In this era of new and complex baseball statistics, a venerable one still pops up frequently in conversations among even the geekiest of stat-heads: batting average.

It’s one of the easiest to understand: .300 is good.; .200 is the Mendoza line — you don’t want to drop below that. If you want to praise a player, you’re likely to get more mileage with most fans by saying, “He’s hitting .280” than by citing his WAR or BABIP.

But as even some statistical Neanderthals know, batting average is a seriously flawed measure of offensive performance. It is great for evaluating a player’s ability to hit singles, but batters get no credit for their power, speed or batting eye.

What if there were a statistic as easy to understand as batting average that accounted for the things that batting average does not?