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?