PDA

View Full Version : No AL player has ever had 30 homers and 50 steals in the same season.



Pages : [1] 2

The SF Giant
10-03-2012, 04:41 AM
Mike Trout is currently at 30-49.

Isn't 30-50 more impressive than the triple crown? Only two players have ever done it, none in the AL.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 04:48 AM
I actually thought Canseco did this but he put up a 40/40 season. I think it's more impressive than the triple crown considering RBI are about as meaningless a stat as you can get.

ahoda
10-03-2012, 06:28 AM
lol

RBIs are more important then SBs.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 06:33 AM
lol

RBIs are more important then SBs.

No, no they are not. Foolish.

ahoda
10-03-2012, 06:35 AM
How so? SB get you in position to score in hopes that someone knocks you in. RBIs actually put runs on the board that puts your team in position to win the game.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 06:37 AM
How so? SB get you in position to score in hopes that someone knocks you in. RBIs actually put runs on the board that puts your team in position to win the game.

RBI is a statistic that is based purely on opportunity, it gives no indication of how good a hitter actually is.

ahoda
10-03-2012, 06:40 AM
But SB don't put runs on the board as RBIs do. You can have 6 SBs in a game and still lose 1-0 but you get 1 RBI and you can win 1-0. Just doesn't make sense why anyone would think SBs are more important.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 06:49 AM
But SB don't put runs on the board as RBIs do. You can have 6 SBs in a game and still lose 1-0 but you get 1 RBI and you can win 1-0. Just doesn't make sense why anyone would think SBs are more important.
I'm trying to tell you it's a useless stat that doesn't give any indication of the actual hitters ability. The better hitters are generally given more RBI chances because they're the teams best hitters but it's still certainly not any indicator of how good the hitter actually is. If player X is given 500 opportunities with men in scoring position and player Y is given 300 chances, who's going to drive in more runs? almost certainly player X but it doesn't tell the whole story. Player X drives those runners in at a lower percentage than player Y. Does this mean he's the better hitter? of course not, he's just being given more opportunity to rack up the RBI's. SB's, assuming the percentage is high like Trouts certainly is, is more valuable.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 06:57 AM
maybe stolen bases and rbi's are different stats, sb or more like doubles,

player A)50sb
player B)50db

which one did a better job of getting into scoring position?

RBI is a different stat.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 07:00 AM
maybe stolen bases and rbi's are different stats, sb or more like doubles,

player A)50sb
player B)50db

which one did a better job of getting into scoring position?

RBI is a different stat.

You can't use this comparison, it just doesn't work.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 07:05 AM
Mike Trout is currently at 30-49.

Isn't 30-50 more impressive than the triple crown? Only two players have ever done it, none in the AL.


I'm trying to tell you it's a useless stat that doesn't give any indication of the actual hitters ability. The better hitters are generally given more RBI chances because they're the teams best hitters but it's still certainly not any indicator of how good the hitter actually is. If player X is given 500 opportunities with men in scoring position and player Y is given 300 chances, who's going to drive in more runs? almost certainly player X but it doesn't tell the whole story. Player X drives those runners in at a lower percentage than player Y. Does this mean he's the better hitter? of course not, he's just being given more opportunity to rack up the RBI's. SB's, assuming the percentage is high like Trouts certainly is, is more valuable.

And stolen bases is a perfect a attempt to give away free outs, when looking at SB you need to look at the net, just because player B has 50 stolen bases doesn't make up for the 40 times he is caught,

As far as trout is concerned he hasn't gotten 50 stolen bases yet, just like miggy hasn't gotten the Triple Crown yet.


BTW the reason this hasn't been done is because Rickey fell short of 2 home runs twice.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 07:09 AM
You can't use this comparison, it just doesn't work.

your comparing rbi's and stolen bases but mine doesn't work.

Player A)50 doubles 25 stolen bases
Player B)25 doubles 50 stolen bases

same home runs same triple slash

who did a better job getting into scoring potions

Halladay
10-03-2012, 07:17 AM
And stolen bases is a perfect a attempt to give away free outs, when looking at SB you need to look at the net, just because player B has 50 stolen bases doesn't make up for the 40 times he is caught,

As far as trout is concerned he hasn't gotten 50 stolen bases yet, just like miggy hasn't gotten the Triple Crown yet.


BTW the reason this hasn't been done is because Rickey fell short of 2 home runs twice.

Uhhh? I just told you, assuming the percentage is high i.e efficiency. Trout's been nearly perfect on the basepaths, as I pointed out. I'm not sure what your argument even is here. You're talking about the hypothetical player being caught 40 times on 90 attempts, which would never happen. The fact is there are tons of examples of RBI's not indicating anything more than opportunity presented by the manager and nothing more. As the example I gave before suggests, opportunity and nothing more. The guy hitting fifth in the lineup is almost certainly guaranteed to get more RBI chances than the guy hitting 9th and it has nothing to do with the guy hitting 9th being an inferior hitter. I can't judge your SB vs doubles example because you haven't given me any information to make a fair assessment. Like I said, your hypothetical simply doesn't work.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 07:22 AM
your comparing rbi's and stolen bases but mine doesn't work.

Player A)50 doubles 25 stolen bases
Player B)25 doubles 50 stolen bases

same home runs same triple slash

who did a better job getting into scoring potions

I didn't compare RBI's and stolen bases, I merely attempted to say that RBI's are useless therefore, stolen bases wins by default. And again, I can't assess your hypothetical comparison because not enough information is given. Doubles and stolen bases aren't useless, RBI's are.

ichitownclowni
10-03-2012, 07:24 AM
Mike Trout is currently at 30-49.

Isn't 30-50 more impressive than the triple crown? Only two players have ever done it, none in the AL.

Absolutely not

ahoda
10-03-2012, 07:25 AM
I'm trying to tell you it's a useless stat that doesn't give any indication of the actual hitters ability. The better hitters are generally given more RBI chances because they're the teams best hitters but it's still certainly not any indicator of how good the hitter actually is. If player X is given 500 opportunities with men in scoring position and player Y is given 300 chances, who's going to drive in more runs? almost certainly player X but it doesn't tell the whole story. Player X drives those runners in at a lower percentage than player Y. Does this mean he's the better hitter? of course not, he's just being given more opportunity to rack up the RBI's. SB's, assuming the percentage is high like Trouts certainly is, is more valuable.


That is ignorant though. Just because you can steal bases doesn't mean you are a good hitter. Scott Posednik, Juan Piere, and Quinton Berry can steal bases but are terrible hitters. If RBIs are irrelevant then SBs are irrelevant.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 07:33 AM
I didn't compare RBI's and stolen bases, I merely attempted to say that RBI's are useless therefore, stolen bases wins by default. And again, I can't assess your hypothetical comparison because not enough information is given. Doubles and stolen bases aren't useless, RBI's are.

stolen bases are an unnecessary risk. most guys don't have a good enough ratio that they should do it.

also, if trout was leading or close to the lead in rbi's we wouldn't be having this discusion lol. I have said this before and i will say it again, trouts biggest accomplishment is getting saber heads to acknowledged batting average again. lol

btw 30/50 has been done by Eric Davis and Barry Bonds. So it's that unique.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 07:34 AM
trouts biggest accomplishment is getting saber heads to acknowledged batting average again. lol

Sorry doesn't do anything for me.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 07:37 AM
And stolen bases is a perfect a attempt to give away free outs, when looking at SB you need to look at the net, just because player B has 50 stolen bases doesn't make up for the 40 times he is caught,


For sure. But in Trouts case we have a SB of 49 and a CS of 4. Even in the most offensive year in MLB history there is no way to argue that isn't a fantastic ratio and will certainly generate + net runs for his team.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 07:38 AM
That is ignorant though. Just because you can steal bases doesn't mean you are a good hitter. Scott Posednik, Juan Piere, and Quinton Berry can steal bases but are terrible hitters. If RBIs are irrelevant then SBs are irrelevant.

How is that ignorant at all? What's ignorant is that you assume that I'm saying because a player can steal bases it means he's a good hitter, which I never said whatsoever. Show me where I said that. RBIs aren't useful, SB's are. SB's do not indicate at all whether a guy can hit and again, I never said that. What they do tell me is that the runner can get into scoring position easily and nothing more. RBI doesn't tell me anything. It just says oppurtunity, and doesn't give me any indication of percentage or efficiency. If a guy steals 50 bases then he's most certainly doing this at a high rate. If a guy puts up high RBI totals I have nothing to base this on. I have to dig through statistics to find out whether that particular player should even be given those opportunities in the first place.

ahoda
10-03-2012, 07:42 AM
Ok. I don't agree with your logic at all. It doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to argue with you, but more try to understand your personal way of thinking. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Both SB and RBIs are stats and recorded for a reason. I personally don't think either are that important but neither one is not irrelevant.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 07:43 AM
stolen bases are an unnecessary risk. most guys don't have a good enough ratio that they should do it.

also, if trout was leading or close to the lead in rbi's we wouldn't be having this discusion lol. I have said this before and i will say it again, trouts biggest accomplishment is getting saber heads to acknowledged batting average again. lol

btw 30/50 has been done by Eric Davis and Barry Bonds. So it's that unique.

Trout rarely gets caught. It's a calculated risk that he gets into scoring position almost every single time. And no...Trouts biggest accomplishment is being just out of high school and deserving an MVP title.

rapjuicer06
10-03-2012, 07:46 AM
I personally think RBI's are worth more than some do, but it's all based on opportunity. Hence the word RBI guys, like Pujols and those guys...They hit runners in, but they can't hit runners in if no one is on. RBI is a stat that is based completely on other players than the actual player hitting them in. Same as runs scored. But you don't see runs scored as big of a deal as RBI's for some reason. Doesn't make sense to me

Halladay
10-03-2012, 07:55 AM
Ok. I don't agree with your logic at all. It doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to argue with you, but more try to understand your personal way of thinking. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Both SB and RBIs are stats and recorded for a reason. I personally don't think either are that important but neither one is not irrelevant.

It makes perfect sense. I tried to prove to you how useless RBI are. They've been recorded for a century, so have a pitchers win-loss record, which is utterly useless. Just because it's recorded doesn't mean it's worth anything.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 07:55 AM
Trout rarely gets caught. It's a calculated risk that he gets into scoring position almost every single time. And no...Trouts biggest accomplishment is being just out of high school and deserving an MVP title.
As time goes on he will be caught more, he isn't going to get faster, bigger sure stronger sure, injured probably.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 08:02 AM
As time goes on he will be caught more, he isn't going to get faster, bigger sure stronger sure, injured probably.

Umm okay, what's your point?

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 08:04 AM
I personally think RBI's are worth more than some do, but it's all based on opportunity. Hence the word RBI guys, like Pujols and those guys...They hit runners in, but they can't hit runners in if no one is on. RBI is a stat that is based completely on other players than the actual player hitting them in. Same as runs scored. But you don't see runs scored as big of a deal as RBI's for some reason. Doesn't make sense to me

I want to see is RBI ratio vs men on base (with each base having a different value - for instance a guy on 3B with no outs is probably 80% likely to score while a guy only on 1B with two outs is probably under 20% to score).

If a guy has 800 base runners and drives in 101 runs, he's liable not to be as good with as a guy with 97 RBI's on 670 base runners. Show me a good stat for that, and RBI's can be removed from the ash heap.

Traditionally RBI's was the provence of 3-4-5 hitters (higher respect, higher salary), whereas runs was more likely to be 1-2-3. Sports has always been an aggressive male driven sort of culture. I'd say more of those folks would like to do the driving in, than the being driven in.

Pinstripe pride
10-03-2012, 08:08 AM
But SB don't put runs on the board as RBIs do. You can have 6 SBs in a game and still lose 1-0 but you get 1 RBI and you can win 1-0. Just doesn't make sense why anyone would think SBs are more important.

how do you think people get those rbi's? by others getting in scoring position, with base stealing being one way they do it


you cna also have 6 hits in a game, if no one is in scoring position you will have nothing to show for it

ahoda
10-03-2012, 08:10 AM
It makes perfect sense. I tried to prove to you how useless RBI are. They've been recorded for a century, so have a pitchers win-loss record, which is utterly useless. Just because it's recorded doesn't mean it's worth anything.

That's your opinion and that's ok. I think you're wrong and not it's worth talking about anymore. I see your logic but I just don't agree with it.

ahoda
10-03-2012, 08:11 AM
how do you think people get those rbi's? by others getting in scoring position, with base stealing being one way they do it


you cna also have 6 hits in a game, if no one is in scoring position you will have nothing to show for it

That was what I was saying. If RBIs are irrelevant, so are SBs. Both are fairly equal tbh.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 08:12 AM
Umm okay, what's your point?

as an angel fan i don't want to see him continue to atempt 55 + bases a year, and lets be real had he made the opening day roster, he would have a lot more attempts.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 08:13 AM
I want to see is RBI ratio vs men on base (with each base having a different value - for instance a guy on 3B with no outs is probably 80% likely to score while a guy only on 1B with two outs is probably under 20% to score).

If a guy has 800 base runners and drives in 101 runs, he's liable not to be as good with as a guy with 97 RBI's on 670 base runners. Show me a good stat for that, and RBI's can be removed from the ash heap.


Exactly. Give me something to work with here, give me some numbers,different situations,percentages...something, anything really.

Nomar
10-03-2012, 08:14 AM
BA with RISP is way more important than RBIs. RBIs are probably the most overrated stat in the game.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 08:16 AM
as an angel fan i don't want to see him continue to atempt 55 + bases a year, and lets be real had he made the opening day roster, he would have a lot more attempts.

Why wouldn't you take full advantage of his speed? He's got at least another decade left of "legs". It's one of his best tools(they're all pretty damn good) so why would you be against it?

ciaban
10-03-2012, 08:30 AM
Why wouldn't you take full advantage of his speed? He's got at least another decade left of "legs". It's one of his best tools(they're all pretty damn good) so why would you be against it?

lol not his arm, he unfortunately does not have all the tools in the box, Harper does, trout does not.

he will still have good speed for a couple more years, but it will start to go down, and i think that pitchers will do a better job keeping him on, and catchers and middle infielders will be more prepared for him in the future,

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 08:40 AM
As time goes on he will be caught more, he isn't going to get faster, bigger sure stronger sure, injured probably.

Outside of a very few elite base stealers most cut down dramatically by age 30 due to health concerns and lesser results.

If Trout has this much power now, at 28 he could be hitting 45-50 HR's, I wouldn't be running him that much by then.

Bray991
10-03-2012, 08:51 AM
What I am gaining from this is that neither SB or RBI are a self reliant stat, as are about none of the stats in baseball...We forget its a team game with amazing individual accomplishments, neither Trout or Miggy would be where they are without a solid core of players around him.. I do think that BA/Runner in scoring position is a better stat then RBI, and SB% is a better stat then SB.. SABR is changing the game which is why I think more credit should go to Joe Mauer's Triple crown in 2009-- OBP (444), AVE(365), and SLUG(587).. As for the sake of whats being said.. I think SB are more effective stat then RBI..

Halladay
10-03-2012, 08:52 AM
lol not his arm, he unfortunately does not have all the tools in the box, Harper does, trout does not.

he will still have good speed for a couple more years, but it will start to go down, and i think that pitchers will do a better job keeping him on, and catchers and middle infielders will be more prepared for him in the future,

Basestealers will steal bases so long as their legs keep it up. Pitchers will adjust to a hitter, pitching them completely differently and Trout will no doubt run into this, it happens with every young hitter but stealing bases is a completely different story. As long as they get on, they'll steal. No matter how much pitchers and catchers prevent this, the numbers still support the runner.

benzni
10-03-2012, 08:58 AM
30/50 would be amazing and shows the skill of the player, but a triple crown leads in 3 categories. BA can be used as a skill statistic too. I take Triple Crown but truthfully both of them deserve to win the MVP

YEDN90
10-03-2012, 09:02 AM
RBI's are terribly overrated.

Over the course of a season suppose someone hits .400, but because there are rarely base runners on when he comes up, he finishes the season with 50 RBIs.

Now suppose someone hits .250, but always has runners on/in scoring position when he comes up and ends the season with 100 RBIs.

Which hitter would you take? I think it's pretty obvious. RBIs are completely team dependent and not a reflection of how good said hitter actually is, thus making them overrated.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:08 AM
30/50 would be amazing and shows the skill of the player, but a triple crown leads in 3 categories. BA can be used as a skill statistic too. I take Triple Crown but truthfully both of them deserve to win the MVP

RBI's are a byproduct of BA and HR - and teammates with good OBP in batting in front of you. Not very revealing.

Hawkize31
10-03-2012, 09:27 AM
RBI is a statistic that is based purely on opportunity, it gives no indication of how good a hitter actually is.

This is false. Put Ryan Theriot in Cabrera's spot in the lineup, how many rbis would he have?

It's not purely opportunity. It's opportunity plus production. Nearly a third of his rbis were from home runs, an opportunity every hitter has every plate appearance.

This idea that rbis are 100% irrelevant is the stupidest thing sabre fans say. Rbis are like every stat, where they paint a part of the picture. Yes, there are other stats that paint a clearer picture, but that doesn't mean rbis give "no indication" of how good a hitter is. It's like people get so wrapped up in certain stats they forget the point of the offense- scoring runs. Miguel drove in more than anybody, and yes opportunity was certainly a factor, but do dismiss that as irrelevant is just naive.

pacofunk64
10-03-2012, 09:32 AM
This is false. Put Ryan Theriot in Cabrera's spot in the lineup, how many rbis would he have?

It's not purely opportunity. It's opportunity plus production. Nearly a third of his rbis were from home runs, an opportunity every hitter has every plate appearance.

This idea that rbis are 100% irrelevant is the stupidest thing sabre fans say. Rbis are like every stat, where they paint a part of the picture. Yes, there are other stats that paint a clearer picture, but that doesn't mean rbis give "no indication" of how good a hitter is. It's like people get so wrapped up in certain stats they forget the point of the offense- scoring runs. Miguel drove in more than anybody, and yes opportunity was certainly a factor, but do dismiss that as irrelevant is just naive.

Exactly :clap:

The only thing that is irrelevant is this thread.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 09:37 AM
This is false. Put Ryan Theriot in Cabrera's spot in the lineup, how many rbis would he have?

It's not purely opportunity. It's opportunity plus production. Nearly a third of his rbis were from home runs, an opportunity every hitter has every plate appearance.

This idea that rbis are 100% irrelevant is the stupidest thing sabre fans say. Rbis are like every stat, where they paint a part of the picture. Yes, there are other stats that paint a clearer picture, but that doesn't mean rbis give "no indication" of how good a hitter is. It's like people get so wrapped up in certain stats they forget the point of the offense- scoring runs. Miguel drove in more than anybody, and yes opportunity was certainly a factor, but do dismiss that as irrelevant is just naive.
So If Cabrera had more opportunities while driving those runs in at say, a 15% rate and another guy drove in say, 105 runs at a 19% rate, Cabrera is still better? There is absolutely no argument you can make here. The numbers speak for themselves. RBI's don't mean squat. Put any below-average or average hitter in any lineup, hitting third or fourth and they will, in fact, drive in more runs then they would further down in the lineup. Instead of having 60 RBI's or whatever they'll have 75 based on RBI opportunity alone. Take two guys who hit .300 and have nearly identical amount of hits in the same lineup. Stick one third in the lineup and one 9th. Who will get more RBI? This doesn't include other factors but the point remains, the one given the opportunity to knock in the OBP guys will without question have more RBI's and serves as no indication of the quality of the hitter. I'm glad you mentioned homeruns though, a relevant stat. Cabrera is a great hitter and it has nothing to do with his RBI totals.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 09:40 AM
LOL is it a coincidence that 2 out of what, 6 posters from Iowa come in here at the same time and one backs up the other? hmmmmm

nycericanguy
10-03-2012, 09:41 AM
The idea that RBI's and Wins for that matter are overrated and meaningless has become very overrated.

There is no end all be all stat, but RBI's are still important. Yes you need guys to be on base, but you also need to be able to hit with men in scoring position. Some guys are just more clutch. Cabrera isn't driving in 140 runs just because guys got on base, he's knocking them in when they are on base.

Wins also for a pitcher, people say are irrelevant now. Good pitchers pitch to the scoreboard. No better example to me than David Wells, if you gave him an 8-1 lead or so, he was going to let guys hit the ball, because he wanted to get deep in the game and win... period. He wasn't out there concerned about his stats. So the end result might have been him giving up 9 hits and 5 runs in 7-8 innings, but he made sure he was going to go deep and get the win.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 09:47 AM
The idea that RBI's and Wins for that matter are overrated and meaningless has become very overrated.

There is no end all be all stat, but RBI's are still important. Yes you need guys to be on base, but you also need to be able to hit with men in scoring position. Some guys are just more clutch. Cabrera isn't driving in 140 runs just because guys got on base, he's knocking them in when they are on base.

Wins also for a pitcher, people say are irrelevant now. Good pitchers pitch to the scoreboard. No better example to me than David Wells, if you gave him an 8-1 lead or so, he was going to let guys hit the ball, because he wanted to get deep in the game and win... period. He wasn't out there concerned about his stats. So the end result might have been him giving up 9 hits and 5 runs in 7-8 innings, but he made sure he was going to go deep and get the win.

:facepalm:
A pitchers win total are merely based on run support. Pitchers care about their stats, you'd have to be a fool not to think so. You wanna stay in the big leagues? don't give up 8 runs a start. You wanna get paid? ditto. It's all about run support. Don't believe me? Check out Tim Wakfields 2007 season. Convince me that he had a good year because he had 17 wins. Look at pretty much any year Roy Halladay was in Toronto. One got insane run support, the other got some of the worst. By far the most useless stat ever invented.

Hawkize31
10-03-2012, 09:49 AM
So If Cabrera had more opportunities while driving those runs in at say, a 15% rate and another guy drove in say, 105 runs at a 19% rate, Cabrera is still better? There is absolutely no argument you can make here. The numbers speak for themselves. RBI's don't mean squat. Put any below-average or average hitter in any lineup, hitting third or fourth and they will, in fact, drive in more runs then they would further down in the lineup. Instead of having 60 RBI's or whatever they'll have 75 based on RBI opportunity alone. Take two guys who hit .300 and have nearly identical amount of hits in the same lineup. Stick one third in the lineup and one 9th. Who will get more RBI? This doesn't include other factors but the point remains, the one given the opportunity to knock in the OBP guys will without question have more RBI's and serves as no indication of the quality of the hitter. I'm glad you mentioned homeruns though, a relevant stat. Cabrera is a great hitter and it has nothing to do with his RBI totals.

I admitted, opportunity is a part of RBI numbers. But again, if you put a below average hitter in his spot, maybe they get to 75 rbis (your number). So Cabrera's production accounts to an extra 69 runs driven in compared to your replacement. That's not relevant to you? I guess we will agree to disagree on that one.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:51 AM
Wins also for a pitcher, people say are irrelevant now. Good pitchers pitch to the scoreboard. No better example to me than David Wells, if you gave him an 8-1 lead or so, he was going to let guys hit the ball, because he wanted to get deep in the game and win... period. He wasn't out there concerned about his stats. So the end result might have been him giving up 9 hits and 5 runs in 7-8 innings, but he made sure he was going to go deep and get the win.

I had an argument here (about 5 years ago) with a guy that insisted pitcher A was better than B.

A: 20-0 ERA: 4.50

B: 0-20 ERA: 1.00

His "point" was that pitcher "A" knew how to win - so he was better.

No acknowledgement given to the fact that pitcher B had his offense put up zero runs in 20 games.

You keep pursuing your logic and what you'll get to is this completely unreasonable POV.

Hawkize31
10-03-2012, 09:52 AM
:facepalm:
A pitchers win total are merely based on run support. Pitchers care about their stats, you'd have to be a fool not to think so. You wanna stay in the big leagues? don't give up 8 runs a start. You wanna get paid? ditto. It's all about run support. Don't believe me? Check out Tim Wakfields 2007 season. Convince me that he had a good year because he had 17 wins. Look at pretty much any year Roy Halladay was in Toronto. One got insane run support, the other got some of the worst. By far the most useless stat ever invented.

Omg, again, same thing as rbis. It's not MERELY based on run support. It's partially based on run support. Does Greg Maddux have over 300 wins because of good run support? No, he has over 300 wins because he was an incredible pitcher.

Why does everyone deal in extremes?k

sexicano31
10-03-2012, 09:55 AM
.

YEDN90
10-03-2012, 09:58 AM
Omg, again, same thing as rbis. It's not MERELY based on run support. It's partially based on run support. Does Greg Maddux have over 300 wins because of good run support? No, he has over 300 wins because he was an incredible pitcher.

Why does everyone deal in extremes?k

It's pretty much all run support.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 10:00 AM
I admitted, opportunity is a part of RBI numbers. But again, if you put a below average hitter in his spot, maybe they get to 75 rbis (your number). So Cabrera's production accounts to an extra 69 runs driven in compared to your replacement. That's not relevant to you? I guess we will agree to disagree on that one.

You just compared one of the best to a random, below-average player. I gave you an arbitrary number that means nothing. It's no relevant at all, Cabrera is clearly the better hitter but it's not the RBI totals that make him the better hitter. I'm not sure you even know what you're disagreeing with. Opportunity isn't just a part, it's the whole thing. No opportunities=no rbis. The more opportunities, the greater the possibility of a player reaching greater RBI totals. The point stands, the inferior players RBI totals are bloated based on opportunity no matter what the rate he drives those run in at. Even if it went down slightly then he would further down in the lineup,stayed the same or went up...the numbers will, without a doubt, go up. The math proves this.

Stress
10-03-2012, 10:01 AM
i always thought rbi's, along with not giving up rbi's(pitching) are how ball games are won.

you guys are really being silly now and over-complicating things.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 10:06 AM
Omg, again, same thing as rbis. It's not MERELY based on run support. It's partially based on run support. Does Greg Maddux have over 300 wins because of good run support? No, he has over 300 wins because he was an incredible pitcher.

Why does everyone deal in extremes?k

You're right, it is the same thing as RBI's. Why? again, based on opportunity which has nothing to do with the actual individual. If I'm pitching in the big leagues and I average 6 innings a start giving up 3 runs, my ERA is 4.00. Right around league average. Thing is my team, for whatever reason, on average, scores 7 runs for every start I make. Suddenly, I'm a 20 game winner with average stats by years end. Meanwhile, a pitcher on another team, with the exact same production, has only 2 runs in support each start and loses 20. Who's better? what weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

YEDN90
10-03-2012, 10:07 AM
You're right, it is the same thing as RBI's. Why? again, based on opportunity which has nothing to do with the actual individual. If I'm pitching in the big leagues and I average 6 innings a start giving up 3 runs, my ERA is 4.00. Right around league average. Thing is my team, for whatever reason, on average, scores 7 runs for every start I make. Suddenly, I'm a 20 game winner with average stats by years end. Meanwhile, a pitcher on another team, with the exact same production, has only 2 runs in support each start and loses 20. Who's better? what weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

You're right, but I think you might be wasting your time.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 10:11 AM
You're right, but I think you might be wasting your time.

lol I actually realized I made a mistake with my math but I'm too tired to care and the point remains. I might be wasting my time but meh.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 10:12 AM
Basestealers will steal bases so long as their legs keep it up. Pitchers will adjust to a hitter, pitching them completely differently and Trout will no doubt run into this, it happens with every young hitter but stealing bases is a completely different story. As long as they get on, they'll steal. No matter how much pitchers and catchers prevent this, the numbers still support the runner.
he will get a sever injury before he hits free agency, base stealers get hurt doing this, it happened to Dee Gordon this year, and trout plays defense with total abandon, which btw is the wrong way to play the game. I would like to minimize his potential to injury as much as possible because he is that important to the team, that's why i don't want him running as much, also, if we don't lead him off he wont have as many opportunities. Which we should do, i believe bourjos should be leading off and trout hitting second, especially if we let torri hunter walk, btw if bourjos becomes an everyday starter trout has to be pushed into left field end story

ciaban
10-03-2012, 10:13 AM
LOL is it a coincidence that 2 out of what, 6 posters from Iowa come in here at the same time and one backs up the other? hmmmmm

uh duh it's a coincidence, who splits 14k posts between 2 accounts? that's dumber than suggesting that as possibility.

