The end of RBIs?

Yes, Mark, I'm fucking stupid. Maybe one day I'll be as smart as you.

 

Dick, if a guy gets enough RBIs, it tells me that he's doing his job day after day getting runs home. Maybe that's not a fancy formula, but it's an important part of the game.

 

It's useful shorthand. I would never base, for example, a free agent signing or a trade on RBI's. There is a reason you never see RBI's in Baseball America.

 

I have no idea if you are or are not. The argument you have posited on this thread: Runs win games, therefore RBI is the most important stat -- is demonstrably stupid. Proveaby, too.

 

It's useful shorthand to the large majority of fans out there. That alone makes it important. You can certainly toss it out if you don't like it. I don't think most people who enjoy the game want it tossed out, however. And I'm staring at my Baseball America college issue. In their preview on the Top 25 teams, every starting lineup is listed with BA/OBP/SLG along with HR/RBI/SB.

 

Team previews.

 

A few years ago people were high on Jeff Francoeur because he was a great RBI guy.

So yeah. I think we're done here.

 

It's a team game, Dick.

And Francoeur's stock dropped when he quit driving in runs. Of course, he pretty much quit doing a lot of things.

Also never said it was the single most important stat. Just said it shouldn't be totally discarded because some have decided it's irrelevant.

 

Kind of.

 

Didn't really want to get involved, but I'll say this:

Comparing players based on their RBI totals will not tell you who the better batter is. When paired with RBI opportunities, though, RBI can be a very useful statistic, even when comparing players on different teams.

 

Mickey Mantle had 4 100-RBI seasons. Joe Carter had 10.

That's all I got.

 

Saberheads will never get that clutch hitting wins games, not Moneyball stats.