Bonds vs. Pujols for MVP

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Francodman
well no sh!t, a guy thats hitting 26 HRs right now, but batting .220 shouldn't be regarded as a great player either. Rickey Henderson was a great player because he did EVERYTHING. Every stat is related to eachother somehow.


See: Adam Dunn

Saying Rickey Henderson is a great player (which in my opinion he wasn't, nowhere NEAR Ty Cobbs for eg.) is NOT a strong argument for saying that RUNS Scored is an important stat.

look i am not a big fan of rickey, but saying he isnt a great player is just absurd...he is the greatest lead-off hitter

 

[nitsuj3580]

He is saying as an individual stat to guage a player on it is unimportant. And i agree with him.

Of course runs are an important part of baseball..but not individual players' stats.

as I've said before, the stat means so much more than just touching home plate and thus that is why it is kept. To say it is unimportant is just not right.

same here. I think they are thinking in the grand scheme of things. Yes runs are important. But if the guy leads the league in runs, but also leads in strikeouts, last in BA, last in RBI's then he shouldn't be regarded as a great player.

well no sh!t, a guy thats hitting 26 HRs right now, but batting .220 shouldn't be regarded as a great player either. Rickey Henderson was a great player because he did EVERYTHING. Every stat is related to eachother somehow.


See: Adam Dunn

the relationship of statistics is exactly why keeping track of runs isn't stupid. I GUARANTEE you if a guy leads the league in runs but also leads in strikeouts, last in BA, last in RBI's, he will still be batting lead off for somebody and be considered a significant player on that team because in some way, shape, or form, he is getting on base enough and a very good baserunner to lead the league in runs.

This is a great article HERE that proves keeping track of Runs is very significant. (wow, ok, that's really bizarre. That article from the site appears to be down now. I searched "keeping track of runs in baseball" (no quotes) in Google and that article was the third hit.)

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: Ladies Man

agh agh agh agh
3rd base coach can't make a runner have a split second reaction when an outfielder bobbles a ball to advance or stay put. A 3rd base coach can't make a runner read curve ball in the dirt to get an extra hop and take a base if the ball scoots by/off the catcher. Speed and smarts tell a runner if he can make it from 1st to 3rd on a basehit to right center. Runs are a very important stat in baseball and an important individual stat. Running 1st to 3rd, 2nd to home, 1st to home, advancing on flys from 2nd to 3rd, and 3rd to home are not written down on the back of a baseball card. Runs pretty much sums it up. If you are a good, agressive baserunner that doesn't do anything stupid, your runs will be higher than others. And when looking at runs you need to take in account everything else, AB, BB, etc etc etc

Exactly! Finally someone who knows baseball.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The obvious answer is Bonds. It's simply obvious if you look at the stats (and I know many of you may be scared to actually look at real stats).

People can scream all they want about runs and rbis, but these are all team dependent stats. Yes, runs and rbis 'win' games. However, that's a team effort. These are too much influenced by the people in front of or behind you. Yes, if you're 'fast' and 'smart' then you may have more runs than another player, but it would not be a great significant difference over the course of an entire season. Anyways, this was all mentioned above.

Bonds is clearly the best player in baseball. Even when taking positional differences into account, he's still better than Alex Rodriguez. The best player in baseball (by far) and he's on a first place team. That should be MVP material.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

He is saying as an individual stat to guage a player on it is unimportant. And i agree with him.

Of course runs are an important part of baseball..but not individual players' stats.

as I've said before, the stat means so much more than just touching home plate and thus that is why it is kept. To say it is unimportant is just not right.

same here. I think they are thinking in the grand scheme of things. Yes runs are important. But if the guy leads the league in runs, but also leads in strikeouts, last in BA, last in RBI's then he shouldn't be regarded as a great player.

well no sh!t, a guy thats hitting 26 HRs right now, but batting .220 shouldn't be regarded as a great player either. Rickey Henderson was a great player because he did EVERYTHING. Every stat is related to eachother somehow.


See: Adam Dunn

the relationship of statistics is exactly why keeping track of runs isn't stupid. I GUARANTEE you if a guy leads the league in runs but also leads in strikeouts, last in BA, last in RBI's, he will still be batting lead off for somebody and be considered a significant player on that team because in some way, shape, or form, he is getting on base enough and a very good baserunner to lead the league in runs.

This is a great article HERE that proves keeping track of Runs is very significant. (wow, ok, that's really bizarre. That article from the site appears to be down now. I searched "keeping track of runs in baseball" (no quotes) in Google and that article was the third hit.

Your link doesn't work.

Runs are team dependent more than individual dependent.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: Ladies Man

agh agh agh agh
3rd base coach can't make a runner have a split second reaction when an outfielder bobbles a ball to advance or stay put. A 3rd base coach can't make a runner read curve ball in the dirt to get an extra hop and take a base if the ball scoots by/off the catcher. Speed and smarts tell a runner if he can make it from 1st to 3rd on a basehit to right center. Runs are a very important stat in baseball and an important individual stat. Running 1st to 3rd, 2nd to home, 1st to home, advancing on flys from 2nd to 3rd, and 3rd to home are not written down on the back of a baseball card. Runs pretty much sums it up. If you are a good, agressive baserunner that doesn't do anything stupid, your runs will be higher than others. And when looking at runs you need to take in account everything else, AB, BB, etc etc etc

Exactly! Finally someone who knows baseball.

You mean finally someone who agrees with your wrong point of view?

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: Ladies Man

agh agh agh agh
3rd base coach can't make a runner have a split second reaction when an outfielder bobbles a ball to advance or stay put. A 3rd base coach can't make a runner read curve ball in the dirt to get an extra hop and take a base if the ball scoots by/off the catcher. Speed and smarts tell a runner if he can make it from 1st to 3rd on a basehit to right center. Runs are a very important stat in baseball and an important individual stat. Running 1st to 3rd, 2nd to home, 1st to home, advancing on flys from 2nd to 3rd, and 3rd to home are not written down on the back of a baseball card. Runs pretty much sums it up. If you are a good, agressive baserunner that doesn't do anything stupid, your runs will be higher than others. And when looking at runs you need to take in account everything else, AB, BB, etc etc etc

Exactly! Finally someone who knows baseball.

You mean finally someone who agrees with your wrong point of view?

HAHAHAHAHA.....wow, you guys crack me up. Are you serious??? what did Ladies Man say that is wrong? I'd really like to know. I'd love to know everyone's experience in the game of baseball? If any of you guys actually played the game past Little League, you'd understand the significance of all the things Ladies Man and I have talked about?

 

[pyonir]

Playing the game as opposed to being an avid fan of the game and understanding it does NOT make you more knowledgable about individual statistics and the importance of.

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: pyonir
Playing the game as opposed to being an avid fan of the game and understanding it does NOT make you more knowledgable about individual statistics and the importance of.

Ok, because someone is a brain surgeon and has performed lots of operations but I'm an avid fan of brain surgery and read lots of books and watch a lot of videos of people performing brain surgery, I know the importance of surgical procedures just as much as the brain surgeon.

Experience = Knowledge that can not be obtained from observing, reading, etc. Of course I'm probably way off base on that right because I'm comparing medical practice with baseball practice

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: pyonir
Playing the game as opposed to being an avid fan of the game and understanding it does NOT make you more knowledgable about individual statistics and the importance of.

Ok, because someone is a brain surgeon and has performed lots of operations but I'm an avid fan of brain surgery and read lots of books and watch a lot of videos of people performing brain surgery, I know just as much as the brain surgeon.

Experience = Knowledge that can not be obtained from observing, reading, etc.

That is one of the worst analogies i have ever seen. Absolutely ludicrious.

Peter Gammons hasn't played professional baseball and obviously hasn't played in quite some time, but i was call him the foremost authority on baseball.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So what exactly is your argument now? Runs are not team dependent?