Halladay
10-03-2012, 10:17 AM
he will get a sever injury before he hits free agency, base stealers get hurt doing this, it happened to Dee Gordon this year, and trout plays defense with total abandon, which btw is the wrong way to play the game. I would like to minimize his potential to injury as much as possible because he is that important to the team, that's why i don't want him running as much, also, if we don't lead him off he wont have as many opportunities. Which we should do, i believe bourjos should be leading off and trout hitting second, especially if we let torri hunter walk, btw if bourjos becomes an everyday starter trout has to be pushed into left field end story
I say let him play recklessly. It makes for better TV.


uh duh it's a coincidence, who splits 14k posts between 2 accounts? that's dumber than suggesting that as possibility.

$20 the PM'd each other LOL

IceHawk-181
10-03-2012, 10:22 AM
In 1995 Greg Maddux posted a 19-2, 1.63 ERA season.

Had his ERA been double that his record would not change at all.

Why?

The Braves scored 121 Runs in support of games Maddux started, meaning on average he could have given up ~4.00 ER per game started and still had the same record.

The Win-Loss record only speaks to the ability of a Pitcher's team to score more runs than the pitcher gave up.

Similarly, Cabrera has had 441 runners on base this season, converting 137 RBI (31%).
Josh Hamilton has had 378 runners on base, converting 127 RBI (33.6%).

Given each other's teams Cabrera would finish 2012 with 117 RBIs and Josh Hamilton with 148 RBIs.

Do you see the difference?

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 10:25 AM
he will get a sever injury before he hits free agency, base stealers get hurt doing this

Not all of them:

RH - 66 SB at age 39

Otis Nixon - 59 SB at age 38

Joe Morgan - 49 SB at age 33

Ozzie Smith - 43 SB at age 37

Biggio - 50 SB at age 32


That being said, I'd start to amp him down.

sexicano31
10-03-2012, 10:27 AM
In 1995 Greg Maddux posted a 19-2, 1.63 ERA season.

Had his ERA been double that his record would not change at all.

Why?

The Braves scored 121 Runs in support of games Maddux started, meaning on average he could have given up ~4.00 ER per game started and still had the same record.

The Win-Loss record only speaks to the ability of a Pitcher's team to score more runs than the pitcher gave up.

Similarly, Cabrera has had 441 runners on base this season, converting 137 RBI (31%).
Josh Hamilton has had 378 runners on base, converting 127 RBI (33.6%).

Given each other's teams Cabrera would finish 2012 with 117 RBIs and Josh Hamilton with 148 RBIs.

Do you see the difference?
Related: in 2010, if Felix Hernandez gave up 1 run or less in all of his starts he would have only won 16 games

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 10:55 AM
Related: in 2010, if Felix Hernandez gave up 1 run or less in all of his starts he would have only won 16 games

Semi off topic, but what the heck...

Related to that is the unreal year Gibson had in 1968. You look at his W-L and it's 22-9, not too shabby, but with a 31-6 in the other league?

In his starts earned runs allowed (times):

0 - 15 (including a 12 inning and 10 inning CG)
1 - 09 (including an 11 inning CG)
2 - 03
3 - 05
4 - 02 (including an 11 inning CG)

If he won these games:

2-0
3-2 (3 times)
1-0 (twice)

he'd have been 28-3.

In the games he was "blown out" 5-1 (3 ER), 6-4 (3 ER), 6-5 (4 ER)

Everyone has heard the 1.12 ERA, but when you break down the season? 22-9 does not match that season.

Yankees90.
10-03-2012, 10:58 AM
I love RBIZZZZZ!!!

But seriously, RBI's are not the first stat you should look at when judging a hitter. But saying they are completely useless is stupid. I understand some hitters get more opportunities then others, but it still, to an extent, takes some level of skill to drive in runs. It's a different mindset on the pitcher and hitters part. Depending on where the runners are, 1st and 3rd, 2nd and 3rd, it changes things.

People just assume that, "well, since he always has runners on base when he comes up, he has a lot of RBI's". Ok, well I know he has been hurt this year, but look at A-Rod...the guy almost ALWAYS has runners on base when he comes up, and for the most part they are in scoring position. 57 RBI's.

I don't want to be "that guy" that says this, but, you still got to get the hits when there are runners on. Im sure there are guys out there who's RBI count would be extremely inflated if they played on a team where they actually put runners on, which is why I said it should be far from the first stat you look at. But when you are talking Triple Crown, that's different.

You know it's funny, almost every year it seems like we have someone who threatens for the Triple Crown, and almost every year, all of you cream your pants over that player and wonder if he can maintain it. But most of us here have become butt-buddies with Trout that we seem to be trying to find every reason why the Crown doesn't matter. Sad

This to me just seems like more Mike Trout "drool" thread, Miggy is the MVP, period. If I am a pitcher, and you asked me which guy scares the hell out of me more this year as a hitter, it's Miggy.

IceHawk-181
10-03-2012, 11:14 AM
Alex Rodriguez has had a horrible year, with 343 RoB and 10-Solo HRs he has managed to convert only 48 Runners into RBIs (0.14).

So yes, you can fail to accrue a large number of RBIs if you fail to hit with men on base.

The point here is that Cabrera's RBI lead is a function of the Detroit Tigers and nothing else.

Allow me to reiterate a point:
Cabrera behind Trout's runners = 76 RBI + Solo HR = 103 RBI
Trout behind Cabrera's runners = 90 RBI + Solo HR = 112 RBI

This argument is "feelings" against "quantitative data."

Which means, yes, there is a right and a wrong answer.

YEDN90
10-03-2012, 11:24 AM
In 1995 Greg Maddux posted a 19-2, 1.63 ERA season.

Had his ERA been double that his record would not change at all.

Why?

The Braves scored 121 Runs in support of games Maddux started, meaning on average he could have given up ~4.00 ER per game started and still had the same record.

The Win-Loss record only speaks to the ability of a Pitcher's team to score more runs than the pitcher gave up.

Similarly, Cabrera has had 441 runners on base this season, converting 137 RBI (31%).
Josh Hamilton has had 378 runners on base, converting 127 RBI (33.6%).

Given each other's teams Cabrera would finish 2012 with 117 RBIs and Josh Hamilton with 148 RBIs.

Do you see the difference?

Very well put.

Hawkize31
10-03-2012, 01:16 PM
In 1995 Greg Maddux posted a 19-2, 1.63 ERA season.

Had his ERA been double that his record would not change at all.

Why?

The Braves scored 121 Runs in support of games Maddux started, meaning on average he could have given up ~4.00 ER per game started and still had the same record.

The Win-Loss record only speaks to the ability of a Pitcher's team to score more runs than the pitcher gave up.

Similarly, Cabrera has had 441 runners on base this season, converting 137 RBI (31%).
Josh Hamilton has had 378 runners on base, converting 127 RBI (33.6%).

Given each other's teams Cabrera would finish 2012 with 117 RBIs and Josh Hamilton with 148 RBIs.

Do you see the difference?

Lets check your math. Greg started 28 games and got 121 runs of support. He gave up 38 ER in 209.2 innings. If his ERA was 4.00, he would have given up 93 ER.

So you think Greg Maddux could have gotten 121 runs in support, and given up 93 earned runs, and his record would still be 19-2.

You are very wrong.

And you're missing my overall point. RBIs and wins are not good stats, I never said they were. I don't even really use them. But they are not completely devoid of any meaning like you seem to think. This concept is so simple: if you pitch well, you will win more games. If you hit well, you will drive in more runs. Sometimes the correlation is weaker for some players than it is for others, but it is there.

A league average pitcher on the Braves in 1995 would not go 19-2. I'm not saying Maddux was good because he had a lot of wins, but I'm saying him being good helped him get wins.
A league average hitter in Cabrera's spot would not drive in 139 runs. I'm not saying Cabrera is good because of his RBI totals, but him being good helped him get more RBIs.

Super.
10-03-2012, 01:28 PM
I honestly can't believe that people think that RBI's are a good statistic to judge a hitter by, it's almost as bad as wins for pitchers.

nycericanguy
10-03-2012, 01:37 PM
I had an argument here (about 5 years ago) with a guy that insisted pitcher A was better than B.

A: 20-0 ERA: 4.50

B: 0-20 ERA: 1.00

His "point" was that pitcher "A" knew how to win - so he was better.

No acknowledgement given to the fact that pitcher B had his offense put up zero runs in 20 games.

You keep pursuing your logic and what you'll get to is this completely unreasonable POV.

Thats a very extreme and unrealistic example. But my point was a guy pitching in a close game with little run support such as King Felix, might tend to put up better numbers outside of wins vs a guy pitching for the Yankees getting alot of run support. You pitch to the games and to the situations, not to your stats. How many pitchers will say they concentrate better in a close 1-0 vs when they have a big lead. At the end of the day the objective is to win, so no, wins aren't meaningless, not unless all you care about is advanced stats.

You can't just completely discount WINS or RBI'S.

iam brett favre
10-03-2012, 01:52 PM
This is false. Put Ryan Theriot in Cabrera's spot in the lineup, how many rbis would he have?

It's not purely opportunity. It's opportunity plus production. Nearly a third of his rbis were from home runs, an opportunity every hitter has every plate appearance.

This idea that rbis are 100% irrelevant is the stupidest thing sabre fans say. Rbis are like every stat, where they paint a part of the picture. Yes, there are other stats that paint a clearer picture, but that doesn't mean rbis give "no indication" of how good a hitter is. It's like people get so wrapped up in certain stats they forget the point of the offense- scoring runs. Miguel drove in more than anybody, and yes opportunity was certainly a factor, but do dismiss that as irrelevant is just naive.

Great post.
Nothing is more ignorant than someone saying RBI's are irrelevant, or AARREEEEBBBEEEYYYZ.
We get it. You guys think you know something we don't. But you really don't.

Bat Chris Stewart clean up and see how many RBI's he gets in the Yankees lineup.

WOwolfOL
10-03-2012, 02:02 PM
Alex Rodriguez has had a horrible year, with 343 RoB and 10-Solo HRs he has managed to convert only 48 Runners into RBIs (0.14).

So yes, you can fail to accrue a large number of RBIs if you fail to hit with men on base.

The point here is that Cabrera's RBI lead is a function of the Detroit Tigers and nothing else.

Allow me to reiterate a point:
Cabrera behind Trout's runners = 76 RBI + Solo HR = 103 RBI
Trout behind Cabrera's runners = 90 RBI + Solo HR = 112 RBI

This argument is "feelings" against "quantitative data."

Which means, yes, there is a right and a wrong answer.

RBI's are a terrible comparative stat, but they are not meaningless. I get that the Triple Crown is flawed because of the RBI's but to say RBI's are worthless is misleading to me.

raidersrock99
10-03-2012, 02:04 PM
rbi's arent useless. you win games by scoring runs, and it shows that a hitter is good with risp. however if trout can put himself in scoring position that is good as well. i dont think the two are comparable they are both great feats and shouldnt be competing for which feat is better.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 02:52 PM
Thats a very extreme and unrealistic example. But my point was a guy pitching in a close game with little run support such as King Felix, might tend to put up better numbers outside of wins vs a guy pitching for the Yankees getting alot of run support. You pitch to the games and to the situations, not to your stats. How many pitchers will say they concentrate better in a close 1-0 vs when they have a big lead. At the end of the day the objective is to win, so no, wins aren't meaningless, not unless all you care about is advanced stats.

You can't just completely discount WINS or RBI'S.

I don't want to see RBI's without knowing how well (%) the hitter drove them in.

Wins? Show me the winning % of the team. Jim Hunter made the HOF by being a fine pitcher for two dynasties, in realty he was little better then Bob Friend (look him up - and NOT as good as Luis Tiant). Wins lied big time for Hunter I can promise you. Or the year that Welch got 27 wins, the weakest 27 game season dating back to at least 1925. Clemens was much better that year. Wins are the crucial stat of all - a team stat, not a pitcher stat - which disregards offense and defense - which add up to having more impact then pitching in creating wins - period. It's ridiculous to just list wins under a pitchers name. Completely idiotic.

rocket
10-03-2012, 02:59 PM
No pair of teammates have ever won the MVP in back to back seasons while both winning the Triple Crown.

:speechless: zom god goat

30 HR's and 50 SB's are not more impressive than winning the triple crown.

The SF Giant
10-03-2012, 04:51 PM
No pair of teammates have ever won the MVP in back to back seasons while both winning the Triple Crown.

:speechless: zom god goat

30 HR's and 50 SB's are not more impressive than winning the triple crown.

Of course it is. One has been done 16 times, the other has only been done twice.

natepro
10-03-2012, 05:30 PM
Great post.
Nothing is more ignorant than someone saying RBI's are irrelevant, or AARREEEEBBBEEEYYYZ.
We get it. You guys think you know something we don't. But you really don't.

Bat Chris Stewart clean up and see how many RBI's he gets in the Yankees lineup.

You're really bad at making points.

Ruben Sierra, 1993 with the A's. .233/.288/.390 in 692 PA. 101 RBI. Winner!

jej
10-03-2012, 06:19 PM
RBI are worthless. There are other statistics that can tell you the important parts of RBI (clutch, run production, etc). If thats what you want, then use those, not the one that makes people look much better/worse than they really are.

Same for wins. Yes, how the pitcher pitches does factor into wins as well. But so does their teams offense. So why not use the other pitching stats (FIP, ERA and the /9s) that show how they did, and leave out how their offense did?

IceHawk-181
10-03-2012, 06:27 PM
Editing mistake on my end, I inflated the inference by 22%. (Noticed it when I reread it too....:facepalm:)

Had his ERA been double that his record would not change at all.

The minutiae of the point notwithstanding, had Maddux a considerably worse ERA than he sported his Win-Loss record would have been assured.


I'm not saying Cabrera is good because of his RBI totals, but him being good helped him get more RBIs.
And here is the problem.
Trout is objectively better at the "being good part" this season.
Check the numbers (I posted them above); if Cabrera and Trout swapped runners you would see an amazing reversal.

RBIs, Runs, and Wins are not irrelevant.
They are outcomes that tell us something about the game.
They do not however indicate skill independently; these stats are inherently team-based in such a manner that they cannot be realistically compared as nominal numbers across different players to draw any meaningful conclusions.

Ergo, any statistical anomalies (Triple Crown, 20-Win Season, 30/30, 30/50, .300/30/100) based principally upon those stats fail to indicate relative player skill level.

That is the main reason I do not attribute a Triple Crown, a 30/50 Season, or a 20-Win season with individual awards.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 06:42 PM
That is ignorant though. Just because you can steal bases doesn't mean you are a good hitter. Scott Posednik, Juan Piere, and Quinton Berry can steal bases but are terrible hitters. If RBIs are irrelevant then SBs are irrelevant.

1. It isn't ignorant, it could be incorrect, but it isn't ignorant
2. Stealing bases is more telling of a players ability, rather than RBI's. As it actually takes a skill set to do. But it doesn't automatically make a player a good baseball player. There are a ton of not good ball players that steal a lot of bases. But it is a productive offensive skill set that depends on nobody but the player themselves. RBI's are completely team dependent in every way except for the RBI's driven in by a home run of the player themselves (i.e. Cabrera has 44 where he has driven in himself)

iam brett favre
10-03-2012, 06:42 PM
If you cant see the value in an RBI you're simply ignorant.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 06:43 PM
RBIs, Runs, and Wins are not irrelevant.
They are outcomes that tell us something about the game.
They do not however indicate skill independently; these stats are inherently team-based in such a manner that they cannot be realistically compared as nominal numbers across different players to draw any meaningful conclusions.


This perfectly summarizes it

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 06:44 PM
If you cant see the value in an RBI you're simply ignorant.

How?

How is it ignorant?

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 06:45 PM
You're really bad at making points.

Ruben Sierra, 1993 with the A's. .233/.288/.390 in 692 PA. 101 RBI. Winner!

vs Bonds 2003
.341/.529/.749 - 45 HR, 90 RBI!


Loser

ciaban
10-03-2012, 06:45 PM
I say let him play recklessly. It makes for better TV.



$20 the PM'd each other LOL
screw you, i don't care if his defensive value goes down a little bit, as long as he is playing 150+ games a season

and i would take that bet as long as your not trying to screw me at the end by handing me 20 peso

Not all of them:

RH - 66 SB at age 39

Otis Nixon - 59 SB at age 38

Joe Morgan - 49 SB at age 33

Ozzie Smith - 43 SB at age 37

Biggio - 50 SB at age 32


That being said, I'd start to amp him down.
yes so guys can continue to steal bases later into their careers, but their usually smaller guys who try not to add muscle weight because speed is a main component of their game, like how biggio, morgan, ozzie are all middle infielders, and Otis Nixon was a center fielder, trout will ultimately settle into left field

RBI are worthless. There are other statistics that can tell you the important parts of RBI (clutch, run production, etc). If thats what you want, then use those, not the one that makes people look much better/worse than they really are.

Same for wins. Yes, how the pitcher pitches does factor into wins as well. But so does their teams offense. So why not use the other pitching stats (FIP, ERA and the /9s) that show how they did, and leave out how their offense did?
i thought sabermatrics disproved clutch, or at least think very low of it, did something change?

jej
10-03-2012, 06:48 PM
If you cant see the value in an RBI you're simply ignorant.

Why should someone be rewarded for having more opportunities to drive in runs?

If you want to look at run production, look at wRC+

fingerbang
10-03-2012, 07:05 PM
I wish Robinson Cano had more RBIs. :(

jej
10-03-2012, 07:11 PM
i thought sabermatrics disproved clutch, or at least think very low of it, did something change?

No, you thought wrong. What do you think WPA and w/RISP are for?

Jamiecballer
10-03-2012, 07:38 PM
No, no they are not. Foolish.

in fairness, it is meaningless without context cause if you are caught like 20 times than you are hurting your team more than you are helping them.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 07:49 PM
1. It isn't ignorant, it could be incorrect, but it isn't ignorant
2. Stealing bases is more telling of a players ability, rather than RBI's. As it actually takes a skill set to do. But it doesn't automatically make a player a good baseball player. There are a ton of not good ball players that steal a lot of bases. But it is a productive offensive skill set that depends on nobody but the player themselves. RBI's are completely team dependent in every way except for the RBI's driven in by a home run of the player themselves (i.e. Cabrera has 44 where he has driven in himself)

That isn't the argument though. The discussion is about which is more VALUABLE, an RBI or a SB. In no universe is the act of driving in a run less valuable than stealing a base.

natepro
10-03-2012, 07:54 PM
That isn't the argument though. The discussion is about which is more VALUABLE, an RBI or a SB. In no universe is the act of driving in a run less valuable than stealing a base.

And this is where the argument always leaves the rails.

No one, anywhere, is saying driving in a run is not valuable.

What they are saying, over and over and over and over again, is that the RBI stat is meaningless when comparing two players. Cabrera having more RBI than Trout does not mean Cabrera has been a better hitter than Trout. It means he's had many more opportunities to amass his RBI total. It is entirely team- and lineup-dependent, and as such has no real value as a statistic dealing with a player's real production.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 07:55 PM
lol

RBIs are more important then SBs.


No, no they are not. Foolish.

Someone saying that SBs are more important than RBIs.

natepro
10-03-2012, 07:57 PM
Someone saying that SBs are more important than RBIs.

As a comparative statistic, because RBI are useless in that capacity.


How are people not understanding this? :confused:


Edit: It was fun the way you ignored everything else I said, though!

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 07:58 PM
As a comparative statistic, because RBI are useless in that capacity.


How are people not understanding this? :confused:


Edit: It was fun the way you ignored everything else I said, though!

Because that wasn't said by the poster

EDIT: I didn't ignore it, though! It's nothing I haven't seen before or am arguing.

natepro
10-03-2012, 08:03 PM
Because that wasn't said by the poster

EDIT: I didn't ignore it, though! It's nothing I haven't seen before or am arguing.

Jesus. I didn't even really read the post you quoted. He's saying the exact opposite of what you said.

Edit: For that matter, he's not contradicting anything I said, either. He didn't say driving in a run wasn't valuable.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:04 PM
Jesus. I didn't even really read the post you quoted. He's saying the exact opposite of what you said.

Which post are you referring too? Please be more specific

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:06 PM
If you agree, and the majority agrees, that driving in runs is more valuable than stealing bases, then there's really no need to discuss this further and waste time

natepro
10-03-2012, 08:06 PM
Which post are you referring too? Please be more specific

The first one you quoted.

But, it doesn't much matter either way. I kind of ninja'd you up there, so I'll just put it here:


Neither of them are contradicting what I said. Neither of them are saying driving in a run is not valuable.

natepro
10-03-2012, 08:07 PM
If you agree, and the majority agrees, that driving in runs is more valuable than stealing bases, then there's really no need to discuss this further and waste time

Obviously it is.

But it still doesn't turn RBI into a useful stat. It's still team- and lineup-dependent. If Trout ended the season with more RBI than Cabrera, then something insane went on somewhere, given the crazy difference in the number of chances they had.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:11 PM
Obviously it is.

But it still doesn't turn RBI into a useful stat. It's still team- and lineup-dependent. If Trout ended the season with more RBI than Cabrera, then something insane went on somewhere, given the crazy difference in the number of chances they had.

RBI is certainly a useful stat. One can argue that driving in runs is the single most valuable act a hitter can contribute to his team, since you (obviously) win by scoring more runs than the opposing team. Of course you can't say player X is better than player Y because of the RBI count, but you can argue that player X is more valuable (over the course of a season) than player Y in part because of the RBI statistic.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 08:13 PM
RBI is certainly a useful stat. One can argue that driving in runs is the single most valuable act a hitter can contribute to his team, since you (obviously) win by scoring more runs than the opposing team. Of course you can't say player X is better than player Y because of the RBI count, but you can argue that player X is more valuable (over the course of a season) than player Y in part because of the RBI statistic.

Except that there are numerous ways to better measure value than to use a result driven statistic that simply shows those values.

There are just better ways to measure it.

jej
10-03-2012, 08:15 PM
RBI is certainly a useful stat. One can argue that driving in runs is the single most valuable act a hitter can contribute to his team, since you (obviously) win by scoring more runs than the opposing team. Of course you can't say player X is better than player Y because of the RBI count, but you can argue that player X is more valuable (over the course of a season) than player Y in part because of the RBI statistic.

No you cant! Why does getting more opportunites to drive in runs make someone more valuable? If anything, it makes the guys ahead of him more valuable

natepro
10-03-2012, 08:15 PM
RBI is certainly a useful stat. One can argue that driving in runs is the single most valuable act a hitter can contribute to his team, since you (obviously) win by scoring more runs than the opposing team. Of course you can't say player X is better than player Y because of the RBI count, but you can argue that player X is more valuable than player Y in part because of the RBI statistic.

No, you really can't.

Ruben Sierra, 1993. Dude didn't even have a .290 OPB, but managed 101 RBI. Because of where he hit in the lineup, because of the chances he had with runners on, but not because he was a good hitter. Looking at any other stat but RBI tells you that quite clearly.

There are about four hundred thousand better ways to tell if someone is more valuable than using RBI. It is entirely too team- and lineup-dependent to tell you much of anything of use.



On the Angels this season, Pujols had 105 RBI. Hunter had 93. Trout had 83.

Would you now like to make the argument that both Pujols and Hunter were more valuable than Trout?

Jamiecballer
10-03-2012, 08:16 PM
does anyone think Miguel Cabrera could have won the triple crown batting 9th for the Rays? 30hr/50sb is wayy more impressive

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:17 PM
Except that there are numerous ways to better measure value than to use a result driven statistic that simply shows those values.

There are just better ways to measure it.

Of course there are better and more far reaching stats to measure a player's value, but to simply dismiss the RBI count is foolish if you ask me.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 08:20 PM
Of course there are better and more far reaching stats to measure a player's value, but to simply dismiss the RBI count is foolish if you ask me.

It doesn't have to be dismissed, but people use it in very poor context and allow it to mislead them.


The same can be said for batting average.

It still exists, but it's pretty useless.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:22 PM
No, you really can't.

Ruben Sierra, 1993. Dude didn't even have a .290 OPB, but managed 101 RBI. Because of where he hit in the lineup, because of the chances he had with runners on, but not because he was a good hitter. Looking at any other stat but RBI tells you that quite clearly.

There are about four hundred thousand better ways to tell if someone is more valuable than using RBI. It is entirely too team- and lineup-dependent to tell you much of anything of use.



On the Angels this season, Pujols had 105 RBI. Hunter had 93. Trout had 83.

Would you now like to make the argument that both Pujols and Hunter were more valuable than Trout?

You must have missed the part where I said that RBIs can in part be helpful in measuring a player's value (referring to your last point), the point being made because many people often completely dismiss the RBI stat when determining a player's value.

As for Ruben Sierra, you keep bringing up this whole "good hitter" argument which no one is making. Of course with his terrible slash line he would be considered a poor hitter, but in the discussion of value, the fact that he drove in that many runs makes him very valuable to his team. Now, his team that season would have probably been much better served batting a better hitter in Sierra's slot so that player can get those RBI chances, but that didn't happen, and that doesn't take away from a players value.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:23 PM
It doesn't have to be dismissed, but people use it in very poor context and allow it to mislead them.


The same can be said for batting average.

It still exists, but it's pretty useless.

I agree with that, but the same should be noted for the many people (the more saber inclined) who outright ignore the RBI stat

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:26 PM
No you cant! Why does getting more opportunites to drive in runs make someone more valuable? If anything, it makes the guys ahead of him more valuable

But the guys who got on ahead of him have little to no value (relatively) if they aren't driven in. It is extremely, extremely difficult to score a run without producing something at the plate (assuming there are runners on base, of course), which makes the act of driving in a run very valuable.

jej
10-03-2012, 08:29 PM
But the guys who got on ahead of him have little to no value (relatively) if they aren't driven in. It is extremely, extremely difficult to score a run without producing something at the plate (assuming there are runners on base, of course), which makes the act of driving in a run very valuable.

But when someone with a .298 OBP can hit them in, its not very hard. It doesnt make him more valuable than the guy who had a .340 OBP, but only had 80 RBI. It doesnt tell you anything about a players value, especially related to another player.

As for the bolded part: Thats not their fault. You cant punish them, or say they arent as valuable because the person behind them didnt hit them in. They did their job.

This is exactly why wRC+ is better. It doesnt matter what your team does, or where you hit. Its about what you do, because thats all you can control.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:32 PM
But when someone with a .298 OBP can hit them in, its not very hard. It doesnt make him more valuable than the guy who had a .340 OBP, but only had 80 RBI. It doesnt tell you anything about a players value, especially related to another player.

What? Driving in runs isn't hard?

And again, people be putting words in my mouth that RBI determines a player's value period end. That's not what I'm saying. I just want to be clear with you though, are you saying that driving in runs isn't valuable?

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 08:32 PM
does anyone think Miguel Cabrera could have won the triple crown batting 9th for the Rays? 30hr/50sb is wayy more impressive

Interesting question

What would he have faced differently results wise?

The 9 hitters in Toronto this year hit
.248/.301/.400, hitting 16 HRs, driving in 62, in 601 PA

Anthony Gose got the most of these PA, 139


So Cabrera loses 94 PA


The Jays 9 spot in the lineup had 114 PA in the 9 spot with runners in scoring position, and they drove in 42 in those situations (36.8%).

Cabrera had 205 PA with runners in scoring position, and he drove in 80 in those situations (39%) [Home Runs not included, since they would obviously score himself with a home run no matter what the situation]

Cabrera, with his rate stats of men driven in in those situations, he would have added 2 more RBI's than the Jays themselves did.

WOW, huh?

So he loses about 94 PA, which is more significant, and he loses 36 RBI's.

Now on to to the new stats, because we have to remove 94 PA, which is 13.5%

New numbers
38 HR
84 RBI
94 Runs Scored

Same batting average (obviously)


Not the Triple Crown, that's for certain.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:34 PM
He said Rays.. All that work for nothing!

