Sigh, proof that we still have a long way to go in baseball

[MartyFunkhouser]

[ame="http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove09/insider/columns/story?columnist=caple_jim&id=4848879"]Hot Stove U.: Jim Caple -- The run still the most underrated stat - ESPN[/ame]

Where have you gone Ken Tremendous, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

[cougjunkie]

Well he is right, you do not win games unless you score runs. Granted the A's are obviously not worried about winning games or championships so I can see why you would devalue the run.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Well he is right, you do not win games unless you score runs. Granted the A's are obviously not worried about winning games or championships so I can see why you would devalue the run.

So you seriously agree that the best way to evaluate a player is how many runs he scores. You are right, just think how much better it would be to get a player that has a game where he goes 1/5 but scores a run allows a couple runs with poor defense over a player that goes 5/5 and hits with 5 triples plays great defense but doesn't score. Any sane and rational baseball fan would take the 1/5 game.

Of course you do not win games without scoring runs, but there are better ways to evaluate a players contribution to scoring runs (and preventing runs which is equally as important) than looking at runs as your first stat.

[wuapinmon]

I like runs. I like RBIs more. I really like wins more than anything save the hidden-ball trick.

[Indy Coug]

Well he is right, you do not win games unless you score runs. Granted the A's are obviously not worried about winning games or championships so I can see why you would devalue the run.

The problem is that a run is the byproduct of multiple things -- things that are more fundamental to wins and losses.

If someone gets on base 200 times and scores 100 runs, what does that say specifically about that player compared to someone else that gets on base 150 times and scores 100 runs? They're both equally good right? Maybe it doesn't actually say that much about the person getting on base at all and a whole lot about the people hitting (or not hitting) behind him.

The problem is that runs scored by an individual player can be too dependent on others and therefore has limited value as an individual statistic.

Team OPS is a highly correlated statistic with team runs scored. In this case, it is the egg and not the chicken.

[DU Ute]

I like runs. I like RBIs more. I really like wins more than anything save the hidden-ball trick.

[il Padrino Ute]

The problem is that a run is the byproduct of multiple things -- things that are more fundamental to wins and losses.

If someone gets on base 200 times and scores 100 runs, what does that say specifically about that player compared to someone else that gets on base 150 times and scores 100 runs? They're both equally good right? Maybe it doesn't actually say that much about the person getting on base at all and a whole lot about the people hitting (or not hitting) behind him.

The problem is that runs scored by an individual player can be too dependent on others and therefore has limited value as an individual statistic.

Team OPS is a highly correlated statistic with team runs scored. In this case, it is the egg and not the chicken.

Great post, Indy.