2012 Rafael Furcal

80 / 317 atbats = 25.2%

"Why would you minus home runs? "

Because if a guy hits a solo homerun, how many runs score? One, but he is given a run and a RBI. Why should he get credit for scoring 2 runs when he only actually scored one?

Obviously Vitters will be worse defensively, but I would think he would atleast be better offensively. The only thing I would like to see Vitters do a little better is draw walks, but he doesn't seem like that kind of hitter, which is probably why Baez or Candelario will eventually replace him along with his less than steller defense.

I already explained earlier in the thread though why it is wrong to subtract homeruns:

* Player A is on second base. Player B doubles and drives him in. Player A is credited with +1 (run), while Player B is credited with +1 (RBI). That is two points created in your system for one run.

* Player A hits a homerun. Player A is credited with +1 (run) and +1 (RBI). The two points go to player A because he both drove himself in and scored the run.

You are correct you shouldnt subtract homeruns

Now go back and add the homeruns that were subtracted and you have runs created.

"* Player A is on second base. Player B doubles and drives him in. Player A is credited with +1 (run), while Player B is credited with +1 (RBI). That is two points created in your system for one run."

Not it isn't. If you were looking at it in terms of a team then yes, but he brought it down to individual players. The idea is looking at an individual player and saying if he contributed to scoring a run, both of those players contributed to scoring 1 run. Which if you look at it, the formula would say. Now if a player hits a homerun, if you keep homeruns then you saying he contributed to 2 runs scored which isn't the case.

for the record, I'm not saying if this is a good or bad way to judge a player, just explaining the logic of not using homeruns which if you were to do a formula like this, I would agree. Although I will say it isn't the best form of evaluation

Well, if you want to break it down like that, then a run and an RBI should each be be worth 1/2 a point instead of 1 point. You can't score a run without someone hitting you in (stealing home or errors notwithstanding) -- you can't get an RBI without someone else scoring ahead of you.

It then just comes down to a matter of semantics -- 1/2 pt for a run, 1/2 point for an RBI = 1 run.

A homerun = 1/2 pt for a run + 1/2 pt for an RBI = 1 run.

I guess the core issue is that unless you hit a home run, you can't really "create" a full run on your own unless you steal home. But that just opens a whole other can of worms which further illustrates why the whole runs+RBIs concept as an indicator of actual runs created and value of a player is flawed.

It sounds weird but looking at it that way i think you are correct

Again no.

Think of it as the number of runs a player contributes to. If a player scores a run he contributes to 1 run, if he gets an RBI he contributes to 1 run, if he hits a solo homerun he contributes to 1 run. But if you don't take away the homeruns you are saying he contributed to 2 runs which would be false.

Like I said, I don't think it is a good way to evaluate a player, but if you are going to use a formula like this then taking away homeruns is the right thing to do

Isn't this a pretty old debate?

He may be taking more pitches, but his hitting has really slipped. He has not looked good lately. Think he needs a day off. Also striking out a lot more this year

My life WAR is 6.4

AB with RISP

Castro - 93
LaHair - 54
Soriano - 72

average with RISP

Castro .290
LaHair .164
Soriano .236

that plays a bigger factor

Soriano must be in a slump lately with RISP. I thought just a few weeks ago he was hitting near .300 with RISP.

I know, I was surprised when I looked up the stats, his RISP had been around .290 all season