You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter middleripper77
- Start date

We're talking head to head, one hitter vs. another. Extend it to the whole team if you want. Only a moron would want all singles hitters as opposed to a team that can hit extra bases consistently but at a statistically insignificant lesser average.

I'm sure there are a lot of guys that say, "Oh, I wish that double or triple had been a single." With a HR, you only have two exceptions where a single would be better, and even that's shaky. Oh sure, I would much rather have two singles and not score a run than to hit one solo shot and put one up on the board.

Typical of this site. INTELLIGENCE FAIL.

In my opinion the only thing that matters is OBP. Being on base for your team is the goal.

This ^^

I doubt many teams/players accurately tracking batting averages...

.700 of REAL hits? I call BS on that.

Hint: If it was an error or fielder's choice, it isn't a hit.

I had 1.000 OBP last night!

We're talking head to head, one hitter vs. another. Extend it to the whole team if you want. Only a moron would want all singles hitters as opposed to a team that can hit extra bases consistently but at a statistically insignificant lesser average.

I'm sure there are a lot of guys that say, "Oh, I wish that double or triple had been a single." With a HR, you only have two exceptions where a single would be better, and even that's shaky. Oh sure, I would much rather have two singles and not score a run than to hit one solo shot and put one up on the board.

Typical of this site. INTELLIGENCE FAIL.

You may be the dumbest mother fu*ker on this site. If you could hit as well as you say you could, resmondo would be paying you to play. take your bull**** nonsense somewhere else.

We're talking head to head, one hitter vs. another.Extend it to the whole team if you want.Only a moron would want all singles hitters as opposed to a team that can hit extra bases consistently but at a statistically insignificant lesser average.

I'm sure there are a lot of guys that say, "Oh, I wish that double or triple had been a single." With a HR, you only have two exceptions where a single would be better, and even that's shaky. Oh sure, I would much rather have two singles and not score a run than to hit one solo shot and put one up on the board.

Typical of this site. INTELLIGENCE FAIL.

A team of 10 .700 hitters will beat your team of 10 .600 DBO kings. to the tune of almost 20 more at bats per game, and an average of more than 1 run more per inning.

Last edited:

You may be the dumbest mother fu*ker on this site. If you could hit as well as you say you could, resmondo would be paying you to play. take your bull**** nonsense somewhere else.

Yep, yet another sparkling example of shooting the messenger. *Sigh*, can't fix stupid.

I guess all the intelligent discussion just stirs up the retarded underside of SBF.

Oh, do enlighten us with your wisdom. Or is your only wisdom spewing insults?

(It's a rhetorical question...you can Google the word rhetorical since I doubt you know what it means)

Yep, yet another sparkling example of shooting the messenger. *Sigh*, can't fix stupid.

I guess all the intelligent discussion just stirs up the retarded underside of SBF.

Oh, do enlighten us with your wisdom. Or is your only wisdom spewing insults?

(It's a rhetorical question...you can Google the word rhetorical since I doubt you know what it means)

Right or wrong, you're kind of a *****. Just sayin.

Yep, yet another sparkling example of shooting the messenger. *Sigh*, can't fix stupid.

I guess all the intelligent discussion just stirs up the retarded underside of SBF.

Oh, do enlighten us with your wisdom. Or is your only wisdom spewing insults?

(It's a rhetorical question...you can Google the word rhetorical since I doubt you know what it means)

Guess you're not familiar with irony? Sorry that your mommy and daddy didnt say i love you enough.

A team of 10 .700 hitters will beat your team of 10 .600 DBO kings. to the tune of almost 20 more at bats per game, and an average of 1 run more per inning.

Keep making up stats out of the air. Enlighten me on the DBO: is that supposed to be douche-bag out? If so, what qualifies as a DBO? Is it a deep sacrifice fly by a power hitter? Maybe one of your singles hitters' ground balls for a FC?

Say you're just having a hell of a day batting, everyone on your team gets 5 ABs. A .600 team will have 30 hits, a .700 team will have 35 hits, a difference of only 5 hits. 5 singles (if your runners are all speed demons, which I'm sure they are in your fantasy world), they're scoring from second base every time, and your leaving at least two men on base, only scoring at most 3 "more" runs on those 5 extra hits.

So, genius, how many men do you leave on base throughout the rest of the game? Didn't account for that didja? Think you're gonna advance a bunch of extra bases when your opponent knows you can only hit singles, and they're not worried about you hitting over their head? How many more easy outs have you created because your lack of power means you are advancing one, maybe two, bases at a time?

Better hope your opponent commits two-base errors every time they throw the ball.

Can't believe the idiocy of your argument.

