Talk:Slugging percentage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Baseball (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Repairs[edit]

Eliminated malicious edits including "Fart" and "Sex." Children. NRK (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Formula[edit]

By definition MLB.COM uses TB divided by at bats. Their formula for total bases is (s+2d+3t+4hr) so why should we have the other formula??? before editing the page that was just a complete mess, i swear, i did not get a word of what you guys (or girls) were saying. It was completely confusing and it still is. We should have only one formula and we should use the formula MLB uses. and please, before changing the formulas discuss it first, don't just do whatever you want and change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarcossio (talkcontribs) 24 July 2006

I agree. Your changes seem to have simplified matters. -Phoenixrod 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just curious if Kevin Kouzmanoff hit a grand slam in the very first pitch of his very first at bat.

The formula of (s+2d+3t+4hr)/AB is incorrect and does not give the result used by MLB.com or any other site or publication. The correct formula is s+2b+(2x3b)+(3xhr)/AB. Try both formulas and see which one actually corresponds with any published instance of the stat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protochicken (talkcontribs) 15:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where you're getting that, but no. Here's MLB.com's definition for total bases (click on the term on this page): "A batter is credited with one total base for each single, two total bases for each double, three total bases for each triple and four total bases for each home run. For example, if Roberto Alomar hits 127 singles, 34 doubles, 12 triples and 20 home runs, he has 311 total bases (127 + (2*34) + (3*12) + (4*20))." -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Here's where I messed up. I calculate slugging percentage by taking the total number of hits (not just singles) + 2B + 2x3B +3xHR. So I would do your Alomar example this way; (193 + 34 + (2*12) + (3*20)) This obviously gives the same result as doing it your way, except it saves the step of subtracting extra base hits from total hits to derive the number of singles since singles are almost never listed individually. In my haste I forgot that I was using total number of hits not 1Bx1, and foolishly rewrote the formula incorrectly. Sorry about that, I should know better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protochicken (talkcontribs) 03:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Now I understand what you were doing. I agree that your formula is faster when you don't have the number of singles readily available. For this article, however, I think the MLB.com method is clearer for describing the formula, since it's more intuitive to multiply each type of hit by the number of bases it yields. I suppose we could list both formulas, but in my opinion that would clutter the article and emphasize the math rather than the importance of slugging. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd argue that the alternative formula should be listed as well, simply because it's easier to use with typical statistical listings. Singles are almost never tabulated separately, so hits + doubles + (2 * triples) + (3 * homers) doesn't require one to add up extra base hits and subtract from hits to get singles. WHPratt (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
In statistics, there's a "theoretical formula," one which promotes understanding of the concept; contrasted to a "computational formula," one which works better in actual use. This is an example (albeit a weak one) of such a case. WHPratt (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

Why is this article "Slugging average" and not "Slugging percentage"? I realize that, to quote the rather sanctimonious article, "The term slugging percentage is a misnomer, as it is actually a calculation of average, not percent", but Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, as far as I know. I am a huge baseball nut, and very few people in the game call it slugging average; almost every source I know prefers "slugging percentage". Even the external link about Branch Rickey uses "percentage". Heck, Wikipedia's article on OBP is "on base percentage" even though the same argument could be applied there. Let's get some consistency between articles! Is there any reason not to rename this article slugging percentage and reflect the more common usage? -Phoenixrod 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

to be honest, i didn't noticed that but you are right, even if it is a misnomer, that's what people call it, "slugging percentage" and that's the way it should be call. I do not see any reasons not to rename the article (being a misnomer is not a reason AND Major League Baseball call it "slugging percentage" and so does everybody else (high schools, colleges, etc) --CesarCossio 07:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears that User:24.126.40.49 (contributions), without discussion, moved the info from "slugging percentage" into "slugging average" on 25 January 2006. I think we should let other editors chime in, but if no one objects, we should switch the article titles. I'm just not entirely sure how to do that. :) -Phoenixrod 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
haha, that's funny 'cause i don't know how to do that either.--CesarCossio 00:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Move immediately. OBP is at on-base percentage, BA is at batting average despite both being misnomers. Woodshed 09:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Dude, if you didn't read what we said, neither of us know how to do that. I tried but i can't get it back to the way it was before 'cause in order for you to move a page the page to which you wanna move it has to be a new page but "Slugging Percentage" has been used before so i can't move it back. If you can move it go ahead and do it.--CesarCossio 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Since "Slugging Percentage" already exists (and contains only a redirect), couldn't you just copy the content of this page into it and then AfD this one. The ZenMacher 03:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Done.128.12.20.10 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would rather see a more accurate title. Use redirects "from" the "incorrect" title to the "correct" page. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title redux[edit]

