That's just silly.

This attitude assumes that only those stats which correlate most closely with winning deserve mention. I for one, even tho I grasp its limitations, still enjoy seeing who the batting leaders are each week.

Baseball should retire all statistics altogether and assign MVP awards based on looks!
Meet your future 15 times MVP: Eric Byrnes!

at-bats are practically useless when we can just look at plate appearances, just like batting average is useless since we have on-base percentage

That's like saying that fractional times are useless to racing fans since they have Beyer numbers. I understand that OBP is more important than BA, but BA provides a slightly different slice of information, so why wouldn't you want to have it? I also realize that the article is a little tongue-in-cheek, or at least I hope it is ...

Cool, Ted would become the last .400 hitter and Yaz the last triple crown winner. Who would want to see somebody make a run at either of those non-feats again?

Personally, I think baseball should get rid of home runs. After all, they're already included in hits (singles + doubles + triples + home runs).

Meet your future 15 times MVP: Eric Byrnes!

No. Dude looks like a hobbit.

I guess this is a joke article. Unless he expects MLB, which does not own team broadcasts, baseball card companies, video game companies, or fantasy leagues, to start dictating the content produced by these ventures. Sounds like a pretty convoluted licensing agreement.

I like batting average, I just don't think it's as useful as what the casual fans think it is.

I prefer batting average for risp, and think you are doing a disservice not to break it into three components in any situational analysis.

what about BA with RISP?

It's a trap, and this guy might be the biggest idiot ever, and should have his children taken away. Eliminate BA -- is that even legal?

There is nothing to be gained from it; it is one of many vestigial statistics that haven't yet been phased out by the evolution of statistics, much like your appendix.

Assuming this column is serious, it misses the point in a huge, gigantic, enormous way.

Batting average isn't very useful, given the other tools we have such as OBP and SLG, in assessing the value of past performance. But it is hugely important in predicting future performance.

We need to know what is driving a player's OPS. How much of it is batting average, how much is walks, and how much is power? These are all important. If the player got lucky on balls in play (Posada 2007), his OPS is likely to decline once his batting average returns to earth. Batting average also helps assess aging patterns, and it gives the shape of a player's performance. So there is certainly "something to be gained" from it.

If the complaint is that batting average is quirky in how it deals with sacrifice flies, sacrifice bunts, errors, etc., well, that may be true, but that doesn't really have much of an impact on the usefulness of the statistic.

And, by the way, the proper analogy to the penny is not to drop batting average, but to round it to two decimal places (.320) instead of three (.318).

I also realize that the article is a little tongue-in-cheek

Winner.

Assuming this column is serious, it misses the point in a huge, gigantic, enormous way.

Batting average isn't very useful, given the other tools we have such as OBP and SLG, in assessing the value of past performance. But it is hugely important in predicting future performance.

Actually, Ray, it misses the point in a much more significant way. Regardless how much fun we have and time we spend trying to determine what statistics give us a greater understanding of baseball games are won and how players should be evaluated, the sport remains primarily an entertainment vehicle. And getting rid of one of the fundamental statistics that the vast majority fans have grown up with and understand, a stat that is used to determine batting champions, Triple Crown winners, and as the holy grail for hitting seasons .400) simply because it does not tell us as much as OBP is failing to understand that baseball exists for reasons other than study.

And Crashburn, I really can't find anything in Baer's piece to suggest his tongue was located in his cheek. If he was trying to be humorous in any way, he failed miserably.

Crashburn = Baer, so I am qualified to inform you of the placement of my cheek. :)

Do you really think MLB would listen to a request to drop a statistic (for reasons other than comment #7 mentioned)?

Batting average is really useful for showing the shape of the numbers, and there are a number of reasons why that is still worth knowing.

The main reason I still use it is for getting a sense of how much of the OBP and SLG are a product of the BA itself. I tend to prefer a .250/.350/.500 hitter to a .350/.350/.500 hitter because very few hitters can maintain a .350 BA. This is especially useful for outlier seasons like Cano 2006 or Ichiro 2004 or Magglio Ordonez 2007.

Batting average is really useful for showing the shape of the numbers, and there are a number of reasons why that is still worth knowing.

The main reason I still use it is for getting a sense of how much of the OBP and SLG are a product of the BA itself. I tend to prefer a .250/.350/.500 hitter to a .350/.350/.500 hitter because very few hitters can maintain a .350 BA. This is especially useful for outlier seasons like Cano 2006 or Ichiro 2004 or Magglio Ordonez 2007.

I also realize that the article is a little tongue-in-cheek

That was my take. I communicate with Bill frequently and can tell you that he has never advocated this in any way.