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 08:35 PM
I agree with that, but the same should be noted for the many people (the more saber inclined) who outright ignore the RBI stat

It doesn't tell you anything, that's why it's ignored.

and for good reason, it literally tells you absolutely nothing about an individual players.

Nothing.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 08:36 PM
He said Rays.. All that work for nothing!

Thought it said Jays :p


I'm sure the results would be very close to the same though.


Cabrera's RBI's are largely driven by the men on base in front of him, the third most PA with men in scoring position in all of baseball.

Hunter Pence and Josh Willingham are the two in front of him.


Note, each still over 100 RBI, regardless of performance in those situations. You keep getting chances, you are going to drive in 100.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:36 PM
It doesn't tell you anything, that's why it's ignored.

and for good reason, it literally tells you absolutely nothing about an individual players.

Nothing.

Not sure what you mean here. If you elaborate I can appropriately respond

kmo429
10-03-2012, 08:39 PM
I actually thought Canseco did this but he put up a 40/40 season. I think it's more impressive than the triple crown considering RBI are about as meaningless a stat as you can get.

Uh no? Essentially youre saying SB is more impressive/important than RBI and AVG.

Triple Crown is more impressive and more important.

If Cabrera doesnt win MVP he will have been robbed. Absolutely robbed.

jej
10-03-2012, 08:41 PM
What? Driving in runs isn't hard?

And again, people be putting words in my mouth that RBI determines a player's value period end. That's not what I'm saying. I just want to be clear with you though, are you saying that driving in runs isn't valuable?

Apparantly getting 100 RBI isnt in that situation. You fail to realize that the value there should not go to him. He, in fact, did not do a very good job. He only got on base less than 30% of the time. That is terrible.

Why should he get credit for the people in front of him doing their job? You are furthering the point that you dont have to be good to get 100 RBIs.

Driving in runs is valuable, but it doesnt necessarily make the person doing it more valuable than another.

Value is based on on WHAT YOU DO, not what your team does. Ruben Sierra was not any more valuable to his team than anyone else who had a .300 OBP. He just happened to be on a better team

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 08:42 PM
Not sure what you mean here. If you elaborate I can appropriately respond

It doesn't tell you anything about an individual player.


Is Ruben Sierra in 1993 better than Barry Bonds in 2003?

Jamiecballer
10-03-2012, 08:42 PM
Uh no? Essentially youre saying SB is more impressive/important than RBI and AVG.

Triple Crown is more impressive and more important.

If Cabrera doesnt win MVP he will have been robbed. Absolutely robbed.

any award that cannot be realistically reached by half the hitters in baseball BEFORE THE SEASON EVEN STARTS is deeply flawed

think about that - it is virtually impossible for a leadoff man or anybody hitting in the bottom third of a lineup to win the triple crown.

natepro
10-03-2012, 08:43 PM
Uh no? Essentially youre saying SB is more impressive/important than RBI and AVG.

Triple Crown is more impressive and more important.

If Cabrera doesnt win MVP he will have been robbed. Absolutely robbed.

There is no legitimate measure of performance in which Miguel Cabrera was better than Mike Trout.

The only reason we're talking about him is because once upon a time people thought RBI were important as a stat, and because the Tigers are in the significantly weaker AL Central instead of the obviously much tougher AL West.

jej
10-03-2012, 08:44 PM
Uh no? Essentially youre saying SB is more impressive/important than RBI and AVG.

Triple Crown is more impressive and more important.

If Cabrera doesnt win MVP he will have been robbed. Absolutely robbed.

So he deserves it because he got a hit more often (but on base less), and had more people on base when he was up?

Thats more deserving than being a better run creator, being a much much much better baserunner, and far superior defender?

Its not the best hitter award. And even it was, Trout has a case

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:46 PM
It doesn't tell you anything about an individual player.


Is Ruben Sierra in 1993 better than Barry Bonds in 2003?

:sigh:

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but I'm not saying driving in runs makes you a good hitter or anything like that, nor am I saying that a player is better than another based off of RBI count.

For the fifth time, what I'm saying is that driving in runs is VALUABLE to a team, and that looking at how many runs a player drives in can help you (NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINE) tell his value to the team (on a per season basis)

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 08:49 PM
If you cant see the value in an RBI you're simply ignorant.

If one can't see that there are totally critical factors outside of the control of a hitters RBI count, making the RBI count a very suspect way to judge said hitter, then they would be guilty of that "I" word.

jej
10-03-2012, 08:49 PM
It it valuable to the team, but not valuable when comparing players. You are rewarding one guy over the other for being on a better team/hitting in a better lineup spot

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:50 PM
Apparantly getting 100 RBI isnt in that situation. You fail to realize that the value there should not go to him. He, in fact, did not do a very good job. He only got on base less than 30% of the time. That is terrible.

Why should he get credit for the people in front of him doing their job? You are furthering the point that you dont have to be good to get 100 RBIs.

Driving in runs is valuable, but it doesnt necessarily make the person doing it more valuable than another.

Value is based on on WHAT YOU DO, not what your team does. Ruben Sierra was not any more valuable to his team than anyone else who had a .300 OBP. He just happened to be on a better team

You people keep trying to make this argument that driving in runs doesn't make you "good".. Again, that is NOT what I'm arguing. I'm speaking strictly about value to a team, in which driving runs is paramount.

How can you possibly say that Sierra in that situation isn't any more valuable than anyone else who had a .300 OBP. So now that is the determining factor in the value of a player? I could not disagree more.. Sure, getting on base is a very valuable asset to have, but much, much more goes into determining a player's value than that.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:53 PM
If one can't see that there are totally critical factors outside of the control of a hitters RBI count, making the RBI count a very suspect way to judge said hitter, then they would be guilty of that "I" word.

Again, no one is judging a hitter based off of his RBI count. The argument is simply that the act of driving in runs is VALUABLE to the team, and should be taken into account when determining a player's value to his team (on a per season basis)

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 08:55 PM
Guess how Sierra did in 1993 with men on base

.249/.318/.440


Pretty awful for your number 3 hitter

But he had 355 PA!

Because the guys that hit in front of him had a near .400 OBP (combined), which includes the .471 OBP Rickey Henderson leading off.

Who should honestly get credit for all those RBI's? Sierra? Or Henderson?


It doesn't matter who was hitting 3rd for Oakland that season, they were going to drive in 100 runs.


What Sierra did was not valuable to the team (I realize that is your argument). Anyone could and would have done it, and likely would have done a better job of it in 1993 than Sierra.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 08:57 PM
Again, no one is judging a hitter based off of his RBI count. The argument is simply that the act of driving in runs is VALUABLE to the team, and should be taken into account when determining a player's value to his team (on a per season basis)

No, not per season only. I'd like a stat of RBI%, and I'd also like RC or wRC+, at that point RBI's are just a raw stat with unknown details that skew the value one way or another. I'd like it all park adjusted as well.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 08:59 PM
Guess how Sierra did in 1993 with men on base

.249/.318/.440


Pretty awful for your number 3 hitter

But he had 355 PA!

Because the guys that hit in front of him had a near .400 OBP, which includes the .471 OBP Rickey Henderson

Who should honestly get credit for all those RBI's? Sierra? Or Henderson?


It doesn't matter who was hitting 3rd for Oakland that season, they were going to drive in 100 runs.


What Sierra did was not valuable to the team (I realize that is your argument). Anyone could and would have done it, and likely would have done a better job of it in 1993 than Sierra.

You could make that argument, but in no way does that take away from Sierra's value that year, because he actually did it. To be clear, in no way would I say that Ruben Sierra was more valuable to his team that season than Rickey Henderson. Not a chance. But to say that driving in 100 runs for your team isn't valuable is absurd if you ask me.

jej
10-03-2012, 09:00 PM
You people keep trying to make this argument that driving in runs doesn't make you "good".. Again, that is NOT what I'm arguing. I'm speaking strictly about value to a team, in which driving runs is paramount.

How can you possibly say that Sierra in that situation isn't any more valuable than anyone else who had a .300 OBP. So now that is the determining factor in the value of a player? I could not disagree more.. Sure, getting on base is a very valuable asset to have, but much, much more goes into determining a player's value than that.

My point is, there are people who did their job (getting on base and creating runs) better than Sierra. Yet, they had less RBI because the people in front of them werent as good.

So no, Sierra was no more VALUABLE than the people who did their job better.

Value comes from production. And he did not produce, and by that I mean get on base, as well as others who had less RBI.

Jamiecballer
10-03-2012, 09:00 PM
You could make that argument, but in no way does that take away from Sierra's value that year, because he actually did it. To be clear, in no way would I say that Ruben Sierra was more valuable to his team that season than Rickey Henderson. Not a chance. But to say that driving in 100 runs for your team isn't valuable is absurd if you ask me.

well you have a right to your opinion Ruben even if it's crazy

jej
10-03-2012, 09:02 PM
You could make that argument, but in no way does that take away from Sierra's value that year, because he actually did it. To be clear, in no way would I say that Ruben Sierra was more valuable to his team that season than Rickey Henderson. Not a chance. But to say that driving in 100 runs for your team isn't valuable is absurd if you ask me.

Once again, you cant say a player is more valuable than another because his teamates are better.

Anyone else with the .300 OBP and the same guys in front of him would have done the same thing. That should tell you that its a situational stat.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 09:02 PM
My point is, there are people who did their job (getting on base and creating runs) better than Sierra. Yet, they had less RBI because the people in front of them werent as good.

So no, Sierra was no more VALUABLE than the people who did their job better.

Value comes from production. And he did not produce, and by that I mean get on base, as well as others who had less RBI.

I never argued the bold point. Not once. I said that what Sierra did was valuable, and people get all up in arms as if that takes away the value from the other hitters in the lineup who helped him. Again, putting words into my mouth to make their argument better.

And driving in runs is a form of production, not sure how you can argue that.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 09:03 PM
You could make that argument, but in no way does that take away from Sierra's value that year, because he actually did it. To be clear, in no way would I say that Ruben Sierra was more valuable to his team that season than Rickey Henderson. Not a chance. But to say that driving in 100 runs for your team isn't valuable is absurd if you ask me.

Sierra was 12th on the A's out of the 16 offensive players with 100 PA in 1993 in wOBA and wRC+

Pretty sure anyone would have done what Sierra did with Henderson always standing on third base prepared to score a 'Rickey Run'

All he had to do was put the ball in the outfield.


Sierra deserves no credit for his RBI's, because RBI's are useless in every way. You have so many ways to better measure a players performance, as well what a player can do to help his team be productive and score runs. RBI's doesn't measure that in anyway.

Incublime24
10-03-2012, 09:05 PM
I just skipped to the end of this thread because some of you are absolutely destroying the fun of baseball for me. While I agree that RBI is overvalued, it is not a completely useless statistic. As somebody already pointed out, it takes a certain mindset and approach at the plate when runners are on base and a pitcher/catcher are doing everything they can to limit your ability to drive in the run, as opposed to when the bases are empty.

While I respect how sabermetrics has influenced the game, it drives me nuts when people ONLY look at sabermetrics and nothing else. Sabermetrics often (if not always) look at everything in a vacuum. For anybody to look at a sport in a vacuum is completely ignorant because there is still the whole mental part of the game. Sometimes you just have to give the eye test or look at things how they are. Some of you prefer to ignore what is happening in front of your eyes and eliminate the whole mental aspect of the game and just dissect the numbers. That is a completely flawed way to look at any sport.

Again, I agree that RBI is overvalued. But to emphasize that it is COMPLETELY USELESS is extreme. Sabermetricians live in a vacuum just like their stats do.

hugepatsfan
10-03-2012, 09:06 PM
I think if someone is consistently putting up high RBI totals year after year it's likely that he's a pretty good hitter. But beyond that, I don't really see the usefulness in evaluating players. There are simply much better stats to use.

jej
10-03-2012, 09:06 PM
I never argued the bold point. Not once. I said that what Sierra did was valuable, and people get all up in arms as if that takes away the value from the other hitters in the lineup who helped him. Again, putting words into my mouth to make their argument better.

And driving in runs is a form of production, not sure how you can argue that.

Yes, but a very flawed and objective one.

If Player A drives in more runs tha Player B, but had a lower percentage, then he wasnt a better run producer than Player B. He just had more chances.

RBIs mean the team is more valuable, but have nothing to do with how valuable the player is

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 09:08 PM
Sierra was 12th on the A's out of the 16 offensive players with 100 PA in 1993 in wOBA and wRC+

Pretty sure anyone would have done what Sierra did with Henderson always standing on third base prepared to score a 'Rickey Run'

All he had to do was put the ball in the outfield.


Sierra deserves no credit for his RBI's, because RBI's are useless in every way. You have so many ways to better measure a players performance, as well what a player can do to help his team be productive and score runs. RBI's doesn't measure that in anyway.

No one is measuring a player's performance based on RBIs. I'm not saying player X is better than player Y because of "DA RIBEYEZ" or whatever. Please stop changing the argument. I'm speaking strictly about value to a team, in which driving in runs is arguably the most important job of the offense. There is the act of getting on base which is extremely valuable, and there is the act of driving in runs which is also valuable (as well as many other things that go into scoring runs, but let's keep it basic). I'm not going to attempt to measure which is more valuable, but to simply say how many runs a player drives in doesn't matter is, to me, absurd.

jej
10-03-2012, 09:09 PM
Roberto Alomar in 1993 had a .407 wOBA, good for 9th in the league.

But, he only had 93 RBIs. Who was more valuable, and did their job better, Alomar, or Sierra and his .296 wOBA

Keep in mind, value DOES NOT CHANGE FROM TEAM TO TEAM. You cannot be rewarded for playing on a team that had less run producers, making what you do more important, or for being on a team with better on base guys in front of you

FortDetroit
10-03-2012, 09:10 PM
Yes, but a very flawed and objective one.

If Player A drives in more runs tha Player B, but had a lower percentage, then he wasnt a better run producer than Player B. He just had more chances.

RBIs mean the team is more valuable, but have nothing to do with how valuable the player is

Well, with RISP, Miggy had a higher BA, higher OBP, higher SLG%, and lower k% than Trout did. So it's clearly more than just a matter of opportunity, idk.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 09:11 PM
Yes, but a very flawed and objective one.

If Player A drives in more runs tha Player B, but had a lower percentage, then he wasnt a better run producer than Player B. He just had more chances.

