So while the Yanks aren't the worst, they're toward the bottom. And the Sox are the best in the league (which is certainly how it FEELS, rooting against them).

(Not trying to go all baseball prospectus on this site or anything -- just thinking in the comments.)

It's a pretty concise measure of offensive efficiency but I haven't run the numbers for this season. It's pretty time consuming but an interesting exercise. In general teams that hit lots of HR's tend to have much lower BPR. Nothing shocking there but it validates the notion that offenses like the Sox and Yankees, are approaching the game sensibly.

As a Sox fan, I can tell you that it certainly doesn't feel like they lead the league in scoring efficiency (especially lately). It just goes to show you how perception and reality can differ so much.

If I'm understanding you correctly, by including CS and GIDP, you correct for teams who might have an artificially high efficiency because they have left fewer runners on base by running or grounding into more outs. I'm thinking of the White Sox and the Angels (tied for 9th in AL in runs, 691), second and fourth-worst in the AL, respectively, in CS + GIDP, but higher in efficiency than the Yanks (yet 3rd in runs, 3rd lowest number of outs via CS + GIDP).

Is there going to be a test, because if so, can I cheat off one of you guys?

I have a headache.

I feel like a more well rounded baseball fan, and I thank you Alex, Andrew and Schteeve, but I have a headache nonetheless.

If I had the reached on error, the better number would be this:
Total Baserunners = H-HR+BB+HBP+Reached on Error.

Efficiency would be (R-HR)/Total Baserunners. I think this would be a better number and would account for things like running into outs and grounding into double plays. (Thus, it would include Dale Sveum in the equation, KJC.)

Purely looking at BPR in a vacuum certainly discouts OBP, so you really have to look at any it, or any measure of scoring efficiency in context of total runs scored or runs per game.

//For a team that lives on statistics, am I the only one that looks at Mike Timlin's record with inherited runners. He is great where he starts an inning, but bring him in with men on base and you might as well count the men on base as runs after which he proceeds to get the side retired.
James, Shreveport, La.

A: James, we've noted it numerous times in the paper this season, and I'll gladly update the numbers now for you. Timlin has stranded just 14 of 31 runners this season, a success rate of 45.2 percent, the worst in the AL. I suspect you'd be surprised to learn that Tom Gordon of the Yanks is second worst. It is an important barometer of a reliever's effectiveness, and underscores the fact that Timlin is much better when he can start an inning than when he enters with men on. //

Yikes.

I would, however, be interested in a stat which told me how often a team scores the runs which they hypotheticially, should score.

For example, leadoff walk, leadoff base hit, runner on second less than two outs, runners on either second or third, or both, and less than two outs. This, to me, would be both a measure of efficiency and more importantly, solid productive play.

Something has to account for the two out base hit, which you would of course love to score, but likely will not.

I think we can all agree, well at least I can, that two-out hits contribute more than anything else to a teams ability to win consistently, which to my untrained mathematical eye has hampered the Yanks this season.

I am sure I have made my voracious "less than love affair" with stats quite clear in the past, but am willing to accept their importance to a degree.

Ok then, who's got the numbers for my "should score" problem? I was a Poli Sci major, I'm not qualified to crunch numbers, as I said before, headache, but I will gladly discuss comparaitive politics of developing nations with you:) I'm sure I can relate that to baseball somehow.

Hubba Bubba & Bubbalicious lead off the YES broadcast.