A hitter is considered to have a good season if he successfully hits a ball three out of every ten times (.300).
But what about the on-base percentage statistic? What qualifies as "good" as opposed to "poor"?
2007-05-24 16:37:34 · 10 answers · asked by radio901 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I would say that 400 is a good OBP, and i would also argue that OBP is more important than pure average.
2007-05-24 16:49:01 · answer #1 · answered by bkcarl02 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
.400 is a little high to be considered "good". I'd lower to aroung .370 or so. That takes a batting average in the 290-300 range and then adds on 50-60 walks to it. Thats a good number no matter where a guy hits in the lineup. To be considered "good" I think it needs to be a number that is attainable for more than just the elite players in the sport. An OBP of .400 is usually only reached by a handful of guys making it too high of a mark.
2007-05-24 17:07:48 · answer #2 · answered by ajn4664_ksu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
.400 is usually seen as a good OBP, but a lot of statisticians also like to compare it with the hitter's batting average to decide just how valuable the he is offensively. Take Juan Pierre for instance. In 2006 he hit .292 - very decent. But his OBP was only .330, reflecting the fact that though he gets a lot of hits, he also creates a lot of outs. He only reached base by walking 32 times that year.
2007-05-24 16:49:41 · answer #3 · answered by mudandbleach 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
.400 is outstanding; some of you must have incredibly high standards. Anything over .350 is pretty good, especially if the slugging average is in the mid-400s.
And OBP is considerably more important than batting average, which is the most overrated hitting statistic there is.
2007-05-24 19:22:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'd say between .350 and .400. When you consider that the all-time leader is Ted Williams with a .4817 career, and 3rd for season average with .5528 in that awesome 1941 season. I cannot count Barry Bonds' top numbers (.6094 and .5827) because people just didn't pitch around people back then like they do now. It all comes down to having a great eye for baseball, when to hit and when to take the walk.
2007-05-24 17:25:24 · answer #5 · answered by Rick081677 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is only an approximated spectrum, as offensive levels fluctuate every year and over eras. Still may be useful.
OBP -- type of player
.280 -- replacement part, really good-hitting pitcher
.300 -- free-swinging defensive player
.340 -- league average
.375 -- "good" -- knows how to take a walk
.400 -- league top 10'er
.450 -- MVP candidate
.500 -- MVP, potential Hall Of Famer
.550 -- HOFer at peak
.600 -- Bonds (ML record .609, 2004)
2007-05-24 17:27:11 · answer #6 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mr. Summerslam = Hulk Hogan Mr. TLC = Edge Mr. Hell in a Cell = The Undertaker Mr. Royal Rumble = Stone Cold Mr. Money in the Bank = Shelton Benjamin
2016-05-17 08:42:51 · answer #7 · answered by carey 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
high .300's is good, above .400 is exceptional...league leaders are typically in the mid .400's if you don't count Barry Bonds' crazy years...
2007-05-24 16:50:18 · answer #8 · answered by cfluehr 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Around .400 or so is good. .300 would be poor. Most are in-between there someplace. . . .
2007-05-24 17:32:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
good is anything above .400
2007-05-24 16:40:49 · answer #10 · answered by aapadres 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