KC sweeping SA is the most surprising happening of the season to me.

How many people overvalue contact is surprising to me.

The amount (or lack) of WS championships the overvaluers have, not surprising.

Posted by robusk on 11/10/2010 12:31:00 PM (view original):
How many people overvalue contact is surprising to me.

The amount (or lack) of WS championships the overvaluers have, not surprising.

Has anyone seen my baseball?

Posted by robusk on 11/10/2010 12:31:00 PM (view original):
How many people overvalue contact is surprising to me.

The amount (or lack) of WS championships the overvaluers have, not surprising.

I honestly don't think you can undervalue anything at this point. Maybe eye. But everything else is subjective and relies on other stats to produce a fuller picture.

Maybe...

I would definitely put contact #5 in terms of value in the big 5 hitting ratings and don't think it would be close.

I mean, lets take these five guys:

50/70/70/70/70

70/50/70/70/70

70/70/50/70/70

70/70/70/50/70

70/70/70/70/50

How would you rank them in terms of best player to worst player?

I would go 1, 3, 2, 4, 5 assuming switch hitter...  if it is a lefty, swap 3 and 4...  if it is a righty, swap 4 and 5.

Hartman (65/75/95/95/95) is a great low contact, high splits, high be hitter. Hits in the .320s and adds 90 walks a season. Even hits 30 homers when his power rating is not spectacular.

I'm sure there are examples of high contact, low be guys doing the same.... just not on any of my teams.

65 isn't really "low" - and if you switched his BE and CON, Hartman would still be awesome, just in a different way - he'd walk less but would probably compensate to some degree with an increased BA.

Not that I disagree with robusk's point in general - I'd take the "real" Hartman over a version with the CON and BE switched, but I don't think it's a major difference.

50 isn't low enough to prove your point. I would be happy with any of the ones you posted.

Go 70/70/70/70/40 etc. and I am gonna flinch when the BE or the vR is the low. Not when it is any of the others.

And I think if you are ??/??/95/95/95 you got a great chance to be a strong hitter.

Posted by jwelsh1023 on 11/10/2010 1:13:00 PM (view original):
And I think if you are ??/??/95/95/95 you got a great chance to be a strong hitter.

I think if you have 3 90+ ratings out of the 5, you are going to be a successful hitter

Posted by jwelsh1023 on 11/10/2010 1:13:00 PM (view original):
And I think if you are ??/??/95/95/95 you got a great chance to be a strong hitter.

Yes

Posted by jwelsh1023 on 11/10/2010 1:12:00 PM (view original):
50 isn't low enough to prove your point. I would be happy with any of the ones you posted.

Go 70/70/70/70/40 etc. and I am gonna flinch when the BE or the vR is the low. Not when it is any of the others.

Maybe...  not sure if 10 points less is the magic number...

50 gets the point across though.

Posted by dherz_263 on 11/10/2010 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jwelsh1023 on 11/10/2010 1:13:00 PM (view original):
And I think if you are ??/??/95/95/95 you got a great chance to be a strong hitter.

I think if you have 3 90+ ratings out of the 5, you are going to be a successful hitter

What if it was 90 CNT, 90 vL and 90 PWR but the rest were trash?

Actually, wasn't Bernard Bates something like that?

That BE v. CON thread got me looking at single-season strikeout records in $. The fact that moy won 100 games in S15 with Bo Fultz getting 520 ABs is a testament both to how good he's been at getting top-end talent in the world, and how horrible he's been at managing the rest of the rest of his roster.