What are your thoughts about measuring baserunning effectiveness by dividing the number of runs scored by the number of bases the runner has to go to reach home? In other words, (Runs - HR)/(3B + 2 * 2B + 3 * (1B + BB + HB))?

Aside from the usual problems in evaluating runs--they are a team stat, very context dependent, etc.--do you see any specific problems of bias or other foolishness that a sufficiently large sample size wouldn't take care of?

Of course with play by play data you can do much better, but it's not always available. As a quick and dirty stat does it measure something of value?

I got the idea from csh's observation that Rickey Henderson had a very low proportion of doubles and triples, which I attributed to an approach to baserunning. I was interested to see whether his advancement after reaching base was similar or compensatory and this seemed like one way to get at it.

Thanks for any input.

Aside from the usual problems in evaluating runs--they are a team stat, very context dependent, etc.--do you see any specific problems of bias or other foolishness that a sufficiently large sample size wouldn't take care of?

Of course with play by play data you can do much better, but it's not always available. As a quick and dirty stat does it measure something of value?

I got the idea from csh's observation that Rickey Henderson had a very low proportion of doubles and triples, which I attributed to an approach to baserunning. I was interested to see whether his advancement after reaching base was similar or compensatory and this seemed like one way to get at it.

Thanks for any input.

## Comment