It sounds like you're trying to educate me. That's not neccessary. You mean "necessary" http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif -- and you consistently use "than" when you should be using "then" The way I read your post, was that you were giving credit Weeks for his runs, and I see that as largely good luck for Weeks. Players who score a lot of runs do so because they get on base and because they hit in front of good hitters. Or they are fortunate. Rickie is providing value because he gets on base. He is 63rd in the NL in OBP, if you want to throw him a party for that -- have at it. I think he should be scoring more runs. Again, if you look at the people with similar OBPs, they have about half the runs that Weeks has -- I don't think it is because Weeks does anything better than those dudes, rather he is sitting in front some good hitters. It's hard to find players who score a lot of runs that aren't providing value. Agreed. I don't think Weeks is void of value, however he is not getting on base as well as he should, coupled with his poor D -- if he continues hitting at a .198 clip, he isn't long for the league. Saying that runs are a bad way to judge Weeks, when it his job to get on base so that he can score runs, just seems weird I believe that BA is a better judge of a players performance than runs or RBIs. That is to say -- I don't think you make a good argument against someone using BA when you present runs as an alternate data set.