Bonds vs. Pujols for MVP

[RabidMongoose]

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.

Sure, if he had only 80 runs instead of 127, then the baseball writers probably wouldn't have voted him in. But to me, that doesn't mean anything really. To me, runs are just way too team dependent. In fact, there's probably a very strong correlation between one's OBP + SLG of the players behind him and the number of runs he has.

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's the tricky thing about the Cy Young award. We could go into a big debate about the significance of a pitcher's win-loss record Right now, I think Loaiza and Halladay are in the driver's seat for the award although I have a feeling Hudson is going to steam roll both of them if the A's can score some runs for him so he can get some W's

 

[RabidMongoose]

nitsuj3580, we must be complete opposites when it comes to baseball stats.

We could go into a big debate about the significance of a pitcher's win-loss record

A pitcher's win-loss record is much too team dependent again.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
nitsuj3580, we must be complete opposites when it comes to baseball stats.

We could go into a big debate about the significance of a pitcher's win-loss record

A pitcher's win-loss record is much too team dependent again.

i'm with you. nice thing about pitchers is there are 3 or 4 VERY important stats that pretty much covers their complete ability to do their job.

ERA, WHIP, Opposing Team BA, K's and BB's.

Win Loss is DEFINITELY not included in that list.

 

[Lager]

If Mulder does not win the AL Cy Young award.... :disgust::frown::|

AL Cy Young

Winner - Mark Mulder

Runner-Ups

2.Esteban Loaiza
3.Roy Halladay

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
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.

OK, basically you're choosing to blow off my arguments as well as the significance that the people who actually do the voting agree with me. I'm not going to explain all my posts again but Runs do show the importance of an individual by summing up a variety of valuable factors such as smarts, speed, the ability to get on base, etc. Ladies Man also made a very nice post that also strongly supports my side.

 

[manly]

Barring a collapse, Loaiza is the AL CY front-runner, and Hudson has an (outside) shot if he blitzes the rest of the season with like 6 straight victories. Halladay doesn't really stack up statistically, but winning 20 games always gets you consideration. With Loaiza being so consistent, I don't see why Halladay would be the front-runner with just one more victory.

Although being on a division-winning team always helps, it's almost a requirement for the MVP award, while only a major plus for the Cy Young. You can win the CY award with a dominant season on a mediocre team. With the current voting standards, that will never happen for the MVP award. While Tejada was fairly deserving last year, ARod clearly was the man. Not giving him the award basically penalizes him for bad management (not putting together a complete ballclub). Maybe ARod has to pitch and win 20 games on-top of record offensive production from a shortstop to get the MVP award w/ the Rangers.

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
nitsuj3580, we must be complete opposites when it comes to baseball stats.

We could go into a big debate about the significance of a pitcher's win-loss record

A pitcher's win-loss record is much too team dependent again.

hahaha...it's been fun. I love baseball and was All-state in high school and played a little D1 baseball in college (unfortunately I was also a computer engineering major and the two didn't mix). I just think there's some things that players recognize that statisticians don't always understand.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
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.

OK, basically you're choosing to blow off my arguments as well as the significance that the people who actually do the voting agree with me. I'm not going to explain all my posts again but Runs do show the importance of an individual by summing up a variety of valuable factors such as smarts, speed, the ability to get on base, etc. Ladies Man also made a very nice post that also strongly supports my side.

which do you think explains scoring more, the runners ability or the hitters behind him??

what kind of a difference do you think there would be between the top run scoring SS for eg vs the worst run scoring starting SS in the game?

you put someone on first, and if the hitter behind him doesnt hit a double or triple, the odds of him scoring on that next AB are almost 0.

IF you put that runner of 2nd the possibility of that runner scoring on the following at bat without a base hit is almost 0.

IF you put the runner at 3rd the possibility of that runner soring on the followint bat without a base hit or Deep fly are almost 0.

do you really want to go thru every possible scenario?

now, given the runner is at 1st, a fast runner will score on a double, but HIGHLY unlikely that he will score on a single.
a Slow runner could score on a double, WILL not score on a single.

