The RBI myth, Howard and Pujols, and some baseball logic...
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
I did a similar exercise a while back with Jim Rice's RBI totals, but there still seems to be a need to show how RBI totals can be completely misleading when trying to measure the value(or how good) a player has been.
Fans are always quick to point to a high RBI total as the defining measurement of the value of a player. This year, Ryan Howard is our new myth to debunk. Sure, 130 RBI automatically says that the guy had a good year, certainly better than a bench player, but it does not say that he was better than other players whom he may have dwarfed in RBI, yet that is the mistake people make all the time.
RBI are a product of part hitting, and part opportunities your teammates give you. The hitting part is controlled by the player, but the opportunities are out of the control of the player, and rest in the laps of the goodness or badness of a players teammates. Since the player has no control over how many opportunities he gets, it makes no sense to give a player credit over another player simply because he had more opportunities. Ok. I will hear it now, "but he still has to drive them in, and it isn't his fault." Yes he does, and no its not his fault. The fault lies with the person who ignores this aspect and heaps undeserved praise on one palyer over another.
Fans also seemingly forget that a player must not only drive in runs, he must also get on base so that he too can be driven in. Anyone who chirps in and says, "it isn't his job to get on base, it is to drive them in," must please leave the room and go play ping pong or something, as they are lacking fundamental baseball knowledge. Keep in mind, that a player who bats third or fourth in a lineup typically has a guy batting behind him who will drive in runners at the same % as they would themself. If they do not, then they probably won't get a pitch to hit, and then it becomes the fault of the GM, not the player who can't rack up RBI.
A measurement such as Situational Batter Runs tells us all we need to know, but fans don't accept it too well(most likely because the truth hurts), so lets break this down into the most simple terms possible.
Ryan Howard has 130 RBI, Albert Pujols 100.
We can call this a landslide lead, and many fans perceive this to be the case, and thus claim HOward is an MVP candidate due to such a high RBI total. I will say that Howard has hit very well with men on base, and that his RBI total is telling something more than what his low AVG, OB%, and Good SLG% are telling us. In other words, Howard's RBI are not completely earned from just having a glut of baserunners.
Lets check the ledger though...
RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION WHEN AT BAT
Howard 193
Pujols 112
RBI WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION
Howard 81
Pujols 62
HOW MANY RUNNERS DID THEY FAIL TO DRIVE IN FROM SCORING POSITION? CALL THIS RALLY KILLERS..
Howard 112
Pujols 50
So what does this tell us? In simple terms, if they drove in a run they get the RBI, but if they failed and made an out, then they COST their team the RBI! So instead of just looking at the total RBI, we are now looking at the times they cost their teams.
PLAYER......RBI.....FAILED RBI THAT COST TEAM.......THEIR POSITIVE RBI CONTRIBUTION(THE SUM OF FAILING AND SUCCEEDING)
Howard......81............112...........................................-31
Pujols.........62............50............................................+12
So when you look at the failings as well as the successes, you see that Pujols was actually a BETTER RBI MAN, and that the reason why Howard's raw RBI total is higher is because he simply had many more chances.
The Ledger tells us that Pujols is +43 over Howard so far.
How about we do the same with runners from 1B? It is the same process as above, but I will just cut to the chase. Howard is +1.
The Ledger tell us that Pujols is now +42 over Howard so far.
How about driving in oneslef w/ the bases empty(the on base totals count HR already). Howard is +2.
The Ledger tells us that Pujols is now +40 over Howard so far. When considering the amount of runners, and the rate of runners driven in, we can see that Pujols was actually a BETTER RBI man than Howard, despite having 30 less on his season RBI total.
Keep in mind, if you are so fond of a runner driven in, then you MUST have strong disdain for a FAILED runner driven in, and Howard has done that much more than Pujols.
Wait, there is more!!
We brushed upon setting up RBI opportunities for others too. Lets look at how many times each man put himself into scoring position so that they could be driven.
NUMBER OF TIMES PUT HIMSELF INTO SCORING POSITION TO BE DRIVEN IN.
Howard 27
Pujols 40
You can go ahead and add another 13 to the ledger, which now reads, Pujols at +53!!
NUMBER OF TIMES PUT ONTO 1B
Howard 138
Pujols 191
I won't add these to the ledger being that putting oneself onto 1B isn't as valuable as in scoring position, but they do have value in that he can be driven in, but not near the same rate.
