Baseball stats

[familytoad]

Interesting list.
Some of the usual suspects and a couple very unusual.
Lance Berkman top 20?
No Rickey in top 37.

Something about that list seems odd..

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by familytoad

Interesting list.
Some of the usual suspects and a couple very unusual.
Lance Berkman top 20?
No Rickey in top 37.

Something about that list seems odd..

Agreed, there are a few oddities, but those can be explained in the low amount of PA's for those suspect entries. The formula is solid though and dividing it by PA's gives us a solid stat for runs creation per PA.

Here is the next chunk from 38-75. Rickey clocks in at 72. Lots of Runs Created, but also a ton of PA's so it dilutes it a bit.

If you went purely off of Runs Created and not divide it by PA's, he comes in at #12. (second screenshot of top 37 without dividing it by PA's).

I like the list when it divides by PA's better since it's not a counting stat, but an actual per PA potency stat regardless of how many PA's a player had. So it all depends on if you value longevity or efficiency more.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Agreed, there are a few oddities, but those can be explained in the low amount of PA's for those suspect entries. The formula is solid though and dividing it by PA's gives us a solid stat for runs creation per PA.

Here is the next chunk from 38-75. Rickey clocks in at 72. Lots of Runs Created, but also a ton of PA's so it dilutes it a bit.

If you went purely off of Runs Created and not divide it by PA's, he comes in at #12. (second screenshot of top 37 without dividing it by PA's).

I like the list when it divides by PA's better since it's not a counting stat, but an actual per PA potency stat regardless of how many PA's a player had. So it all depends on if you value longevity or efficiency more.

Overall very very interesting. May need to better the PA's so it does not potentially be weighted as much. But like it alot not sure if it would ever catch on (to complex potentially for the masses and not easily explained by the media or commentators

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Overall very very interesting. May need to better the PA's so it does not potentially be weighted as much. But like it alot not sure if it would ever catch on (to complex potentially for the masses and not easily explained by the media or commentators

Thanks! I basically just took this list and added the column for "Density" to divide runs created by PA's:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/l...C_career.shtml

I really like showing how potent each PA was for players and that gives us a better look at some unsung guys, or guys who had fewer PA's with a lot of potency like Larry Walker, Johnny Mize, and Lance Berkman (all top 20).

I also love that Brouthers is the best 19th century for potency (Delahanty has more RC, but less potency).

Thinking about it I should have called it Potency not Density, but that was just me being dense...

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Don't like a stat that has Griffey Jr behind Carlos Delgado and Jason Giambi. One could argur a number of reasons for that happening, some of them not the fault of the statistic itself, but still winds up as a flawed measuring stick.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Don't like a stat that has Griffey Jr behind Carlos Delgado and Jason Giambi. One could argur a number of reasons for that happening, some of them not the fault of the statistic itself, but still winds up as a flawed measuring stick.

Right, but again, it depends on whether you go by just Runs Created TOTAL vs. Divided by PA. If you go by total Griffey is 23rd all time.

[mrreality68]

thats the beauty and problem with stats.

Depending on what stat you use, depending on the formula of the stat, and the weight of each of the factors the results get seen and viewed differently

and unless the stat being used is accepted by everyone then that is another issue entirely