The Most Important Baseball Stat?

[ChaseB]

Re: The Most Important Baseball Stat?

OS needs to recruit this guy.

Because Tim McCarver is such an important piece of FOX baseball broadcasts?

[catcatch22]

Re: The Most Important Baseball Stat?

When I meant informative I meant the NASCAR article.

[SportsTop]

Re: The Most Important Baseball Stat?

As for the article, I'm not really sure what the point of it is. Pretty much everything stated is common baseball knowledge. The casual fan will learn more from the posts in this thread than from the original piece.

Maybe the point of the article...to generate discussion. It's worked in my opinion.

Hey man--I READ the article. If you READ my post, you would see that. I understand the "point" of the article was to discuss which stat was best. However, as I said in my post there is not just ONE stat. Any person who knows baseball at all, knows that. Heck even Bill James says that. I closed my post with a quick little ONE line freakin statement saying that wins are the bottom line. Like Jackets said, there are many paths to get there.

Read my entire post, you know about bullpens and Adam Dunn before you comment on the last freakin sentence and make it look like I don't know what I am talking about...Thanks for representing OS.

Defensive much? I never stated you didn't read the article. That statement was more of a generalization. I quoted your post to respond to your opinion on Sully's statement (which he ended up saying was a joke).

The article never stated there was just one statistic to best evaluate players. Rather, it's goal was to argue whether or not one statistic was best. You can agree or disagree.

I was, however, happy to see you took the mature route and called out me representing OS based off a simple difference of opinion.

I expected a little more from a former mod.

[Gary Armida]

Re: The Most Important Baseball Stat?

It was hardly the best. In fact, I'd say it was the most irrelevant in relation to the actual article.

If you read the article it's about what statistical method is best for assessing player's statistics, and not team wins. Players statistics matter because no team will consistently win with nine Micky Morandini's on their roster.

Defensive much? I never stated you didn't read the article. That statement was more of a generalization. I quoted your post to respond to your opinion on Sully's statement (which he ended up saying was a joke).

The article never stated there was just one statistic to best evaluate players. Rather, it's goal was to argue whether or not one statistic was best. You can agree or disagree.

I was, however, happy to see you took the mature route and called out me representing OS based off a simple difference of opinion.

I expected a little more from a former mod.

Well, I was just reading what your wrote, that's all. If you didn't mean that I never read it, by saying "if you read the entire article", then that's my fault. I guess we're even with the "former mod" comment"

Not defensive here, and, in the end, no big deal. Like I said, I'll keep my comments on the main content to myself. Like I said, you responded to the last sentence instead of the content of my post, but that's ok man. It's all good from this former mod, lol.

[CMH]

One would think that a lead-off walk would lead to more runs than a lead-off home-run, but it’s not true. We’ve researched it and this year a lead-off home-run has led to more multi-run innings than have lead-off walks.

Wow, Tim McCarver, did someone actually need to research that? It's painfully obvious.