to reaching on an error, fielder's choice and defensive interference?
Aren't those defensive choices and mistakes?
Is there any hitting skill or talent which can be planned and results, predictably, in defensive interference, an error or fielder's choice?

Yes, I would have to agree with infielddad. It is better for a hitter to record a hit by reaching base safely.

Not a great mystery here...



Sometimes a hitter even has to settle for recording a hit when no one is on base. Pretty depressing when that happens.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

Originally posted by Low Finish:
Both are good. But getting hits with runners on 2nd, 3rd, or both is better. Because RUNS win ball games.

It sounds as though your assumption is that all hits WRISP produce runs and no non-hits ever contribute to runs. Am I misinterpreting what you’re saying?

I'm trying hard not to be unflattering or insulting.

I believe you're slightly oversimplifying. I'm saying that the likelihood of a run when a hit WRISP occurs is higher than it is when a guy gets hit by a pitch/walks/moves the runner up somehow.

I may be making the erroneous assumption that the lead runner is only moving up one base. Please correct me if I am.

And no, you're not being insulting at all.

Even if a run doesn't score the runners will still move up on a hit. I'll take my chances with the hit!