Sorry but I find this a little bit ridiculous.
First of all you hand pick a tiny sample size - for example NL right fielders.
davidmarver wrote:KT first signed Giles. Entering today, Giles leads all NL RFers in Runs Created, RC/G, Win Shares, Walks, and BB/K ratio.
Not just NLers, but NL RFers - why didn't you just narrow it down to NL RFers playing in SD?
Mookie...I really don't think you understand the concept of comparison. If you looked at Derek Jeter's career statistic and asked the question 'does he deserve to be in the HOF', but you couldn't use the fact he was a SS, then the answer would be a resounding no, he doesn't. Obviously, though, you compare Jeter's statistics to other shortstops to get a better scope of how good he is. I compare Brian Giles to other RFers because that's the pool of guys our GM has to choose from to be our RFer. Yes, he could
put a LFer in right, like Bay, who has created over 30 less runs over the past three seasons while playing in a much better hitting park, but he would lose the defense that Giles brings playing in a huge Petco RF area, as well as the arm Giles has. So, yes it is necessary to restrict our data to RFers. I restricted it further to NL RFers to show you that he is currently #1 of 16 in the NL at that position.
The you take the most esoteric stats - such as RC/G. Runs created per game. But not really per game b/c, as a smart person has explained to me, it really has nothing to do with games. It is runs created per 27 outs that this person records. So this has nothing to do with an actual MLB game or per 9 innings but runs created per 27 outs attributed to this player.
Well, it actually does have something to do with games, as in that is how many runs a team full of X players would score in a game. If I'm not mistaking, that COMPLETELY removes the team element from his runs created total, because, in order for Roberts to be able to compile more runs created, they have to give him more at bats, making runs created slightly more team oriented than its cousin RC/G. So instead of having the fact that the NL teams have pitchers hit, resulting in less plate appearances for Roberts, it instead projects Roberts statistics out for if there were nine Dave Roberts' on the field.
Now what are "runs created"? Well that's not defined. At least no standard definition. "Runs created" is whatever THT or whatever source best suits Marver says it is. That's because it's different things for different people.
Mookie, do you honestly have nothing better to do than point fingers at me saying that Roberts is only ahead because I'm picking and choosing my sources? You find me a more accurate formula of runs created to use -- I showed above that the THT formula is more accurate than the ESPN formula, but you seem to have glanced over that -- and I will do so, but seeing as you have little knowledge on the runs created category -- which I have explained to miner loosely in this thread, but you have seemingly glanced over -- I suggest you first examine what exactly the category is before you rant about me using THT instead of ESPN.
David Marver wrote:- Prior to '05 he traded Jay Payton for Dave Roberts. Roberts is currently the third best LFer, behind Manny, Bonds, and Ethier for RC/G.
But according to ESPN Roberts has a RC/27 of 6.91 which would place him 15th (amongst left fielders), if he qualified, which he doesn't b/c he doesn't have the requisite ABs per game.
So we have variously chosen sample groups, esoteric stats with hand picked definitions to lead to the desired conclusion. Some of the worst uses of stats that I have seen.
Again, who is the one picking and choosing stats? You're using a LESS ACCURATE FORMULA! Why in the world would I use ESPNs formula when there is a better, more accurate formula readily available to use? And the fact still remains, that even if you used ESPNs formula for RC/27, that Roberts is STILL in front of Jay Payton, the man whom he was traded for. So, regardless of whether you use the better formula, the point of the statistic still holds true; the Padres got hte better end of the deal when we acquired Dave ROberts for Jay Payton.
By the way, if you checked out the screenshots I posted earlier in this thread, it has Roberts as third on the THT count.
Stuff like this is not going to "prove" whether KT is a good GM or not. Results count. You get a pass if the deck is stacked against you (eg you play in the AL east and you are not the Sox or Yankees, your owner meddles, devastating injuries etc.) but eventually it is results that determine whether a GM is good or not, ridiculous made up "stats" do not.
Ridiculous made up stat. Ehh Mookie? The fact that you write off the statistic simply because you don't know anything about it -- and don't take the initiative to read my previous posts in this various thread showing you that THT is more accurate than ESPN and how runs created works -- really shows your stubborness.
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination. (Andrew Lang)
What's that supposed to do? Prove that KT isn't a good GM -- even though in 2006 he's gotten Adrian Gonzalez and Chris Young for Adam Eaton and Aki, got Josh Bard and Cla Meredith for Mark Loretta while allowing Josh Barfield (who has posted better #s) to come up and play second base also allowing the Padres to have salary room to resign the NL league leader in saves, Trevor Hoffman, while letting Ramon Hernandez walk while the trio of Rob Bowen, Josh Bard, and Mike Piazza ripped his statistics to shreds, all while Mike Cameron had a superior offensive and defensive season than Xavier Nady -- even when you haven't presented anything to warrant differently rather than calling one of the most accurate statistics in all of baseball ridiculous.
"Blame Canada" - South Park