Why do people value batting average over on base pct. or slugging?

IMO, the two most important "rate" statistics for hitters are on base pct. and slugging pct. OBP measures a hitter's ability to extend an inning/create scoring opportunities by reaching base (and not wasting outs) while slugging measures the ability to advance a baserunner. Without either of these, you can't score.





But it seems that batting average is still the "main" number in some people's minds. Why is that?|||I agree that obp is more important that batting average, but you do want to know if a hitter will be able to knock in a runner who's on second... Slugging pct. might tell you that but batting average is just something way simpler and in fact more reliable, because even if you get only 1 base, chances are the runner on second will be able to make it in. If a hitter's slugging pct was .800 and their avg .200, there's not much going for that batter... He gets a few long hits every 5 at bats... not great for knocking in runs because he might be at the plate with 2 runners in scoring position, and chances are he won't hit either of them in. You wouldn't be able to tell that from his slugging pct but his batting avg tells all|||ummm some guys are not good hitters and get on base thru walks/HBPs or force outs so the average truly shows how good of an hitter someone is





but i do agree OBP should be considered as good as an indicator as AVG for a player|||its because the batting average is basically your on base percentage and slugging because when you get a hit it extends all three of those the batting average generalizes it|||They say a hit is as good as a walk but I hits are still more exciting.|||There is a DIFFERENCE between a HITTER and a BATTER.





A HITTER gets hits and advances baserunners. (BA, SLG)


A BATTER gets on base and tries to advance/score HIMSELF. (OBP, SLG)





Many players are both great hitters and great batters, but they don't have to be both. Most of the time in order to be a great hitter, you have to be a great batter. You rarely have to be a great hitter in order to be a great batter, however.





Barry Bonds is a great batter, but not exactly a great hitter.





It's hard to find an example of a great hitter who is not a great batter, however.|||Because batting average is an original statistic, while the others are 'Johnny come lately' statistics.|||Habit, and it's what the majority of the mass media continues to spoonfeed readers and viewers.





People still cuddle up to RBI as well, including many mediots, who really should know better. It's like there's this mass delusion that all statistical development stopped around 1888, and we don't need to know more. Beats the hell out of me.|||You have a point, I think if someone has a batting average of 270 and an on base percentage of 370 it's better than a guy hitting 290 with an onbase percentage of say 320, but if a guy's batting average falls to low than that's when battign average begins to prioritize|||People get silly with stats. BA is simple and elegant. One can look at basic stats and see the batter's worth. When they get into non-sense stuff like slugging percentage, I tune out and look for Cracker Jacks.|||Because OPB and SLG gets less ''baseball publicly'' then BA.





You always here on E.S.P.N. something like ''You are batting .340, will you be the batting champion?'' Or ''Do you think you can beat Barry Bonds single season home run record''?





So OPB and Slugging turned into a little stat that is hardly recognized.