|
Post by Hart's Middle Finger on Sept 1, 2019 23:45:28 GMT -5
... and why I don't use them to judge players
In 2016, Freddie Freeman had a higher BA than he does now. His slugging % was virtually identical to today. His OPS was 10 points higher.. His OPS+ was 17 points higher... He had 86 AB's more than he has today.. 22 more games than today.. OBP 10 points higher.. 13 more doubles, and only 2 less HR's..
Today he has 109 RBI's.. then he had 91.
RBI's are about what the guys ahead of you in the order are doing..
|
|
|
Post by bravter on Sept 2, 2019 2:12:12 GMT -5
That's why I left out the RBI's in the prospect tread. I started putting 3 or more RBI's recently just to give an idea who had a big payday that day. I do think they're more important that a pitcher getting the W in this day and age.
Also a thing that can be overrated is really caring about hits with RISP. I mean it tells a story of what you did, but I think much less of what kind of hitter you are and what you are going to do.
Maybe you can argue there's a different approach. Freddie hasn't hit a grandslam, but has hit well with bases loaded right?
Also I'm glad you say RBI's and not RBI. I remember the ESPN woman broadcaster saying 10 RBI, and I don't care if she's technically right, I'm accustomed to say RBI's. I'm gonna continue saying that along with the DL.
Lastly apologies for spacing out things like Westie.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Sept 2, 2019 9:13:23 GMT -5
It's easy to over analyze stats these days because of all the technology at our disposal, I think. RBIs are important, but at the same time, you have to have the opportunities to drive guys in. That's obvious. At the same time, it's hard to argue that any player who collects 100+ RBIs is not a productive player. I'm a numbers guy, but I also like things simple. That's why I like OPS. It tells me that a guy is getting on base and doing so with authority. I realize there are a gazillion stats these days, and they all have their place I suppose, but at the end of the day, getting on base and hitting the ball hard are the 2 primary goals of a hitter, right? I don't think a .900+ OPS guy could ever be considered anything other than an elite hitter, regardless of RBIs and all the other numbers available.
|
|
|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Sept 2, 2019 10:14:46 GMT -5
Honestly, I’m surprised RBI lasted as long as it did; as far as it giving sole credit to the guy who gets a lot of them and using it to either determine who’s having a good year or using it as a way to determine who’s better than who. It’s so blatantly obvious that it’s dependent on who’s hitting in front the guy who’s getting them.
To think that for decades a players chances of getting into the HOF could hinge on how many RBI he had. Just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Hart's Middle Finger on Sept 2, 2019 10:32:29 GMT -5
It's easy to over analyze stats these days because of all the technology at our disposal, I think. RBIs are important, but at the same time, you have to have the opportunities to drive guys in. That's obvious. At the same time, it's hard to argue that any player who collects 100+ RBIs is not a productive player. I'm a numbers guy, but I also like things simple. That's why I like OPS. It tells me that a guy is getting on base and doing so with authority. I realize there are a gazillion stats these days, and they all have their place I suppose, but at the end of the day, getting on base and hitting the ball hard are the 2 primary goals of a hitter, right? I don't think a .900+ OPS guy could ever be considered anything other than an elite hitter, regardless of RBIs and all the other numbers available. I don't think anyone is saying a guy that gets 100 RBI's isn't a productive player. That is not the point here at all. The point is that Dip and Jiff keep harping on this being Freddie's best season and using his RBI total as their evidence. You can look at all of the stats available and say he might have been even better in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by TheCoronaManCometh on Sept 2, 2019 11:20:06 GMT -5
It's easy to over analyze stats these days because of all the technology at our disposal, I think. RBIs are important, but at the same time, you have to have the opportunities to drive guys in. That's obvious. At the same time, it's hard to argue that any player who collects 100+ RBIs is not a productive player. I'm a numbers guy, but I also like things simple. That's why I like OPS. It tells me that a guy is getting on base and doing so with authority. I realize there are a gazillion stats these days, and they all have their place I suppose, but at the end of the day, getting on base and hitting the ball hard are the 2 primary goals of a hitter, right? I don't think a .900+ OPS guy could ever be considered anything other than an elite hitter, regardless of RBIs and all the other numbers available. I don't think anyone is saying a guy that gets 100 RBI's isn't a productive player. That is not the point here at all. The point is that Dip and Jiff keep harping on this being Freddie's best season and using his RBI total as their evidence. You can look at all of the stats available and say he might have been even better in 2016. 2016 has been his best season by far, but I would say that 2017 would have been better had he not gotten hurt.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Sept 2, 2019 11:42:33 GMT -5
