The Giants, Jose Guillen, and the big picture

they’re irrelevant if you’re trying to project a player’s value moving forward at least

exactly 10 players in the majors right now with a K:BB rate of 1 or higher.

Even if you think it will drop some (which it almost certainly would), .75 would put you in the top 35.

maybe you’re right…I probably don’t know as much as you do about minor league player but my sense is that how a minor league player is in minor league is the type of player he will be in the majors

Howard: Big Power Big SO in the minor…same in the majors

Heyward: Good avg., good BB to SO ratio, good OBP and SLG, some power in the minors…same in the majors

Buster: Good avg., low SO/BB, good stats across, same in the majors

Because the batting average purists don’t consider run creation as part of the evaluation. They only see it as “can the guy hit?”

Of course they do – and they have value, and are usually pretty consistent at doing what they do. If they are over-valued, that’s not a problem with batting average, that’s a problem with people not thinking clearly.

Besides, this misses the point. That attitude – why use batting average when there’s better tools? That doesn’t address the problem at all. All tools are bad if you don’t know how to use them. If your tactic is to go straight to that, well, it’s no wonder we alienate people.

But a person can make the same point about the lack of value of that singles hitter WITHOUT using some weird acronym. Watch.

“Juan Pierre? Oh, sure – .300 is good but it doesn’t cover everything. A guy with speed like that, he doesn’t need to slap at every ball, right? What if he gives up a few hits, and takes a few more walks by taking some more pitches. He stills gets on first base just as often, but now maybe he gets a few more balls to drive. He can still steal second on the walks just as much as on the singles.”

Empty batting averages do exist, but that’s not really the point here, is it?

Ryan Theriot (or Juan Pierre, for another example of a .300 hitter) is a good example for people who use batting average woodenly. By all means, show them that Pierre’s average oversells his value – I’m arguing against that wooden use of batting average too. But that’s not really a ditch we’re likely to stumble into, is it?

Career .347 OBP is a lot different than .310, as in the previous example.

If you think Juan Pierre is great, purely because of his average, you aren’t thinking things through.

If you think Juan Pierre is useless, purely because someone else evaluates him with just batting average, you’re making the same mistake.

In terms of future evaluation, I can see your point. But would you disregard average in terms of simply looking at a player’s past? Like looking at a retired player’s career performance. Obviously not saying something as simple as, “He had a career .300 average, therefore he’s AWESOME!” but actually including it in an analysis of how the player did for his career, would you disregard or consider it within the complete package the player brought to the table.

Just curious.

It’s ok, nobody’s perfect.

At 5 times the price…

All of you soft handed blouse wearing college people make me sick.

Cal’s colors, mascot, fight songs, and even use the same font for it’s logos…

I don’t get UCLA folks hating on Cal. We should be family, or whatever. I mean, what’s the deal? It reminds me of A’s fans, frankly.

GO CYCLONES!