Joek,

[bwitty24]

Sometimes insurance runs from grand slams can get the other team out of the game...a team losing by one run has a better chance than a team losing by 5 and a team losing by 4 has a better chance than a team winning by 9 so grand slams can be important if you are already up by lets say four runs.

[joek]

The scenarios you have described are totally accurate and I can accept your thinking. However when certain players have a propensity for delivering mainly in non game determining situations while normally failing when it counts, that goes a long way indetermining the true value of the oversized stat player.

For one second look at my senario..used only to prove a point. You play 162 game season. You win 100 games by ONE run for a +100 run total. You lose 62 games by TWO runs for a -124 run total. All 162 games you score 24 less runs than you have given up. How do you think, (if you do not know the record of the team before hand) you would think the team did if you saw they scored less runs than they gave up during the season? At best maybe a .500 team? Stats are not a good way to judge teams or players because stats are only the events of the games. There are so many variables that determine stats, thus making them to a great degree, invalid. WINS are why the games is played and winning ALWAYS determines the best players. And when you get the best players, you get the best team in the end.

[joek]

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong in hitting a grand slam late in a game when you are up by a couple of runs. But the grand slam when you are leading by 6,7,8,9,10 runs becomes very meaningless. But the walk, sac bunt, and then the games winning single in a tie game are game determining feats, while not very enhancing to a players stats. The WIN is what matters. The best players win.