How about extending innings? Every time a player gets on base, that is one extra at bat for another player. Even mediocore players get a hit 26 times out of those 100 extra at bats, and sprinkle in some HR to boot. How many times did Pujols get his teammates more at bats? Howard made 115 more outs, thus that is 115 more times that Howard killed or hurt an inning, or you can look at it as 115 more times that Pujols extended the inning with an extra chance(26%) of another hit, possibly a double or HR to boot!
By now, either your feet are warm and cozy by this fireside chat, or you are getting angry(possibly because you see a myth being shot down and it could be a man you admire). If admiring an athlete or his ability is your cup of tea, and attitude doesn't enter the equation, then admire the ones that truly merit being admired...and in this case it is a resounding Pujols over Howard ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT!
Fans are always quick to point to a high RBI total as the defining measurement of the value of a player. This year, Ryan Howard is our new myth to debunk. Sure, 130 RBI automatically says that the guy had a good year, certainly better than a bench player, but it does not say that he was better than other players whom he may have dwarfed in RBI, yet that is the mistake people make all the time.
RBI are a product of part hitting, and part opportunities your teammates give you. The hitting part is controlled by the player, but the opportunities are out of the control of the player, and rest in the laps of the goodness or badness of a players teammates. Since the player has no control over how many opportunities he gets, it makes no sense to give a player credit over another player simply because he had more opportunities. Ok. I will hear it now, "but he still has to drive them in, and it isn't his fault." Yes he does, and no its not his fault. The fault lies with the person who ignores this aspect and heaps undeserved praise on one palyer over another.
Fans also seemingly forget that a player must not only drive in runs, he must also get on base so that he too can be driven in. Anyone who chirps in and says, "it isn't his job to get on base, it is to drive them in," must please leave the room and go play ping pong or something, as they are lacking fundamental baseball knowledge. Keep in mind, that a player who bats third or fourth in a lineup typically has a guy batting behind him who will drive in runners at the same % as they would themself. If they do not, then they probably won't get a pitch to hit, and then it becomes the fault of the GM, not the player who can't rack up RBI.
A measurement such as Situational Batter Runs tells us all we need to know, but fans don't accept it too well(most likely because the truth hurts), so lets break this down into the most simple terms possible.
Ryan Howard has 130 RBI, Albert Pujols 100.
We can call this a landslide lead, and many fans perceive this to be the case, and thus claim HOward is an MVP candidate due to such a high RBI total. I will say that Howard has hit very well with men on base, and that his RBI total is telling something more than what his low AVG, OB%, and Good SLG% are telling us. In other words, Howard's RBI are not completely earned from just having a glut of baserunners.
Lets check the ledger though...
RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION WHEN AT BAT
Howard 193
Pujols 112
RBI WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION
Howard 81
Pujols 62
HOW MANY RUNNERS DID THEY FAIL TO DRIVE IN FROM SCORING POSITION? CALL THIS RALLY KILLERS..
Howard 112
Pujols 50
So what does this tell us? In simple terms, if they drove in a run they get the RBI, but if they failed and made an out, then they COST their team the RBI! So instead of just looking at the total RBI, we are now looking at the times they cost their teams.
PLAYER......RBI.....FAILED RBI THAT COST TEAM.......THEIR POSITIVE RBI CONTRIBUTION(THE SUM OF FAILING AND SUCCEEDING)
Howard......81............112...........................................-31
Pujols.........62............50............................................+12
So when you look at the failings as well as the successes, you see that Pujols was actually a BETTER RBI MAN, and that the reason why Howard's raw RBI total is higher is because he simply had many more chances.
The Ledger tells us that Pujols is +43 over Howard so far.
How about we do the same with runners from 1B? It is the same process as above, but I will just cut to the chase. Howard is +1.
The Ledger tell us that Pujols is now +42 over Howard so far.
How about driving in oneslef w/ the bases empty(the on base totals count HR already). Howard is +2.
The Ledger tells us that Pujols is now +40 over Howard so far. When considering the amount of runners, and the rate of runners driven in, we can see that Pujols was actually a BETTER RBI man than Howard, despite having 30 less on his season RBI total.
Keep in mind, if you are so fond of a runner driven in, then you MUST have strong disdain for a FAILED runner driven in, and Howard has done that much more than Pujols.
Wait, there is more!!
We brushed upon setting up RBI opportunities for others too. Lets look at how many times each man put himself into scoring position so that they could be driven.
NUMBER OF TIMES PUT HIMSELF INTO SCORING POSITION TO BE DRIVEN IN.
Howard 27
Pujols 40
You can go ahead and add another 13 to the ledger, which now reads, Pujols at +53!!
NUMBER OF TIMES PUT ONTO 1B
Howard 138
Pujols 191
I won't add these to the ledger being that putting oneself onto 1B isn't as valuable as in scoring position, but they do have value in that he can be driven in, but not near the same rate.
How about extending innings? Every time a player gets on base, that is one extra at bat for another player. Even mediocore players get a hit 26 times out of those 100 extra at bats, and sprinkle in some HR to boot. How many times did Pujols get his teammates more at bats? Howard made 115 more outs, thus that is 115 more times that Howard killed or hurt an inning, or you can look at it as 115 more times that Pujols extended the inning with an extra chance(26%) of another hit, possibly a double or HR to boot!
By now, either your feet are warm and cozy by this fireside chat, or you are getting angry(possibly because you see a myth being shot down and it could be a man you admire). If admiring an athlete or his ability is your cup of tea, and attitude doesn't enter the equation, then admire the ones that truly merit being admired...and in this case it is a resounding Pujols over Howard ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT!
0
Comments
1.) Number of At Bats. You are looking simply at Opportunities. Obviously a player with close to 100 more AB is going to have more opportunities. You need to adjust your numbers accordingly.
2.) Oppotunities vs. Position in the line-up. Pujols is batting third for most of the year while Howard is batting clean-up. Assuming all things are equal, Howard should have %33 more opportunities than Pujols, skewing your opportunity numbers once again.
Re-calculate and let me know what you find when comparing Howard to other clean up hitters in the league and Pujols weighted stats.
J
I have a problem with that stat.
How do we know it ended the inning? Perhaps the next batter drove the runners in.
Steve
That is the whole point...opportunties. Howard's RBI totals are high because he has many more opportunties, and batting clean up may be one of the reasons why.
You like RBI so much, then you should have the samd disdain for failing to drive in a run. Howard failed 112 times, Pujols 50.
Think of it if two guys have 200 hits each. They seemingly look the same, until you notice one has 100 more at bats.
But you want Pujols's normalized?
With the same amount of at bats, Pujols's normalized RBI with runners in scoring position is 106, compared to Howard's 81.
Pujols destroys Howard as an RBI man, and he destroys him at getting on base, and he destroys him at making less outs(thus getting MORE at bats for his teammates)! I realize your fandom of Howard is clogging your thoughts, but the 'reality' prescription is right here.
This is written in laymen's terms to show that total RBI are dependent on Opportunties. I wouldn't promote that stat as a true measurement. It is in simple terms.
We are measuring what the player does, not what his teammates do. If you make an out with runners in scoring position, you are hurting your team's chances of scoring runs! Yes, it is known by how much it typically hurts your team. Those are all the figures used in the Situational Batter Runs. If you like, I can spend time finding the percentages to show how each situation changes with an out or a hit, and its impact on chances to win the game.
That percentage can change based on the hitter behind you...but that is a measurement of the GM.
The same can be said for driving in a run. How do you know that the next guy wouldn't have driven him in anyway? So it basically goes both ways.
Here are the run expectancy figures with a man on second and nobody out.
On average, a man on 2nd with nobody out ended up yielding 1.189 runs in the inning.
If a player makes an out with a man on 2nd, then the inning typically yields 0.725 runs in the inning.
If the next player makes an out with the man on 2nd, then the inning typically yields only 0.344 runs in the inning.
Obviously if the next guy makes an out, the inning yields zero runs in the inning.
This is based on every single man on second base situation in MLB. They aren't guesses. They are exactly what happend.
Making the first out with the bases load reduces the teams run expectancy from 2.417 to 1.65. The second out drops it to 0.815. OUTS KILL!
Everyone repeat, OUTS KILL! Say it again... OUTS KILL!
The first question coming out would be, "well it depends who is up next." That is exactly right, but that has no bearing on the value that Ryan Howard brings to the table compared to Pujols. That then becomes a measurement of the GM, and not the player in question, as it wouldn't be very fair to judge the player based on how good somebody else is.
another way to judge MVP is by looking at OPS......in this case, Howard looks like a Junior varsity player compared to Pujols....
Pujols is set to have his best OPS of his career, and that is saying a lot!
