Is this Brian Kenny on MLB Real ?

[Jim65]

The advanced stats guys view RBIs as being in the right place at the right time which is silly, they really believe that the same guys year after year are just lucky.

[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.

[darwinbulldog]

It's not luck, is it? It's just that if the manager knows what he's doing, the top 3 guys in the lineup are going to get on base more often than the middle three or bottom three, so some players are given more RBI opportunities than the other players get. If you want to look at RBIs but control for the average number of runners on base during a given player's plate appearances then you'd have a better measure of how good a hitter someone is. But if for some reason you batted a .375/40 HR guy eighth in your lineup every day he'd likely have fewer RBI than a .300/30 HR guy batting cleanup.

[ejharrington]

My favorite quote from one of the stat geeks: "Wins don't matter".

I am a stat geek but c'mon...

[Snapolit1]

I am not an advanced stats guy. It seems to me, as a relative simpleton, that the ultimate judge of how valuable an offensive player is both: RBI and getting on base. The old "keep the line moving" canard. I get that Paul O'Neil got a boatload more RBI's on the Yankees that he would have gotten on the Mets the same year because the Yankees were stacked and the Mets sucked. He was fortunate to frequently come up with guys already on base. I get it. But to somehow denigrate the fact that he came through and knocked them in? That I don't get it. Sounds like arguing that Tom Brady's career TD tally really isn't very impressive because he has had guys working with him who are good at catching the balls he's thrown.

Seems like the advance stat guys knock some guys because all they did was get RBI and have a low OBP and knock other guys because all they did was getting on base and have little to show for it.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

My favorite quote from one of the stat geeks: "Wins don't matter".

I am a stat geek but c'mon...

If I may guess the context, the stat guy probably meant that which pitcher is officially credited with the win doesn't matter as much as actually winning the game. And the corollary, that the ranking of how good different pitchers are is not identical to the ranking of how many wins they have (either in a season or in a career). It may have also been an attempted Yogi-ism that only makes sense in the context of understanding that we've lived through an era in which season win totals became much less predictive of Cy Young Awards than they used to be.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

My favorite quote from one of the stat geeks: "Wins don't matter".

I am a stat geek but c'mon...

W L ERA IP K BB
8 16 2.76 211.2 270 87

17 12 3.93 251.2 138 107

Tell me how wins mean anything.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

My favorite quote from one of the stat geeks: "Wins don't matter".

I am a stat geek but c'mon...

They don't mean team wins. They mean pitching wins and that does make some sense. if you have a guy who throws 220 or more innings and his team sucks but his ERA is 2.5 with 1K per innings and his record is 10-12.

Facing another guy with 185 innings an ERA of 4 and not as good other stats whose team scores a lot of runs and goes 15-5.

Tell me who really had the better year.

Rich

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

They don't mean team wins. They mean pitching wins and that does make some sense. if you have a guy who throws 220 or more innings and his team sucks but his ERA is 2.5 with 1K per innings and his record is 10-12.

Facing another guy with 185 innings an ERA of 4 and not as good other stats whose team scores a lot of runs and goes 15-5.

Tell me who really had the better year.

Rich

LOL see above post

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

LOL see above post

The top 50 pitchers in the history of baseball all had winning records and I know a lot of them played on bad teams. The best pitchers find a way to win. To say pitching wins don't matter is ludicrous and overstating the case.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

The top 50 pitchers in the history of baseball all had winning records and I know a lot of them played on bad teams. The best pitchers find a way to win. To say pitching wins don't matter is ludicrous and overstating the case.

Well, as Degrom learned last year it's awfully hard to "find ways to win games" when your team doesn't score runs and your bullpen is shit.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

The top 50 pitchers in the history of baseball all had winning records and I know a lot of them played on bad teams. The best pitchers find a way to win. To say pitching wins don't matter is ludicrous and overstating the case.

Yes and lots of mediocre pitchers also have winning records. The number 4 pitcher on a great team is not better than the ace on a lousy team.