Given a single, MOST runners fast or slow will get to third, unless it's hit to left field.

i just don't see the variance here.

 

[Ladies Man]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
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.

OK, basically you're choosing to blow off my arguments as well as the significance that the people who actually do the voting agree with me. I'm not going to explain all my posts again but Runs do show the importance of an individual by summing up a variety of valuable factors such as smarts, speed, the ability to get on base, etc. Ladies Man also made a very nice post that also strongly supports my side.

The problem you have is that once a hitter touches first base you feel that his job is done, and it's up to the next batter to get him in. This is true to a certain extent. If a batters keep hitting a runner is forced to advance a base and will eventually score. BUT there is much more to it than that. Good base running means more runs more often. Having played baseball since I was 4 I've seen so many games won and lost on base running. People who don't freeze on a line drive, or take off for third on a ball hit to the short stop. Then there are people who read ball in the dirt on a curve, advance to 2nd base, then a base hit brings him home, game over, time to go screw the prom queen. Watch more games closely about what if a runner did this or that, and look at the outcome. If you don't play/don't carefully follow every aspect of baseball i can understand why you think it's meaningless, but it's not. Just because right now the majority is on your side does not make you right.

In short, Good base runners have higher RUNS, and RUNS does mean sometime in individual stats.

 

[Ladies Man]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
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.

OK, basically you're choosing to blow off my arguments as well as the significance that the people who actually do the voting agree with me. I'm not going to explain all my posts again but Runs do show the importance of an individual by summing up a variety of valuable factors such as smarts, speed, the ability to get on base, etc. Ladies Man also made a very nice post that also strongly supports my side.

which do you think explains scoring more, the runners ability or the hitters behind him??

what kind of a difference do you think there would be between the top run scoring SS for eg vs the worst run scoring starting SS in the game?

you put someone on first, and if the hitter behind him doesnt hit a double or triple, the odds of him scoring on that next AB are almost 0.

IF you put that runner of 2nd the possibility of that runner scoring on the following at bat without a base hit is almost 0.

IF you put the runner at 3rd the possibility of that runner soring on the followint bat without a base hit or Deep fly are almost 0.

do you really want to go thru every possible scenario?

now, given the runner is at 1st, a fast runner will score on a double, but HIGHLY unlikely that he will score on a single.
a Slow runner could score on a double, WILL not score on a single.

Given a single, MOST runners fast or slow will get to third, unless it's hit to left field.

i just don't see the variance here.

agh.... Scott ya just don't get it do ya?
What makes the difference is this.... THERE ARE 3 OUTS IN BASEBALL Remember that?
I can go through a MILLION scenario where the next batter gets out but a baserunner does an excellent job of advancing to score on the next play. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

Runner on first, soft infeild hit to 3rd baseman, getting a double play is out of the question, and a close play at first. With a quick runner who is paying attention he can probably make it to 3rd base. Tough play for the 3rd baseman and now it's a foot race for someone to cover 3rd and 2 good throws need to be made to get him out. Runner on 3rd with 1 out, fly ball in the outfeild scores him. If he takes his time he's on 2nd, now fly ball MAYBE gets him to 3rd with 2 outs. It's little things like this that make a difference, and only the good players in baseball do it.

 

[nitsuj3580]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
which do you think explains scoring more, the runners ability or the hitters behind him??

well, that's a very different question than we've been talking about but, obviously most runners in baseball can score given the proper hit by the person behind him whether it be a homerun or if the runner is one second and the player behind him hit's a double, the runner on second could walk to home in most cases.