RBIs mean the team is more valuable, but have nothing to do with how valuable the player is

No one is arguing that, again.

I'm not even sure what you mean with your last point. How do RBIs mean a team is more valuable?

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:11 PM
I just skipped to the end of this thread because some of you are absolutely destroying the fun of baseball for me. While I agree that RBI is overvalued, it is not a completely useless statistic. As somebody already pointed out, it takes a certain mindset and approach at the plate when runners are on base and a pitcher/catcher are doing everything they can to limit your ability to drive in the run, as opposed to when the bases are empty.

While I respect how sabermetrics has influenced the game, it drives me nuts when people ONLY look at sabermetrics and nothing else. Sabermetrics often (if not always) look at everything in a vacuum. For anybody to look at a sport in a vacuum is completely ignorant because there is still the whole mental part of the game. Sometimes you just have to give the eye test or look at things how they are. Some of you prefer to ignore what is happening in front of your eyes and eliminate the whole mental aspect of the game and just dissect the numbers. That is a completely flawed way to look at any sport.

Again, I agree that RBI is overvalued. But to emphasize that it is COMPLETELY USELESS is extreme. Sabermetricians live in a vacuum just like their stats do.

Well sir, I have 15 years now of coaching baseball, plus the 10 years I played, and raising my sons - both terrific players, and my 46 years as a fan. DO you suggest I speak only from personal experience around here? What about when talking about Mickey Mantle - most never saw him play. Have to use numbers to be able to communicate.

And when it comes to sabermetrics vs traditional stats? Traditional stats take a serious back seat to sabermetrics. BTW your characterizations are limited at best.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 09:13 PM
Roberto Alomar in 1993 had a .407 wOBA, good for 9th in the league.

But, he only had 93 RBIs. Who was more valuable, and did their job better, Alomar, or Sierra and his .296 wOBA

Keep in mind, value DOES NOT CHANGE FROM TEAM TO TEAM. You cannot be rewarded for playing on a team that had less run producers, making what you do more important, or for being on a team with better on base guys in front of you

Alomar was more valuable. I guess I have to say it again, and this time I will use capital letters for emphasis. I'M NOT SAYING THAT RBI'S ARE THE SOLE DETERMINING FACTOR IN MEASURING A PLAYER'S VALUE. WHAT I AM SAYING, IS THAT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER STATS, IT CAN BE A GOOD TOOL TO HELP DETERMINE A PLAYER'S VALUE, AKA: RBI'S ARE NOT A WORTHLESS STAT WHEN DETERMINING VALUE.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:13 PM
Well, with RISP, Miggy had a higher BA, higher OBP, higher SLG%, and lower k% than Trout did. So it's clearly more than just a matter of opportunity, idk.

Too bad for Cabrera that the MVP award for a positional player also includes fielding and base running - two areas where Trout is ultra elite and Cabrera is below average to awful.

jej
10-03-2012, 09:14 PM
I just skipped to the end of this thread because some of you are absolutely destroying the fun of baseball for me. While I agree that RBI is overvalued, it is not a completely useless statistic. As somebody already pointed out, it takes a certain mindset and approach at the plate when runners are on base and a pitcher/catcher are doing everything they can to limit your ability to drive in the run, as opposed to when the bases are empty.

While I respect how sabermetrics has influenced the game, it drives me nuts when people ONLY look at sabermetrics and nothing else. Sabermetrics often (if not always) look at everything in a vacuum. For anybody to look at a sport in a vacuum is completely ignorant because there is still the whole mental part of the game. Sometimes you just have to give the eye test or look at things how they are. Some of you prefer to ignore what is happening in front of your eyes and eliminate the whole mental aspect of the game and just dissect the numbers. That is a completely flawed way to look at any sport.

Again, I agree that RBI is overvalued. But to emphasize that it is COMPLETELY USELESS is extreme. Sabermetricians live in a vacuum just like their stats do.

There are stats that tell you just that, without all the other misleading stuff.

But its not flawed to try to compare players based on what you think and see, which is completely up to the person? There is so much bias and variation in that, that it makes it worthless.

I dont care how straight Coco Crisps back is, or how his body language looks. I care about how he plays

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:15 PM
Alomar was more valuable. I guess I have to say it again, and this time I will use capital letters for emphasis. I'M NOT SAYING THAT RBI'S ARE THE SOLE DETERMINING FACTOR IN MEASURING A PLAYER'S VALUE. WHAT I AM SAYING, IS THAT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER STATS, IT CAN BE A GOOD TOOL TO HELP DETERMINE A PLAYER'S VALUE, AKA: RBI'S ARE NOT A WORTHLESS STAT WHEN DETERMINING VALUE.

Have an answer for post #129?

Incublime24
10-03-2012, 09:15 PM
Well sir, I have 15 years now of coaching baseball, plus the 10 years I played, and raising my sons - both terrific players, and my 46 years as a fan. DO you suggest I speak only from personal experience around here? What about when talking about Mickey Mantle - most never saw him play. Have to use numbers to be able to communicate.

And when it comes to sabermetrics vs traditional stats? Traditional stats take a serious back seat to sabermetrics. BTW your characterizations are limited at best.

Again, taking the extreme approach, I see. I think you should show some statistics and also provide some personal experiences as well. I'm not sure why it has to be solely one or the other?

And yes, my characterizations are limited at best because it is just my opinion. I assume you wanted some sabermetrics to prove my point?

jej
10-03-2012, 09:16 PM
Alomar was more valuable. I guess I have to say it again, and this time I will use capital letters for emphasis. I'M NOT SAYING THAT RBI'S ARE THE SOLE DETERMINING FACTOR IN MEASURING A PLAYER'S VALUE. WHAT I AM SAYING, IS THAT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER STATS, IT CAN BE A GOOD TOOL TO HELP DETERMINE A PLAYER'S VALUE, AKA: RBI'S ARE NOT A WORTHLESS STAT WHEN DETERMINING VALUE.

And I am saying it is. I have no idea what point you are trying to get across. It doesnt determine value,but it does?

Give me one situation where RBI are useful

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 09:16 PM
Have an answer for post #129?

There was no question posed in post #129

FortDetroit
10-03-2012, 09:16 PM
Too bad for Cabrera that the MVP award for a positional player also includes fielding and base running - two areas where Trout is ultra elite and Cabrera is below average to awful.

Good thing I never said otherwise...I was just speaking about the RBI thing.

Also, i'm sure you still believe Adrian Gonzalez is better than Miggy because he fields better at 1B right? lolz. He's so good he got his *** traded outta town.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 09:18 PM
And I am saying it is. I have no idea what point you are trying to get across. It doesnt determine value,but it does?

Give me one situation where RBI are useful

No stat determines value. That's elementary. Value is measured based off of a combination of statistics, in which RBI is useful to help determine. Does that clear that up for you?

What do you mean by situation? Driving in runs is always useful

Incublime24
10-03-2012, 09:19 PM
There are stats that tell you just that, without all the other misleading stuff.

But its not flawed to try to compare players based on what you think and see, which is completely up to the person? There is so much bias and variation in that, that it makes it worthless.

I dont care how straight Coco Crisps back is, or how his body language looks. I care about how he plays

In that same sense, I don't care about such detailed statistics sometimes. If somebody hits a HR, I sit back and say wow, nice hit...he just hit a home run. Some sabermetricians will say "Yeah, well according to this stat it would have only been a home run in 25% of ball parks." Who cares? That's the beauty of baseball. Some things you just can't compare. Numbers won't paint the whole picture so sometimes you have to take them with a grain of salt.

jej
10-03-2012, 09:20 PM
No stat determines value. That's elementary. Value is measured based off of a combination of statistics, in which RBI is useful to help determine. Does that clear that up for you?

What do you mean by situation? Driving in runs is always useful

BUT NOT WHEN DETERMINING VALUE! You keep saying one thing, then completely contradicting youself.

I never said one stat does, it is a combo. But, RBI is not a part of that combo. It literally tells you nothing about how well the player did, which is what determines value.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:20 PM
Good thing I never said otherwise...I was just speaking about the RBI thing.

Also, i'm sure you still believe Adrian Gonzalez is better than Miggy because he fields better at 1B right? lolz. He's so good he got his *** traded outta town.

Isn't Cabrera's crappy fielding and base running a direct issue here? So, you don't want to deal with it, and try and bait? Nice.

Let's talk about Cabrera's serious problems with the law and drinking and spousal abuse - that's on topic.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 09:23 PM
BUT NOT WHEN DETERMINING VALUE! You keep saying one thing, then completely contradicting youself.

I never said one stat does, it is a combo. But, RBI is not a part of that combo. It literally tells you nothing about how well the player did, which is what determines value.

What I was referring to is that no one stat determines value, which you implied when you posed the question: do RBIs determine value?

Why do you need to know how "well" a player did. He drove in the run. That in itself is valuable, because the game of baseball is scored by preventing and producing runs.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:25 PM
There was no question posed in post #129

Sure is. I explained how to get a better way to look at RBI's while filing raw RBI's in the background. so people won't be misled by its many inaccuracies.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 09:28 PM
Sure is. I explained how to get a better way to look at RBI's while filing raw RBI's in the background. so people won't be misled by its many inaccuracies.

What is inaccurate about an RBI? It's one of the most basic statistics in baseball. Player X gets a hit, player Y scores on the play. Run batted in.

jej
10-03-2012, 09:29 PM
Well, with RISP, Miggy had a higher BA, higher OBP, higher SLG%, and lower k% than Trout did. So it's clearly more than just a matter of opportunity, idk.

Trout: 5.67 WPA


Miggy: 4.55 WPA

FortDetroit
10-03-2012, 09:29 PM
Isn't Cabrera's crappy fielding and base running a direct issue here? So, you don't want to deal with it, and try and bait? Nice.

Let's talk about Cabrera's serious problems with the law and drinking and spousal abuse - that's on topic.

Lol, you have serious issues with Cabrera or something. Why do you hate him so much? His problems appear to be in the past and they have never affected the team. It's not like he was leading the pack of the most dysfunctional clubhouse in baseball like your boy was :laugh: But hey, A-gone (literally gone) is a better fielding 1B so that makes him a better player. Run that by all the GMs in MLB and see what response you get back on who they would rather have on their team. :laugh:

ahhh, that thread from the offseason makes me laugh. in the meantime, miggy continues to put up great season after great season after great season and a-gone gets his contract dumped while putting up a sweet season with an .800 OPS. rich stuff.

BrianWestKins
10-03-2012, 09:33 PM
Somewhat off topic, but I would probably shoot myself if I was one of these guys who scoffs at Miggy winning the triple crown. "WELLZ HE WASZ BETTERZ LASTZ YEARZ SO.."

Gimme a ****in break.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:40 PM
What is inaccurate about an RBI? It's one of the most basic statistics in baseball. Player X gets a hit, player Y scores on the play. Run batted in.

No sir. Not even close. Parks differ, line-ups differ.

You probably think Howard is a great hitter because of his RBI's, guess what? He's not. Look at how many guys he had on base in his heyday. Usually led the Majors. Well, let's give that shot to 20 other hitters in any given year back then and see how they did - a lot better then for their teams in most cases is the answer.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:41 PM
Somewhat off topic, but I would probably shoot myself if I was one of these guys who scoffs at Miggy winning the triple crown. "WELLZ HE WASZ BETTERZ LASTZ YEARZ SO.."

Gimme a ****in break.

It's the truth, what's the problem with the truth.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 09:42 PM
Somewhat off topic, but I would probably shoot myself if I was one of these guys who scoffs at Miggy winning the triple crown. "WELLZ HE WASZ BETTERZ LASTZ YEARZ SO.."

Gimme a ****in break.

Give you a break how/why?

He was

StriveGreatness
10-03-2012, 09:42 PM
Mike Trout is currently at 30-49.

Isn't 30-50 more impressive than the triple crown? Only two players have ever done it, none in the AL.

Trout didn't steal 50 bases.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:45 PM
Lol, you have serious issues with Cabrera or something. Why do you hate him so much? His problems appear to be in the past and they have never affected the team. It's not like he was leading the pack of the most dysfunctional clubhouse in baseball like your boy was :laugh: But hey, A-gone (literally gone) is a better fielding 1B so that makes him a better player. Run that by all the GMs in MLB and see what response you get back on who they would rather have on their team. :laugh:

ahhh, that thread from the offseason makes me laugh. in the meantime, miggy continues to put up great season after great season after great season and a-gone gets his contract dumped while putting up a sweet season with an .800 OPS. rich stuff.

When I wrote in that thread looking at the seasons for both in 2009-2011 they were very close with a slight edge for Gonzalez as an overall player and a slight edge for Miggy in hitting.

Just like in that that thread as here I'm dealing with facts and your dealing in taunts. I believe most can see through that.

And Trout has been more valuable than Miggy this year. Fact.

bagwell368
10-03-2012, 09:46 PM
Trout didn't steal 50 bases.

Hey that's a point! Doesn't matter Trout was easily a more valuable player this year then Miggy.

jej
10-03-2012, 09:50 PM
What I was referring to is that no one stat determines value, which you implied when you posed the question: do RBIs determine value?

Why do you need to know how "well" a player did. He drove in the run. That in itself is valuable, because the game of baseball is scored by preventing and producing runs.

Why do you need to know how well a player did? Are you kidding me? How else do you determine who was better? Wow, you just lost points there.

Him driving in the run was valuable to his team, but that doesnt make him any more valuable. He didnt produce the run himself. Most of it was his teamates.

Once again, this is why we have wRC+. It tells you how many runs the player actually created

Texas Holders
10-03-2012, 10:34 PM
I like the random argument made of putting some scrub hitter such as Theriot into Cabrera's spot in the lineup and him not getting as many RBIs. Well, yeah, but I can provide a bunch of stats to show that Cabrera is a better hitter than Theriot. The problem with that argument is no two people have the exact same number of opportunities throughout the season, that is why you can't say someone with 120 RBIs is better than a guy with 100 RBIs.

jej
10-03-2012, 10:36 PM
I like the random argument made of putting some scrub hitter such as Theriot into Cabrera's spot in the lineup and him not getting as many RBIs. Well, yeah, but I can provide a bunch of stats to show that Cabrera is a better hitter than Theriot. The problem with that argument is no two people have the exact same number of opportunities throughout the season, that is why you can't say someone with 120 RBIs is better than a guy with 100 RBIs.

