Started By
Message

re: Nola

Posted on 5/23/09 at 9:36 am to
Posted by GOP_Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2005
18092 posts
Posted on 5/23/09 at 9:36 am to
I'm sorry, but this argument is ridiculous, even though it sounds good at first glance.

The basic fact is that a sacrifice bunt is not an attempt to get on base. OBP is designed to measure how often a player gets on base when he is trying to get on base.

quote:

Players with an extreme number of bunts look like a much better hitter than they really are by deleting sacrifices.


No, by your own logic, those players look pretty bad because they have poor batting averages. They already look like the bad hitters they are. Your plan would punish them doubly, counting plate appearances against them when they aren't even trying to get on base. In the case of a sacrifice bunt, the player does not normally have the opportunity to get on base.
Posted by Baloo
Formerly MDGeaux
Member since Sep 2003
49645 posts
Posted on 5/23/09 at 9:39 am to
quote:

The basic fact is that a sacrifice bunt is not an attempt to get on base. OBP is designed to measure how often a player gets on base when he is trying to get on base.


No, it's not. It's a measure of how often a guy reaches base. If a guy is trying to NOT reach base, that's bad. Outs are bad. And I'm yet to see a guy lay down a bunt and then walk to the dugout. He's still trying to reach base. Adding the "trying" definition is ridiculous. an out is an out. All outs are bad. Some just aren't as bad as others.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram