Overrated stats

[Mclaren208]

My pick for overrated stats:

For a batter:

Strikeouts
RBI
Runs
SB (without SB%)


For a pitcher:
Wins (GROSSLY overrated)
Shutouts

That's all I could think off the top of my head.

[Wuertzhomie]

I don't think shutouts are that overrated. People usually just seem to use K's, wins, and era for pitchers (Surprise, the triple crown catergories). Shutouts can be a fun stat to look at. It doesn't evaluate pitchers that well, but Walter Johnson's 110 is just awesome.

To me, hits seem overrated. People just look at how many hits batters have to evaluate them. A lot of people think Ichiro was the best hitter in the majors last year just because of the hits. It's impressive what he did, but he still didn't do as well as several other hitters.

[coachJ]

Yes i believe shutouts are very over-rated as well. I mean how often is it that an opposing pitcher allows ZERO runs scored on him, and gets a win for his team? It just happens so very often, that it shouldnt even matter anymore.

And hits are very over-rated too. I mean come on, what coach would rather have 10 hits over 5 homeruns? It's all about the long ball now, so why do hits even matter?

(insert sarcastic smiley here) lol

I don't know what it is that is in your head, but ill take a pitcher that will pitch me a shutout, over one who will strike out 15 guys, but still allow runs.

As far as your batters go, if you think K's and RBI's dont matter, then why would coaches coach the game??? If a batter strikes out, he doesnt get on base. Getting in base is the most important thing on the offensive side of the game because it gives you an opportunity to score. RBI's just cash in on all those opportunities. I'd rather have a guy who drives in 100 runs, than someone who whifs 100 times and goes to sit down...

[Wuertzhomie]

A strikeout is the same as a groundout or a popup. It's not always the worst thing. People who make a lot of contact often ground into double plays. How about we look at Adam Dunn's stats from last year. Adam Dunn set the strikeout record with 195 K's, but was his season really bad? He reached base 38.8% of the time, and he slugged .569. He also walked over 100 times and hit 46 homers. Strikeouts don't make you a bad hitter.

RBI's are a team stat. It reflects on who bats in front of you. It also values free swingers over patient hitters. Do you think Tony Batista was any good last year just because he got 110 rbi's? The same goes for Vinny Castilla last year.

I never said hits didn't matter. They're just overrated. Ichiro set the hit record last year, and he did have a great year. He just wasn't the best hitter in baseball. Ichiro is missing the fifth tool: power. He hit almost all singles. Power is always better than no power.

I'm too tired to think of much more. I have to thank Doc though for pretty much teaching me all that. Caspian too.

[KevinBeane]

Mclaren, care to elaborate why SHUTOUTS are overrated? They pretty much mean "you're team won because you were so dominant as a pitcher." I mean, no one will argue that the most important team stat is wins and a shutout means that as a pitcher, you have basically assured your team a win. A bunch of those don't really mean much?

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by KevinBeane
Mclaren, care to elaborate why SHUTOUTS are overrated? They pretty much mean "you're team won because you were so dominant as a pitcher." I mean, no one will argue that the most important team stat is wins and a shutout means that as a pitcher, you have basically assured your team a win. A bunch of those don't really mean much?

Shutouts are overrated, and I'll explain why.

Sure, shutouts are meaningful, and they give your team a chance to win, but they only show (these days) 3 or 4 good starts by a pitcher, with no in between. They're an overrated stat if you use them to ANALYZE a pitcher. They're a cool stat when you want to see if a pitcher was dominant a day or two, but for overall dominance, you check ERA, IP, K, and WHIP.

I think you meant a bunch of shutouts like earlier in baseball, but I meant these days, if you lead the league in shutouts, you have 3 or 4, and it's not a very good analyzing stat.

[KevinBeane]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
Shutouts are overrated, and I'll explain why.

Sure, shutouts are meaningful, and they give your team a chance to win, but they only show (these days) 3 or 4 good starts by a pitcher, with no in between.

Without even looking at the stats, the pitchers who have 3+ shutouts in a season that are otherwise mediocre or worse have got to be very, very few and far between. Especially modern day.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by KevinBeane
Without even looking at the stats, the pitchers who have 3+ shutouts in a season that are otherwise mediocre or worse have got to be very, very few and far between. Especially modern day.

I've never said they were mediocre. I mean any pitcher can get lucky a day or two to get a shutout. The pitchers who have 3+ shutouts were usually good pitchers that season (Lidle last year being an exception)

Using shutouts is a poor way to evaluate a pitcher's total worth in a season, as it only shows you 2 or 3 starts he had. That's what I mean when I say shutouts are a poor way of evaluating a pitcher's value.

