Comments on: Batting Average, Home Runs, RBIs

By: The Rookies » Blog Archive » Last Call: Let’s Get Statistical

The Rookies » Blog Archive » Last Call: Let’s Get Statistical — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:16:44 +0000

[...] something about it?” If you want to break into the magical world of sabermetrics, start with this Joe Posnanski blog post. Check out this very well-written and easy-to-follow book from Baseball [...]

By: top 10 computer games | Intel.com

top 10 computer games | Intel.com — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:54:45 +0000

[...] Batting Average, Home Runs, RBIs … abominable for a guy who was signed for $12 million per so he could hit with power. He was a total pain in the Hillman. And while he had a smoking hot 44-game stretch in the middle of the year (.380/.391/.659 with 10 home runs â€¦ and, yeah, two walks), the other 109 games he was, no exaggeration … [...]

By: Mike O

Mike O — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:06:27 +0000

Joe,
The evidence against your contention that the RBI is overrated is right in your article: The best percent success in all MLB is only 21.5% of the time. The best in all MLB is FAR lower than the league batting average! That means it is harder than getting a hit, and WAY harder than getting on base. On average, pitchers are tougher when it matters most: with men on base.

Ryan only batted .158 late and close? Maybe he won about his share of the time, when the pitcher was doing everything he could to beat him or pitch around him.

Editor’s note: Mike, you’re misreading the numbers. 21.5% is the percentage when there’s someone on ANY BASE, including first base. Good hitters will drive in the runner from third 40 to 50 percent of the time, more with less than two outs. And the league average with runners in scoring position last year was .266 — with nobody on base it was .259. This is largely because of sacrifice flies, but the main point is that there is simply no evidence to support that pitchers are tougher with men on base. I suspect, since they are pitching from the stretch, the opposite is true.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:36:11 +0000

I believe Eddie Gaedel’s number was 1/8. And Bill Veeck told him that there was a sniper in the stands who would shoot him dead if he swung the bat. He walked on four pitches, was pinch-run for, and was never heard from again.

Ah, the good old days.

By: David in NYC

David in NYC — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:52:24 +0000

Runs vs. RBI — Runs are a MUCH better indicator of baseball talent than RBI. As Bill James pointed out in one of his very early writings, you can almost always tell the best athlete on a team by looking for the player with the most runs. Quick example: Mickey Mantle led the Yankees in runs every year from 1953 through 1961; he led the team in RBI “only” 5 times.

HR vs. singles — I have heard more than one announcer (Jim Kaat comes immediately to mind) say that he would RATHER give up a home run, even with the bases loaded, than a “smaller” hit, because the HR is “a rally-killer”. He does not seem to be joking when he says this.

Walks vs. hits — Obviously, hits are more important because they potentially could involve more than a one-base advance. However, walks are greatly underrated, even now, because they are less “manly” or something. But the MOST IMPORTANT skill in baseball is the ability to NOT MAKE OUT. Obviously, walks are a way of not making out.

By: Shemp

Shemp — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:05:45 +0000

I understand how important the walk is, however I am trying to decide how much importance we give it as an OFFENSIVE stat. It seems the original stat geeks of the early 1900’s viewed it as an error on the pitcher, treating it as if the AB never happened. Are we now giving the hitter too much credit when the pitcher can’t find the strike zone?

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:52:06 +0000

**I would submit that pitching in the 1970s and 1980s is much less aggressive than it is now.**

ugh. I meant much more aggressive then than it is now.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:50:15 +0000

Keep in mind also that in the age before computers, box scores didn’t tally up daily statistics. They were tallied up at the end of the week. The Kansas City Star/Times, for example, included in the sports section every Friday a list of players in the league ranked by (brace yourself) average, home runs, and RBIs. There wasn’t much room for any of the exotic stats that current websites now have room for.

Ditto for baseball cards. I can still remember squinting through my glasses to see Carl Yastremski’s career in 3-point font from beginning to end on hte back of a small piece of cardboard.

Plus, as for the walk fetish Bill James devotees have wrought and all of the after-effects, I would submit that pitching in the 1970s and 1980s is much less aggressive than it is now.

Without a sustainable means of communicating the stats, it was hard for even the most enthusiastic stat geek to put together the numbers 25 years ago like they can now.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:16:12 +0000

I agree that rbi present an incomplete picture, but I would argue your point that scoring a run takes more skill than driving one in. I think both are dependent on your teammates. Howard certainly benefitted from having Rollins, Werth, Utley, etc. on base in front of him, which helped him drive in those runs.

At the same time, if Utley was hitting in front of Pena, Buck, and Gload, he would have scored far fewer runs than he did.

Yes, to drive in runs you have to have guys get on base in front of you – but you also have to drive them in when they are on base – I’d argue that takes skill.

To score runs, you have to get on base (in one of a variety of ways, most of which take skill) but you still have to have someone else drive you in.

I think my conclusion, as we have all realized well before this, is that individual statistics – any single statistic – presents an incomplete picture of a player.

By: Justin Zeth

Justin Zeth — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:57:03 +0000

The reason Ryan Howard hit .158 in late-and-close situations is simple: Ryan Howard is, simply put, the reason why God and/or Tony LaRussa gave us the LOOGY.