I guess this is a "moneyball" or "sabermetric" issue if you want to call it that but if the purpose of winning a game is to score more runs than other team & that RBI & runs scored are the two most simple measurement of this and how many runs a player helped produce, how come BA and HR continue to be viewed as the most imporant statistics about a player's offensive production? The "moneyball" theory first practiced by the Oakland A's has come a long way in changing GM's ideas about how to value players by recognizing categories like on base %, total bases, etc. & the importance of avoiding making an out at your plate appearance rather than necessarily whether you hit a HR or a single, I know HRs fill seats but I think players like Rickey Henderson who is in the top 3 career leaders in baseball in runs scored tend to be less revered in baseball history than a pure slugger with no speed. Do you agree that it _is_ this case that BA & HR are overemphasized and if so why is this?
2007-09-16
07:53:56
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Baseball