US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting
US Flag Bunting

Jack Moore FanGraphs Chat – 6/7/11





Jack Moore's work can be seen at VICE Sports and anywhere else you're willing to pay him to write. Buy his e-book.

1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jahiegel
14 years ago

Nearly arose in time for this today, an effort far better than that that I gave one week hither, when I planned to wake for the chat at noon and managed to sleep ’til 1:30p.

Re the substance of the chat, one might offer Joe DiMaggio as a high-ISO, low-strikeout, low-walk guy, although inasmuch as his walk rate was double digits and nearly twice his K rate, he is not, I imagine, within the spirit of the question. Not sure that there are many others whom one might name, though; AFAICT, of the top 200 (well, 202) of the 3497 players with at least 1000 PA by ISO, but four had/have a walk rate and a strikeout rate of single digits each—Chuck Klein (.223 ISO [96th {or joint 94th; I’ve never undertaken to learn whether three-decimal place averages on Fangraphs are extended out for the purposes or ordering players}], 8.4 per cent walk rate, 8.0 per cent strikeout rate), Hal Trosky (.219 [120th], 9.5, 8.5), Nomah (.208 [180th], 6.6, 9.6), and Babe Herman (.207 [182nd], 8.4, 9.9). (I don’t propose that this is other than a very crude study, recognizing its several limitations, which I will not bother to recite; it’s a very brief inquiry into a[n almost certainly definitively answered elsewhere] curiosity.)