[blackdogsong]

a shutdown can be a great thing for a team and the pitcher. the bullpen gets a well needed day off and what a huge confidence booster for a pitcher to go the whole game. him and his team gain a huge level of trust in him.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by blackdogsong
a shutdown can be a great thing for a team and the pitcher. the bullpen gets a well needed day off and what a huge confidence booster for a pitcher to go the whole game. him and his team gain a huge level of trust in him.

I think you guys are confusing SHUTOUT the performance with SHUTOUT the stat. The stat is overrated. The performance is excellent.

[blackdogsong]

right, but you can make that point for anything. every stat is "overrated" unless your team is winning. clemens numbers this year are overrated because the astros arent going anywhere. stats are just numbers, the performance of the player and the team are what really matter.

[KevinBeane]

Plus, if someone has 1 or 2 shutouts, no one is overrating that or saying it's particualry meaningful. If someone has 3 or more, you said yourself (or agreed with me) it's basically something only excellent pitchers do.

So in order for your point to be true, people out there are either overvaluing pitchers with just an isolated shutout or two, or there's a lot more mediocre pitchers with 3+ shutouts in a year that I'm aware of.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by blackdogsong
right, but you can make that point for anything. every stat is "overrated" unless your team is winning. clemens numbers this year are overrated because the astros arent going anywhere. stats are just numbers, the performance of the player and the team are what really matter.

That's wrong. Clemens isn't overrated this year. In part, because he's not being overrated! I hate it when people think pitchers aren't good just because their team doesn't perform. It's useless...

And stats show a performance of a player. And Clemens has performed the best out of any pitcher this year.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by KevinBeane
Plus, if someone has 1 or 2 shutouts, no one is overrating that or saying it's particualry meaningful. If someone has 3 or more, you said yourself (or agreed with me) it's basically something only excellent pitchers do.

So in order for your point to be true, people out there are either overvaluing pitchers with just an isolated shutout or two, or there's a lot more mediocre pitchers with 3+ shutouts in a year that I'm aware of.

But it's not a useful stat to evaluate pitchers. A stat based on 3 or less starts is not useful at all.

[Tarkus]

Welcome to the boards, Mclaren...

You're just a thread makin' machine, aren't cha?? ;) Good to read your views on the board...

I guess my only point would be, like some others I'm sure, is that by themselves, I agree that some stats are seemingly useless in evaluation. But I've always been one who believes that stats are always to be used in conjuction with all variables & are not much consistent use by themselves.

Stats for the sake of stats are only helpful for those who tend to present views based on box scores which is a practice I've always disagreed with.

So while I agree on a point here or there, on the whole I just don't think anyone could come to much of a definitive conclusion on particular stats without involving all the variables surrounding the individual player.

That's my 2 cents...or less...:D Keep the threads coming....

[blackdogsong]

what im getting at this that you can make the arugment that any stat is "overrated" since its just a number. it doesnt mean anything unless you look at the entire picture.

im not saying clemens is overrated, it was to help make my point.

and no shutouts are not useful for saying this pitcher is better then another. it should not be used as a telling sign of a great pitcher. a great pitcher doesnt need to have shutouts. but then again a great pitcher doesnt need a lot of k's either. any stat can be viewed as overrated.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by blackdogsong
what im getting at this that you can make the arugment that any stat is "overrated" since its just a number. it doesnt mean anything unless you look at the entire picture.

im not saying clemens is overrated, it was to help make my point.

and no shutouts are not useful for saying this pitcher is better then another. it should not be used as a telling sign of a great pitcher. a great pitcher doesnt need to have shutouts. but then again a great pitcher doesnt need a lot of k's either. any stat can be viewed as overrated.

Actually, the point about K's is incorrect. A great pitcher needs K's.

And you're right. Any stat BY ITSELF is overrated. Using them together, you can tell the true value of a pitcher.

[coachJ]

A great pitcher doesnt need K's....

Clemens has 4414 K's in his careeer, and Maddux has 2977 K's. They are both great pitchers, and both have over 300 career wins, so you dont necessarily need a lot of K's, you just have to get guys out.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by coachJ
A great pitcher doesnt need K's....

Clemens has 4414 K's in his careeer, and Maddux has 2977 K's. They are both great pitchers, and both have over 300 career wins, so you dont necessarily need a lot of K's, you just have to get guys out.