And to compare baseball with brain surgery

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: pyonir
Playing the game as opposed to being an avid fan of the game and understanding it does NOT make you more knowledgable about individual statistics and the importance of.

Ok, because someone is a brain surgeon and has performed lots of operations but I'm an avid fan of brain surgery and read lots of books and watch a lot of videos of people performing brain surgery, I know just as much as the brain surgeon.

Experience = Knowledge that can not be obtained from observing, reading, etc.

That is one of the worst analogies i have ever seen. Absolutely ludicrious.

Peter Gammons hasn't played professional baseball and obviously hasn't played in quite some time, but i was call him the foremost authority on baseball.

I guess that's where we differ. I'll take Harold Reynolds over Peter Gammons anytime because he's BEEN ON AN ACTUAL FIELD!

 

[pyonir]

haha...you have german or scandinavian heritage by chance?

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'd take someone who studies sabermetrics over someone who doesn't when talking about the statistical value of stats in baseball.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I'd take someone who studies sabermetrics over someone who doesn't when talking about the statistical value of stats in baseball.

Well stated. I couldn't put that into words. Thanks!

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
So what exactly is your argument now? Runs are not team dependent?

And to compare baseball with brain surgery

Runs are not team dependent? Don't know what gave you that idea that I thought that.

All I've been saying this entire time is that people don't seem to understand the significance of the statistic, Runs. This isn't about individual awards (although this post is. I apologize for getting off base but I'm at work and this has been a good time ) Read my posts and Ladies Man's post and you'll see exactly why the statistic, Runs, is kept.

 

[PlatinumGold]

you don't have to have PLAYED baseball in order to understand the STATISTICAL significane of baseball.

let's use your surgeon example.

You don't have to have been a surgeon in order to do a actualrial calulation of risks a surgeon takes.

actuaries are better at that then surgeons.

sabremetricians are better at studying the statistics of baseball better than baseball players. duhh.

 

[pyonir]

I was never arguing (or didn't intend to anyway) that runs is not an important statistic in baseball. What i am saying is that it is not an important statistic to use when talking about individual players and the stats that make them great or average.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well just restate your stance on runs to make it more clear.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: pyonir
I was never arguing (or didn't intend to anyway) that runs is not an important statistic in baseball. What i am saying is that it is not an important statistic to use when talking about individual players and the stats that make them great or average.

Exactly. And those involved with the study of baseball statistics usually would take this stance.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well just restate your stance on runs to make it more clear.

hmmm, let's see topic title is Bonds vs Pujols, ONE of the stats that are most divergent between the 2 players is runs scored.

the argument made is RUNS are not significant.

Any reasonably intelligent person would conclude that the argument is made IN THE context of MVP. duhhh.

 

[RabidMongoose]

To me it looks like we got pretty much off-topic from the MVP discussion.

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well just restate your stance on runs to make it more clear.

hmmm, let's see topic title is Bonds vs Pujols, ONE of the stats that are most divergent between the 2 players is runs scored.

the argument made is RUNS are not significant.

Any reasonably intelligent person would conclude that the argument is made IN THE context of MVP. duhhh.

That is true and as I have mentioned (and apologized for getting slightly off the thread topic), I challenged you on the general fact that you mentioned keeping the statistic, Runs, is just the stupidest thing ever but in the general scheme of things in baseball, it is a very valuable statistic.

Plus although towards the bottom of statistical relevance for determining individual awards, I highly doubt Ichiro would've won the MVP award a couple years ago if he had hit .350, 8 HRS, 69 RBI's as he did but didn't score 127 Runs although that stat shouldn't really have an effect on this year's NL MVP because of who we are comparing.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: pyonir
As of right now it would be foolish to pick anyone but Roy Halladay for the AL Cy Young.

Umm, didn't he get smoked by the Mariners last night? M's hitting is average at best... Cy Young should go to someone on Oakland...

So one game decides if a player deserves the Cy Young huh?

