[riggs336]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

No that's not what they believe at all. They believe that Carl Yastrzemski would have driven in a LOT less runs with, let's say the Indians, than he did with the Red Sox.

Guys who analyze stats deeper than the back of a 1981 Topps cards are not ruining the game. They are analyzing what actually translates to winning games, which, last I checked, is the point.

Yes a walk doesn't often drive in a run, but an out never scores a run. Using Rickey as an example, scoring runs is out of his control, but between walks and steals he puts himself in position to score more often than a slow, low OBP guy. So it's not the runs that made Rickey great, though they were evidence of what made him great.

WAR is supposed to be a measure of a player's contribution to the bottom line of winning games. Is it flawed, sure there's disagreements on calculation between the two major statistical sites.

However the underlying thoughts are solid. They are simple thoughts, and they have fairly simple math to back them up. There's a reason front offices pay it credence, and it's not just to aggravate traditionalists!

I know it's pointless to try and make these arguments because the people who disagree don't want to hear anything different than what they believe, but it really doesn't have to be earth-shattering. It's merely looking a little deeper into what translates into winning, and what is within a player's control.

+1