|
|
#71
09-30-2006, 05:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Once again, I ask, if hitting just equals the act of striking a ball with the bat, then why does only the quantity of hits mean anything? You have not answered the question at all. [/ QUOTE ] I answered your question in post #7482284. Also, I never said that only quantity means something. I said quantity and/or hitting %. You could at least correctly state my position if you are going to argue against it. You should consider changing your handle to "strawman". As for the explanation, I can't explain more clearly, so if you still don't get it ask someone who actually played the game to explain it to you. On your other post... You seem to think that basestealling ability somehow factors into the "better hitter" argument, and on that I can't help you. Where I play you don't steal bases from the batters box, so it's irrelevant. I relatively new to this particular forum, and one constant I seem to detect as that of all the regular posters you seem to enjoy the role of protaganist and have little to offer in the way of meaningful input or discourse. Welcome to my ingore list [/ QUOTE ] Player A hits .300 and hits nothing but singles. Player B hits .290 and hits nothing but triples. Player A is a better hitter by your measure? 
|
|
#72
09-30-2006, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Once again, I ask, if hitting just equals the act of striking a ball with the bat, then why does only the quantity of hits mean anything? You have not answered the question at all. [/ QUOTE ] I answered your question in post #7482284. [/ QUOTE ] No, you didn't. You strang random words together that didn't mean anything. I asked you the answer to 5+5 and you said "goose." It's not an answer: it's nonsense. [ QUOTE ] Also, I never said that only quantity means something. I said quantity and/or hitting %. You could at least correctly state my position if you are going to argue against it. You should consider changing your handle to "strawman". [/ QUOTE ] Batting average is a function only of quantity - number of hits divided by number of at-bats. It makes no difference the quality of the hit in either # of hits or batting average. [ QUOTE ] As for the explanation, I can't explain more clearly, so if you still don't get it ask someone who actually played the game to explain it to you. [/ QUOTE ] Your explanation is that there's a difference between "better" and "more productive." New's already provided you an example in baseball of how silly this distinction is, but let's turn to basketball and football to see it: Basketball: Player A shoots 50% from the field, but only 2 pointers. Player B shoots 45% from the field, but only 3 pointers. Football: Player A completes 70% of his passes, but they only go for an average of 5 yards Player B completes 60% of his passes, but they go for an average of 12 yards. In all of these examples, is Player A "better" while Player B is "more productive?" Is Freddy Sanchez a better hitter than Albert Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, Ryan Howard, Lance Berkman, and Carlos Beltran? You're clinging to an archaic definition that makes no sense when you stop to think about it for two seconds. [ QUOTE ] On your other post... You seem to think that basestealling ability somehow factors into the "better hitter" argument, and on that I can't help you. Where I play you don't steal bases from the batters box, so it's irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] It would make sense to value a hit for Ichiro! different than a hit from Adam Dunn, when you consider that 24% of the time that Ichiro reaches base, he takes another one. [ QUOTE ] I relatively new to this particular forum, and one constant I seem to detect as that of all the regular posters you seem to enjoy the role of protaganist and have little to offer in the way of meaningful input or discourse. Welcome to my ingore list [/ QUOTE ] Well, you've never read and answered my posts in the first place. Now you'll stop pretending.
|
|
#73
09-30-2006, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] K:BB Dunn, 191:111 Ichiro, 36:54 Works for pitchers, why not hitters? [/ QUOTE ] Because striking out as a hitter is not terrible. [/ QUOTE ] So if I'm 0 for 5 with 5 K's in a game I'm not "terrible."
|
|
#74
09-30-2006, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] K:BB Dunn, 191:111 Ichiro, 36:54 Works for pitchers, why not hitters? [/ QUOTE ] Because striking out as a hitter is not terrible. [/ QUOTE ] So if I'm 0 for 5 with 5 K's in a game I'm not "terrible." [/ QUOTE ] If you are batting .246/.380/.514 overall, no. How hard is this to understand, considering it was said about 3 times in this thread alone - strikeouts are no worse than any other outs.
