I think it is. You can't judge how effective a guy is just by his batting average. There are many guys out there who don't hit .300 but who are great players. I don't think .250 is that bad. 1 out of 4 considering how hard it is to hit a 95 mph fastball is not bad at all!
2007-05-27 06:58:09 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
So let me get this straight: hitting the ball 1 out of 4 times or better yet, 2 out of 8 times for a .250 average is not bad, but hitting the ball 3 out of 10 times for a .300 average is overrated?? You are correct to say that there are great players out there who didn't hit .300 but the ones who did and do, are even greater because they were/are a harder out and players can rely on them to get guys over and drive in runs and not strike out compared to those who may just hit the ball 1 out 4 times. So Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Tony Gwynn, Pete Rose, Todd Helton, Vlad Guerrero, Derek Jeter, and so many more are all overrated. Dude, you're nuts.
2007-05-27 07:14:50 · answer #1 · answered by USC Fan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitting .300 in an entire season is not overrated. WHAT IS overrated is judging a guy who hits .270 vs a guy who hits .300-how much of a difference is there really? Not much. Lets break it down.
Say Player 1 has 100 at bats...he gets a base knock 31 times. He's a .310 hitter through 100 AB's.
Player 2 has 100 at bats...he gets 26 base hits-BUT 3 of his outs were screamers that the local Gold Glove 2nd baseman speared-he was robbed of a homerun once for an out. Now if those 3 singles he was robbed of were not snagged-and that ball would have not been pulled back over the fence--he's a .300 hitter in those 100 AB's...but now he's only a .260 hitter compared to our .310 hitter--because of circumsatnces that are rare --is he really that much worst of a hitter? Lets face it-as fans we don't think much of a .260 hitter.
2007-05-27 07:39:06 · answer #2 · answered by Shawn G 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Batting average as a statistic is overrated, but continues to coast along on general familiarity and media saturation (and those people really should know better, but it's easier playing down to the audience).
A .300 average is a .300 average, three successes in ten. But in no way does AVG capture a batter's overall contribution to offensive success. It's actually a rather weak tool for that, as it makes the (obviously false) assumptions that a single is equivalent to a home run, and that a walk counts for nothing.
Ignorance AND inertia are very difficult to overcome.
2007-05-27 07:13:01 · answer #3 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think .300 BA is overrated. A .300 batting average has always been the benchmark of a great hitter (hitting for average that is).
2007-05-27 07:40:54 · answer #4 · answered by oysterchowder2004 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not, if you have ever stood at the plate and had even a run of the mill "A" or "Double A' pitcher toss you a couple like I have, you would see how hard it is to hit the darn thing, The average fit, athletic person wont even see it, much less hit it.
Against a pitcher at the top level that throw a LOT harder and have curve balls and sliders that break 2 feet, forget about it.
The ball is round, the bat is round, the ball gets to you in a fraction of a second, and its curving in or out, rising or sinking just at the last couple of feet before it gets to you, it's amazing even pro's can hit it.
2007-05-27 07:09:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe it is if it's just one season. As well as if his average is poor with runners in scoring position.
But hitters that have a lifetime averages at .300 or better are the cream of the crop. It's not easy to accomplish, especially since there is a lot fewer astroturf fields these days.
2007-05-28 09:30:08 · answer #6 · answered by steve p 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only difference between 250 and 300 is 1 hit a week that's not much difference but a number! ob% is so much more important get on base dont care how cs that last time i checked you cant score while you are sitting on the bench get on then you have a chance to score one man once said you do me no good sitting on the bech GET ON BASE PERIOD (jim brock former ASU skipper)
2007-05-27 07:46:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think it is a lott harder to hit .300 than it used to be the fields are better kept and the players are some much faster and cover more ground taking base hits away
2007-05-27 07:16:23 · answer #8 · answered by rudedawg1616 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are other stats that are better measures of overall offensive skills, and none of this takes defense into account.
Hitting .300 is NOT overrated, as a single stat. And you're asking about a single stat.
2007-05-27 07:05:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes I do too. It's not all about ba. It's about on base % too. If you have a 350 OB% and a 250 BA, that's not bad at all!
2007-05-27 07:03:48 · answer #10 · answered by Catherine 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