dmendro wrote:The main thing about high at bats is that if you have a guy who hits .300 for the year in 630 AB's, it's going to go farther for your team's BA then a guy who hits .300 in 500 AB's.

No its not its the same average

That's incorrect.

Compare these setups on your roster:

Player 1: 500 ABs, .300 avg Player 2: 500 ABs, .265 avg

500 ABs x .300 avg = 150 hits 500 ABs x .264 avg = 132 hits

total: 1,000 ABs @ 282 hits = .282 avg

then:

Player 1: 600 ABs, .300 avg Player 2: 500 ABs, .260 avg

600 ABs x .300 avg = 180 hits 500 ABs x .260 avg = 130 hits

total: 1,100 ABs @ 310 hits = .282 avg

[edit: I messed up the total ABs for group 2 so I fixed it.]

It's still messed up? In top case player 2 is a 264 hitter and in the other case he's hitting 260? If you pair each 300 hitter with the same player 2, you'll get a 2 points higher group batting avg from the 600 ab 300 hitter, than you will using the 500 ab 300 hitter.

61* 70**73**762*** MVP****NL11,AL07,AL05,NL04,ALNL03,ALNL02,NL01,ALNL00,AL99,ALNL98,ALNL96 RIP Cammi Cmon Bud, NOW is the time to sack up and force feed an Olympic style drug program down Fehr's fat throat. Save OUR game from these blatant cheaters!

Grouperman941 wrote:Also, guys projected to get a lot of ABs are hitting in the top of their orders, which generally means they are the better hitters, or at least they are setting up the better hitters, on their team.

There's certainly a lot to that, but the opportunities also matter. For example, what spot in the order (after #9 in the NL) produced the fewest RBIs last year?

It was the number 1 hitters in the NL, who averaged 63 RBI.

ESPN now has the league averages on their stat sheets,so you can look at each position. I'd encourage people to try to get guys batting #1-5 in the order. While batting slots 1-4 each produced, on average, more than 100 runs, in slots 5-8 (and 9 in the AL) the average ranged from 64 to 89. There's only a 5-10 run difference between average runs scored as a #4 hitter and average runs scored as a #1 hitter. There's a 20 run difference between #1 and #5.

RBIs, of course, you should focus on slots 3-5 where the league averages are over 100 RBIs. There's a huge drop off at both the top of the order and bottom. Spots 1 and 2 average 35-50 fewer RBIs than the middle of the order. Slots 6-9 average 25-55 fewer than the middle of the order.

So, if you have two guys that you are choosing from and you think their overall team offense is similar, I'd choose the guy in slots 1-4, if you think your team needs runs, and slots 3-5 if you need RBIs.

dmendro wrote:The main thing about high at bats is that if you have a guy who hits .300 for the year in 630 AB's, it's going to go farther for your team's BA then a guy who hits .300 in 500 AB's.

No its not its the same average

That's incorrect.

Compare these setups on your roster:

Player 1: 500 ABs, .300 avg Player 2: 500 ABs, .265 avg

500 ABs x .300 avg = 150 hits 500 ABs x .264 avg = 132 hits

total: 1,000 ABs @ 282 hits = .282 avg

then:

Player 1: 600 ABs, .300 avg Player 2: 500 ABs, .260 avg

600 ABs x .300 avg = 180 hits 500 ABs x .260 avg = 130 hits

total: 1,100 ABs @ 310 hits = .282 avg

[edit: I messed up the total ABs for group 2 so I fixed it.]

It's still messed up? In top case player 2 is a 264 hitter and in the other case he's hitting 260? If you pair each 300 hitter with the same player 2, you'll get a 2 points higher group batting avg from the 600 ab 300 hitter, than you will using the 500 ab 300 hitter.

Sorry, I think I've been drinking too much lately.

The numbers are still accurate and show that a high AB guy coupled with a lower AVG guy can make the same average. Alternatively I suppose it would have made more sense to use the same numbers with the higher ABs. This would yield:

600 ABs x .300 avg = 180 hits
500 ABs x .264 avg = 132 hits

1,100 ABs @ 312 hits = .284 avg (actually .2836)

It doesn't exactly raise up the average a *ton*, but it certainly is an advantage.

While the whole AB targeting is a decent idea I don't like how Shandler presented it. It should have been more specific in saying to target guys who you suspect will have an increase in RBIs (presumably by being bumped up in the order, or by a strong offense that will go through the order more times through high OBP).

Getting guys that just have a high number of ABs without having solid fundamentals behind them might pull your AVG down too much to have a beneficial effect from the added stats.

Well, obviously when looking at who to draft for runs and rbis you don't look at AB, you look at - runs and rbis. But when projecting runs and rbis, you have to look at ABs. Good example this year is Figgins. If he moves down in the order as it looks like he will, his run producing opportunities diminish.

And more ABs do matter with BA. Your team BA is not simply the average of all your players. It's (total team AB/team hits). So a guy with a high average and 600+ ABs is gold. More so than the same hitter if he only gets 500.

I'm going to assume this post is out of context and he means players who play more are more valuable and that is the simple truth. I dont' care how good Bonds or Alou are if they are only seeing 450 PA's on the year their value is limited. I highly doubt Shandler said more AB's is more valuable though unless he was strictly talking about high AVG guys.

Ender wrote: I highly doubt Shandler said more AB's is more valuable though unless he was strictly talking about high AVG guys.

More AB's potentially help 4 out of the 5 hitting categories and can only hurt one. Shandler did mean the more AB's the more valuable. It's logical and it's something I always adhere to.

When you're right no one remembers, when you're wrong no one forgets - NZF

NZF

General Manager

Posts: 4795

Joined: 19 Jan 2004

Home Cafe: Baseball

Location: Sitting in the Cake Tin enjoying a cold Speights

Ender wrote: I highly doubt Shandler said more AB's is more valuable though unless he was strictly talking about high AVG guys.

More AB's potentially help 4 out of the 5 hitting categories and can only hurt one. Shandler did mean the more AB's the more valuable. It's logical and it's something I always adhere to.

Link it for me then and no they don't. If Shandler posted something like this and didn't mean average he would have said more plate appereances or more platyime means more production, AB's is not a strong unit of measurement.

A 450 AB player who walks 100 times a year will be more productive than a 500 AB player who walks 20 times most likely. A stat guy would be more careful with how he stated it.

NZF wrote:Of course AB's are a strong unit of measurement. PA's as well. The more a guy has of then, the more valuable he is in fantasy terms PERIOD.

an extra 1 ab with 0 hits, 0 hrs, and 0 rbis will decrease a players value unless strikeouts or GIDP's are counted as a positive cat in your league. just saying...

NZF wrote:Of course AB's are a strong unit of measurement. PA's as well. The more a guy has of then, the more valuable he is in fantasy terms PERIOD.

an extra 1 ab with 0 hits, 0 hrs, and 0 rbis will decrease a players value unless strikeouts or GIDP's are counted as a positive cat in your league. just saying...

Hitters with MORE ABs contribute more in 5x5. For this to work, you have to assume that the AVG remains the same over the higher number of ABs. If a player hits .275 over 400 ABs you have to think he hits .275 over 550 ABs.

Of course, you could counter this by saying he will do worse w/ the xtra 150 ABs like Ace did...

I think Shandler's point was more along the lines that if your team is projected to have 500 more ABs than everyone else, you have a much better chance of doing beating them in the hitting cats...