Despite batting average being overrated, would you venture to guess that 300 hitters have had more postseason success than 250 hitters?

Question

Like if you were to compare stats from every 250 hitter in postseason history and compare them to every 300 hitter in postseason history would you guess that the 300 hitter had more success? Now by success I mean has either hit better overall in a series than his 250 competitor OR has gotten more key hits.

? · Answer

I'd go with the higher average batter having a better postseason.

Anonymous · Answer

How do you define postseason success? By batting average, which you've already declared to being an overrated stat? Or runs scored? 
RBI? Or the number of hits they've accumulated?
How about the number of championships their team(s) have won while they've played for them?
The bottom line is that if you have more .300 hitters in your lineup than guys who hit .250 or less, you have a better shot at making the playoffs.

Alice · Answer

This question makes no sense, unless you're equating "success" to runs driven in? I agree batting average doesn't tell the whole story but give me a .350+ hitter over a HR threat that hits in the low .200's.

Trending News

Despite batting average being overrated, would you venture to guess that 300 hitters have had more postseason success than 250 hitters?

3 Answers