Halladay has a little higher of an ERA than Mulder or Hudson, but he has pitched more innings, less walks than both, more strikeouts than both, his WHIP is better than Mulder although Hudson's is a little better, record is 16-4 while Mulder is 15-8 and Hudson is 11-4, a better K/BB ratio than both, and better K/9 than both.

The race will be close towards the end, but Halladay would get my vote as of now.

Something to note is Halladay is not on a winning team, and just lost to a contender last night... That doesn't really prove to me he's unanimously worthy of the Cy Young award. Let's face it, if you're not on a winning team you have to SPECTACULAR to win the award. For example, in 2002, Pedro Martinez should have won the Cy Young award STATISTICALLY. He went 20-4 and had 239 SO, 40 walks, 2.26 ERA, only gave up 13 HR's, and 2 complete Games in 199 innings pitched. Barry Zito went 23-5 and had 182 SO, 78 walks, 2.75 ERA, gave up 24 HR's, and 1 complete Game in 228 innings pitched. Clearly Pedro was more dominant, but why did Zito win? Because the A's made the playoffs and he was rewarded for it, whereas Pedro was injured some and his team didn't make the playoffs.

The fact that the Jays are one of the better hitting teams in baseball doesn't help Halladay's case either (Toronto is ranked #2/14 in hitting in the AL!). If you put him on say, the Twins (less run support) would you be confident he would have the same record? Halladay's ERA is NOT impressive at 3.35. Let me name 4 other pitchers that I would vote for before Halladay: 1)Esteban Loaiza: he's 15 and 5, ERA is 2.24, and he's on a playoff contender. He has a 7.38 K/9 innings to Halladay's measly 6.5. Jesus, even John Lackey on the Angels has a higher K/9 at 7.10 and his ERA is 5.34... Furthermore, White Sox are batting 9th/14 in the AL in hitting! 2)Tim Hudsen: he's 11-4 with a 2.51 ERA and on a playoff contender. He's made ONE LESS start than Halladay and is on the A's who are batting 11th in the AL in hitting (there are only 14 teams remember). Add on the fact that he just held the best hitting team in baseball, the Bosox, to 2 hits the other night, beating PEDRO MARTINEZ(who is leading the league in K's over Halladay even though he's started SIX LESS GAMES), and he's clearly got the edge on Halladay RIGHT NOW. 3)Mark Mulder: he's 15-8 with a 2.94 ERA and on playoff contender A's. 4)Mike Mussina is 13-6 with a 3.19 ERA and we all know what team he's on. Plus he has an 8.44 K/9 to 6.5...

All in all, u can only make the argument that Halladay's record of 16 wins is the most in the AL on a great hitting team. It really does not make a strong argument for UNANIMOUS Cy Young RIGHT NOW.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well just restate your stance on runs to make it more clear.

hmmm, let's see topic title is Bonds vs Pujols, ONE of the stats that are most divergent between the 2 players is runs scored.

the argument made is RUNS are not significant.

Any reasonably intelligent person would conclude that the argument is made IN THE context of MVP. duhhh.

That is true and as I have mentioned (and apologized for getting slightly off the thread topic), I challenged you on the general fact that you mentioned keeping the statistic, Runs, is just the stupidest thing ever but in the general scheme of things in baseball, it is a very valuable statistic.

Plus although towards the bottom of statistical relevance for determining individual awards, I highly doubt Ichiro would've won the MVP award a couple years ago if he had hit .350, 8 HRS, 69 RBI's as he did but didn't score 127 Runs although that stat shouldn't really have an effect on this year's NL MVP because of who we are comparing.

Which proves NOTHING except that some people that vote on MVP awards also believe Runs to be important. I have repeatedly stated my position in a clear and succinct manner why i believe that RUNS as a statistac are NOT important as most of the contributing factors are VERY well accounted for by OTHER stats and YOU have as of yet, given me ONE single argument WHY it is other than to say Rickey Henderson, Ichiro etc.