Reds Survivor - Round 22

[Wally Mo Pena]

Runs Created has been proven as going back to actual Runs scored almost 100 percent of the time.

I'd like to see some sources on that claim. Do you mean team runs scored? Individual runs scored? That's not how stats like RC work. They are indicaors that don't translate directly to onfield performance.

[CincyRedsFan30]

"Runs Created conforms to the criteria that it makes sense, is not based on any teammate-dependent statistic, and accurately predicts the number of runs scored (95% correlation)".


http://64.21.65.46/rhoids2000/methodsHitting.htm

[CincyRedsFan30]

"Here's your chance.

In the majors in 2004, Runs Created was 97.3% accurate in predicting Runs Scored (23,376 actual runs scored vs 24,031.2 Runs Created)

The RC formula was slightly even more accurate when it comes to the Reds. 97.4% accurate (750 actual runs vs 770.1 Runs Created).

In other words, we can be over 97% sure that Adam Dunn created nearly 125 runs for the Reds in 2004, or approx 16% of the Reds total offense. He ranked 9th in the NL behind Bonds, Helton, Pujols, Abreu, Berkman, Beltre, Edmonds, and Drew.

That's with all the strikeouts, by the way. If he's going to create 125 runs a year, I don't care if he K's 200 times or hits .250".



http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...t=Runs+Created

[Fishercat]

Dunn's been the best player on the Reds and Harang the best pitcher.

I say Freel, barely. It's tough at this point.

[Fishercat]

One thing I've noticed through my couple years on the forums. CRF has turned from staunch traditionalist/BA Whore to a well-rounded stat man. When did this happen.

[CincyRedsFan30]

One thing I've noticed through my couple years on the forums. CRF has turned from staunch traditionalist/BA Whore to a well-rounded stat man. When did this happen.

Well, not exactly.

I just think it would be wise to look at things from all angles like any good writer should. I'm sick of all the critique some writers receive for not using the newer stats. and such, and I have decided to start using them more.

However, as I explained in a post in another thread, I'm not one to say: "Here are there career stats., so I 'loathe' this signing". Some players I just have faith in to have good years and the like. (Joe Randa comes to mind)

Basically, I don't mind using stats. to look at current situations, because they are what they are, but I am a bit less into them when it comes to predicting the future.

I still think there are some traditionalist ideas that are more accurate(such as team chemistry), but I'm just trying to give justice to Dunn, who, since last year, has turned into quite the player.

I would understand if some folks would have questioned him before last year(as I did myself), but he's gotten to the point where he does so much right that it cancels out any possible negative effects of no sac. flies, etc.

[CincyRedsFan30]

BTW, it seems to be a darned if ya do, darned if ya don't situation for me. I can use stats. and get critiqued by some and not use them and get critiqued by others. What really gets me is when I get critiqued for not using them in matters entirely of opinion.

I think some just like to argue with me for the sake of arguing(since when anyone else uses stats. or doesn't use them, no one starts critiquing them)

[missionhockey21]

I really don't know who to vote for. Freel has been an ideal leadoff man, extremely high OBP, great BA and his fair share of stolen bags (although his SB-CS ratio I am not thrilled with, some of that blame rests on Miley's shoulders.) I am giving the nod to FeLo though. I do agree with CRF that Freel could be among the top in the game in terms of leadoff men and in all honesty I can see either him or FeLo being voted off now and having it justified. My reasoning is while he has drawn 10 more walks and 9 less strikeouts, his play in some instances has hurt us. He has grounded into 5 DP's versus Lopez who has once. He is not the most effective baserunner as evident by his 13 SB's versus 6 CS. If you can not tell, I am really having a hard time finding other ways to justify this because both really are great players so I am digging a bit. I just think it's rarer and more valuable to find a SS with plus power (leads NL SS in OPS and SLG) versus a speedy infielder who can get on base consistently and draw a lot of pitches per AB. Although Freel is at the tops there in OBP for 2B. Really though, I am split. I could of posted the next hour that I would choose FeLo and keep Freel, that's how close it is.

We're lucky to have these two.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Excellent points mission. You justified your position well, even though it's a "too close to call" race. Very tough decision for sure.

[Fishercat]

BTW, if I told you guys in September that

A) FeLo and Harang would be the Final 4 in this game
and
B) Many would vote off Dunn over those two

Would I get banned.

[Slyder]

BTW, if I told you guys in September that

A) FeLo and Harang would be the Final 4 in this game
and
B) Many would vote off Dunn over those two

Would I get banned.

You got us all wrong youd get beaned wed never ban anyone for saying that.

I agree with what Mission said my vote this time is Freel.

[Wally Mo Pena]

"Here's your chance.

In the majors in 2004, Runs Created was 97.3% accurate in predicting Runs Scored (23,376 actual runs scored vs 24,031.2 Runs Created)

The RC formula was slightly even more accurate when it comes to the Reds. 97.4% accurate (750 actual runs vs 770.1 Runs Created).

In other words, we can be over 97% sure that Adam Dunn created nearly 125 runs for the Reds in 2004, or approx 16% of the Reds total offense. He ranked 9th in the NL behind Bonds, Helton, Pujols, Abreu, Berkman, Beltre, Edmonds, and Drew.

That's with all the strikeouts, by the way. If he's going to create 125 runs a year, I don't care if he K's 200 times or hits .250".

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...t=Runs+Created

What you posted still doesn't show anything. And i'm not critisizing you CRF (and i wish you would get some thicker skin so people didn't have to keep saying that) all i'm doing is pointing out an error in the logic. Coming up with a statistic that predicts the amount of total runs scored by a team, does not show criterion validity for a claim that dunn "created" a certain amount of runs, because "creating" runs doesn't actually exist in baseball.

In baseball you can bat runs in, or you can score runs, you can't "create" them. It's just an idea, a statistic generated to give an approximation of relative offense. The relationship between total runs scored and individual runs created is spurious. It's a fallacy, even if they got the statistic to correlate to 99.9% of total runs scored, it's still artificial. It can't have objetive validity because "created runs" are a made up concept with no measureable event in the game.

What if i said:

Wally's Runs Created (WRC) = stolen bases*10 - TB/100
for the 2004 reds that would give you 747.02 WRC and they scored 750 actual runs.

So for predicting the reds runs in 2004, WRC is better than RC (which predicted 770). using your argument that predicting total runs is what matters I'll apply WRC to adam dunn in 2004.

Dunn would have WRC = 6*10 - 323/100 = 56.7 WRC or 7.5% of the reds total offense.

See it doesn't work. I'll grant you that RC is much more sophisticated than that, but it's just an indicator. You can't say that it's 97% sure that dunn "created" those runs based on total team runs. With WRC i can say it's 99.6% sure that dunn "created" 56 runs based on the same argument.

[Witlon]

I'm voting off Lopez.

Freel's versatility and a touch more speed is the difference, even if he get's caught stealing too much.

[NFLman2033]

.... (and i wish you would get some thicker skin so people didn't have to keep saying that)....

Can I re-emphasize this point here

[bipster]

I vote Freel off