[TABLE]

[TD=width: 112]Batting[/TD]

[TD=width: 39]G [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]AB [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]R [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]H [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]2B [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]3B [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]HR [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]RBI [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]BB [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]K [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]SB [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]CS [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]AVG [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]OBP [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]SLG [/TD]

[TD=width: 39]OPS[/TD]

Danny Valencia

27

100

9

19

5

1

1

11

2

23

0

1

.190

.204

.290

.494

Chris Parmelee

37

100

8

19

5

1

1

4

9

26

0

0

.190

.277

.290

.567

[/TABLE]

That's funny. How often do stats line up that closely?

That's funny. They do line up nicely, except that Parmelee sort of knows how to take a walk, at least compared to Valencia.

Wow, pretty telling numbers! Of course Valencia's were accumulated with regular playing time, and Parmelee has had to piece that together 1 or 2 games per week. So Valencia's line looks much worse.

 

I ran across something similar recently. My example is a little different, but it's pretty shocking nonetheless. Take a look at Vinny Castilla's 1996 and 1997 seasons for the Rockies. Something like this has to be even rarer, given the significant number of at-bats each year.

 

1996 .304 - 40 - 113

1997 .304 - 40 - 113

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/castivi02.shtml

Wow, pretty telling numbers! Of course Valencia's were accumulated with regular playing time, and Parmelee has had to piece that together 1 or 2 games per week. So Valencia's line looks much worse.

I think those numbers are the opposite of telling. One set is from a 24 year old player facing major league pitching for the first time. The other is from a 28 year old player with over 1000 PAs.