re: Nola

quote:

---

There are hundreds of examples of guys who hit for average without power.

---

Yes, and they do it by putting lots of balls in play. High average/no power hitters tend to have very low strikeout rates. It's not that more of the balls they put in play become hits, it's that they put a lot more balls in play.

quote:

---

You said that excluding sac bunts "skews the number". I'd say it does not affect the number.

---

It skew the number because OBP is no longer measuring what it is supposed to measure: how often a guy doesn't get out. At its most basic, the formula for OBP is times on base divided by times at the plate. If you take something away from that basic formula, you better have a good reason. And just because we've always done it that way doesn't mean that's a good reason. It's too late to actually change the formula, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look at things we exclude.

quote:

---

Exactly. Which is why you ignore them. You don't assume an out (like you want) any more than you assume a hit (equally as ridiculous). You exclude them from consideration because of what OBP is attempting to measure.

---

I'm not assuming an out. I'm recording it. The batter is out. You want to ignore it. Let me say it again: I'm not assuming he will get out. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. He got out. I'm not making it up.

quote:

---

You are basing this on an incorrect premise of what OBP is. OBP has exceptions built in. I recognize this going in. When I look at OBP, I'm not interested in the actual percent of the time a player has reached base. To me, that is less informative. I'm interested in the percentage of the time he has reached base that he should be given credit for.

---

WTF?

Really, WTF? I have no earthly idea what that last sentence means. I don't care about should. I don't care about would. I care about did. I care about is. What is informative is how often a guy gets on or gets out. I don't like someone else's value judgments of what should count. What is the reason for the exclusion? WHY? I prefer having the raw data and making my own judgments. How often did he get out? How many of those outs were K's? How many were sacs? How many DP's? Then I'll make my own judgments on what he should get credit for. OBP is supposed to measure getting on base. When you get out, you didn't reach base. That simple. Count it.

quote:

---

I don't want to give credit for the errors or FCs because that AB was not successful. And, I don't want to consider PAs where the bat was taken out of hand.

---

But a sac isn't a succesful AB either. Reaching on error would result in more runs than a successful sac. And we agree on FC's. It still cost the team an out and the team didn't gain a runner. You didn't help the team score runs.

There are four bases and three outs in an inning. It's just simple logic that a base is more valuable than an out. You shouldn't sacrifice an out for a base. A "successful" sacrifice results in LESS runs.

As Earl Weaver said, "if you play for one run, that's all you're gonna get." But even then, bunting a runner over will not only result in less runs, but actually decrease your chances in scoring one run most of the time. A runner on first with no outs is a better run scoring situation than a runner on second with one out.

So let's be clear: a sacrifice bunt is a bad AB. It counts as an out. Outs are bad. I don't like them. And I really hate bunting. It's giving away outs.