To be a GREAT pitcher, like one of the best ever, you need K's. And Greg Maddux has always been above league average in K's, too.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
To be a GREAT pitcher, like one of the best ever, you need K's. And Greg Maddux has always been above league average in K's, too.
Perhaps to be remembered as a great pitcher you need K's, but to be able to get guys out over the course of your career, with or without K's, is the main objective of every pitcher. Tom Glavine has even less strikeouts over the course of his career than Maddux and has still managed to win 260+ games.

Every season you can cycle through the stats and find pitchers that strikeout tons of batters but still have a poor ERA, WHIP (one of the my favorite stats), BA against, etc. I don't know about you but I'll gladly take a guy with a low ERA, low WHIP and low BA against over a guy with those numbers inflated but a ton of strikeouts.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by Alex
Perhaps to be remembered as a great pitcher you need K's, but to be able to get guys out over the course of your career, with or without K's, is the main objective of every pitcher. Tom Glavine has even less strikeouts over the course of his career than Maddux and has still managed to win 260+ games.

Every season you can cycle through the stats and find pitchers that strikeout tons of batters but still have a poor ERA, WHIP (one of the my favorite stats), BA against, etc. I don't know about you but I'll gladly take a guy with a low ERA, low WHIP and low BA against over a guy with those numbers inflated but a ton of strikeouts.

I'm not saying that you need to have a CRAZY K/9 like 10 or 11, I'm saying that K's are the most important tool for a pitcher. A good pitcher NEEDS a DECENT K rate to be a good pitcher. Here's a quote from one of my baseball buddies:

"Pitcher's strikeouts are the most predictable pitching stat from year to year, as well as good predictors of long-term success. Look at guys who are among the league leaders in K/9 and guys with poor K/9 and tell it's coincidence that the strikeout pitchers are better. It's no coincidence."

[coachJ]

So what is a decent K rate then??? It doesnt matter how many K's they have, it matters how often they get guys out...

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by coachJ
So what is a decent K rate then??? It doesnt matter how many K's they have, it matters how often they get guys out...

A decent K rate is 6 or 7. K's are important. Sure, there are other ways to get guys out, but K's is the best way. Everytime a ball is put in play, it has a certain chance of being a hit. When you K somebody, it doesn't put the ball into play. The more K's, the less time the ball is put in play, resulting in less hits, which leads to fewer runs given up. It's sort of a crude analyzation, but it's there, and it's the most important, number 1 thing a pitcher needs.

[#99]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
My pick for overrated stats:

For a batter:

Strikeouts
RBI
Runs
SB (without SB%)


For a pitcher:
Wins (GROSSLY overrated)
Shutouts

That's all I could think off the top of my head.

How could you possibly say that strikeouts and runs are overrated???? That's the most counter-intuitive thing to baseball I've ever heard. Worst possible thing a batter can do is strikeout. Why? Because it does nothing to help the offense. At least on a ground out or pop fly you can advance a runner. This is a big deal. And runs? Hey man, if you're among the league leaders in runs, chances are your team is doing well and you have an incredibly efficient OBP.

I will give you Wins, though. Most overrated stat in baseball. And yet, no real way to compensate for it.

[Noon]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
My pick for overrated stats:

For a batter:

Strikeouts
RBI
Runs
SB (without SB%)


For a pitcher:
Wins (GROSSLY overrated)
Shutouts

That's all I could think off the top of my head.

The thread title had promise but you killed it with your picks for overrated stats. Runs? RBIs? really? Those are overrated? How, then, are we to determine who is good.

If a guy hits .240 but drives in 115 runs, do we discard him because of his average and ignore the RBI totals? If a guy hits 3 home runs but scores 100 times, do we discount his run total and say he's worthless offensively because he can't hit the ball out?

Then your argument on strikeouts seems to conflict. For a pitcher, strikeouts are important because it means the other team isn't putting the ball in play. But for a batter, strikeouts aren't that important because it's the same thing as a groundout or pop out.

The stolen base pick has promise, although I'd love to have a guy who can steal a base whenever he wants to.

Wins are overrated, but not vastly overrated. Like every stat in baseball, given enough time it will even out in the end. No one is going to "get lucky" for an entire season.

And shutouts? If a guy throws one shutout it can be a fluke. Everybody can have a good game. Mark Whitten once hit four home runs in a game, it happens. But if you're throwing three or four shutouts in a season, that means something. It means you're capable of going out and shutting down a team when you step on the mound. You can't make a judgment on a pitcher simply by looking at the shutout column, but if you see three or four shutouts there, you can say that guy is capable of shutting down an offense. The tendency to throw shutouts means you're likely to be a good pitcher the same way the tendency to hit multiple home runs in a game means it's likely you're a good hitter. The stat alone doesn't make it true, but it is a good indicator.

If you want an overrated stat, look at saves, and even that stat has some validity. You have to get the last three (or four or five) outs. And for getting those outs you get a number that, when added up over the course of a season, can net you millions of dollars. However, when a guy consistently gets three outs in, say, the seventh inning, he rarely gets recognized. Albeit, those last three outs can be the toughest to get.

On offense, if you're desperate to look at an overrated stat, look at batting average. Of all the common stats available, it's probably the most overrated because it's used so often. I watched Ken Harvey hit something like .330 for the first half of the Royals' season last year, but he did it with a lot of singles and very few walks. His on-base percentage wasn't much higher than .330 and his slugging percentage was extremely low. Yet, it got him on the All-Star team despite the fact that, as a Royal, he was maybe the fourth or fifth best player on the team (and on the Royals, that's really bad).

For the most part, when you look at a stat individually, the only thing you can see is an indicator, not a player's overall performance. You can't look solely at wins or batting averages or home runs or ERA because all they do is indicate what the rest of your stats could look like. It's why baseball has so many numbers in general.

[Mclaren208]

Some of your points are bad, and some are good.

Originally posted by Noon
The thread title had promise but you killed it with your picks for overrated stats. Runs? RBIs? really? Those are overrated? How, then, are we to determine who is good.

If a guy hits .240 but drives in 115 runs, do we discard him because of his average and ignore the RBI totals? If a guy hits 3 home runs but scores 100 times, do we discount his run total and say he's worthless offensively because he can't hit the ball out?

First of all, no, I didn't kill it with my picks.

You made your first point very broad. What's his OBP? What's his SLG? What team was he playing on? Did he play in a hitters or pitcher's park? What was the league AVG? He can be a good or bad player, because AVG by itself is worthless. That's a bad example.

The second guy is much like the first. Did he have a huge OBP? What team did he play on? You provided another poor example.

Originally posted by Noon
Then your argument on strikeouts seems to conflict. For a pitcher, strikeouts are important because it means the other team isn't putting the ball in play. But for a batter, strikeouts aren't that important because it's the same thing as a groundout or pop out.

For a pitcher, it is important. But that's not related to this topic.

For a hitter, it's not that important in determining a player's value.

Here's a quote from a friend of mine:

"Babe Ruth, arguably the greatest hitter of all-time, routinely led the league in striking out.

Jimmie Foxx, the best right-handed hitter from the 30's, routinely led the league in striking out.

Mickey Mantle, one of the best hitters in baseball from the 50's and early 60's, and by far the best switch-hitter of all-time, routinely led the league in striking out.

Reggie Jackson, and Mike Schmidt, two of the best hitters from the 70's and 80's, each led the league in striking out several times.

I could go on and on and on..."

Originally posted by Noon
Wins are overrated, but not vastly overrated. Like every stat in baseball, given enough time it will even out in the end. No one is going to "get lucky" for an entire season.

Yes, pitchers could get lucky for a season. Look at Eric Milton last year, or Russ Ortiz in '03, or Mike Mussina in '02, or Paul Abbott in '01, or...

you get the point. But over a career, like you said, a good pitcher racks up a lot of wins.

I agree, saves are overrated. Forgot to put that one...

And AVG is overrated without looking at it with OBP and SLG. There's a big difference two players have a .330 AVG, but one of them has a .420 OBP and a .550 SLG while the other has a .350 OBP and .340 SLG.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by #99
How could you possibly say that strikeouts and runs are overrated???? That's the most counter-intuitive thing to baseball I've ever heard. Worst possible thing a batter can do is strikeout. Why? Because it does nothing to help the offense. At least on a ground out or pop fly you can advance a runner. This is a big deal. And runs? Hey man, if you're among the league leaders in runs, chances are your team is doing well and you have an incredibly efficient OBP.

Strikeouts prevent you from getting on base, right? Look at the league leaders in K's the last 10 years (I think) and look at their seasons. Is it a coindeience that the K leaders had good seasons? No. Because that's their approach to hitting. It will cause them to strikeout a lot, but also draw a ton of walks, and the hitters who do this are not athletically built, and are called "late-count" hitters.

Hitters who K a lot and who get on base a lot are usually hitters with tons of power. Babe Ruth is one example. Mickey Mantle is another. So is Jim Thome, Adam Dunn, Reggie Jackson, etc...

If you're among the league leaders in runs, there is a chance your team is doing well because your team DRIVES you in. What if you get on base a whole bunch, but you get stranded because your hitters are weak? Is it your fault? No. You got yourself in scoring position, and it was the other hitter's job to drive you in.

And yes, wins are very overrated (not in your career though)

[#99]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
Strikeouts prevent you from getting on base, right? Look at the league leaders in K's the last 10 years (I think) and look at their seasons. Is it a coindeience that the K leaders had good seasons? No. Because that's their approach to hitting. It will cause them to strikeout a lot, but also draw a ton of walks, and the hitters who do this are not athletically built, and are called "late-count" hitters.

You can't possibly be serious about the leaders in strikeouts also being among the leaders in walks. That's just... I mean, there are no words to adequately describe that paradox.

Originally posted by Mclaren208

And yes, wins are very overrated (not in your career though)

Why is it any different over a career? I thought you said wins are overrated?

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by #99
You can't possibly be serious about the leaders in strikeouts also being among the leaders in walks. That's just... I mean, there are no words to adequately describe that paradox.

Yeah, when I first found that out, I was dumbfounded too. It didn't make sense. Then I realized it was obvious. Jim Edmonds does it a lot. So did Babe Ruth. Was he a bad hitter? No, he was the best hitter ever. Reggie Jackson's the all-time leader in K's. Was he a bad player?

Adam Dunn set the record in K's. But he also drawed a ton of walks. Jim Edmonds had a lot of K's. But he walked a lot. Jim Thome had a lot of K's. But he walked a lot. Bobby Abreu had a lot of K's. But he...

You get the picture.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by #99
Why is it any different over a career? I thought you said wins are overrated?

You can't get "lucky" over the course of your career. All the members of the 300 win club have had very good careers. Good pitchers tend to get a lot of wins in the long run.

[blackdogsong]

You can't possibly be serious about the leaders in strikeouts also being among the leaders in walks. That's just... I mean, there are no words to adequately describe that paradox.


look at red sox second baseman mark bellhorn- he leads the sox this year and last year in both walks and k's. topping both manny and ortiz.

[Mclaren208]

You're right blackdogsong. Mark Bellhorn has been very underrated this year.

[doublee]

Did you actually do any research on your theory of high strikeout guys drawing a lot of walks or just come up with a few random star players who happen to draw a lot of walks? Of the 22 guys who struck out 130 or more times last year ( in MLB last year only seven drew 80 or more walks last year, which really is not a ton of walks. Conversely eight of those guys walked fewer than 60 times. Craig Wilson, Corey Patterson, and Geoff Jenkins (3, 4, and 5 in MLB respectively) all drew 50 or fewer walks last year. Of the 67 players who struck out 100 or more times last year only 14 drew 80 or more walks while 34, over half, drew 60 or fewer bases on balls.

Of those top 22 only 11 of them hit 30 or more homers last year and of the 67 who whiffed 100 times 44 of them hit fewer than 30 homers.

Of the 21 players who struck out 125 or more times in 2003 only 8 drew 80 or more walks and of the 60 players who struck out 100 times only 15 drew 80 or more walks while 35, well over half, drew 60 or fewer walks.

Of those top 21 guys nine of them hit fewer than 30 homers and of the 60 who struck out 100 times 44 of them hit fewer than 30.

Sorry, but over the past couple of seasons the idea that guys who strikeout a lot make up for it by drawing walks and hitting tons of homers is not exactly supported by the actual numbers.

[Noon]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
Some of your points are bad, and some are good.



First of all, no, I didn't kill it with my picks.

You made your first point very broad. What's his OBP? What's his SLG? What team was he playing on? Did he play in a hitters or pitcher's park? What was the league AVG? He can be a good or bad player, because AVG by itself is worthless. That's a bad example.

The second guy is much like the first. Did he have a huge OBP? What team did he play on? You provided another poor example.

I think I made my point fine. At the end of the season, when looking at the kind of year a player had, I'm going to look at RBIs and runs scored before I look at on-base percentage, because in the end, RBIs and runs are what wins games. I'm not saying OBP isn't important, because it is. But you cannot discard runs and RBIs just because they're "team stats". There are still those cases where you have to be skilled enough and smart enough to get around the bases to score a run.

If a guy crosses home plate 100 times, that's 100 times he helped his team win. And If he drove in 100 runs, that's 100 more times he helped his team win. If he's done that, it's likely his OBP is high, but if it isn't, I'll still take the trade off? You win games with runs, not by getting to first base. Baseball isn't an individual game.

Because he's a Royals fan, as well as a pompus ass, I read Rob Neyer almost every day. I understand the number theories and why they're important. But I also understand that anyone who relies too much on numbers to tell the story can sometimes miss the bigger picture.

Although at this point, both of our arguments usually result in the same thing. A guy with a high OPS is more likely to drive in and/or score a lot of runs and vice versa.


