baseball hall of fame inductions

You are much more intelligent than this.

Slugging percentage is the ability to drive in run-scoring opportunities.

On-base percentage is the ability to create them.

The Dodgers are No. 2 in creating those opportunities, and No. 16 in driving them in, and they are no. 7 in runs scored.

That sounds pretty much exactly right where they should be, doesn't it?

 

No they are not No. 16 in driving them in. Slugging percentage does not measure runs driven in.

Do you know how to calculate slugging percentage? Show me where runs driven in is part of that equation.

 

Slugging percentage has the highest historical and predictive correlation of any simple statistic with driving in runners.

 

Again, what part of slugging percentage calculation accounts for runs driven in?

And David Wright's numbers with RISP the last two years have not been close to the prior two years.

 

How do runs get driven in?

Hmm. So a perfectly ordinary player jumps randomly from being good at it to being bad at it. Almost as if hitting better or worse than normal in clutch situations was a random phenomenon? Nah, couldn't be, that'd be too easy.

Look, I specifically went out of my way to phrase earlier posts in a way that respected both the stathead and non-stathead ways of looking at the subject. I did this because there's no point in getting into a clutch hitting debate when two people have completely different standards of what constitutes good information about baseball. Let's not go down this pointless line, where I post endless stats and you post endless rebuttals and we both think we are proving the other wrong.

 

Runs get driven in by singles, ground outs, sac flys...a lot of ways.

Player A triples, Player B singles him in. Player A has higher slugging pct., Player B has more RBI.

Slugging percentage does not measure runs driven in.

 

Bases loaded, no outs. Batter hits into a 6-4-3 DP. A run is driven in, but no RBI is given. By the logic of the above post, I just proved that RBIs do not measure runs driven in. Over the long run, the variance due to timing (such as getting a single with a runner on third, or tripling with the bases empty) will even out.

I'll take the 25 players with the highest SLG percentage one season (with a qualifying number of plate appearances). You take the 25 players with the most RBIs. Historically, the next season, my players will have more RBIs than your players. Because driving in runs is about getting lots of total bases and timing, and timing is a fickle mistress.

Slugging percentage does not measure "runs driven in." It measures the player's ability to drive runs in.

 

One MVP, two runners-up.

Six Gold Gloves in right field.

438 HR, 314 SB

119 OPS+

Yes, he goes in, easily, compared to Rice

 

Also, re: IBB.

Brett was often followed in the order by the likes of Jorge Orta, Darryl Motley, Hal McRae and Frank White.... Just a MUCH easier decision to IBB him.

Murray? I would guess a switch-hitter will always get an IBB more often that a one-side-of-the-plate hitter with the same ability.

Also, putting runners on base at Fenway.... Don't know the actual stats, but it seemed like a very dangerous thing to do at that park. I think the Red Sox outscored the Royals, for instance, by more than 50 runs a season during those dozen years.

 

Buck, for the IBB stat to have any meaning, doesn't it have to be some kind of percentage?

Who had more potential IBB situations?

Rice had Remy & Burleson batting in front of him. Neither were speed daemons and the Red Sox were notorious for their lack of stolen base. Plus Hobson, who if batted ninth, was a base clogger if he got on.

So first base may not have been open too many times in big situations when Rice came to bat.

Brett had Wilson, who hit a ton of triples, and McRae, who was a doubles machine, in front of him. I'll bet first base was open a lot more times for him, making an IBB much more likely.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say RBIs is a bad staff. Without breaking it down as far as you did, every baseball fan understands that RBIs are in part contingent upon your teammates ability to get on base and your position in the batting order.

That's why no one gets on a leadoff hitter who doesn't drive in 100 runs and why Hobson knocking in 100 while batting ninth was so unusual.

By your logic, lot's of stats who have to be thrown out. If you played on a line with Wayne Gretzky, you scored a lot of goals. It doesn't mean goals is a bad stat.

 

I've been thinking about next year and the HOF voting. Alomar, Larkin are locks and a close third is Martinez. If Galarraga, who was one of the good guys in baseball, gets in, then McGriff comes in too.