I don't think anyone disagrees that batting average tells only part of the story. But your arguments don't make sense. By BA, yeah, all hits are the same. But by OBP, all hits are... oh shit, they're the same. You're not arguing against BA but all the component stats that make up the more advanced metrics like wRC+. Oh, speaking of:
Fisher's wRC+ is well below average for his team. I think you're overestimating the accuracy of its park adjustment (I'm not sure how they weight Minor League park factors, but it is not accurate for The Hangar). Lancaster's hitters are almost always above average by wRC+. You're arguing against yourself here.
Furthermore, for a corner OF out of a top college program who went 37th overall, his performance is certainly below expectations.
Don't give him too much credit, or sell yourself short for that matter. And if you can keep an open mind, please try not to judge the stat-first crowd by this guy's level of understanding.
Well let me see if I can explain it better so that it makes sense. Every statistic has one purpose, whether it be BA, OBP, OPS, wOBA, or wRC+, and that is player evaluation. Player A is better because he has a higher OPS, Player A is better because he has a higher wOBA. The question then becomes what value do these statistics provide in the evaluation. I have made the assertion that batting average provides negligible value and therefore can be ignored in lieu of other statistics. Here is a link to an article from Fangraphs:
http://www.fangraphs.com/library/stats-to-avoid-batting-average/If you read it you will understand why I made the assertion, but here are a few snippets: "Batting average is built into the language of the sport, but it’s simply not a useful statistic and if you want to analyze a player properly, it’s something you don’t want to pay close attention to at all."" Batting average tells you how many hits a player gets per at bat. And is that something you care to know? Really think about it. ... What does batting average tell you that OBP doesn’t? ... In general, the answer is no."
So yeah even though all hits are considered the same in BA, OBP, and OPS, the latter two both include additional information (BB, HBP, SLG) that provide a significantly better idea of the players value than BA does. Then of course, wOBA doesn't use BA at all, instead is assigns a value to each offensive outcome so that all hits are not equal. wRC+ takes the data from wOBA, allows for park factors, and normalizes for league average. As the article explains, each of these statistics provide considerably more value in player evaluation. As an example I used Chris Carter. If you use BA to evaluate him, he is way below average. But is this correct? If we use the other statistics, we find that in each case, he is actually slightly above average. So when you say "You're not arguing against BA but all the component stats that make up the more advanced metrics like wRC+", you could not be more incorrect. This is why I said "But as a stand alone stat, what does BA tell me that wOBA does not paint a better picture of? As the article clearly shows, the fact is that batting average provides almost no player evaluation value, and therefore should be ignored.
As far as Fisher season stats are concerned, his wRC+ puts him 5th on the team behind the likes of AJ Reed, Brett Phillips, and Jacob Nottingham. Pretty elite company in my opinion. If you strip out and ignore his Quad City stats, he drops to 8 of 15, which is middle of the pack, not well below average. However, anybody who believes in the data provided by fangraphs will realize that his BABIP is low and it should regress to his norm. Looking at his batted ball data shows that his LD, GB, OFFB, and IFFB are all in line with his data from last year, but his BABIP is 100 points lower. Splitting his data from Quad City shows some irregularities, but they could very well be explained by small sample sizes. I would not be surprised by a 50-60 point increase, which would significantly affect his statistics.
As far as your assertion that the park data is incorrect for the Hangar, here is a link to fangraphs explanation of wRC+, which tells you that is not the case. This data has been verified time and time again. But if you do not accept it, then your disagreement is with fangraphs, the preeminent sabermetric company in the country, not me:
http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/wrc/I would assume that their park factor data is proprietary, since they do not divulge it, but minor league central rates the Hangar as the 5th most HR prolific park in all of baseball (excluding DSL), so I doubt if there is much, if any, overestimating.
You made the assertion that Lancaster's hitters are almost always above average by wRC+., and that I am arguing against myself. But your assertion is not correct. In 2011, nobody was in the top 30. In 2012, there were 3 were in the top 30 - Springer, Santana, Castro. In 2013, there were 7 in the top 30, but that is also the team that swept the championship. Last year there were only 2 - Hernandez and Ruiz. This year there is a possibility that there will be eight. But I would submit that it has everything to do with the advanced college bats Luhnow has been drafting and not a situation with faulty fangraph data.
As far as expectations for Fisher, in his first full season, Springer put up a line of .302/.383/.526/.908 with 24 home runs and 32 stolen bases. This year, in his first full year, Fisher is on pace to put up a line of .277/.355/.500/.855 with 25 home runs and 32 stolen bases. I am not disappointed at all
