Roger Weber's Sports Library | Ballparks and stadia | Baseball On Paper | Football | Libraries
Studying individual accomplishments
 
 
Whether it's setting a home record or simply batting for a high average, there are a number of surprises that come up in studying those events.
   A player's final statistics might not actually be equal to his average production for the team.
 
   Steroids aren't the only bias in baseball history, and not the only bias to affect the much debated single season home run record.
 
  A few that work, that correlate with team wins, and that really tell a lot about a player
 
   It's a good one, but some others correlate well.
 
   26 year old players might not actually be such youngsters
 
   In the final analysis, those variables don't really matter
 
   How good was the competition 100 years ago? How might Ruth do today?
 
   Is closer a rediculous position? I lay out an argument here.
 
   Wins might not actually be such a great stat for pitchers
 
   They're interesting to count, but perhaps don't mean much
 
   It's a bad strategy from the start
 
   Hitting plays a big role, but most of us knew that.
 
   Whether or not clutch hitting can happen, RISP doesn't measure it well.
 
   Bad routes are often the cause of acrobatic defense.
 
   Turns out, there's not a big difference.
 
   One game doesn't tell us much of anything in baseball.
 
   Which statistics tell the most about a player's ability to do what?
 
   Of the major pitching statistics, which ones match up best with the others?
 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Search SportsLibrary.net: