Strictly speaking from an offensive production standpoint, why do batting average and home runs matter?

Question

I guess this is a "moneyball" or "sabermetric" issue if you want to call it that but if the purpose of winning a game is to score more runs than other team & that RBI & runs scored are the two most simple measurement of this and how many runs a player helped produce, how come BA and HR continue to be viewed as the most imporant statistics about a player's offensive production? The "moneyball" theory first practiced by the Oakland A's has come a long way in changing GM's ideas about how to value players by recognizing categories like on base %, total bases, etc. & the importance of avoiding making an out at your plate appearance rather than necessarily whether you hit a HR or a single, I know HRs fill seats but I think players like Rickey Henderson who is in the top 3 career leaders in baseball in runs scored tend to be less revered in baseball history than a pure slugger with no speed. Do you agree that it _is_ this case that BA & HR are overemphasized and if so why is this?

Answer 1

A player's runs scored and RBI numbers are more reliant on what your teammates do, than your individual offensive production.

HR's and batting average are solely in your control. In order to score runs, you must have batters behind you to drive you in, and in order to get RBI's (excluding solo HR's,) you need runners on base.
.

Answer 2

I think the point of moneyball was to find categories of performance which were important but undervalued by other teams. Not that OBP was more important than homeruns, but that teams had traditionally paid a lot of money to players who hit a lot of homeruns but not to guys who didn't hit homers but had a good OBP.

The idea was to find a way to get bargains for players who would contribute to a productive offense without having to pay top dollar to these types of players.

So, it's not that home runs and batting average don't matter, it's that the guys with the best batting average and most homeruns were always going to cost too much for a team like the A's. So they looked for other attributes.

Any system of evaluating players is going to rate RIckey Henderson very high. Rickey always got paid a lot of money so he's not a good example of a "moneyball" kind of player.

Answer 3

Runs scored and RBI are actually inflated statistics, just as are batting average and HR. Sabermetricians are constantly working on more astute ways to view offensive production, with statistics such as Value-Over-Replacement-Player (VORP), Runs Created, Win-Probability, and On Base Percentage-Plus-Slugging Percentage (OPS).

Home Runs are still good offensive stats for several reasons: Let's say you have a runner on first with one out. The chance of that runner scoring on a single is obviously less than him scoring on a double or triple. Additionally, there is a chance of hitting into a double play. If you put the ball over the fences, that runner comes home, as does the batter, and the chance for a double play is removed. As such, you have granted your team a minimum of two more batters in the inning.

These so-called "power numbers" are sexy numbers which casual fans appreciate, but can be fairly meaningless. A three-run home run when your team is up by seven runs in the ninth inning means very little, which is why I'm a big fan of Win-Probability ratings.

Answer 4

well, like you said hr's fill seats. Personally, I believe avg, runs and rbi's are by far the most important catergories, and with free agency the way it is, everything is money, and the current thing is the long ball. Now, its no secret that there is a shortage of quality starters in the majors, and i think the main reason for that id from the first time a kid experiences the sport, he's amazed by a home run so now he wants to be a hitter and get all the glory

Answer 5

It's a chicken or the egg type argument. You can't score a run without reaching base and you can't get a RBI without someone else reaching base (unless you hit a solo HR). I personally believe on base percentage is an important stat, but it's just as important as batting average. I would rather have a .300 hitter with an OBP of .400 on my team than a .215 hitter with a .320 OBP. Even a .300 hitter with a .350 OBP is better than the .215/.320 guy. A good batting average helps out your on base percentage but if you can't hit your OBP probably won't be as good even if you draw a lot of walks. While walks do help your team, runners only advance one base on a walk. With a single, runners frequently advance from first to third or from second to home.

As for your other point, while homers are the sexiest stat, total bases or number of extra base hits are just as important. A homer is, of course, the maximum amount of bases you can get in a single at bat and the potential to score the most runs in a single at bat. I personally find the triple as the most exciting play in baseball. You don't get many of them and rarely do you wind up at third without a play.

Answer 6

Well, Moneyball did not invent these kinds of statistical tools. If you recall from the book, people like Pete Palmer and bill James followed some of the work of Branch Rickey and others.
But the new methods are generally despised by announcers and mainstream writers (see FireJoeMorgan) for more on this. It's because these methods challenge old thinking and require one to have a brain instead of just using the "I know what I see" line of argument.

Answer 7

BA is becoming meaningless in a Sabremetric world, but it is the greatest stat in baseball TRADITION. OBP is more important.

As for HRs, they are both RBIs and Runs. Plus they put people in the seats.

Baseball is still a game of great tradition. That's why with 1 or less outs and a guy on first managers still put on the sac bunt even though it statistically is the wrong play.

Answer 8

You make a bunch of valid points and you answered you're own question. HR's put @sses in seats. You don't see ESPN giving round-the-clock coverage when someone approaches the runs scored record like they did with Bonds, do you? Unless you are real stat junkie, the average fan couldn't tell you the record for career runs scored but everyone knows 756. The HR is sexy for lack of a better word.

Answer 9

Basically it's important to get RBI's and be a consistent hitter but it's most impressive to be able to hit the homeruns. It takes the most strength and skill than just hitting a bunch of singles. All of it is important but hitting homers makes the game most exciting. Except over the years it has sadly become less exciting with steroid pumpers like barry bonds who ruin the game of baseball. He gives homeruns a bad name.

Answer 10

you to seem to have a point,but people care more about home runs because it is "more".It gives a run right away and people think you must be a good hitter to hit it far like that