sample size(?). if i just look at this season, i could make the argument that stolen bases HURT offensive production, seeing as philly and st. louis scored the same # of runs, but philly had a higher OPS (on the back of a higher OBP - hteir SLG was nearly identical). in fact, walks and stolen bases aside, their offensive stats all looked eerily similar. yet we'v come to believe that OPS is the best correlator to runs. (and if not then OBP should be weighted heigher). so something MUST be dragging down philly's offense, no? gotta be the extra stolen bases! or maybe fewer GIDPs...? of course, then, what must boost the mets' offense? unless, of course, its random variation, and the overall correlation holds, but is masked by the random variation of a small sample size, and the contribution of other independent variables... (clutch/timely hitting? lineup construction? poor baserunning? conservative 3rd base coaching? who knows...) all other things being equal, the team that steals more bases and steals more efficiently, should score more runs than a team that does everything else the same, but steals less, and less efficiently.