Sitting out for the batting title...
 

What is your opinion?

Colorado Rockies second-baseman LeMahieu edged out Daniel Murphy (who is injured) by .001 - .348 to .347 while sitting out the last two games of the season - and four of the last five.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...le-sitting-out

Weiss (LeMahieu's manager) said Friday that if Murphy was healthy, he would have let LeMahieu play and let the two players contest the batting title on the field.

Does the fact that he hit .391 at home and .303 on the road make any difference in your thoughts (his last games of the season were on the road)?

Lame. If Ted Williams can play two meaningless games rather than sit out to ensure his .400, this young man can play to earn (or lose) his title.

It's fair, Murphy would not have played if he was healthy (meaningless game for his team) so why should DJ have to?

BTW, this was the manager's decision,LeMahieu wanted to play.

besides, batting avg is such a silly arbitrary stat that the award has very little meaning anymore.

I got a feeling at contract time/arbitration LeMahieu wont agree there is very little meaning.

He's signed through next year, and teams are smart enough in free agency (well most of em anyway) to overlook a flukey career year by a player at Coor's field.

there was a great tweet by Brian Kenny yesterday that sums up my opinion pretty well:

"NL Batting Title on the line today:
wRC+
1. Votto 159
2. Murphy 156
3. Freeman 154
..
Walt Weiss can play anyone he likes.."

Do you really think that if the dude had insisted on playing, saying it was important to him to win it or lose it legitimately, the manager would have said no?

apparently that's exactly what happened. (then Weiss resigned today! lol)

I get both sides, Weiss sees it as a plus for the org on a mediocre year, DJ wants to "win it" (and I would agree if Murphy was also playing, but with him out I don't think that it's a vice to sit DJ)

If he did want to play it doesn't sound like he was very insistent about it. Seems more like he was relieved that Weiss made the decision.

"Part of me wants to be out there competing, doing what I've been doing all year. The other part of me -- there's something really special out there, and I'm going to let Walt take care of that."

Bunch of Punks if you ask me (I think Mr. Williams would agree)

+1

Diagree. Vinny Castilla comes to mind...royce clayton tore it up in colorado and got a nice contract.....'most' of the teams not paying doesnt matter...as long as one pays then its a bargaining trip.....a player can only sign with one team initially..he doesnt need every team to want him..

that was a long time ago pre-metrics, teams (well most of em anyway) are smarter than they used to be

I dont get both sides. The guy was a complete chicken shit....

of course you don't, you still think it's the Jurassic era of baseball.


A- nobody cares about the batting avg title anymore

B- winning it in on the DL is no different than winning it on the bench

C- it's a silly pointless award that has zero impact on who the actual best hitter was in the league (it was Joey Votto)

Kinda begs the question why Weiss sat him out then. :)

Nick,

As much as you may hate it, LeMahieu did win the batting title. Votto had the better season, but did not win the batting title.

Mentioned previously, the batting title matters a lot when LeMahieu goes to discuss a new contract.

Give some credit when it's due.

It depends on the team. It depends on how he performs next year away from Coor's field, and it depends on how old he is/positional scarcity at the time he becomes a free agent. Remember, teams are less enamored by RBI's and avg than they used to be. Most of em have large metric analysis departments who both look at available stats and make their own in which to judge performance.

Most teams will look at his numbers and see his 128 wRC+ .143 ISO and 11 homers were good but not great and that at age 28 he just had his only season as an above avg hitter (and over doubled his previous year's WAR from 1.9 to 4.2) They will also see that on the road his wRC+ was 101 and 150 at home....

I'm thinking he will get paid like the player he is,a 2nd tier second baseman who had a career year in 2016 that he is unlikely to repeat.

I'm not going to disagree.

Some players hit well in Coors field, some do not. Can't deny the home and road splits for the team, however the field is where it is.

I never thought DJ wold pan out as he has. He would be wise to do what he can to stay in CO though.......The same goes for CarGo.

guys like larry walker though it doesnt matter where he plays...

What are your thoughts on the World Series?

The 'shine' is off that apple too...the two teams could have met a half-dozen times...almost as bad as the NFL, where two teams could meet on the last week of the regular season, only to face each other again about six weeks later.

Now, I'm not saying all this is bad, I just miss having to guess how the final two teams will do against each other.

But, we all have to know everything as soon as possible these days.

