Posted by MikeT23 on 12/4/2013 4:19:00 PM (view original):
You probably underthought the problem. How many .500 hitters have there been in MLB? How many .400 hitters? Which one is more likely to regress with more opportunities? Which one is more likely to maintain/improve with more opportunities?
Truth is, we have no idea how either would have done given more chances. Much like saying EM would have more hits if he didn't walk the extra time every 8 games. He may have. Or maybe not. Either way, his OBP would come down because you can't top 1.000.
Huh? The .500 hitter is better than the .400 hitter. Or make it .350 compared to .300. The guy with the better BA is better. If he walks a lot, or gets hit in the back a lot more than the .300 hitter, and therefore can't accumulate enough hits to surpass the .300 hitter, it doesn't make him a worse hitter. If anything, he probably walks a lot because he's a great hitter and pitchers pitch around him.