RBIs are completely worthless, no matter what

No Fun League
10-03-2012, 10:39 PM
There are too many Trout fanbois

jej
10-03-2012, 10:41 PM
You mean too many knowledgeable people? I know.

Its not like half the people are jizzing over Miggy right now or anything

Texas Holders
10-03-2012, 10:41 PM
RBIs are completely worthless, no matter what

I would add a small caveat to that statement. When comparing two individual players, yes, but in the aspect of winning a specific game, no. That doesn't make that player better because he drove the guy in, but you can't win a game without RBIs. I think that may be what is hanging up some people, they can't separate the two.

jej
10-03-2012, 10:45 PM
But we are comparing players here, yes?

Texas Holders
10-03-2012, 10:48 PM
But we are comparing players here, yes?

Well yes, of course, but you said no matter what, just wanted to throw that caveat out there. There some that were arguing the value of RBI earlier in the thread and they were taking it in the context of winnng a specific game, where it does have value.

jej
10-03-2012, 10:51 PM
I meant when evaluating players

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 10:51 PM
Trout did go for a steal attempt, but he did miss it.

So 30/49, still only the third player in baseball history to ever do that.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 10:52 PM
There are too many Trout fanbois

I won't apologize about being a fan of an elite defensive centerfielder, who is also an elite base runner, who is hitting like an elite first basemen.

Oh, and he just turned 21.


Won't apologize about being a fan of that.

cantstopthee
10-03-2012, 10:52 PM
This is getting ********. You can't just say RBI is a useless stat. Utterly useless. Worthless. Not relevant. Really? Pretty absurd. It doesn't matter who who are pulling for in the MVP race. Honestly, if you switched the two, Trout plays what LF for the Tigers or move Jackson to LF and let Trout play CF, then plug Miggy into the Angels lineup, the Angels I feel would be better off.

albo23
10-03-2012, 10:52 PM
jej is hilarious. This must have been your most active month posting with Cabrera beginning to lead the MVP talks.

In honest news, RBI is not completely useless. If it was, it would not be used and no one would care.

jej
10-03-2012, 10:55 PM
jej is hilarious. This must have been your most active month posting with Cabrera beginning to lead the MVP talks.

In honest news, RBI is not completely useless. If it was, it would not be used and no one would care.

It probably is. So?

And it is worthless when comparing or evaluating players. Its people like you who dont realize it that make it hang around. And even so, Im sure it would still be there. Just because you,and other uneducated people think its meaningful doesnt mean it is.

StriveGreatness
10-03-2012, 10:57 PM
Uneducated is just a polite way to say stupid. The stuff you people are allowed to type..

jej
10-03-2012, 11:00 PM
Its true. You are uneducated about statistics. Not being mean at all. Its the truth. I am uneducated about soccer stats. I am uneducated about some parts of politics. But I dont go around acting like I am, and dont get offended when someone says I am uneducated

cantstopthee
10-03-2012, 11:04 PM
Its true. You are uneducated about statistics. Not being mean at all. Its the truth. I am uneducated about soccer stats. I am uneducated about some parts of politics. But I dont go around acting like I am, and dont get offended when someone says I am uneducated

But you do understand that WAR and such is contrived, right? It's a theory. You're acting like it's the end all, be all stat. It doesn't factor in many things about baseball that help win games. Clutch, team leadership, ECT.

albo23
10-03-2012, 11:04 PM
It's equatable with flaming but seeing as how I had to teach a moderator in just my recent post about it, I doubt anything will get done about calling me or any of the other posters in this thread uneducated.

You are educated jej, you use statistics but so do I. How does using RBI's, HR's, and BA make me stupid, as you just said. They are easily some of the three most widely used statistics for evaluating a player by the fans and the media.

sexicano31
10-03-2012, 11:05 PM
It's equatable with flaming but seeing as how I had to teach a moderator in just my recent post about it, I doubt anything will get done about calling me or any of the other posters in this thread uneducated.

You are educated jej, you use statistics but so do I. How does using RBI's, HR's, and BA make me stupid, as you just said. They are easily some of the three most widely used statistics for evaluating a player by the fans and the media.

And 2/3 of those statistics tell you little to jack **** about a player.

StriveGreatness
10-03-2012, 11:06 PM
You know exactly what I meant by "you people" sexicano

jej
10-03-2012, 11:07 PM
But you do understand that WAR and such is contrived, right? It's a theory. You're acting like it's the end all, be all stat. It doesn't factor in many things about baseball that help win games. Clutch, team leadership, ECT.

Oh my god.

I never said WAR is be all end all. In fact, I have said multiple times that it isnt. You have to use multiple stats to see the whole picture. WAR is just a small part of it.

There is a stat for being clutch. As for team leadership, how can you quantify that? You cant which means its unfair to judge on it because of how much it can vary based on the persons opinion.

sexicano31
10-03-2012, 11:07 PM
So you can insult others but you freak out when you take some words out of context, eh?

albo23
10-03-2012, 11:07 PM
And 2/3 of those statistics tell you little to jack **** about a player.
They tell you what his batting average is, the amount of runs batted in, and the home runs he hit.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 11:07 PM
This is getting ********. You can't just say RBI is a useless stat. Utterly useless. Worthless. Not relevant. Really? Pretty absurd. It doesn't matter who who are pulling for in the MVP race. Honestly, if you switched the two, Trout plays what LF for the Tigers or move Jackson to LF and let Trout play CF, then plug Miggy into the Angels lineup, the Angels I feel would be better off.

Who had a better season

1993 Ruben Sierra
Or
2003 Barry Bonds?


Bonds had
45 HR and batted .341, but he drove in 90
Sierra in 93 had
22 HR and batted .233, but he drove in 101

RBI's need to be kept in context, they are pretty irrelevant, and I can show 100 examples of it being used incorrectly, and I can explain why it was useless in those examples. But that takes a lot of time, and it has already been done a lot the last two days on this forum, and I don't feel like re-typing it all.

StriveGreatness
10-03-2012, 11:08 PM
So you can insult others but you freak out when you take some words out of context, eh?

Calling a group of people stupid = insult

Saying "you people" is not an insult

cantstopthee
10-03-2012, 11:09 PM
Oh my god.

I never said WAR is be all end all. In fact, I have said multiple times that it isnt. You have to use multiple stats to see the whole picture. WAR is just a small part of it.

There is a stat for being clutch. As for team leadership, how can you quantify that? You cant which means its unfair to judge on it because of how much it can vary based on the persons opinion.

You do understand that many saber is contrived, right?

sexicano31
10-03-2012, 11:11 PM
They tell you what his batting average is, the amount of runs batted in, and the home runs he hit.
Ok? BA tells you extremely little. It tells you if the player gets a hit or not. Nothing about XBH, nothing about walks. RBI literally tells you less. You cant give one person credit for driving in more runs without the context. If Player A drives in 120 runs witha 15% success rate and player B drives in 90 with a 20% success rate, whos better?

Calling a group of people stupid = insult

Saying "you people" is not an insult
Looking back, he never called you stupid

jej
10-03-2012, 11:12 PM
You do understand that many saber is contrived, right?

Its not just pulled out of Tango's ***. Its math. It works. They use other factual numbers in their formulas.
They dont just say "I like this guy more, so ill give him more runs" or whatever.

cantstopthee
10-03-2012, 11:14 PM
Its not just pulled out of Tango's ***. Its math. It works. They use other factual numbers in their formulas.
They dont just say "I like this guy more, so ill give him more runs" or whatever.

Do you still believe Felix should win the CY this year?

jej
10-03-2012, 11:16 PM
No i dont. He blew it in his last few starts. Still think he is in 2nd, but Verlander deserves it. Whats your point?

cantstopthee
10-03-2012, 11:22 PM
No i dont. He blew it in his last few starts. Still think he is in 2nd, but Verlander deserves it. Whats your point?

Just judging your baseball IQ. I didn't want to jump to some wacky conclusion that you're just another fanboy of saber, without being a general observer of the great game. Your condescending demeanor was pulling me towards that conclusion. So, swap the two players, put them on the others team. With your eye, not these wacky contrived beliefs, do you think the Tigers are better and the Angels are worse off?

ciaban
10-03-2012, 11:23 PM
No, you thought wrong. What do you think WPA and w/RISP are for?

i know what w/risp is though i don't know what WPA stands for, but i do know that teams will bring in relievers to neutralize hitters, and i know what luck is, i also know that even if a hitter really gets around on a ball if he hits it right to a great defensive player he is probably screwed, and i know that there are a lot of things that are out of the hitters control, and that some just have better pitch recognition or a slightly quicker bat. so no i don't believe in clutch saber metrics have taught me better than that. Hell it's money ball. Dick Cramer did a study on it.

jej
10-03-2012, 11:24 PM
No, but that's not the point.

Player value to me does not change based on what team you are on. That implies that your team has something to do with an individual award, and that's not the case.
Trout was the more valuable player, regardless of team needs or whatever.

jej
10-03-2012, 11:25 PM
i know what w/risp is though i don't know what WPA stands for, but i do know that teams will bring in relievers to neutralize hitters, and i know what luck is, i also know that even if a hitter really gets around on a ball if he hits it right to a great defensive player he is probably screwed, and i know that there are a lot of things that are out of the hitters control, and that some just have better pitch recognition or a slightly quicker bat. so no i don't believe in clutch saber metrics have taught me better than that. Hell it's money ball. Dick Cramer did a study on it.

WPA means wins probability added. Basically shows, when the player is up, how much more likely to win the team becomes.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 11:27 PM
i know what w/risp is though i don't know what WPA stands for, but i do know that teams will bring in relievers to neutralize hitters, and i know what luck is, i also know that even if a hitter really gets around on a ball if he hits it right to a great defensive player he is probably screwed, and i know that there are a lot of things that are out of the hitters control, and that some just have better pitch recognition or a slightly quicker bat. so no i don't believe in clutch saber metrics have taught me better than that. Hell it's money ball. Dick Cramer did a study on it.

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showpost.php?p=23821247&postcount=780

Hope that helps

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 11:28 PM
Do you still believe Felix should win the CY this year?

Me personally, I think it's Verlander>Price

But that's me, and it's rather close.

natepro
10-03-2012, 11:30 PM
This is getting ********. You can't just say RBI is a useless stat. Utterly useless. Worthless. Not relevant. Really? Pretty absurd. It doesn't matter who who are pulling for in the MVP race. Honestly, if you switched the two, Trout plays what LF for the Tigers or move Jackson to LF and let Trout play CF, then plug Miggy into the Angels lineup, the Angels I feel would be better off.

You can feel whatever you'd like, but there is nothing to suggest this is the case.

BKLYNpigeon
10-03-2012, 11:38 PM
it would be more impressive if Mike Trout could lead his Angles to the Playoffs....

Miggy is the MVP.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 11:40 PM
And this is where the argument always leaves the rails.

No one, anywhere, is saying driving in a run is not valuable.

What they are saying, over and over and over and over again, is that the RBI stat is meaningless when comparing two players. Cabrera having more RBI than Trout does not mean Cabrera has been a better hitter than Trout. It means he's had many more opportunities to amass his RBI total. It is entirely team- and lineup-dependent, and as such has no real value as a statistic dealing with a player's real production.

that's only half true, there are players with less rbi's than trout who have had more opportunities, rbi's come from two things 1) opportunity, the more chances you have the more rbi's you will have THEORETICALLY, 2) delivering, there are guys with more opportunities and less rbi's than trout, having the opportunity doesn't mean anything if you can't do anything with it. Miguel Cabrera has had both things happen this year.

FortDetroit
10-03-2012, 11:41 PM
Maybe if Trout had played in the first 20 or whatever games they would be in the playoffs. Miggy played in all but 1. The fact he was out there pretty much everyday was very valuable to a team that barely won the division. Doesn't show up in the fancy stats though.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 11:43 PM
Maybe if Trout had played in the first 20 or whatever games they would be in the playoffs. Miggy played in all but 1. The fact he was out there pretty much everyday was valuable. Doesn't show up in the fancy stats though.

And it's actually in the criteria for the award and deserves merit.

the response argument for the Trout supporters will be that he managed to create more value in less games.

But there is value that the Tigers didn't have to put a replacement level player at third base for 20 some-odd games.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 11:44 PM
that's only half true, there are players with less rbi's than trout who have had more opportunities, rbi's come from two things 1) opportunity, the more chances you have the more rbi's you will have THEORETICALLY, 2) delivering, there are guys with more opportunities and less rbi's than trout, having the opportunity doesn't mean anything if you can't do anything with it. Miguel Cabrera has had both things happen this year.

Miguel Cabrera has the third most PA with men in scoring position this season, and two ahead of him both reached 100 RBI's with ease (Pence and Willingham) and neither of them were particularly good in those situations.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 11:45 PM
why is it that when a game starts both teams are listed with a 50% win probability? Is it being suggested that if the Astros were to be playing in Cincinnati , and the reds had cueto going that before the first pitch that game could go either way? I'm not saying that the astros are guaranteed to loose, but i don't think there is anyway to argue that if you were to place money on the game in vegas that they would pay out equally regardless of who you bet on.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 11:46 PM
Miguel Cabrera has the third most PA with men in scoring position this season, and two ahead of him both reached 100 RBI's with ease (Pence and Willingham) and neither of them were particularly good in those situations.

i understand this, but you still have to get the hit, they are not going to give you the RBI's all i am saying is that RBI's are both a team and individual stat, they have to get on in front of you, but you still have to do the work.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 11:47 PM
why is it that when a game starts both teams are listed with a 50% win probability? Is it being suggested that if the Astros were to be playing in Cincinnati , and the reds had cueto going that before the first pitch that game could go either way? I'm not saying that the astros are guaranteed to loose, but i don't think there is anyway to argue that if you were to place money on the game in vegas that they would pay out equally regardless of who you bet on.

It's entirely situation based.

But for more information

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/wpa/

And more information in the links that follow as well.


I actually will watch a game sometimes, and have the Fangraphs Scores page open as the game goes forward to watch the probability as it happens. It's pretty neat.