Neverless, you have to appreciate that there are players that are great baserunners. If a guy is lightning fast, there are many plays in baseball that he'll be able to take that extra base or tag up from third on a short fly to the outfield. I see it all the time. Also a baserunner's reaction times/instincts when a hitter at the plate makes contact, to recognize as soon as possible if a little blooper is going to fall in for a base hit and take off for example. Players with these abilities are often going to score more runs than a pitcher who is only batting because he has to or a guy like Ruben Rivera who made Sportscenter for looking like a fool running the bases.

Whether you believe these factors are significant or not is a your opinion. Being around the game in the heat of battle at the high school and college levels, I think they are very significant. Players like Ichiro definitely help their cause with good baserunning giving them a few more runs in the stat line which means more runs scored for their team.

You explained one World Series game that bad baserunning resulted in a loss for the Braves. There are plenty of games where baserunning smarts resulted in victories as well.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
which do you think explains scoring more, the runners ability or the hitters behind him??

well, that's a very different question than we've been talking about but, obviously most runners in baseball can score given the proper hit by the person behind him whether it be a homerun or if the runner is one second and the player behind him hit's a double, the runner on second could walk to home in most cases.

Neverless, you have to appreciate that there are players that are great baserunners. If a guy is lightning fast, there are many plays in baseball that he'll be able to take that extra base or tag up from third on a short fly to the outfield. I see it all the time. Also a baserunner's reaction times/instincts when a hitter at the plate makes contact, to recognize as soon as possible if a little blooper is going to fall in for a base hit and take off for example. Players with these abilities are often going to score more runs than a pitcher who is only batting because he has to or a guy like Ruben Rivera who made Sportscenter for looking like a fool running the bases.

Whether you believe these factors are significant or not is a your opinion. Being around the game in the heat of battle at the high school and college levels, I think they are very significant. Players like Ichiro definitely help their cause with good baserunning giving them a few more runs in the stat line which means more runs scored for their team.

You explained one World Series game that bad baserunning resulted in a loss for the Braves. There are plenty of games where baserunning smarts resulted in victories as well.

actually my example was simple, IF the runner had been keeping an eye on the 3rd base coach INSTEAD of going on his INSTINCTS, he would have had a better chance of scoring.

again, the differnece between High school/College to PRO is SIGNIFICANT. not saying pros are that much better than the TOP college athletes, i'm just saying there is MUCH LARGER difference in talent between the best in college and the worst in college vs the BEST in the Pros and the WORST in the pros.

Therefore in my opinion, the difference between what the best player can bring to the basepaths is SIGNIFICANLTY less than what the WORST player can bring to the base paths, when comparing pros to amateurs. My conclusion is as i've stated before, it's not NEARLY as much what the player brings to the base paths as it is what the hitters behind him do.

Roger Cedeno, in my opinion one of the worst baseball players in MLB has 43 runs on 89 hits 24 Walks, 327 AB, Pujols has 105 runs on 165 hits and 50 walks in 446 AB.

so, Pujols scores 48% of the time he gets on base.

Cedeno scores 40% of the time he gets on base.

8% difference between one of the best players in the game vs one of the worst. If you've seen cedeno play you know i'm right, he has the worst instincts of ANYONE in the game, the fact that he is actually much faster than Pujols only supports this argument.

Now, your telling me that the 8% difference is MORE the base runner than the hitters behind him?

let's say it's 50/50, than your telling me, the 4% difference is HUGE, i'm saying it's not.

That 4% is nothing in my opinion.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Ladies Man

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
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.

OK, basically you're choosing to blow off my arguments as well as the significance that the people who actually do the voting agree with me. I'm not going to explain all my posts again but Runs do show the importance of an individual by summing up a variety of valuable factors such as smarts, speed, the ability to get on base, etc. Ladies Man also made a very nice post that also strongly supports my side.

which do you think explains scoring more, the runners ability or the hitters behind him??

what kind of a difference do you think there would be between the top run scoring SS for eg vs the worst run scoring starting SS in the game?

you put someone on first, and if the hitter behind him doesnt hit a double or triple, the odds of him scoring on that next AB are almost 0.

