Batting Average Is Important. Except When It's Not.

It is almost impossible for Mike Lupica to compose a thought without instantly contradicting himself.

"I keep hearing, especially during Yankee games on the radio, that David Wright and A-Rod are having the 'same' season so far.

So now one guy is having the 'same' season as the next guy even if his batting average is 36 points higher."

We've been through this before. Wright is having a better season, but not too much better. In terms of production, they're basically even. The stark difference is that while Wright is being heralded as an MVP candidate, ARod is the subject of trade rumors and consistently mocked by the ignorant NY press.

Even in this very article by Mike Lupica!


"If you use that kind of Yankee math, Jeter is already leading the league in hitting even though Joe Mauer's average is 17 points higher."

Well, not exactly. Batting average is an objective metric. "Value" is a subjective analysis.

Jeter is not leading the league in hitting, but he still may have been more valuable than Mauer. Maybe not, but maybe so.

In fact, most of the time, the guy who leads the league in batting average does not win the MVP.


Is Lupica sincere in his belief that batting average is important?

Ummm, no:

"I keep wondering what reason the voters will have for not giving Ortiz the MVP this time."

David Ortiz hit .300 last season.

Alex Rodriguez hit .321 last season.

So Ortiz was more valuable even though his batting average was 21 points worse?