<< <i>DRJ,
That is the whole point...opportunties. Howard's RBI totals are high because he has many more opportunties, and batting clean up may be one of the reasons why.
You like RBI so much, then you should have the samd disdain for failing to drive in a run. Howard failed 112 times, Pujols 50.
Think of it if two guys have 200 hits each. They seemingly look the same, until you notice one has 100 more at bats.
But you want Pujols's normalized?
With the same amount of at bats, Pujols's normalized RBI with runners in scoring position is 106, compared to Howard's 81.
Pujols destroys Howard as an RBI man, and he destroys him at getting on base, and he destroys him at making less outs(thus getting MORE at bats for his teammates)! I realize your fandom of Howard is clogging your thoughts, but the 'reality' prescription is right here. >>
Not sure why you are so against normalizing for the number of at bats and the position in the batting order. The performance of teammates ahead and behind a player which affects the quality of pitches seen by a batter. These are variables which would require watching every game, tracking every pitch and situation. This is where the sabermetric style of stats for player by player comparison breaks down.
Pujols batting third should mean more at bats, which is not the case which means the player has durability issues which should also be taken into account when comparing player to player. In your analysis not being available to bat is better than actually batting (and potentially getting out with Runners in scoring position).
Bottom line is Runs, RBIs and Team Wins. Right now Howard leads the pack in the NL, and the Phils are right in the thick of things with wins.
Could he have even better stats with the opportunites he has seen? Of course yes, but once again we are talking about Hypotheticals that apply to all players including Pujols. Howard is putting up the best "real" run production numbers in the league which is the only stat that has an impact on wins and losses at the end of the day.
J
<< <i>Howard is putting up the best "real" run production numbers in the league which is the only stat that has an impact on wins and losses at the end of the day. >>
That right there is the disconnect and I'm not sure what else skinpinch/hoopster needs to say to get you past it. Howard is definitely NOT putting up the best run production numbers, "real" or otherwise. Run production is not just RBI and runs scored; it is avoiding outs so that your teammates get more chances, it is advancing runners with walks and singles so that they get to scoring position, it is stealing bases and not getting caught stealing, it is avoiding double plays. ALL of those things are "real" run production in the manner that matters - they are how "real" runs get scored.
You are absolutely correct that Pujols lack of durability factors into the equation, what you missed is that the numbers presented already did that. Even considering the stretch that Pujols missed, he has still produced more runs than Howard - a LOT more. We are having another Williams/Gordon debate and you are arguing for Gordon.
And I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: why in Earth are Phillies fans so quick to overlook Chase Utley? He is, by far, the best player on your team; he was the best last year, he may have even been the best the year before that (Howard's MVP year)considering the enormous gap in defensive value. He's a stud, and he's taking a backseat to Dave Kingman, and Phillies fans should be embarrassed.
I agree with your conclusions, though I'm not certain of the validity of your methods.
If the main point of your post is that RBI can be overrated as a stat, that's obvious to anyone who knows baseball. Just look at Butch Hobson in 1977. It's similar to wins for pitchers. If the main (or secondary) point is that Pujols is a better, more productive hitter than Howard, that's obvious to anyone with even an ounce of objectivity. To Phillies fans, I'm not bashing Howard. I would take him on my team any day. But Pujols is one of the all-time greats. We are fortunate to be seeing such a player, just as our ancestors got to see the likes of Ruth, Gehrig, and Foxx.
I do admire your effort. You present your case very well.
When we were having a like discussion on this with George Brett recently, you went on and on Hoopster how Brett not being in the lineup 100% of the time, and how it hurt his team. If that is how you felt on Brett, how come Pujols does not get the same treatment. You had to adjust Brett numbers for an average player....let's see Pujol's numbers adjusted with an average player, rather then stretching his stats to what he may have done if playing.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Howard dwarfed Pujols' stats.
Class Dismissed
Suppose Howard hits a 2 run homer (pick your inning) and his team wins the game 2-1
He also left 10 men on base in his other at bats. His team left a total of 15.
Pujols on the other hand, Hit a grand slam, (again pick your inning) left no one on base
yet his team lost 5 to 4
Now who was more valuable?
Of course this is only one game but suppose you could pro rate that across a season?
Not exactly what they did in that one game but I hope you get the point.