I definitely have become part of the 'older' generation. :o:confused:

WHAT DO THE GERMANS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?????



:p

Cobb sat out the last game in 1910 leading by 8. LaJoie went 8 for 8 in a double header to edge him out. But they found an error in Cobb's record, which gave him a higher average, and they reclaimed Cobb the winner. But a controversy erupted out of further mistakes, and to this day, the actual winner of 1910 is neither. But they were both awarded a Chalmers car for top batting average.

As someone who doesn't study stats, I think batting average is very important. As for sitting out, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other right now. :)

I look for that response every time I use that word...thanks for playing along.

My little tribute to Jackie Gleason (of course, his response was decidedly more 'colorful').

I wonder if someone was tied in rbis and his team was out of contention but chose to rest the last game or if he was tied in some other main statistic that just counts and doesnt go by averages.

I not sure who the hit champion (total number of hits) was in the National League but i if someone won the batting title and had the most hits, i dont think anyone should care how many games at the end of the year that person sits out since has the most hits...

afterall all games count, maybe the guy that is chasing for the title already 'sat out' a game in the middle of the year.

First, I'm not sure what your first sentence fragment means, since it is incomplete, so I might totally be missing the point. But I'm not sure how the most hits has anything to do in justifying the winning or losing of the batting title, but I'll bite with this example.

Person A has 210 hits and 20 walks and has .334 average and decides to sits out the last game. Person B has 208 hits and 100 walks and has a .333 average and doesn't sit out. Person A and B are comparable in other categories (HR, 3B, 2B, etc). After the last game played, Person A will have missed 10 more games than Person B.

If Person B goes 1 for 3 with 2 walks in the last game, Person A still wins batting title but Person B is way more productive.

Since I don't think they give a major award for on base percentage (though I could be wrong), I could see why someone might care.

A person who wins the batting title while sitting out has outhit everyone all year. I don't see the big deal in sitting out. It gives a person a chance to beat them, but it doesn't take away from the performance over a full season.

LeMahieu VS. Muphy: 2016 Splits
 

FYI:

Murphy hit .383 in inter-league play, while LeMahieu hit .294

...so, vs. NL pitching exclusively,

LeMahieu hit .355, while Murphy hit .340

however:


Home/Away splits:

Murphy - .361/.333
LeMahieu- .391/.303

Once again, Coors Field casts a large statistical shadow.

LeMahieu's final (possible) game was against the Brewers at Coors. Sounds promising, but he was only 1-for-6 against them this year...not enough of a sample to make any assumptions on how he would have done.


Finally, Jean Segura (famous for once stealing first base FROM second base...believe it! check YouTube) led the NL in total hits with 203. Corey Seager was second with 193 and LeMahieu third with 192.

I think that's more coincidental than incidental. He only hit 11 homers. You have to be lucky to get a hit at all, so I don't see how Coors played a role in where the balls landed in a way that another stadium wouldn't.

I thought part of the Coors Field advantage for hitters was the larger outfield, so yes, more room for balls to drop without the outfielders reaching them. Not just altitude aided homers.

I don't really see how that factors into anything like a batting title. The Astros stadium is 436 to center. Does that mean Altuve's titles are suspicious?

The theory seems simple enough, if outfielders have a fixed range but more real estate to cover in a given park than another one, more balls will fall in? What's the logical flaw there?

The flaw is assuming space has something to do with the probability a baseball will land where someone isn't. Having space does not dictate where a ball goes. Also the outfield is not so significantly larger than any other stadium, nor is it the largest. Winning a batting title requires you to do more than hit a ball into the outfield.

I am still missing it. Suppose you had only two outfielders. Teams obviously would hit for a higher average than against three outfielders as more balls would fall in, no? So isn't having three outfielders who have to cover more real estate just an extension of the same concept albeit on a lesser scale? Maybe it isn't enough of a difference to matter, but that is a different question than the basic concept.

Getting a hit requires you do more than put a ball in play. Winning a batting title requires you to get hits at a higher rate than anyone else. If all you had to do was hit the ball into the outfield in Colorado to get a hit he'd be battling his own teammates for the title and a Rockie would win every year. But that doesn't happen.

I was only talking about the general proposition that batting averages seem higher at Coors, not about the extent to which it factored into this particular batting title.