|
|
#75
09-30-2006, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Once again, I ask, if hitting just equals the act of striking a ball with the bat, then why does only the quantity of hits mean anything? You have not answered the question at all. [/ QUOTE ] I answered your question in post #7482284. [/ QUOTE ] No, you didn't. You strang random words together that didn't mean anything. I asked you the answer to 5+5 and you said "goose." It's not an answer: it's nonsense. [ QUOTE ] Also, I never said that only quantity means something. I said quantity and/or hitting %. You could at least correctly state my position if you are going to argue against it. You should consider changing your handle to "strawman". [/ QUOTE ] Batting average is a function only of quantity - number of hits divided by number of at-bats. It makes no difference the quality of the hit in either # of hits or batting average. [ QUOTE ] As for the explanation, I can't explain more clearly, so if you still don't get it ask someone who actually played the game to explain it to you. [/ QUOTE ] Your explanation is that there's a difference between "better" and "more productive." New's already provided you an example in baseball of how silly this distinction is, but let's turn to basketball and football to see it: Basketball: Player A shoots 50% from the field, but only 2 pointers. Player B shoots 45% from the field, but only 3 pointers. Football: Player A completes 70% of his passes, but they only go for an average of 5 yards Player B completes 60% of his passes, but they go for an average of 12 yards. In all of these examples, is Player A "better" while Player B is "more productive?" Is Freddy Sanchez a better hitter than Albert Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, Ryan Howard, Lance Berkman, and Carlos Beltran? You're clinging to an archaic definition that makes no sense when you stop to think about it for two seconds. [ QUOTE ] On your other post... You seem to think that basestealling ability somehow factors into the "better hitter" argument, and on that I can't help you. Where I play you don't steal bases from the batters box, so it's irrelevant. [/ QUOTE ] It would make sense to value a hit for Ichiro! different than a hit from Adam Dunn, when you consider that 24% of the time that Ichiro reaches base, he takes another one. [ QUOTE ] I relatively new to this particular forum, and one constant I seem to detect as that of all the regular posters you seem to enjoy the role of protaganist and have little to offer in the way of meaningful input or discourse. Welcome to my ingore list [/ QUOTE ] Well, you've never read and answered my posts in the first place. Now you'll stop pretending. [/ QUOTE ] The question was BETTER HITTER. What a hitter does once he reaches base is very relevant to the game of baseball, but is NOT relevant to the question at hand. It seems you don't like the simplicity of the question, so you attempt to extend the parameters of it beyond hitting. I don't see anyone else on this thread advocating your position that "better hitter" includes events subsequent to the hit (like basestealling). Now you say I have not answered your question. Let's skip the crap. Frame your question to me again in a post, and I'll answer it very clearly.
|
|
#76
09-30-2006, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] K:BB Dunn, 191:111 Ichiro, 36:54 Works for pitchers, why not hitters? [/ QUOTE ] Because striking out as a hitter is not terrible. [/ QUOTE ] So if I'm 0 for 5 with 5 K's in a game I'm not "terrible." [/ QUOTE ] If you are batting .246/.380/.514 overall, no. How hard is this to understand, considering it was said about 3 times in this thread alone - strikeouts are no worse than any other outs. [/ QUOTE ] I would say if you are playing a team that leads the league in errors, striking out is worse than "hitting" out... Or if you are a fast running and can beat some of those grounders out, then striking out is worse than grounding out... Dunn is certainly more powerful and more productive. But I would just think if he was the better hitter he wouldn't strike out 200 times/year... And I fully understand the question you are actually asking is, "Is batting average a true indicator of hitting ability?"
|
|
#77
09-30-2006, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
We had a thread a while ago about Dunn. The reason why he strikeouts so often, is the same reason he walks so often, and homers so often.
Also Batting Average is an indicator of hitting ability but just not the best one.
|
|
#78
09-30-2006, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
[ QUOTE ]
I would say if you are playing a team that leads the league in errors, striking out is worse than "hitting" out... [/ QUOTE ] Sigh. [ QUOTE ] Or if you are a fast running and can beat some of those grounders out, then striking out is worse than grounding out... [/ QUOTE ] Already factored into batting average. [ QUOTE ] Dunn is certainly more powerful and more productive. But I would just think if he was the better hitter he wouldn't strike out 200 times/year... [/ QUOTE ] Well, you are wrong. Don't feel bad - most people in baseball think the same way.
|
|
#79
09-30-2006, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
motorholdem,
[ QUOTE ] Player A hits .300 and hits nothing but singles. Player B hits .290 and hits nothing but triples. Player A is a better hitter by your measure? [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#80
09-30-2006, 07:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is a better hitter? (Poll)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I would say if you are playing a team that leads the league in errors, striking out is worse than "hitting" out... [/ QUOTE ] Sigh. [/ QUOTE ] Not understanding this. Sigh about what? If you are playing the worst defensive team in baseball isn't it a good thing to acutally put the ball in play? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Or if you are a fast running and can beat some of those grounders out, then striking out is worse than grounding out... [/ QUOTE ] Already factored into batting average. [/ QUOTE ] But not when you are discussing the relative worth of outs. A ground ball has the opportunity to put a man on base. A swing and a miss has no value whatsoever at any point in time. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Dunn is certainly more powerful and more productive. But I would just think if he was the better hitter he wouldn't strike out 200 times/year... [/ QUOTE ] Well, you are wrong. Don't feel bad - most people in baseball think the same way. [/ QUOTE ] Doesn't really matter to me but A. What is your authority/expertise to say I'm flat out wrong? B. What is your authority/expertise to say you are absolutely correct?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