Originally posted by Mclaren208
For a pitcher, it is important. But that's not related to this topic.

For a hitter, it's not that important in determining a player's value.

Here's a quote from a friend of mine:

"Babe Ruth, arguably the greatest hitter of all-time, routinely led the league in striking out.

Jimmie Foxx, the best right-handed hitter from the 30's, routinely led the league in striking out.

Mickey Mantle, one of the best hitters in baseball from the 50's and early 60's, and by far the best switch-hitter of all-time, routinely led the league in striking out.

Reggie Jackson, and Mike Schmidt, two of the best hitters from the 70's and 80's, each led the league in striking out several times.

I could go on and on and on..."

Wow, your friend sounds really smart. Maybe you could get him to come on here and explain how strikeouts don't affect guys like Jose Hernandez.

I'll bet I could go through the rest of baseball and find more than enough guys with high strikeout totals who weren't good hitters to make a solid argument.

At least we agree on saves and batting average.

[Noon]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
You're right blackdogsong. Mark Bellhorn has been very underrated this year.

It almost feels like I'm picking on you, which I'm not intending to do, but I'm going to have to call BS on this as well.

Mark Bellhorn has not been "very underrated" this season. Mark Bellhorn has barely been decent this season.

Bellhorn has managed a .233 batting average (although it's overrated, this is still pathetic); a .346 on-base percentage; a .388 slugging percentage; 35 runs scored; 26 RBIs.

He hits last in the lineup, which could excuse his poor RBI totals, but not his OBP or slugging, nor his runs scored as he still has guys like Manny Rameriz and David Ortiz hitting behind him in some cases.

All of those numbers rank him in the middle or toward bottom for second basemen in the major leagues.

And at home, he's hitting just .167. Is Fenway a pitcher's park?

[doublee]

Noon, you forgot to mention that he has had a guy who as been at or near the top of the league in hitting all season right behind him in the order in Johnny Damon. Regardless of how overrated you guys may think average is teams don't pitch around you to get to a guy who is hitting .340.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by Noon
It almost feels like I'm picking on you, which I'm not intending to do, but I'm going to have to call BS on this as well.

Mark Bellhorn has not been "very underrated" this season. Mark Bellhorn has barely been decent this season.

Bellhorn has managed a .233 batting average (although it's overrated, this is still pathetic); a .346 on-base percentage; a .388 slugging percentage; 35 runs scored; 26 RBIs.

He hits last in the lineup, which could excuse his poor RBI totals, but not his OBP or slugging, nor his runs scored as he still has guys like Manny Rameriz and David Ortiz hitting behind him in some cases.

All of those numbers rank him in the middle or toward bottom for second basemen in the major leagues.

And at home, he's hitting just .167. Is Fenway a pitcher's park?

When's a .346 OBP bad? Now a .388 SLG isn't good. I hadn't checked Mark Bellhorn's stats this year. But last year he WAS the best AL 2B.

[Noon]

A .346 OBP isn't bad, but it isn't that good. Among second basemen who have played at least 50 games this season, Bellhorn's OBP ranks 16th overall, putting him toward the middle of the pack.

But because the rest of his numbers are so low, (he's scored just 35 runs on the highest scoring team in baseball) it's safe to say that the OBP doesn't make up for the rest of his shoddy offense.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by Noon
If a guy crosses home plate 100 times, that's 100 times he helped his team win. And If he drove in 100 runs, that's 100 more times he helped his team win. If he's done that, it's likely his OBP is high, but if it isn't, I'll still take the trade off? You win games with runs, not by getting to first base. Baseball isn't an individual game.

But what if that guy had crappy hitters batting behind him? Maybe his OBP was .400, but he scored not that many runs. Why? Because he was stranded.

Oh, and getting to first base is how you produce runs to win games.

Wow, your friend sounds really smart. Maybe you could get him to come on here and explain how strikeouts don't affect guys like Jose Hernandez.

I'll bet I could go through the rest of baseball and find more than enough guys with high strikeout totals who weren't good hitters to make a solid argument.

You wouldn't want him to come here. I don't think he would want to come here anyway. And I never said people who strikeout a lot were good hitters. Find me a player who strikes out a lot and wasn't a good hitter, and you'll find a player that doesn't draw many walks.

[doublee]

Well, I am not sure what you qualifying as a good hitter, but for his career Adam Dunn is a .248 hitter and averages 112 walks per 162 games played.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by Noon
[B]I think I made my point fine. At the end of the season, when looking at the kind of year a player had, I'm going to look at RBIs and runs scored before I look at on-base percentage, because in the end, RBIs and runs are what wins games. I'm not saying OBP isn't important, because it is. But you cannot discard runs and RBIs just because they're "team stats". There are still those cases where you have to be skilled enough and smart enough to get around the bases to score a run.