IF you put that runner of 2nd the possibility of that runner scoring on the following at bat without a base hit is almost 0.

IF you put the runner at 3rd the possibility of that runner soring on the followint bat without a base hit or Deep fly are almost 0.

do you really want to go thru every possible scenario?

now, given the runner is at 1st, a fast runner will score on a double, but HIGHLY unlikely that he will score on a single.
a Slow runner could score on a double, WILL not score on a single.

Given a single, MOST runners fast or slow will get to third, unless it's hit to left field.

i just don't see the variance here.

agh.... Scott ya just don't get it do ya?
What makes the difference is this.... THERE ARE 3 OUTS IN BASEBALL Remember that?
I can go through a MILLION scenario where the next batter gets out but a baserunner does an excellent job of advancing to score on the next play. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

Runner on first, soft infeild hit to 3rd baseman, getting a double play is out of the question, and a close play at first. With a quick runner who is paying attention he can probably make it to 3rd base. Tough play for the 3rd baseman and now it's a foot race for someone to cover 3rd and 2 good throws need to be made to get him out. Runner on 3rd with 1 out, fly ball in the outfeild scores him. If he takes his time he's on 2nd, now fly ball MAYBE gets him to 3rd with 2 outs. It's little things like this that make a difference, and only the good players in baseball do it.

sorry, son, all the stuff your talking about affects their BA, and their OBP. it's ALREADY accounted for.

When your talking RUNS you have to isolate to AFTER They get on base.

btw, who is scott?

 

[Ladies Man]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ladies Man

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
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.

OK, basically you're choosing to blow off my arguments as well as the significance that the people who actually do the voting agree with me. I'm not going to explain all my posts again but Runs do show the importance of an individual by summing up a variety of valuable factors such as smarts, speed, the ability to get on base, etc. Ladies Man also made a very nice post that also strongly supports my side.

which do you think explains scoring more, the runners ability or the hitters behind him??

what kind of a difference do you think there would be between the top run scoring SS for eg vs the worst run scoring starting SS in the game?

you put someone on first, and if the hitter behind him doesnt hit a double or triple, the odds of him scoring on that next AB are almost 0.

IF you put that runner of 2nd the possibility of that runner scoring on the following at bat without a base hit is almost 0.

IF you put the runner at 3rd the possibility of that runner soring on the followint bat without a base hit or Deep fly are almost 0.

do you really want to go thru every possible scenario?

now, given the runner is at 1st, a fast runner will score on a double, but HIGHLY unlikely that he will score on a single.
a Slow runner could score on a double, WILL not score on a single.

Given a single, MOST runners fast or slow will get to third, unless it's hit to left field.

i just don't see the variance here.

agh.... Scott ya just don't get it do ya?
What makes the difference is this.... THERE ARE 3 OUTS IN BASEBALL Remember that?
I can go through a MILLION scenario where the next batter gets out but a baserunner does an excellent job of advancing to score on the next play. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

Runner on first, soft infeild hit to 3rd baseman, getting a double play is out of the question, and a close play at first. With a quick runner who is paying attention he can probably make it to 3rd base. Tough play for the 3rd baseman and now it's a foot race for someone to cover 3rd and 2 good throws need to be made to get him out. Runner on 3rd with 1 out, fly ball in the outfeild scores him. If he takes his time he's on 2nd, now fly ball MAYBE gets him to 3rd with 2 outs. It's little things like this that make a difference, and only the good players in baseball do it.

sorry, son, all the stuff your talking about affects their BA, and their OBP. it's ALREADY accounted for.

When your talking RUNS you have to isolate to AFTER They get on base.

btw, who is scott?

Yes that is already accounted for, but what it doesn't account for is if he went the distance. Which when it comes down to it is all that matters.

That 4% is the difference between winning a game by a run, and losing a game by a run.

Scott is a reference from austin powers.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Ladies Man

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Ladies Man

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: nitsuj3580

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
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.