I haven't looked at this page in a while, but the article has been moved back to "slugging average" without discussion. Why? The most common term I see is "slugging percentage", so that's where the article should be. Comments? -Phoenixrod 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Even MLB uses "percentage", so technically correct or not, this article should be at "Slugging percentage". -albrozdude 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
agreed, and it's not just MLB - baseball reference, baseball prospectus, ESPN, and SABR all use the term "slugging percentage." Google searches for "Slugging Percentage" yield around ten times the hits than searches for "Slugging Average" do. I had honestly never even heard of the term "Slugging Average" until i read it being referred to in the article. Theroyalweman (talk|user|contribs) 13:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I've cleaned up the article considerably, and in doing so also changed all references to "slugging average" to "slugging percentage". Now we just need an admin to move this page to "slugging percentage" since that page already exists. I'll submit a move request and see if I can get this done. -albrozdude 08:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice work! -Phoenixrod 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page, per the discussion here. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds vs. Félix Hernández[edit]

As it stands, the article contradicts itself - first claiming that Barry Bonds broke Bath Ruth's long-standing record, which apparently still stands. Later in the article, Félix Hernández is mentioned as hitting a grand slam in his only at bat, thus making his season slugging percentage a perfect 4.000 in 2008. I understand that Bonds had a lot more at-bats, but something should still be done to correct this contradiction. I suggest adding an asterisk next to Bonds' name noting that his record is for X number of at-bats, which would exclude Félix Hernández for only having the one at-bat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.18 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article doesn't contradict itself - it says that Bonds broke Ruth's long-standing record for a single-season slugging percentage, but Ruth still holds the record for career slugging percentage. Also, 1 at bat isn't enough to qualify for a season leader spot in slugging percentage. Like batting average and OBP, there is a minimum number of plate appearances required to be considered among the leaders for that season - 3.1 play appearances per game. So, in a 162 game schedule, a player needs 3.1 x 162 = 502 plate appearances to qualify.Gopherguy | Talk 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Power[edit]

At the beginning of the article is states that slugging percentage is commonly used to measure a batter's "power". This isn't entirely true. For example a batter could have 100 at bats with 10HR with no other type of hit, while a second batter could have 40 singles in 100 at bats with no 2B, 3B, or HRs. While both these players would have a slugging percentage of 0.4, it is obvious that their hitting "power" is not the same. Maybe the article should be edited to include batting "efficiency," or some similar descriptor. If we wanted a formula/number that gauges solely a batter's power the SLG% formula would have to be changed to include only at bats which resulted in a hit instead of all at bats. But that's what HR derbies are for. 184.155.91.225 (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

not a percentage, right?[edit]

if i understand the formula, this is obviously not actually a percentage, right? Would it be fair to briefly point that out in the opener, because it sure had me confused. Doceddi (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

One of those things that is technically a misnomer, but the misnomer has become the socially accepted term. Sort of like "Wants to have his cake and eat it too." Well OF COURSE you can have your cake and eat it! That's not weird. What's weird is EATING your cake AND THEN STILL having it in front of you! Everyone says it backwards! Yet that's what people say 99.5% of the time, regardless of it being technically incorrect/puzzling. You *could* point it out, but some people would see that as being anal retentive instead of academically correct. Ypsidan (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but this is an encyclopedia, and technical details such as this should be covered. I've added a small blurb about it right after the formula. Mindmatrix 21:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)