A debate that should be interesting???

[LookinUp]

Gwynn never walked 100 times (and had over 80 BBs only once) and never hit 20 HRs. Gwynn's production was driven by lofty BAs.

Coincidence?

[Mackus]

That being said, I could be 100% wrong. However, I do vaguely remember seeing some article about Ichiro on this subject. Maybe it was just about # of hits, not about BA. I don't know.

It was definitely about the # of hits, not the BA.

Walks don't hurt anything. They never do, its obviously impossible. If you assume every walk would have been a hit, then yeah, a guys BA would go up. But that clearly is an absurd assumption. I also don't think you can assume the walks would be replaced with the even same percentage of hits as well. If a guy with a .333 batting average drew 90 walks, I don't think you can say that if he had swung in all those walks he would have had 30 hits and 60 outs, its probably a lot less, since they weren't as good of pitches.

[Lucky Jim]

I'll admit to being a little green on this subject, but I would counter by saying that not all walks comprise plate appearances where the batter didn't see 1 or more good strikes to hit. Therefore, unless you're assuming that he'd be trying to hit balls, I'm not sure how you two can make this statement.

That being said, I could be 100% wrong. However, I do vaguely remember seeing some article about Ichiro on this subject. Maybe it was just about # of hits, not about BA. I don't know.

It absolutely has an effect on number of hits.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of your other point.

[Lucky Jim]

It was definitely about the # of hits, not the BA.

Walks don't hurt anything. They never do, its obviously impossible. If you assume every walk would have been a hit, then yeah, a guys BA would go up. But that clearly is an absurd assumption. I also don't think you can assume the walks would be replaced with the even same percentage of hits as well. If a guy with a .333 batting average drew 90 walks, I don't think you can say that if he had swung in all those walks he would have had 30 hits and 60 outs, its probably a lot less, since they weren't as good of pitches.

Right. No one - that I know of - has an OOZ (out of zone) BA that's higher (or even as good as) than their normal BA.

[LookinUp]

If you assume every walk would have been a hit, then yeah, a guys BA would go up. But that clearly is an absurd assumption.

I'm not assuming this at all.

I also don't think you can assume the walks would be replaced with the even same percentage of hits as well. If a guy with a .333 batting average drew 90 walks, I don't think you can say that if he had swung in all those walks he would have had 30 hits and 60 outs, its probably a lot less, since they weren't as good of pitches.

Now you're assuming that an entire AB that ended in a walk wouldn't have good pitches to hit 1/3 of the time? I think that's absurd.

[LookinUp]

It absolutely has an effect on number of hits.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of your other point.

Right. No one - that I know of - has an OOZ (out of zone) BA that's higher (or even as good as) than their normal BA.

My logic has nothing to do with OOZ. It has everything to do with a player like Ichiro, who goes after good pitches when he sees them versus a player like Markakis who is more likely (in the aggregate) to take good pitches.

I'm saying that Nick takes less swings at good (for the hitter) pitches then Ichiro. Conversely, you're likely saying that Ichiro takes more swings at bad pitches as well, and you're probably right. All I'm saying is I'm not sure how that affects BA in the aggregate, but I'm inclined to think that for hitters like Ichiro, who have good contact rates, it improves the BA (and definitely raw HRs).

Obviously the hitter has to be good enough to not swing at too many balls for this to work. Ichiro is unique in being able to do that.

[Lucky Jim]

I'm not assuming this at all.

Now you're assuming that an entire AB that ended in a walk wouldn't have good pitches to hit 1/3 of the time? I think that's absurd.

And you're apparently assuming that those pitches were ignored in all ABs ending in walks?

A walk is the resolution of an AB and nothing more.

[ChrisAF79]

I don't see the problem. There was a question who he thought wuld be the better player. He picked Jones. No biggie. For I too believe Jones is the better player. Oldfan just used the distance a HR went. He was mistaken. That is all. Jeez when someone makes a mistake some sure do like to rub it in. Hm wonder which one you are?

I'm just poking a little fun at him, no offense intended.

I just found it amusing that something he obviously based his opinion on he was clearly wrong about.

[Frobby]

If you want comps, I'd think somewhere between Al Kaline and Stan Musial is what we should be hoping for.

With a likelihood that he ends up, instead, as good or better than Paul O'Neill (circa 1993-1998).

I'd like to hunt down and kill whoever it was who first suggested that Paul O'Neill was a good comp for Nick.

- Nick already has hit more doubles in a season than O'Neill ever did -- twice.

- Nick already has three full seasons under his belt at age 25. O'Neill had 193 AB by that age.

- Nick has 2 20-HR seasons already. O'Neill had his first at age 28 and had only 7 in his career.

- Nick has played 155+ games two years in a row. O'Neill never topped 152 and reached 150 only 4 times.

- O'Neill never had an OPS over .830 until he was 30 years old. Nick has done this twice.

I liked O'Neill but there is no comparison at all.

[LookinUp]

And you're apparently assuming that those pitches were ignored in all ABs ending in walks?

A walk is the resolution of an AB and nothing more.

No, I'm assuming that they're more likely to be taken, on average, than a player with a lesser walk rate.

Look, I love that Kakes takes walks and I'm not in any way arguing that we should have our hitters swing more often. Kakes is the model, free swingers are not. I don't want to be painted into that corner.

All I'm saying is his style could have a detrimental effect on BA, a stat that has diminished in importance over time.

I'll drop this though, because I could obviously be wrong.