OK, basically you're choosing to blow off my arguments as well as the significance that the people who actually do the voting agree with me. I'm not going to explain all my posts again but Runs do show the importance of an individual by summing up a variety of valuable factors such as smarts, speed, the ability to get on base, etc. Ladies Man also made a very nice post that also strongly supports my side.

which do you think explains scoring more, the runners ability or the hitters behind him??

what kind of a difference do you think there would be between the top run scoring SS for eg vs the worst run scoring starting SS in the game?

you put someone on first, and if the hitter behind him doesnt hit a double or triple, the odds of him scoring on that next AB are almost 0.

IF you put that runner of 2nd the possibility of that runner scoring on the following at bat without a base hit is almost 0.

IF you put the runner at 3rd the possibility of that runner soring on the followint bat without a base hit or Deep fly are almost 0.

do you really want to go thru every possible scenario?

now, given the runner is at 1st, a fast runner will score on a double, but HIGHLY unlikely that he will score on a single.
a Slow runner could score on a double, WILL not score on a single.

Given a single, MOST runners fast or slow will get to third, unless it's hit to left field.

i just don't see the variance here.

agh.... Scott ya just don't get it do ya?
What makes the difference is this.... THERE ARE 3 OUTS IN BASEBALL Remember that?
I can go through a MILLION scenario where the next batter gets out but a baserunner does an excellent job of advancing to score on the next play. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

Runner on first, soft infeild hit to 3rd baseman, getting a double play is out of the question, and a close play at first. With a quick runner who is paying attention he can probably make it to 3rd base. Tough play for the 3rd baseman and now it's a foot race for someone to cover 3rd and 2 good throws need to be made to get him out. Runner on 3rd with 1 out, fly ball in the outfeild scores him. If he takes his time he's on 2nd, now fly ball MAYBE gets him to 3rd with 2 outs. It's little things like this that make a difference, and only the good players in baseball do it.

sorry, son, all the stuff your talking about affects their BA, and their OBP. it's ALREADY accounted for.

When your talking RUNS you have to isolate to AFTER They get on base.

btw, who is scott?

Yes that is already accounted for, but what it doesn't account for is if he went the distance. Which when it comes down to it is all that matters.

That 4% is the difference between winning a game by a run, and losing a game by a run.

Scott is a reference from austin powers.

actually, you forgot to factor in one little thing.

Cards O is more than 4% better than Mets O.

oh btw, Cedeno has 9 SB, 8 Caught, Pujols has 2 stolen, 1 caught.

so basically the 7 caught stealing (which is already a stat that is tracked btw) basically explains the difference.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Over the course of a 162 game season, that 4% would have a very little impact in a player's overall production.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Over the course of a 162 game season, that 4% would have a very little impact in a player's overall production.

about 4% worth you think?

 

[Ladies Man]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Over the course of a 162 game season, that 4% would have a very little impact in a player's overall production.

about 4% worth you think?

i was just using his number that he gave... i don't feel like sitting in statistics class to figure it out

 

[RabidMongoose]

Probably less in overall contribution

Runs, RBIs, Wins...horrible stats to judge an individual.

A player can have baseball smarts. However, it won't have a significant impact on stats that measure a player's overall worth. Over the course of a whole season, 'baseball smarts' won't have a huge impact on overall production.

 

[Ladies Man]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Over the course of a whole season, 'baseball smarts' won't have a huge impact on overall production.

You'd be surprised

 

[RabidMongoose]

Yes, I guess it would be surprising to see that 'baseball smarts' is dwarfed by power, on base ability, etc.

 

[Sid59]

Bonds only cause im in the bay area.

 

[ace31216]

Check out this link

Even with all the things Barry Bonds and his father has been through, I can't even imagine how Barry can stay so focus when he is the game and put up numbers the way he does.

 

[Lager]

Bonds and Pujols should cancel each other out and give the MVP to Eric Gagne.

Gagne for MVP and Cy Young.