If a guy crosses home plate 100 times, that's 100 times he helped his team win. And If he drove in 100 runs, that's 100 more times he helped his team win. If he's done that, it's likely his OBP is high, but if it isn't, I'll still take the trade off? You win games with runs, not by getting to first base. Baseball isn't an individual game.

No, you didn't make your point fine. If you looked at RBI and runs scored before OBP, you would be looking at TEAM stats. It's pretty obvious RBI and runs are team stats, and I'll explain why.

I did some research on Albert Pujols and Richie Sexson in 2003, and came up with what was the average OBP for the batters in front of them.

Pujols: .310 OBP

Sexson: .382 OBP

As you see, Pujols didn't have the luxury of as many baserunners as Richie Sexson did. This is how RBI and runs can fool you. Do you understand how?

[Noon]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
No, you didn't make your point fine. If you looked at RBI and runs scored before OBP, you would be looking at TEAM stats. It's pretty obvious RBI and runs are team stats, and I'll explain why.

I did some research on Albert Pujols and Richie Sexson in 2003, and came up with what was the average OBP for the batters in front of them.

Pujols: .310 OBP

Sexson: .382 OBP

As you see, Pujols didn't have the luxury of as many baserunners as Richie Sexson did. This is how RBI and runs can fool you. Do you understand how?

What was the OPS of the guys hitting in front of them? Where did the two hit in the lineup? Did you look at BA and Slugging percentage with runners in scoring position? Did you look at BA and Slugging percentage with runners in scoring position and two outs? Did you look at opportunities with runners in scoring position? Did you look at stolen base totals? Did you look at stolen base totals for the guys in front of them? Did you consider strikeout totals for the two guys and deduce that with a runner at second, a team might be more inclined to walk a guy who makes more contact? Did you look at their ability to go from first to third or second to home on a single? Did you look at the OPS of the guys batting behind them? How many home runs did the guys batting behind them have and would teams be more or less inclined to pitch around them? Did you look at how many of those RBIs came in wins and how many came in losses? Did you look at RBIs and OPS in 1-run wins? Did you look at the number of game-tying or game winning hits?

Sorry dude, you can't give me one number and expect me to bow down. This is how using one stat can fool you. I'm not saying you're wrong to argue that Pujols had a better season than Sexton, I'm just saying that using one number isn't going to convince me you're right, especially when you appear to be so condescending.

Do you understand now?

I'll concede that some of what you've said has merit. But I'd strongly suggest you open up your mind a little bit more when it comes to this subject. Relying on your preferred stats alone, to make a set-in-stone argument, can be dangerous.

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by Noon
Sorry dude, you can't give me one number and expect me to bow down. This is how using one stat can fool you. I'm not saying you're wrong to argue that Pujols had a better season than Sexton, I'm just saying that using one number isn't going to convince me you're right, especially when you appear to be so condescending.

I NEVER use one stat to make my point. OBP is what LEADS to runs scored. But do you agree with me they're a team stat?

Pujols had a better season than Sexson, but not because of RBI. Do you understand WHY Pujols was a much better hitter than Sexson? Do you understand HOW looking at RBI itself is useless? Do you understand WHY RBI and runs are a team stat?

[Mclaren208]

Besides, I just showed how many baserunners Sexson had to drive in over Pujols.

[coachJ]

Do you understand that baseball is a TEAM SPORT, and just about every stat is based on the team....About the only ones that arent based on the team is walks and strikeouts, everything else depends on a team of some sort....

[Mclaren208]

Originally posted by coachJ
Do you understand that baseball is a TEAM SPORT, and just about every stat is based on the team....About the only ones that arent based on the team is walks and strikeouts, everything else depends on a team of some sort....

OBP and SLG aren't team dependent. HRs aren't team dependent. Batting AVG isn't team dependent. Hits aren't team dependent. Total Bases aren't team dependent. SB aren't team dependent. OPS isn't team dependent.

[coachJ]

Actually everything you just said is team dependent....

Homeruns, depends on the pitches you get, which depends on the team that you have around you. Hits are the same as are total bases.

Stolen Bases are VERY dependent on your teammates. Luis Castillo is a GREAT example. He used to have great stolen numbers, but now since Juan Pierre has come with the Marlins and is their lead off hitter, his SB numbers have declined because he is hitting in front of a less patient hitter. The 4 years before Pierre arrived in Florida, Castillos stolen base numbers were 85, 86, 90, 76, and the year Pierre arrives they are down to 60. So SB depend heavily on the player you have behind you and the type of hitter he is.