Right or wrong, you're kind of a *****. Just sayin.

Just like all the other SBF bitches, which is about 90% of the membership.

I'm not special.

My team of .700 singles hitters will bat 10 every inning, with 7 reaching base, and scoring 5/inning.

Your team of .600 doubles hitters will bat 7.5/inning (7 one inning 8 the next), with 4.5 reaching base (4 and 5), and scoring 3.5/inning

5 x 7 = 35 runs

3.5 x 7 = 24.5 runs

Yes, I am assuming runners score from 2nd - it is considered scoring position, and more often that not that run on 2nd scores, or runners go 1st to 3rd on a single to right. Even going station to station they score 4/inning and still win 28-24.5.

Boom! Headshot.

Keep making up stats out of the air. Enlighten me on the DBO: is that supposed to be douche-bag out? If so, what qualifies as a DBO? Is it a deep sacrifice fly by a power hitter? Maybe one of your singles hitters' ground balls for a FC?

Say you're just having a hell of a day batting, everyone on your team gets 5 ABs. A .600 team will have 30 hits, a .700 team will have 35 hits, a difference of only 5 hits. 5 singles (if your runners are all speed demons, which I'm sure they are in your fantasy world), they're scoring from second base every time, and your leaving at least two men on base, only scoring at most 3 "more" runs on those 5 extra hits.

So, genius, how many men do you leave on base throughout the rest of the game? Didn't account for that didja? Think you're gonna advance a bunch of extra bases when your opponent knows you can only hit singles, and they're not worried about you hitting over their head? How many more easy outs have you created because your lack of power means you are advancing one, maybe two, bases at a time?

Better hope your opponent commits two-base errors every time they throw the ball.

Can't believe the idiocy of your argument.

Your math is wrong - a team of 700 hitters will have 49hits/7 inning game.

Your assumption is that a team gets the same number of at bats. They don't. They get the same number of outs.

a team that hits .000 will get 21 AB (assuming no run rule)

.100 hitting team 22.3 ABs

.200 hitting team 26.3

.300 hitting team 30

.400 hitting team 35

.500 hitting team 42

.600 hitting team 52.5

.700 hitting team 70

.800 hitting team 105

.900 hitting team 210

DBO = Dead Ball Out. You're out of HRs, and your team hits another one. No runners advance.

Last edited:

Your math is wrong - a team of 700 hitters will have 49hits/7 inning game.

Your assumption is that a team gets the same number of at bats. They don't. They get the same number of outs.

a team that hits .000 will get 21 AB (assuming no run rule)

.100 hitting team 22.3 ABs

.200 hitting team 26.3

.300 hitting team 30

.400 hitting team 35

.500 hitting team 42

.600 hitting team 52.5

.700 hitting team 70

.800 hitting team 105

.900 hitting team 210

DBO = Dead Ball Out. You're out of HRs, and your team hits another one. No runners advance.

Where in my argument of slugging percentage did I ever say a person had to hit a HR every single time at bat?

At a 4-HR limit, you will score exactly 4 runs every time. How realistic is that?

Like I said, how many of those extra runners are you leaving on base because your averaging singles at .700 instead doubles at .600? How about my power-hitting team hitting their 4 HRs and not committing any DBOs? Their triples and doubles will leave less men stranded for the same number of outs.

Even if you want to add errors and speed of the runner and all that other white noise to the equation, add it to both sides if you're going to be fair.

I don't think it's fair to say "everyone gets 5 ABs" and extrapolate the numbers from there. If a team is batting .700 as a whole, they will get more ABs than a team batting .600 as a whole. Instead, the best way I've determined so far is to look at out generation. A .700 team generates 3 outs per ten at bats. A .600 generates 4 outs per ten at bats. We can then look at total outs per game and how long it would take each team to generate a complete game's worth of outs. I also think it helps to look at this in fractions.

Assuming a 7 inning game (21 outs), a .700 hitting team gets a hit 7/10 times and makes an out 3/10 times. Across 21 outs, it takes 7 trips through the lineup to generate 21 outs. 7 trips x 10 batters = 70ABs. 70ABs x.7 = 49 hits per game.

Doing the same with a .600 hitting team, we get 6/10 and 4/10. Across 21 outs, this team gets 52.5ABs and generates 31.5 hits.

In the middle of putting this together, I see that EdFred came to similar conclusions as I did.

The math set is done assuming one team only hits doubles and the other team only hits singles. All other skills (really just base running) are equal. Things like errors, advancing on throws, triples, HRs, etc. aren't factored in. If I wasn't at work, I could probably work in a triples and HRs factor given certain rates, but I don't know that it would actually make that big of a difference.Where in my argument of slugging percentage did I ever say a person had to hit a HR every single time at bat?

