Is this Brian Kenny on MLB Real ?

[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.

[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

[insidethewrapper]

I really have to laugh when they try to use "defensive" stats. I think most of the centerfielders are very good and make great plays, not really much difference between them. In a regular game, most outfielders catch of couple of routine fly balls and that is the only plays they are involved with. How about the first baseman who is involved with several plays ? His value has to be more than the outfielder. How many plays do you see each day that the first baseman has to dig the ball out of the dirt or stretch etc. How do you value one position vs another ?

Many of the stats are nonsense but makes for interesting discussions. I think Batting Average or On Base % with RISP is a good stat. This shows valuable hitting in clutch situations when a team needs it. Many of the great hitters get walked when they are in key situations and lose the advantage of knocking in many runs. Just think how many more they would have if not walked.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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.

.

I don't really follow stats, but last time I looked a sacrifice fly, fielder's choice or suicide squeeze are all cases when an out produces a run. Your statement is an absolute which is incorrect.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I don't really follow stats, but last time I looked a sacrifice fly, fielder's choice or suicide squeeze are all cases when an out produces a run. Your statement is an absolute which is incorrect.

An out can drive in a run, it never scores a run.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

An out can drive in a run, it never scores a run.

If it is not a run scored then why is the batter credited with an RBI?

Rule 9.02(a)(1) of the Official Baseball Rules[1] a sacrifice fly is not counted as a time at bat for the batter, though the batter is credited with a run batted in

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Michael B

If it is not a run scored then why is the batter credited with an RBI?

Rule 9.02(a)(1) of the Official Baseball Rules[1] a sacrifice fly is not counted as a time at bat for the batter, though the batter is credited with a run batted in

I didn't mean to be so cryptic. YOU can't score a run if YOU make an out. If Rickey Henderson made 60 more outs a year and only walked 50 times his runs scored would've been a LOT lower. The skill was getting on base, NOT scoring runs.