[Mackus]

I'm saying that Nick takes less swings at good (for the hitter) pitches then Ichiro. Conversely, you're likely saying that Ichiro takes more swings at bad pitches as well, and you're probably right. All I'm saying is I'm not sure how that affects BA in the aggregate, but I'm inclined to think that for hitters like Ichiro, who have good contact rates, it improves the BA (and definitely raw HRs).

I think your frame of reference is off here.

Nick doesn't take good pitches. Never has and never will, unless its a 3-0 pitch and he's taking all the way.

Nick does take pitches that you might think or I might think are good pitches. But when he has the count in his favor, he is looking for one specific pitch. A pitch might be a strike and he takes it, but that doesn't mean it was a pitch he's looking for. If he starts just swinging at anything that might be good, or anything in the strike zone, the balls he does hit won't be hit as hard, since they won't be pitches he is looking for as often.

You sit and wait for specific pitches in specific locations that you want to hit. And let everything else go by, be it a strike or a ball. Nick will start expanding a bit with two strikes to stay alive, but not that much. Guys like Giambi and Dunn almost never swing at stuff they aren't looking for, even with two strikes, and it works out well for them.

[Lucky Jim]

My logic has nothing to do with OOZ. It has everything to do with a player like Ichiro, who goes after good pitches when he sees them versus a player like Markakis who is more likely (in the aggregate) to take good pitches.

I'm saying that Nick takes less swings at good (for the hitter) pitches then Ichiro. Conversely, you're likely saying that Ichiro takes more swings at bad pitches as well, and you're probably right. All I'm saying is I'm not sure how that affects BA in the aggregate, but I'm inclined to think that for hitters like Ichiro, who have good contact rates, it improves the BA (and definitely raw HRs).

Obviously the hitter has to be good enough to not swing at too many balls for this to work. Ichiro is unique in being able to do that.

I need to see proof of this.

Suzuki definitely takes more swings at pitches in the strike zone, but how we determine whether they're "good" for the hitter or not, I don't know. From watching both a decent amount, I'd say that Suzuki is more adept at turning pitcher's pitches into hits, most by beating out IF hits and going the other way.

His data:

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1101&position=OF

Nick's:

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=5930&position=OF

What you see here is that Suzuki swings at a lot more OOZ pitches. And - last year - Nick's big BB year - more strikes too. But what kind of strikes. Tellingly, as Nick cut down on the number of pitches he swung at (including strikes) his BABIP rose: from .335 to .351 (in part due to an increased LD% - from 17.7% to over 21%.)

I think Nick swings at fewer pitcher's strikes. I see no evidence that he swings at fewer hitters strikes. Ichiro's bad-ball skills don't really create any advantage over Nick in terms of hitting "hittable" pitches. It's the degree-of-difficulty pitches at which Ichiro excels.

[O'sFanThruJune]

It was definitely about the # of hits, not the BA.

Walks don't hurt anything. They never do, its obviously impossible. If you assume every walk would have been a hit, then yeah, a guys BA would go up. But that clearly is an absurd assumption. I also don't think you can assume the walks would be replaced with the even same percentage of hits as well. If a guy with a .333 batting average drew 90 walks, I don't think you can say that if he had swung in all those walks he would have had 30 hits and 60 outs, its probably a lot less, since they weren't as good of pitches.

I'm not saying that the conclusion is wrong, but I think your approach here is missing something. If you're only looking at those 90 plate appearances being replaced by hits/outs, then you're definitely right. But I don't think that those 90 are the only PAs being affected by a less patient approach. There are certainly some outs that could have been turned into hits if a hitter hadn't started off with two called strikes. In a more obvious case, taking a borderline pitch at a 3-2 count will always result in a BA of .000 for that AB, but swinging at it might mean a BA of .250 for that AB.

To reiterate, I think it's possible that a more patient approach results in a higher BA, but I don't think it's as simple as your analysis.

[Saintbird]

I'd like to hunt down and kill whoever it was who first suggested that Paul O'Neill was a good comp for Nick.

- Nick already has hit more doubles in a season than O'Neill ever did -- twice.

- Nick already has three full seasons under his belt at age 25. O'Neill had 193 AB by that age.

- Nick has 2 20-HR seasons already. O'Neill had his first at age 28 and had only 7 in his career.

- Nick has played 155+ games two years in a row. O'Neill never topped 152 and reached 150 only 4 times.

- O'Neill never had an OPS over .830 until he was 30 years old. Nick has done this twice.

I liked O'Neill but there is no comparison at all.

Don't forget that Nick has never thrown his bat at an Orioles player during a game... Yes I was at that game.

[Mackus]

I'm not saying that the conclusion is wrong' date=' but I think your approach here is missing something. If you're only looking at those 90 plate appearances being replaced by hits/outs, then you're definitely right. But I don't think that those 90 are the only PAs being affected by a less patient approach. There are certainly some outs that could have been turned into hits if a hitter hadn't started off with two called strikes. In a more obvious case, taking a borderline pitch at a 3-2 count will always result in a BA of .000 for that AB, but swinging at it might mean a BA of .250 for that AB.

To reiterate, I think it's possible that a more patient approach results in a higher BA, but I don't think it's as simple as your analysis.[/quote']It depends on what you think patient means.

If you think it means just taking more pitches indiscriminantly, then it probably won't help anything. What I take patience to mean is the ability to lay off of pitches that aren't what you are looking for, even if they are strikes. Going up with the mentality that you are going to have a 6 pitch at bat no matter what, will probably hurt a guy's performance. But going up thinking that you are gonna sit on a certain pitch and location every pitch until you get two strikes, and not swing at it if it isn't that pitch, probably will help.

The second idea is what I am promoting.