I just don't think the difference in size is enough to truly factor into averages if you're saying the park is easier to get a hit in. That's my point. Extend the outfield 1000 feet and sure. But that's not how it stands. And like I said Houston has the largest field and Altuve has 2 titles. I don't believe the park played a major role in those titles though.

Can't we just prove this one way or another with metrics? ;)

But seriously... I think there is something there, just that we can't be certain to what extent (as you noted). Too small, too many home runs. Too large, (maybe) too many base hits? Taken to the extreme though, you will obviously hit a point of diminishing returns as the size of the playing surface expands. If it was 1000 down the line to left and right, and 1400 to center, I doubt you would need your outfielders positioned at 600 out from home plate to effectively cover the entire playing surface.

Fangraphs probably does have analyses of park effects. :D

Right, all games count. Sitting out a game the first month of the year is the same as sitting out a game the last game of the year. Players dont typically play all 162 games even if healthy.

I was making the stronger point though that if you have the most hits for the year (and highest batting average) even after sitting out the last 30 games or whatever games than i still have no complaints. You have the most hits out of any other player and still have the highest batting average. No amount of sitting to me would tarnish the batting title in that scenerio.

D.J. i dont think was the total hit champion but like i said above, all games count and you dont play typically in all games.

Baseball doest care about having uniform fields like the other sports.

Just think about how many home runs certain players hit than would be outs in other ballparks. In football thought i would think kicking a 65 yard field goal in mile high isnt the same as kicking a 65 yarder in atlanta as well....always these unfair advantages but the record books don't care...unless you are on steroids.

Very interesting. While we were talking about space I brought up Minute Maid as being I think the largest park in the league, or at least the deepest to center. It seems as though despite being one of the larger parks in the league, it is actually pretty hard to get a hit there.

ESPN analysis of Coors prominently mentions field size.

1. Coors Field, home to Colorado Rockies
Runs: 1.427, HR: 1.323, HR (RHB): 1.310, HR (LHB): 1.342
Dimensions: 347' (8')-390' (8')-415' (8')-375' (8')-350' (14')
Altitude: 5,186 feet; Open-air stadium; Grass field

It's the No. 1 run-scoring environment in baseball, but not merely due to the distance a baseball travels at the mile-high altitude (a common misconception). Coors' expansive outfield, creating the largest amount of fair territory in baseball, results in the game's best venue for hits of all kinds (1.247 factor) and second-best for extra-base hits (1.298), and the offensive benefits are mostly balanced for rightes and lefties. In addition, the effects of the altitude upon a pitched baseball -- breaking pitches won't break quite so sharply and it's more difficult to keep pitches down -- force an adjustment for the Rockies when traveling and their opponents when visiting, with the more frequent trips for Rockies players a logical explanation for their extreme home/road splits. Breaking down Coors' park factors into the Rockies' and their opponents' stats, from 2011-15, opponents had a 1.199 run and 1.244 home-run factor; the Rockies had 1.669 and 1.409. This is why it's a dangerous thing to extrapolate a departing Rockies hitter's road stats, like Corey Dickerson's career .249/.286/.410 triple-slash rates, to a full season elsewhere. Take those Coors visitors' park factors to heart, too, as fantasy owners are often quick to exaggerate its impact upon a visiting player.

Looks like Coors is mostly bigger than Minute Maid.

14. Minute Maid Park, home to Houston Astros
Runs: 1.009, HR: 1.123, HR (RHB): 1.119, HR (LHB): 1.130
Dimensions: 315' (19')-362' (25')-435' (10')-373' (10')-326' (7')
Altitude: 21 feet; Retractable-roof stadium; Grass field

It's another one of those venues that is most favorable for "three true outcomes" players, with top-10 factors in terms of home runs, walks (1.026) and strikeouts (1.066). Minute Maid provides a boost to righties with pull power -- think Evan Gattis -- thanks to its Crawford Boxes in left field, but is otherwise neutral.

I'm having a hard time drawing conclusions from that information though. For example, Colorado is listed as the top hittable place presumably due to the size of fair territory there. Yet, Fenway Park, which is noticeably smaller and tighter, is second. Kauffman Stadium is only slightly smaller in fair territory than Coors, but it is ranked 6th in hit probability.

No controversy about a batting title will ever top the story behind the American League Batting Title in 1976 between George Brett, Hal McRae, Rod Carew, and Lyman Bostock on the last game of the year between the Royals and Twins which also involved Steve Brye and Gene Mauch.