the real Jack Wilson

Charlie's VORB thinks about Jack Wilson. Go read it - it's well worth your time.

There's two things I'd say about it. First, I think we have to be more careful with the word "real." The only real thing about Jack's performance is his performance. All these numbers are real. The real is what happens; his .320 batting average is "for real." When performance analysts translate real stats by weighting them, say, to adjust for park effects, they aren't arriving at numbers that are "more real." They are getting at numbers that are more ideal. That ideal may be closer to the truth. Translated or idealized numbers may be more "true." But they aren't more "real."

The smart thing for any fan is to look at all the numbers, real and translated, and to develop your own way of seeing the players that combines those numbers with what you see with your own eyes.

He's using the term as part of the idiom, "for real," and what he's wondering is whether or not we can regard these numbers as evidence that Jack will do them again. Fair question.

I don't contest the theory that plate discipline (something like walks per plate appearance) correlates with batting average. Correlation doesn't prove causation, however. Teenagers who smoke cigarettes are more likely to be sexually promiscuous. The correlation is there. When your son starts sleeping around, however, the correlation doesn't suggest you could simply say,"Oh, don't worry. he will stop soon: he doesn't smoke cigarettes."

Every year, there are a handful of players who consistently post high batting averages with low on-base percentages and little evidence of "plate discipline." They tend to be little, speedy, top-of-the-order ball-in-play guys with little power. A totally unscientific gander at the current stats shows these guys with high BAs and no plate discipline: Aaron Miles (.315 BA / .348 OBP), Cesar Izturis (.300 / .342), Carl Crawford (.306 / .336), Edgar Renteria (.294 / .338), Tony Womack (.293 / .340), Alex Sanchez (.322 / .335).

I agree that no one should expect Jack to finish the year at .320. Obviously, he's not Albert Pujols and he's not Todd Helton. Only nine big-leaguers hit .320 for the full 2003 season. The odds are against a guy like Jack Wilson finishing there. Say he finishes at .310 with a .333 OBP. What would I expect in 2005? More of the same. Charlie's prediction - .270/.310/.430 - looks fine though I think .290 / .310 / .430 or .300 / .320 / .435 or .310 / .330 / . 440 would also make good predictions. Because of the kind of player that he is, I expect Jack will continue to post a pretty high batting average on a mediocre on-base percentage.