“You can critisize Kirk Gibson to the nth degree statistically without approaching what happened. I don’t even like the guy, I had money on the Mets, but I know what happened. I still feel it today.”

Why is Kirk Gibson always the strawman victim? I don’t think most statheads are particularly anti-Gibson. You could make a real good case that he deserved the MVP in 1988 statistically (even though he probably got the votes because he was a BIG STRONG PASSIONATE MAN).

I think BA is completely useless, it’s just that we have other stats that measure the same thing, but better. For the outliers, it’s great… if a guy has a career .125 BA, he pretty much sucks; and if he has a carerr .350 BA he’s probably really good.

It’s the thousands of guys in the middle who you can’t tell apart by BA. Is a .280 hitter really better than a .260 hitter? Even an “anti-stathead” will often say, not always. Example, Reggie Jackson was a better hitter than Juan Pierre. Well at least we agree on that. So why can’t BA tell you this difference? Because it doesn’t measure other things. Things that are deliberately left out of BA!

@Sal:

ISoP is a terrible, terrible statistic. Don’t use it. Here’s why:

ISoP = OBP – BA. It’s meant to show how patient a hitter is. Problem is, it doesn’t. The lower your BA, the higher your ISoP, EVEN IF YOUR BB RATE STAYS THE SAME.

Let’s say a guy has 12 plate appearances and gets 3 hits and 2 walks. He’s hitting .300 (3 hits in 10 ABs), and he’s OBP-ing .417. That gives you an ISoP of .417-.300 = .117. Wow, he’s patient!

Let’s say that, whoops, one of his liners that previously was a hit ends up right in the RF’s mitt. So now he goes 2 for 10 with 2 walks. His ISoP should be the same, right, since he didn’t walk any less? Wrong, and aye, here’s the rub.

Now he’s gone 2 for 10 with 2 BBs. His BA is .200. And his OBP is .333. His ISoP just JUMPED to .133. Without his BB rate changing one bit. That’s the danger of ISoP. The lower your BA, the higher your ISoP even if you have the same number of BBs.

You’re much better off looking at BB%, which is BBs as a percentage of PAs.

Most modern stats have something to say for them, but ISoP is a really terrible one.

Hope this helped at all,
-Colin

I have absolutely no qualms with your logic, and I think it’s spot on. I’d take BB% in a second over IsoD if it were a readily available stat.

But that’s the thing — it isn’t for the ‘average’ fan.

IsoD is not perfect, but it can be easily deduced from the ’standard’ stat line, and it does correlate to patience, if not perfectly, especially over a long season/career.

If I were going to pick the most accurate stats, the most common sensical stats, or what stats were easiest for me to use to value players, it’d be an entirely different ballgame.

I apologize for any confusion.

Thanks for the response!

Yeah, the problem is in fact that BA uses ABs instead of PAs. And yeah, over the long term it only matters for 10 points or so.

But really, why accept what’s obviously a pretty big error in the stats? I mean, if it’s supposed to measure patience regardless of BA but actually depends on BA… well, that’s not doing what it’s supposed to, is it? I love ISoP, but because OBP uses a different denominator than the others, it’s very troublesome mathematically.

You’re much better off using BB%, which is just walks divided by PAs, and never has any errors.

Or, as Joe said in his post about what stats he uses, EqA does a good job of putting patience and power together (plus baserunning).

You can complain about the metric of ISoD being useless for small amounts of at bats, but your argument breaks down for larger numbers and since when do hitters long term have the same amount of walks as hits?

125 hits/400 ABs 75 walks

BA: .313 OBP: .421 ISoD: .108

100 hits/400 ABs 75 walks

BA: .250 OBP: .368 ISoD: .118

It only improved 10 points because of the lower ba (if BA used plate appearances it would end the argument).

This is also an example of how one stat can’t be an end all arguments stat. If you combine it while looking at ISoP, you can have an idea if that guy is a patient home run hitter that has low BA because of flyballs, or if the guy is an empty line that hits a ton, walks a fair amount and has zero power. Stats should be looked at together, not in isolation.

try this: http://www.sabr.org

The Society For American Baseball Research. It’s about a lot more than number crunching and being some geek that lives in moms basement.

Last time I checked guys like Peter Gammons and Pete Van Wieren are members of SABR…

Catch a clue.

It does seem personal attacks are up some. But then again, it seems there are a lot more people commenting than there used to be.

Joaldo, when it’s directed your way I hope you don’t take that stuff to heart. Most of us obviously love reading your blog, and the discussions that follow. Here’s hoping it remains mostly friendly.

Tony Armas 1984
.268 /.300 /.531/121

Wade Boggs 1984
.325 /.407 /.416/125

They both had good years but did it two different ways.

Just my 2 cents, feel free to hammer away at it.