At a 4-HR limit, you will score exactly 4 runs every time. How realistic is that?

Like I said, how many of those extra runners are you leaving on base because your averaging singles at .700 instead doubles at .600? How about my power-hitting team hitting their 4 HRs and not committing any DBOs? Their triples and doubles will leave less men stranded for the same number of outs.

Even if you want to add errors and speed of the runner and all that other white noise to the equation, add it to both sides if you're going to be fair.

Where in my argument of slugging percentage did I ever say a person had to hit a HR every single time at bat?

At a 4-HR limit, you will score exactly 4 runs every time. How realistic is that?

Like I said, how many of those extra runners are you leaving on base because your averaging singles at .700 instead doubles at .600? How about my power-hitting team hitting their 4 HRs and not committing any DBOs? Their triples and doubles will leave less men stranded for the same number of outs.

Even if you want to add errors and speed of the runner and all that other white noise to the equation, add it to both sides if you're going to be fair.

I never went with the HR every AB, I just know that a power team of .600 hitters ARE going to hit a few accidental ones out that don't advance runners. In the .700 vs .600 scenario I figured the .700 hitters going 1st to 3rd, or scoring from second on a single, and they would leave 2 guys stranded every inning. Your .600 team hits only doubles, and leaves 1 guy stranded every inning. If you want the extra 4 runs on the HRs and leave 0 guys stranded in 4 of the 7 innings fine, it's still 35-28 in my favor.

The math set is done assuming one team only hits doubles and the other team only hits singles. All other skills (really just base running) are equal. Things like errors, advancing on throws, triples, HRs, etc. aren't factored in. If I wasn't at work, I could probably work in a triples and HRs factor given certain rates, but I don't know that it would actually make that big of a difference.

Wouldn't really matter on the triples. Triple + double = 1 run. Double + double = 1 run. I went with the assumption for the .600 hitters of double double out, double out double out and double double out double double out double out for the alternating 7 and 8 AB innings. Now I suppose we could jerk the numbers around so all three outs are made at the end of the inning to squeeze an extra run for the .600 team on a double plus 2 sacs to get him home, but then I would have to do the same thing for the .700 team and they would get the extra run as well.

Keep making up stats out of the air.Enlighten me on the DBO: is that supposed to be douche-bag out? If so, what qualifies as a DBO? Is it a deep sacrifice fly by a power hitter? Maybe one of your singles hitters' ground balls for a FC?

Say you're just having a hell of a day batting, everyone on your team gets 5 ABs. A .600 team will have 30 hits, a .700 team will have 35 hits, a difference of only 5 hits. 5 singles (if your runners are all speed demons, which I'm sure they are in your fantasy world), they're scoring from second base every time, and your leaving at least two men on base, only scoring at most 3 "more" runs on those 5 extra hits.

So, genius, how many men do you leave on base throughout the rest of the game? Didn't account for that didja? Think you're gonna advance a bunch of extra bases when your opponent knows you can only hit singles, and they're not worried about you hitting over their head? How many more easy outs have you created because your lack of power means you are advancing one, maybe two, bases at a time?

Better hope your opponent commits two-base errors every time they throw the ball.

Can't believe the idiocy of your argument.

DBO = dead ball out; usually, a HR hit after the HR limit has been reached

Soooo, for 49 hits, taking 4 hits to drive home a run equals 12 runs. 21 of your hits are meaningless because you are stranding them on base. So you get 28 meaningful hits and score 12 runs.

For 31 hits that are all doubles, taking two hits to drive a run home, equals 15 runs. You are leaving 7 men on base. So you get 24 meaningful hits and score 15 runs. Way more efficient.

I win.

I never went with the HR every AB, I just know that a power team of .600 hitters ARE going to hit a few accidental ones out that don't advance runners. In the .700 vs .600 scenario I figured the .700 hitters going 1st to 3rd, or scoring from second on a single, and they would leave 2 guys stranded every inning. Your .600 team hits only doubles, and leaves 1 guy stranded every inning. If you want the extra 4 runs on the HRs and leave 0 guys stranded in 4 of the 7 innings fine, it's still 35-28 in my favor.

You're assuming they can advance two bases. Can't do that.

Soooo, for 49 hits, taking 4 hits to drive home a run equals 12 runs. 21 of your hits are meaningless because you are stranding them on base. So you get 28 meaningful hits and score 12 runs.

For 31 hits that are all doubles, taking two hits to drive a run home, equals 15 runs. You are leaving 7 men on base. So you get 24 meaningful hits and score 15 runs. Way more efficient.