Typical Baer hyperbole.

BTW Bill--nice to see your name in lights.

Best Regards

John

Crashburn = Baer, so I am qualified to inform you of the placement of my cheek. :)

I stand corrected, though I guess I'm missing your point.

Does it need a point? It was simply a humorous (or at least I tried to make it humorous) attempt to get the reader to think outside the box, hence my long reaches for analogies (evolution; pennies).

Next time, I won't make the mistake of publishing an article without first running my thoughts by the BBTF crowd. :-P

I am pro. Forget batting average. A-Rod won the last triple crown last year, and Bonds will spend years as the last player to have a .600 OBP.

Now the Red Sox can't claim to have the "last" anything... well, except...

Now the Red Sox can't claim to have the "last" anything... well, except...

...shirt buried in the new Yankee Stadium?

When I first read it, I thought it was an attempt at a serious argument - a very unsuccesful attempt, but an attempt nevertheless. Now I realize its an attempt at humor - a very unsuccesful attempt, but an attempt nevertheless. Or maybe part of both.

And getting rid of one of the fundamental statistics that the vast majority fans have grown up with and understand, a stat that is used to determine batting champions, Triple Crown winners, and as the holy grail for hitting seasons .400) simply because it does not tell us as much as OBP is failing to understand that baseball exists for reasons other than study.

I don't disagree, but I can tell you that once I came around to the idea that batting average was virtually useless in assessing the value of past performance (given OBP and SLG) I was able to discard it completely without looking back. I couldn't tell you who led the AL and NL in batting average last year.

I do know who led in OPS+.

I don't disagree that following a player's quest to hit .400 would be interesting, but it's mainly trivia. And I like paying attention to value more than trivia. But obviously everyone is different.

Does it need a point? It was simply a humorous (or at least I tried to make it humorous) attempt to get the reader to think outside the box, hence my long reaches for analogies (evolution; pennies).

Yeah, having a point would be helpful.

Do you think baseball would be better off if BA was retired (while understanding that it can't be done by fiat)? If you do, then you're ignoring the role BA plays in the average fan's appreciation of the sport. If you don't, then why did you write something with this idea as the central thesis?

If they're going to retire a stat, it really should be pitcher wins, which tell us next to nothing about a pitcher.

If you need a hitter's stat to retire, it should be RBIs.

OBP should include reach on error.

Yeah, having a point would be helpful.

I should have to be for or against batting average in order to write a humorous article about it? :o

Do you think baseball would be better off if BA was retired

All statistics have their niche, some are more useful than others. As has been pointed out above, BA does have some uses, albeit limited.

So, my answer is no.

If you don't, then why did you write something with this idea as the central thesis?

Humor. I apologize for my inability to elicit laughs. I may have been the class clown in high school but I'm no George Carlin.

Next time, I won't make the mistake of publishing an article without first running my thoughts by the BBTF crowd. :-P

So an unfunny attempt at humor is our fault? Okay.

I realized that your "formal request" to MLB to drop batting average was not serious; but I wasn't sure whether the overall point of the article -- batting average is useless -- was a serious one. Whenever people miss the point of what I'm writing, I assume that I wrote it poorly.

So an unfunny attempt at humor is our fault? Okay.

That was also a sarcastic comment. I will scour eBay and buy a Sarcasm Detector for BBTF.

I wasn't sure whether the overall point of the article -- batting average is useless -- was a serious one.

It's not useless. To make another analogy, batting average is to statistics what Bob was on the sitcom Becker. He didn't do much of anything as the super of an apartment complex (or as a person), but the man was a great cook.

I have another analogy. Batting average is to statistics what Slow Ride (by Foghat) is to Guitar Hero III.

That was also a sarcastic comment.

But one with an underlying point.

Since you know what I am thinking at all times, I will just allow you to type for me. Check your Inbox in a minute for my password. :)

Since you know what I am thinking at all times, I will just allow you to type for me.

Works for me. Though I do charge a fee for this service. :-)

I just noticed a few minutes ago that Al Kaline's name if you smush it together is alkaline, like the battery.

Do you think his parents named him Albert on purpose?

I do advocate cutting a decimal place off of batting average, as well as on-base and slugging and, for that matter, ERA. That level of precision really adds nothing ... what's the real difference between a .275 hitter and a .284 hitter, or a 4.05 ERA and a 4.14?

what's the real difference between a .275 hitter and a .284 hitter, or a 4.05 ERA and a 4.14?

A million dollars?

what's the real difference between a .275 hitter and a .284 hitter, or a 4.05 ERA and a 4.14?