Honestly, I’m surprised RBI lasted as long as it did; as far as it giving sole credit to the guy who gets a lot of them and using it to either determine who’s having a good year or using it as a way to determine who’s better than who. It’s so blatantly obvious that it’s dependent on who’s hitting in front the guy who’s getting them. To think that for decades a players chances of getting into the HOF could hinge on how many RBI he had. Just ridiculous. I get your point, but I wouldn't call it ridiculous. I mean, you still have to bring guys in, so it's not like it's a totally meaningless stat. For example, I've seen Freeman exploit the shift lots of times to drive in a run. That's not a fluke, that's a skill. I can't recall HOF induction ever "hinging" on RBI totals, either.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Sept 2, 2019 11:56:10 GMT -5
I’ll take RBI’s seriously when they start showing us how many chances each player has with runners in scoring position. Compare Heyward to Markakis in number of opportunities over the years, be prepared for a big surprise. Number of chances plays a huge role in how many RBIs each guy gets, I can’t believe in this day and age that aspect is statistically ignored.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Sept 2, 2019 12:53:18 GMT -5
I’ll take RBI’s seriously when they start showing us how many chances each player has with runners in scoring position. Compare Heyward to Markakis in number of opportunities over the years, be prepared for a big surprise. Number of chances plays a huge role in how many RBIs each guy gets, I can’t believe in this day and age that aspect is statistically ignored. There's not a stat that considers RBI opportunities? I agree that there should be. Runs driven in from first should be more heavily weighted, as should the RBI that results from a homer, since no "opportunity" exists in those situations. There's your start, now bring it home! Pun intended 😉
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Sept 2, 2019 13:05:50 GMT -5
For example, the homer that Badhaircut hit today. That's a max RBI homer, because a) the runner was on first, and b) a homer. A grand slam has 2 runners in scoring position, and a 3-run homer has at least one runner in scoring position, so any grand slam counts the same, but 2 and 3-run homers would vary in value based upon where the runners are.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Sept 2, 2019 13:21:31 GMT -5
What about 2-out RBIs? 2-strike RBIs? High leverage RBIs? You can't just discount RBIs as a stat. It's how runs get scored.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Sept 2, 2019 13:41:25 GMT -5
I have never discounted RBI’s, I’ve said it’s by far not one of the best ways to evaluate an individuals contribution. It’s a team stat, very dependent on other players on the team. It even depends on who is hitting behind you.
|
|
|
Post by Hart's Middle Finger on Sept 2, 2019 14:17:14 GMT -5
I have never discounted RBI’s, I’ve said it’s by far not one of the best ways to evaluate an individuals contribution. It’s a team stat, very dependent on other players on the team. It even depends on who is hitting behind you. Yep... 2016 people were willing to walk Freddie and take their chances. JD's power now sits behind him and it's no mere coincidence his RBI total is up.
|
|
|
Post by keystone61 on Sept 2, 2019 15:44:04 GMT -5
I have never discounted RBI’s, I’ve said it’s by far not one of the best ways to evaluate an individuals contribution. It’s a team stat, very dependent on other players on the team. It even depends on who is hitting behind you. Yep... 2016 people were willing to walk Freddie and take their chances. JD's power now sits behind him and it's no mere coincidence his RBI total is up. Agreed. That's made a huge difference for Freddie. Also, Badhaircut isn't collecting as many because Freddie is cleaning them up in front of him. That said, Freddie is a better situational hitter than Badhaircut. He'll take that little ground ball through the left side against the shift to get the run in. A lot of guys either can't or won't try to do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 10:06:55 GMT -5
Like it or not, the RBI is a stat that is not going away
Its team oriented of course, but the better players you are surrounded with, the better stats you are likely to have
I won't question the value that Freddie or JD has had this yr, or any of the top 4 hitters for that matter
RBI is just part of the equation. But if you do not get RBI's, you score no runs, hence its not irrelevant
Its one thing to get on base (important) but more valuable to hit with men on base cause that means runs and fewer LOB
RBI, OPS, OBP, BA they are all important in judging a players offensive value
Add stolen bases to the list, the metric numbers like WAR and the plus numbers, I don't care about cause I do not want to take the time how they are computed - you have to let the experts whomever they are to compute the OPS and ERA plus and WAR
|
|