Well, I’d just answer that by saying that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

The “Correlation does not imply causation” fallacy does not apply in my point, though. That fallacy argues that because A resembles B, A causes B. I am not arguing Runs Scored causes Runs Created. I am arguing Runs Scored correlates better to Runs Created than does OBP.

If we agree that the top list of Runs Scorerd more closely resembles the top list of Runs Created than does the top OBP list, and if we agree that Rund Created is an exemplary metric for determining a player’s value, doesn’t it stand to reason that Runs Scored is a better metric than OBP?

In other words, I’m not sure that scoring runs (other than by hitting home runs, which is why I suspect there is some correlation between thsoe lists) is necessarily due to some inherent skill that a player has, so much as it is a product of where in the order they hit.

The top OBP list has more “sluggers” on it than does the Runs Scored list, so I’m not sure the correlation is preceisely due to home runs hit. I’d argue that Runs Scored probably *does* measure (however obliquely) some inherent, repeatable skill a player has– namely getting on base *and* hitting for power.

just in the last minutes on KJR, from several different voices:

‘Vidro is getting on base, he’s scoring runs’

‘you want to leave Guillen in right, he has a cannon and Ibanez has been playing great in left field’

Balentien played in the Futures game. I don’t know if it is actually a rule, but from what I can recall from past years a guy plays in one or the other, not both.

In other words, I’m not sure that scoring runs (other than by hitting home runs, which is why I suspect there is some correlation between thsoe lists) is necessarily due to some inherent skill that a player has, so much as it is a product of where in the order they hit.

There is some player skill involved in getting oneself into scoring position, but I think that OBP works okay as a measure for that portion of it.

111: Runs scored is the most useless stat to value players. Would you rather have a guy with 1.000 OBP who rarely seemed to score over a 300 AB stretch or a guy who only got on .320 of the time but scored every time over the same time frame?

A pretty strong assertion to begin with, given that it is commonly accepted that runs scored is far more useful than, say, batting average or RBI. But the example you use to demonstrate your point is outrageous– the likelyhood that someone who got on base EVERY TIME for 300 plate appearances but “rarely seemed to score” has got to be very small.

In fact, a good argument could be made that runs scored is more valuable than OBP if we use the Runs Created metric to measure a player’s value. (Dave used this to estimate Ichiro’s worth in the previous thread. I’m getting my data from baseball-reference.com which uses (H+BB)*TB/(AB+BB) to calculate Runs Created).

Here is the list of who led MLB last year in OBP. (In parenthesis is where they ranked on the top 10 runs created list):
1. Helton (10)
2. Giambi
3. Pujols (2)
4. Giles
5. Rodriguez (3)
6. Lee (1)
7. Berkman
8. Hafner
9. Johnson
10. Abreu

And here’s the top 10 in runs in MLB last year (and where they ranked on the top 10 RC in MLB):

1. Pujols (2)
2. Rodriguez (3)
3. Jeter
4. Lee (1)
5. Ortiz (4)
6. Damon
7. Rollins
8. Young (8)
9. Figgins
10. Ramirez (9)
10. Teixeira (5)

There’s less variation between the Runs Scored/Runs Created list than the OBP/RC list. Now this is by no menas a throrough analysis, but I think it at least casts doubt on the two claims that 1. Runs scored is the most useless stat to value players, and 2. OBP is a better tool than runs scored to evaluate a given player’s skill.

As for Andriesen, you have to be kidding me. Yeah, like we couldn’t be playing well if Vidro’s impotent bat wasn’t in the line up and Raul’s clay of feet weren’t in LF (eyes rolling).

Ugh.

Apparently, we have no reason to call up AJ. According to the guy who wrote the Midterm Report for the AL West, regarding the Mariners:

“Gold stars:
Ichiro Suzuki; hitting 26 points above his career average. Jose Vidro; career National Leaguer has done a terrific job adapting to the new role of DH. J.J. Putz; not only perfect in 24 save opportunities, but has gone either multiple-innings or 1-2-3 ninths for most of them.”

I don’t need to point out which statement is insane.

I think putting him on the bench doesn’t take a great stretch. If they have better options for bench players, then DFA him. That’s not really a miracle, just good decision making.

I remember other times in the past when the Mariners had a lot of deadwood on the roster (more than the current team does!) and a new manager came in and got the team to make a lot of changes to improve the team through subtraction. Dick Williams was good at that (until he realized the team still sucked and he gave up and coasted the rest of the way). Bob Melvin was really bad at it, maybe because he wasn’t given the authority or maybe because he was too much of a good organization man.