Nothing but luck, really. I forget which movie it was but I think it was Kevin Costner's character who talked about one bloop single a week being the difference between a guy being in the Majors or Minors.

what's the real difference between a .275 hitter and a .284 hitter, or a 4.05 ERA and a 4.14?

Half a Rotisserie point?

Do you think his parents named him Albert on purpose?

I always found it interesting that Babe Ruth was named after the candy bar.

I always found it interesting that Babe Ruth was named after the candy bar.

I forgot his middle name was Granola.

If they're going to retire a stat, it really should be pitcher wins, which tell us next to nothing about a pitcher.

It they're going to retire a stat, it should be the error. Their occurrence has gone down from the birth of the sport, and now it's to the point where they're rarely assigned at all. Is it really better for an OF to let a ball drop in front of him than to have it bounce off his glove?

I forgot his middle name was Granola.

Since when is granola candy? Sheesh.

Edit: signed, Ray DiPerna. ;-)

It they're going to retire a stat, it should be the error.

I'd vote for the passed ball/wild pitch. Almost every passed ball occurs on a badly thrown pitch, and many wild pitches could be caught. Errors aren't bad.

I like pitcher wins. Its not my first choice for analysis, but its fun anyway.

what's the real difference between a .275 hitter and a .284 hitter

Not much, but the terminology would sound completely out of place. "So-and-so is hitting twenty-eight this season."

I forget which movie it was but I think it was Kevin Costner's character who talked about one bloop single a week being the difference between a guy being in the Majors or Minors.

How can you forget Bull Durham? Like it or hate it, it has become a part of the baseball lexicon, here and elsewhere.

I thought it was Bull Durham, and looked up the quotes from that movie on IMDB and it wasn't there.

I will scour eBay and buy a Sarcasm Detector for BBTF.

Stupid idea. There's no such thing.

what's the real difference between a .275 hitter and a .284 hitter, or a 4.05 ERA and a 4.14?

Half a Rotisserie point?

if it is a good league, thats 5 or 6 points

If they got rid on the error, would that turn all the errors now into hits?

I thought it was Bull Durham, and looked up the quotes from that movie on IMDB and it wasn't there.

You must learn to trust your instincts.

Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium.
-- Crash Davis

When I was a kid I knew almost nothing about baseball statistics. One day a friend of mine who had strat-o-matic gave me some of his spare cards and I took them home and set up a league. I found an old Blue Jays program that described how to calculate the various averages and I remember being very disappointed at how trivial the batting average calculation turned out to be. Consequently I didn't even track batting average in my dice league and used slugging and oba instead because they seemed more useful.

I gave this up for two reasons. First, because my friends that knew more about baseball than I did assured me that batting average was the most important statistic and thought it was really funny that I wasn't using it. Second, I couldn't tell how well anyone was doing because I had no outside source to compare their numbers to. The newspapers at the time only showed batting average (this was 1980 or so).

In trying to do projections, one of the issues I tried to address was the direct independence of various stats. This was a way to try and avoid results that were essentially impossible (hitting .400 while striking out 250 times for example). I also wanted to try and break down the stats in ways that at least theoretically were in the neighborhood of some ability (like speed, power, etc.) So I broke down a hitters stat line thusly:

BB/(AB+BB)
SO/AB
HR/(AB-SO)
(H-HR)/(AB-HR-SO)
(2B+3B)/(H-HR)
3B/(2B+3B)
(SB+CS)/(H-2B-3B-HR+BB)
SB/(SB+CS)

I wound up keeping all of it except the final two lines which I had to alter due to the sample size limitations of the final line. Eventually I added things like HBP and SF to make it more complete. I also used that distribution for things like MLEs and concocted similar ones for pitchers (obviously).

So you don't need Batting Average to do good projections (I thought mine did a pretty good job), but then you don't need On Base Percentage or Slugging Percentage either. As has been noted before, if you know OBP and SLG, AVG tells you next to nothing about hitting quality and in fact is a very slight negative (IE, given the same OBP and SLG, a higher AVG means less runs).

But I'm not sure getting rid of Batting Average is that great of an idea. It's been around so long, why not let it stick around for old times' sake if nothing else.

If they got rid on the error, would that turn all the errors now into hits?

They should at least get rid of the errors in ERA and just have RA for pitchers. First of all, from the pitcher's perspective it doesn't matter whether the defense is bad and they miss balls vs. errors. Secondly, a pitcher can get two outs, then a guy reaches on an error, then the pitcher can give up 4 more hits, plus a walk, followed by a HR, and he gets 0 ER. He pitched pretty poorly, though.

"This was a way to try and avoid results that were essentially impossible (hitting .400 while striking out 250 times for example). "

The Angels have this Kendrick guy, ....