JRoth: Anyway, I just wanted to suggest that the fielding shouldn't be folded in - it's implicit in the ERA, isn't it? If he's a lousy fielder, then that presumably translates into some additional runs.

But not necessarily earned runs.

What might be useful is an adjusted ERA that treats runs scored due to pitcher errors as earned. I actually used to think that's how ERA worked, but apparently it doesn't. Same deal with wild pitches - runs that score because of them belong on the ERA.

Runs that score on wild pitches are earned. Runs that score on passed balls aren't. I agree fielding should be folded in.

Nate: Would you judge a position player's ability based on just over two years' batting stats? If you would, I've got a ton of can't-miss prospects to trade you for a superstar.

I wouldn't judge his ability, necessarily, but I don't see anything wrong with judging those two years. No one says, "Well, you really can't judge Adrian Beltre's 2005 season, because he only had 650 plate appearances."

You rate what happened, with all attendant caveats about its predictive value.

thatguy515: I've always thought that the most important offensive stat would be total run production: Runs scored + RBIs - Home Runs (so they're not counted twice) ...Am I missing something?

Yes. As someone else pointed out, two of those stats, runs and RBIs, are reliant on teammates. If you hit a double every single time up, and the guys behind you always make outs, you'll score no runs. Does that mean you're a lousy run producer, with your 3.000 OPS? Runs created and other, similar stats attempt to separate one player's contributions from those of his teammates. A double is a double. It's not your fault if the guys in front of you weren't on base and the guys behind you don't knock you in.

The NBA is tragically undercovered in the media. Here's a helpful link for those searching in vain:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=nba&btnG=Search+News

Rick Paulus: Love the idea, but I think the Sac Bunt stat is far more important than you may think.

They might not, over the course of an entire season, lead to a lot of runs, but that's not the pitcher's fault. If the bunt is successful, he's putting a runner in scoring position; it's the following player's job to pick him up.

But he's trading an out to put a runner in scoring position. Just because he's doing what the manager asked him to do doesn't mean he's creating runs. I don't have the old Pete Palmer linear weights table handy, but I think the average value of a sacrifice hit is roughly 0 runs. It might even be negative. What the pitcher's really doing is mitigating damage. He still makes the out, but at least he moves the runner along. Andy Pettitte was the league leader in SH's last year among pitchers with 15, so even if a sacrifice hit is worth some fraction of a run, we're not talking about many events.

Paul: A pitcher already has to be in majors -- and then only the National League -- before they can be judged by ... as a hitter.

At Triple-A anyway (not sure about other levels and too lazy to look it up at the moment, but I'll come back and do so later if I get a chance), when two N.L. affiliates meet, the pitchers bat. See Sunday's game between the Nationals' and Cardinals' top farm clubs: http://tinyurl.com/kr52o

jackburden: why goalies don't grow up to be punters: Why would they? If a goalie is good enough to play in the World Cup, they are also probably good enough to play in Europe or Latin America in one of the professional leagues.

Jack (and gttim), doesn't that also apply to the soccer players who become field-goal kickers? Maybe there are goalies out there who aren't great goalies, but can really boot that thing out of there. Maybe there are some who just want to live in the U.S. It's a big world.

limedzez The US plays the floppers on Saturday, not Wednesday.

Whoops. Yeah. That'd be a pretty short turnaround, wouldn't it. Thanks for the catch. Fixing that.