But the assumption, is that every team is equal in any baseball game before the first pitch. Maybe that's not reality (and it really isn't) but anything can happen in any single game, and it's neat to watch it unfold.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 11:49 PM
WPA means wins probability added. Basically shows, when the player is up, how much more likely to win the team becomes.

btw it doesn't take away from what i was saying though, clutch doesn't exist, it's an illusion.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 11:49 PM
i understand this, but you still have to get the hit, they are not going to give you the RBI's all i am saying is that RBI's are both a team and individual stat, they have to get on in front of you, but you still have to do the work.

Certainly

But in 1993, who deserves credit for Ruben Sierra's 101 RBI's?

He or .471 OBP Rickey Henderson who was always standing on third base.


Sierra had over 300 PA with men on base that season, and was only a .750 OPS hitter.

The A's pretty well could have put any player in that position and he would have driven in 100, in fact, Sierra was 12th of the 16 A's players in wOBA and wRC+ that season that had 100 PA.


Meanwhile, Bonds in 2003, never hit with anybody on base, and when he did, he was just walked.....so he had 90 RBI's.

I see it as completely team dependent, and have not personally looked at RBI totals in a few seasons.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 11:49 PM
btw it doesn't take away from what i was saying though, clutch doesn't exist, it's an illusion.

Fully agree with this.

ciaban
10-03-2012, 11:53 PM
It's entirely situation based.

But for more information

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/wpa/

And more information in the links that follow as well.


I actually will watch a game sometimes, and have the Fangraphs Scores page open as the game goes forward to watch the probability as it happens. It's pretty neat.

But the assumption, is that every team is equal in any baseball game before the first pitch. Maybe that's not reality (and it really isn't) but anything can happen in any single game, and it's neat to watch it unfold.
I'm not arguing this, but situation that i presented shows why not to assume everything is equal, hell if nothing else what things in life are TRULY equal?

ciaban
10-03-2012, 11:56 PM
Certainly

But in 1993, who deserves credit for Ruben Sierra's 101 RBI's?

He or .471 OBP Rickey Henderson who was always standing on third base.


Sierra had over 300 PA with men on base that season, and was only a .750 OPS hitter.

The A's pretty well could have put any player in that position and he would have driven in 100, in fact, Sierra was 12th of the 16 A's players in wOBA and wRC+ that season that had 100 PA.


Meanwhile, Bonds in 2003, never hit with anybody on base, and when he did, he was just walked.....so he had 90 RBI's.

I see it as completely team dependent, and have not personally looked at RBI totals in a few seasons.

this true, rickey probably deserves the credit because if nothing else he could have stolen home all by himself, though i think this may be more of an exception than the rule.

And growing up in the Bay Area i remember times where barry was walked with the bases loaded lol so he got RBI's that way, not 90 of them mind you but still, you know had he not bulked up so god damn much he could have really punished teams who walked him with no one on because he was a very fast runner in his prime.

Jeffy25
10-03-2012, 11:59 PM
I was interested how many times a player in baseball history has posted 100 RBI, and finished their season with a .800 OPS or lower (i.e, they were basically league average offensively overall)


145 times in baseball history

Pence did it this year
LaRoche in 2010
Cantu in 2009
etc

And has been done 71 times since 1980


Additional information:
Buckner did it 3 times
Karros did it 3 times
Joe Carter did it 5 times

jej
10-04-2012, 12:01 AM
it would be more impressive if Mike Trout could lead his Angles to the Playoffs....

Miggy is the MVP.

Better record. You are punishing Trout for being in the best division in the league. If they are in the Central, they make the playoffs.

BTW, they have the best record in the league with Trout in the lineup.

jej
10-04-2012, 12:02 AM
Fully agree with this.

How? What's the point of looking at w/RISP and WPA then?

jej
10-04-2012, 12:03 AM
btw it doesn't take away from what i was saying though, clutch doesn't exist, it's an illusion.

Wait, wasn't that your reasoning for why RBIs are valid?

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 12:10 AM
How? What's the point of looking at w/RISP and WPA then?

To refute the argument that this player is more clutch than this player.

I just use it as ammunition when people have false perceptions.


I don't believe in clutch in baseball. Any player that is given enough opportunities in high leverage situations always eventually performs to their career norms.

Josh Beckett won't always be great in the playoffs, if he continues to pitch in them, he will eventually perform to his career average.

People used to say Pujols was bad in the post-season, same with A-Rod, but after a few more trips there and the reality that it is a small sample size, people start to become aware that this is really just an illusion.

In baseball, it's still pitcher vs hitter, and 8 defensive guys, most runs wins.

High leverage, neutral leverage, low leverage, all players eventually perform to the same level.

But in a small sample size, it's neat to look at, but beware that it's too little of information.



I use the 'clutch' stats simply to disprove people of false perceptions. Like the idea that Cabrera carried the Tigers to the playoffs. No, he didn't do that individually. He had great pitching, a collapse by the White Sox, and the fact that Trout's team is playing in a division with two other teams over 90 wins. He didn't just put the team on his back and say, 'it's time to win guys, let's go' He hit great down the stretch, and he played well, and he earned the TC. But no player in baseball can do what people are saying Cabrera did. And the argument that he helped his team more? No, no he didn't. WPA is a fact based stat. It is how the players do in high leverage situations as the season progresses. But it doesn't attribute to value, and over the course of a career. The players with the best WPA are the best players in baseball history i.e. Bonds has the best in the last two decades, Pujols second. The same as WAR (gotta sprinkle A-Rod in there).


I just don't believe 'clutch' exists. Unless you are saying that players don't try when the situation doesn't matter. And I hope that isn't the case, and the numbers don't suggest that happens.


Further example, Allen Craig is the best this season with men in scoring position. But he won't maintain that. Not unless he can maintain (rather become) being the best hitter in all of baseball. He has 100+ PA in those situations. He has done well, he likely won't maintain/sustain that.

rkelly7
10-04-2012, 12:13 AM
Cabrera wins the mvp, congrats miggy. If trout hadnt slowed down a bit or the angels made the playoffs, it would have been a different story.

whitesoxfan83
10-04-2012, 12:24 AM
Trout deserves the MVP but he won't get it because the writers are too caught up in nonsense.

BKLYNpigeon
10-04-2012, 12:52 AM
ESPN did a poll and Miggy got 75% of the vote for MVP.

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 12:53 AM
ESPN did a poll and Miggy got 75% of the vote for MVP.

And that's what will probably happen.

BKLYNpigeon
10-04-2012, 12:56 AM
Better record. You are punishing Trout for being in the best division in the league. If they are in the Central, they make the playoffs.

BTW, they have the best record in the league with Trout in the lineup.


Well theres 2 WildCard spots, the Angels just added 40 million to their payroll with Pujols and Wilson, and they still couldnt get in. its almost as bad as the Dodgers. pathetic...

6cadi6
10-04-2012, 12:58 AM
Better record. You are punishing Trout for being in the best division in the league. If they are in the Central, they make the playoffs.

BTW, they have the best record in the league with Trout in the lineup.

Best division in the league? LMAO

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 01:08 AM
Best division in the league? LMAO

75% of the teams won 89 games.

Pretty damn good.

metswon69
10-04-2012, 01:09 AM
^Beat me to it.

What division in baseball has been better than the AL West?

Someone's not watching baseball :crazy:

Even the AL East, the Yankees won the division again (no surprise there according to past precedence)

Who would have picked the A's to win the AL West to start the season?

ciaban
10-04-2012, 01:46 AM
I was interested how many times a player in baseball history has posted 100 RBI, and finished their season with a .800 OPS or lower (i.e, they were basically league average offensively overall)


145 times in baseball history

Pence did it this year
LaRoche in 2010
Cantu in 2009
etc

And has been done 71 times since 1980


Additional information:
Buckner did it 3 times
Karros did it 3 times
Joe Carter did it 5 times


Wait, wasn't that your reasoning for why RBIs are valid?
those two things are interesting i wonder why half of the people to do that have played in the last 30 years.

Well theres 2 WildCard spots, the Angels just added 40 million to their payroll with Pujols and Wilson, and they still couldnt get in. its almost as bad as the Dodgers. pathetic...
you know most of the payroll they added was done practically in the last month of the season, and like 40% of it belongs to crawford who couldn't play do to injury, and then billingsly went down, and then kershaw misses time, a lot of things went wrong for the dodgers.

Halladay
10-04-2012, 01:48 AM
I was interested how many times a player in baseball history has posted 100 RBI, and finished their season with a .800 OPS or lower (i.e, they were basically league average offensively overall)


145 times in baseball history

Pence did it this year
LaRoche in 2010
Cantu in 2009
etc

And has been done 71 times since 1980


Additional information:
Buckner did it 3 times
Karros did it 3 times
Joe Carter did it 5 times

I still can't believe Joe got HOF votes. He's a prime example of a below-average player taking full advantage of useless RBI stats.

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 01:59 AM
I still can't believe Joe got HOF votes. He's a prime example of a below-average player taking full advantage of useless RBI stats.

Carter spent the most time as a cleanup hitter in his career (the most ideal RBI spot in a lineup) and third the second most

He got to drive in Rickey Henderson, John Olerud and Roberto Alomar the most.


Pretty nice guys to drive in a lot.

Not bad for a 105 OPS+ career hitter, 1445 RBI's is (59th all time)

Halladay
10-04-2012, 02:16 AM
Carter spent the most time as a cleanup hitter in his career (the most ideal RBI spot in a lineup) and third the second most

He got to drive in Rickey Henderson, John Olerud and Roberto Alomar the most.


Pretty nice guys to drive in a lot.

Not bad for a 105 OPS+ career hitter, 1445 RBI's is (59th all time)

Exactly. And his RBI totals alone were what got him votes to begin with. In reality, we're talking about an outfielder who boasts the OBP of a catcher and shouldn't have been anywhere near the top of the order.

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 02:17 AM
100%

ciaban
10-04-2012, 05:54 AM
in fairness to Joe Carter he had like 400 home runs, another big counting stat, I'm not saying that he is a hall of famer, but it isn't crazy that he received some votes. He had a very good career

Vampirate
10-04-2012, 02:56 PM
It doesn't tell you anything, that's why it's ignored.

and for good reason, it literally tells you absolutely nothing about an individual players.

Nothing.

I disagree to an extent, if you have a player with over 170 rbis then I highly doubt that is the result on oppurtunities alone. Given the lineup 100 rbis is possible for an average or below hitter. However, if a player has rbis reaching 150 or above then there is a good chance that you might have a great hitter on your team.

RBIs are niether a solo stat or a team stat, it is a very important stat that reflects both the player and the players around him. It is an end result stat. It is a subjective stat that you need to look deeper into how the player got it.

On a lighter note, if there was one stat I wish every player in my lineup had, it would be over 100 rbis, regardless on how they got them.

nymetsrule
10-04-2012, 02:59 PM
I actually thought Canseco did this but he put up a 40/40 season. I think it's more impressive than the triple crown considering RBI are about as meaningless a stat as you can get.

Meaningless, yes...but it isn't easy to drive in 139 runs no matter how you want to look at it.

natepro
10-04-2012, 03:00 PM
it would be more impressive if Mike Trout could lead his Angles to the Playoffs....

Miggy is the MVP.

Fun fact: Mike Trout didn't strike out a single batter this season. :pity:

Yankee Clipper
10-04-2012, 03:23 PM
Well theres 2 WildCard spots, the Angels just added 40 million to their payroll with Pujols and Wilson, and they still couldnt get in. its almost as bad as the Dodgers. pathetic...

Yeah his relief appearances this season were extremely detrimental to the team's overall success. Shame on him.

natepro
10-04-2012, 03:31 PM
Yeah his relief appearances this season were extremely detrimental to the team's overall success. Shame on him.

Also, he played a terrible SS for us. :sigh:

Yankee Clipper
10-04-2012, 03:33 PM
Also, he played a terrible SS for us. :sigh:

Can't forget about his subpar defensive performances behind the plate with throwing runners out.

natepro
10-04-2012, 03:42 PM
Can't forget about his subpar defensive performances behind the plate with throwing runners out.

And frankly, the way he set our lineups on a daily basis (especially the way he'd play Vernon Wells over Peter Bourjos, quite selfishly assuring himself the CF position) left something to be desired.

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 04:44 PM
:laugh2:

jej
10-04-2012, 06:56 PM
Well theres 2 WildCard spots, the Angels just added 40 million to their payroll with Pujols and Wilson, and they still couldnt get in. its almost as bad as the Dodgers. pathetic...

The Tigers would not have been in the playoffs in any other division. The WC teams did better than them. Not really sure you have a valid argument.

Plus, why is it Trouts fault that Pujols, Haren, Greinke, and others didnt play well? He did his job, and thats all you can look at. Its an individual award, and your team should not matter.

Obviously it does, but it shouldnt. I dont care if Trout was on the Royals. He was more valuable than Miggy.

Halladay
10-04-2012, 10:33 PM
in fairness to Joe Carter he had like 400 home runs, another big counting stat, I'm not saying that he is a hall of famer, but it isn't crazy that he received some votes. He had a very good career

396 homers over a career is pretty good but the rest of the numbers are ugly especially given his position. Put it this way, if you believe Joe should have gotten into the HOF(not saying you do) than you'll definitely think Mark Reynolds deserves to be there too.

popo85
10-05-2012, 12:52 AM
So many Ruben Sierra mentions anyone remember LaRussa calling him the village idiot?

Halladay
10-05-2012, 01:46 AM
So many Ruben Sierra mentions anyone remember LaRussa calling him the village idiot?

There's a lot of people who would refer to La Russa in the same light.

SportsAndrew25
10-05-2012, 02:23 AM
Mike Trout is currently at 30-49.

Isn't 30-50 more impressive than the triple crown? Only two players have ever done it, none in the AL.30-50 is solid, but to led the league in .BA, HR, and RBI is an incredible feat and even more incredible considering Cabrera plays in one of the biggest pitchers parks in baseball.

ciaban
10-05-2012, 05:03 AM
Yeah his relief appearances this season were extremely detrimental to the team's overall success. Shame on him.

considering how bad our bull pen was, we should have considered bring him out of the pen