As far as the OPS is concerned, im not quite sure exactly what that is, so i cant make a valid argument on it...

[Noon]

Originally posted by Mclaren208
I NEVER use one stat to make my point. OBP is what LEADS to runs scored. But do you agree with me they're a team stat?

Pujols had a better season than Sexson, but not because of RBI. Do you understand WHY Pujols was a much better hitter than Sexson? Do you understand HOW looking at RBI itself is useless? Do you understand WHY RBI and runs are a team stat?

All you gave me to defend your answer was the OBP of the guys hitting ahead of Pujols and Sexson, how is that more than one stat?

RBIs and runs are a team stat. They are also what wins ball games. OBP leads to runs scored. No one wins a game simply because they got on base more than the other guy. And that is why looking soley at OBP is just as much of a mistake as you think looking soley at RBIs or runs.

And again, if a guy drives in 100 runs he had a pretty good season, regardless of the rest of his stats. If he has 100 RBIs and he has a .290 OBP, he still had a good season, because run production wins games. Would I expect the same kind of production the next year, no. Is it a fluke? Not absolutely, but most likely.

Originally posted by Mclaren208
OBP and SLG aren't team dependent. HRs aren't team dependent. Batting AVG isn't team dependent. Hits aren't team dependent. Total Bases aren't team dependent. SB aren't team dependent. OPS isn't team dependent.

OBP and SLG could be considered team dependent. SBs are influenced by the team philosophy.

Let's say the tying run is at first, there are two outs, Player A is batting and Albert Pujols is in the on deck circle. Player A has a pretty good OPS, but not nearly as good as Pujols. What are the odds that Player A is going to see a fastball? What are the odds that he's going to see more than one hittable pitch? I'd say pretty good on both accounts.

Same scenerio, but Player B is at bat and he has got Matt Morris hitting behind him. Player B is Player A's identical twin brother at the plate. Do you think the pitcher is going to be a little less inclined to throw Player B a hittable pitch? Do you think maybe he'd rather try to strike Player B out and risking putting him on first, to be able to go after a weaker hitter?

Which guy do you think will end up with a higher OPS for the season? The guy who continues to see hittable pitches or the guy who is challenged with borderline strikes?

Steals are an individual stat that are fueled by a team philosophy. Some managers like to be agressive and run. Some would rather wait for the 3-run home run. Some don't want their guys running when a power threat is at the plate because they don't want first base to open up for an intentional walk. Some would rather not run themselves out of an inning. Some want guys running any moment they think they can make it.

Harp all you want about OBP, SLG, and OPS. You're right, they're very important. But as long as you continue to say that runs and RBIs aren't important, I'm not going to take you serious.

Mark Bellhorn has a OBP of .346, which you said was pretty good. But on baseball highest scoring team, with some of the biggest run producers in the game hitting behind him (the next four batters behind him have combined for 205 RBIs), he's only scored 35 runs through almost 80 games.

Can you see my point?

[doublee]

Honestly, if you think outside the box enough you can make arguments either way as to the team dependency of any stat. A lot of them are some combination of both individual talent, how well your team plays around you, and how the opposition pitches and defends you.

McLaren, a better choice for your argument would have been to site the following:

In 2003 Sexson had 211 PAs and drove in 83 runs with runners in scoring position while Pujols drove in 76 in 161 PAs. Overall Sexson had 323 PAs with runners on base while Pujols had 308. You need to focus in on the fact that Pujols drove in as many runs as Sexson despite the fact that Sexson had 50 more plate appearances with runners in scoring position than Pujols did. You can see where Sexson did not have a significantly higher number of plate appearances with runners on base. You see, just because the guys in front of Sexson had higher OBPs that does not necessarily mean they are getting themselves into scoring position. Another thing you could have sited is the fact that Pujols got 90% of his PAs hitting in the three spot where Sexson split time between the 3 and 4 hole hitting fourth the majority of the season. Pujols only had two hitters in front of him most of the season while Sexson had three for most of the season.

[Noon]

Originally posted by doublee
Honestly, if you think outside the box enough you can make arguments either way as to the team dependency of any stat. A lot of them are some combination of both individual talent, how well your team plays around you, and how the opposition pitches and defends you.

There it is. Thank you for taking two sentances to say what I've attempted to say in like six posts.

I'll be back in another four months.

[Mclaren208]

I'm not saying RBI and runs doesn't help your team win. I'm saying RBI is largely team dependent and shouldn't be used in evaluation of a hitter.