RBIs are overrated, part 1,475,382

[Dick Whitman]

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

 

[YGBFKM]

It's RBI.

 

[vicd]

RsBI?

 

[Bubbler]

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.

 

[Moderator1]

RBI
Runs
Batted
In

Not runs batted ins

 

[qtlaw]

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.

 

[Azrael]

"ArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrBI."

- Blackbeard

 

[MankyJimy]

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

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.

 

[BTExpress]

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

So why RBIs?

 

[MankyJimy]

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

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?

 

[Dick Whitman]

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

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.

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

 

[doubledown68]

"ArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrBI."

- Blackbeard

Inspired.

 

[Mr. Sluggo]

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

So why RBIs?

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.

 

[vicd]

I prefer "ribbies"

 

[SoCalDude]

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.

 

[Batman]

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

So why RBIs?

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.

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?

 

[dooley_womack1]

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.

 

[qtlaw]

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.

 

[RickStain]

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?

 

[RickStain]

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.

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.