I win.

Your math is still wrong. And you are too stupid to realize it. I'm done trying to hold your hand through it.

What is everyone's thoughts on what a good/bad/average/poor/outstanding batting average is? Here is what I generally go by:

Below .500 = terrible

.500 to .550 = marginal

.550 to .599 = average

.600 to .649 = good

.650 to .699 = very good

.700 or higher = outstanding

On my Monday's (competitive league) I'm hitting in the "outstanding" range. On my Tuesday's (what I consider subpar competition and teams as a whole) I'm in the "terrible" range, so go figure. No fences and a lot of deep fly outs on tuesdays. It's been driving ape s**t all year. I swing at too much bad stuff and I'm showing no patience. I took BP all winter but it was baseball BP which is what I think has me all over the place as far as performance goes so I don't know. Slowly being driven insane by it though.

Your math is still wrong. And you are too stupid to realize it. I'm done trying to hold your hand through it.

And I'm done trying to accommodate your "little" (ass)umptions, which is the real stupidity.

How do you get 12 runs here? My math shows 28 runs.

Soooo, for 49 hits, taking 4 hits to drive home a run equals 12 runs. 21 of your hits are meaningless because you are stranding them on base. So you get 28 meaningful hits and score 12 runs.

For 31 hits that are all doubles, taking two hits to drive a run home, equals 15 runs. You are leaving 7 men on base. So you get 24 meaningful hits and score 15 runs. Way more efficient.

I win.

Nevermind...I understand how you got 12, but the correct answer I believe is 28. You are correct in stating that it takes four hits to drive in the first run of an inning, but the singles team gets seven hits an inning, which means after the first run of an inning scores, the next three hits will also drive in runs, for a total of four runs per inning.

and yes, I understand this is using simple systems with no double plays and no runs scored on outs. Paul addresses these issues in the post after mine.

Last edited:

My team of .700 singles hitters will bat 10 every inning, with 7 reaching base, and scoring 5/inning.

Your team of .600 doubles hitters will bat 7.5/inning (7 one inning 8 the next), with 4.5 reaching base (4 and 5), and scoring 3.5/inning

5 x 7 = 35 runs

3.5 x 7 = 24.5 runs

Yes, I am assuming runners score from 2nd - it is considered scoring position, and more often that not that run on 2nd scores, or runners go 1st to 3rd on a single to right. Even going station to station they score 4/inning and still win 28-24.5.

Boom! Headshot.

I also have no horse in the race, but had to chime in. While the actual math is correct the actual logic and realistic scenario is badly missing. If you assume that you have a team of ONLY singles hitters. Then you can assume the OF's to play much more shallow and therefore makes it much more unlikely for a runner to score from second on a single, which would reduce the run production by 1 every inning. You can also assume the singles team would hit into a fair amount of DP's, which would reduce the run production at least 2 more runs in each inning that happened. Safe to assume twice per game in a 7 inning game. You have now lost 11 runs per game.

For an ONLY doubles team, there would not be any double plays because there is not anyone on first when the outs are made. Therefore your math doesn't change. this would make your score 24.5-24 in favor of the doubles team.

I also have no horse in the race, but had to chime in. While the actual math is correct the actual logic and realistic scenario is badly missing. If you assume that you have a team of ONLY singles hitters. Then you can assume the OF's to play much more shallow and therefore makes it much more unlikely for a runner to score from second on a single, which would reduce the run production by 1 every inning. You can also assume the singles team would hit into a fair amount of DP's, which would reduce the run production at least 2 more runs in each inning that happened. Safe to assume twice per game in a 7 inning game. You have now lost 11 runs per game.

For an ONLY doubles team, there would not be any double plays because there is not anyone on first when the outs are made. Therefore your math doesn't change. this would make your score 24.5-24 in favor of the doubles team.

So you're assuming the .700-hitting team ACTUALLY HITS SOMETHING OTHER THAN .700?? Plus they hit into one DP an inning? That's not "realistic" - it's a different assumption entirely.

The disconnect in Icky's thinking is ignoring the fact that

Paul's not assuming anything different about the BA, just that the .700 team, when they make an out 30% of the time, are hitting into double plays. He actually only assumes two DPs per game, which may or may not be realistic depending on which direction you're arguing.So you're assuming the .700-hitting team ACTUALLY HITS SOMETHING OTHER THAN .700?? Plus they hit into one DP an inning? That's not "realistic" - it's a different assumption entirely.

The disconnect in Icky's thinking is ignoring the fact thatoutsare the limiting factor, not ABs. The most important thing in softball is not making an out.

Last edited: