Continuing the discussion from the offseason thread...

You keep referencing that .280 BA. Serious question: do you not understand that Tatis's 2020 batting line of .277/.366/.571 is MUCH more valuable than Nick Madrigal's line of .340/.376/.369? I know you value high average hitters because they are more fun to watch, and I get that, but you understand that power is important for scoring runs, right?

If there's any question in your mind, and since I know you don't value advanced stats like wRC+ and WAR, you can just look at the counting stats. Madrigal had 8 runs and 11 RBIs in 103 at bats; Tatis had 50 runs and 45 RBIs in 224 at bats. So even if you subtract out Tatis's 17 HRs (where he got credit for the R and the RBI), Tatis was involved in 1.8 times as many runs per at bat compared to Madrigal.

Edit: this isn't supposed to be a knock on Madrigal per se, I'm just trying to understand the extent to which you value batting average over all other measures of performance. It's also odd that you are criticizing the batting average of a guy who is a career .301 hitter.

Originally posted by

**TDog**View PostIf there's any question in your mind, and since I know you don't value advanced stats like wRC+ and WAR, you can just look at the counting stats. Madrigal had 8 runs and 11 RBIs in 103 at bats; Tatis had 50 runs and 45 RBIs in 224 at bats. So even if you subtract out Tatis's 17 HRs (where he got credit for the R and the RBI), Tatis was involved in 1.8 times as many runs per at bat compared to Madrigal.

Edit: this isn't supposed to be a knock on Madrigal per se, I'm just trying to understand the extent to which you value batting average over all other measures of performance. It's also odd that you are criticizing the batting average of a guy who is a career .301 hitter.

## Comment