RBIs are overrated, part 1,475,382

Interesting chart here measures effectiveness by the percentage of runners on from the hitter's at-bat who eventually score.

I really like this stat a lot (first I've ever seen of it). It seems like it would appeal to both new-schoolers who think that RBIs are overrated because of the teammate effect, and also old-schoolers who like to see guys cut down their swing with two strikes, hit behind the runner, etc., etc.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/14054

 

It's RBI.

 

RsBI?

 

I love that the comments section evolved into an argument about "RBI" or "RBIs".

As for the stat itself, I've seen worse, but as ever, there's still a lot of paralysis-by-analysis going on there.

 

I always felt that Bonds, not Kent, was the MVP in 2000 because Kent had nearly double the RBI opportunities than Bonds since Bonds hit ahead of him that year.

 

"ArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrBI."

- Blackbeard

 

RBI are a useful stat. Who are the top 10 greatest hitters of all time? The list of the top 10 RBI men of all time more closely matches the list of great hitters than any other non-saber stat.

The top 10 RBIs has Aaron, Ruth, Bonds, Gehrig, Musial, Cobb, Foxx, Mays, and ARod. Murray's the only one who doesn't fit.

 

Nobody ever insists the abbreviations should be ABs, Rs, Hs, HRs, IPs, BBs, Ws, etc.

So why RBIs?

 

The article you linked to actually says that Ryan Howard costs his team runs in the long run. I'd like someone to explain that. He's going to end up with around 125 RBIs and 80 runs. Costing his team runs compared to what? Pujols?

 

It's like wins. Useful shorthand, particularly over a long career (i.e. larger sample size to smooth out aberrations).

 

Inspired.