RBIs are overrated, part 1,475,382

Right, why the big deal? RBI's was the traditional way to pluralize it . Like WMD's and POW's.

But some people really get upset by it. I have no idea why.

 

I prefer "ribbies"

 

I'll stick with RBIs because that's the way I learned it 50-some years ago. And when you quote the players, managers and coaches, they say RBIs.

 

It's a conspiracy by the FBI and the CIA to discredit the IRA, who were secretly involved in the assassination of JFK (who, as we all know, was DOA in DFW). All of this, of course, is because Joe Dimaggio -- who was not a first-ballot HOFer despite finishing with 1,537 RBI -- was pissed that Kennedy was schtupping Marilyn Monroe (who, sadly, never lived to become a MILF).
OK?

 

I'm sorry, but any system that purports to turn Ryan Howard into a liability has some explaining to do, That's almost as bad as Bill James' Lemke-Ruth line.

 

I believe there is a huge assumption that a .320 hitter will hit the same .320 with RISP; hence just because someone hits .260 like Howard, they would have driven in the same amount of RBIs as Howard.

 

Ryan Howard is severely overrated, but he's not *that* overrated. He's not a liability.

I'm trying to think of the factors that would cause a player to be good at this stat:

1) Good teammates batting behind them.
2) High OBP (if there's a runner on second and no outs, giving your teammates three more chances rather than two is a big deal)
3) Hitting a lot of singles and doubles

Am I missing anything?

 

That is the safest assumption. Well, the safest assumption is that the .320 hitter will hit somewhere in a range of probability centered around .320 and becoming increasingly unlikely (but still possible) as you get further away.

 

These debates are why baseball sucks. Let's talk more about Ben Roethlisberger!

 

Low strikeout rate.

And welcome back!

 

I suspect he was never away

 

As long as I'm in your heart, I live on.