Steve
Steve
<< <i>I have a problem with some of these "stats'
Suppose Howard hits a 2 run homer (pick your inning) and his team wins the game 2-1
He also left 10 men on base in his other at bats. His team left a total of 15.
Pujols on the other hand, Hit a grand slam, (again pick your inning) left no one on base
yet his team lost 5 to 4
Now who was more valuable?
Of course this is only one game but suppose you could pro rate that across a season?
Not exactly what they did in that one game but I hope you get the point.
Steve
Steve >>
I must be entering the "Twilight Zone" since for once I agree with Steve. The only way to truly compare two players is to look at each and every game/at bat on its own merits. It is tough to do for the normal fan, so we have to turn to stats which do not always present the full picture.
I was agreeing with you a few times.
Now with that said what Hoopster has explained to us is very valuable information it is not however the end all.
Just like the RBI total that some like to think is so important.
Somewhere between the two lies the answer.
Steve
In your example, Pujols is the more valuable. And the same answer is reached whether you look at the stats that I look at, or the ones skinpinch loks at, or the stats the Howard backers look at. That Pujols HR didn't result in a win, but Howad's did, is 100% the result of what other people did and really doesn't have a place in the debate about which individual player is more valuable.
If you follow the train of thought you're on, then ALL stats are meaningless - including HR and RBI, the only ones that Howard has going for him. Either we all agree that none of us is remotely qualified to offer an opinion unless we've watched or studied every MLB game, or we offer opinions based on the best available evidence. RBI are so far from the best available evidence that I wish we'd all just stop mentioning them at all.
RBI can be an over valued stat,
just as any single stat may be, when used in a team sport environment
It should be remembered, one can drive in runs, with no runners in scoring poition, and even with no runners on base at all.
Some of the negative aspect of outs, is over valued, as they sometimes actually contribute to a run being scored.
Situational value is not taken into account, that is, a 9-1 lead in the 8th inning and a batter drives in two more runs, making the score 11-1, not real important or "clutch" RBI.
The all time ( post 1900) career RBI leaders;
1 Aaron, 2. Ruth, 3. Bonds, 4. Gehrig, 5. Musial, 6. Cobb, 7. Foxx
All pretty good hitters, no "myth" regarding RBI, for any of them.
<< <i>1 Aaron, 2. Ruth, 3. Bonds, 4. Gehrig, 5. Musial, 6. Cobb, 7. Foxx
All pretty good hitters, no "myth" regarding RBI, for any of them. >>
True; really great players will generally have great numbers across the board - RBI, BA, OBP, etc. But the guys who get to bat third or fourth are not the only great players, nor are they necessarily great players just because they get to bat there. I think (God, I pray) that we can all agree that Rod Carew was a better player than Dave Kingman or Rusty Staub, despite having so many fewer RBI.
The point that seems to be eluding everyone is that you can cover up the RBI column on any player's stats and reach the same, or even better, conclusion regarding how good that player was. Yes, sometimes RBI and greatness go together, as in your list, but is there anyone who seriously couldn't tell that those players were great without knowing how many RBI they had? Knowing their RBI total doesn't add anything at all to our opinions of Aaron or Ruth or the others; we already knew they were great, right? They would still have been great if their managers batted them in the leadoff spot, right? They would still have been great if they had batted leadoff for the Angels in the 1960's, right? If the answers to those questions aren't all obviously yes, then these debates are like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man. But if the answers are yes, then why are we talking about RBI at all?
There is no player who is otherwise not great who becomes great when we see his RBI totals, and there is no great player who becomes less than great when we see his RBI totals. RBI add nothing to these debates. Period.
Glad you brought up game context, as that is measured in the levereage at bats. Every at bat, in every base, out, and score situation is measured in leverage at bats. You have HIgh Leverage, Medium, and Low. High being the most valuable of course as those are the at bats that good hitting results in WINS, and low leverage, as those are the at bats where the game is already virtually a loss or win...basically the game is decided already. Howard has done his best hitting this season in LOW leverage situations...so WinPitcher Steve, there is your answer to your question. He has a lot of 'stats' in losses or games where further punishment is not needed.
Of course, a teammate could blow something good, like the Cardinals bullpen has.
So DRJ, EVERY AT BAT AND IN EVERY SITUATION IS LOOKED AT!! What part don't you get?
DrJ, if this other stuff is over your head, just walk away realizing that Howard drove in 19 more runs with RISP than Pujols, and he needed 81 more baserunners on 2nd or 3rd while he batted, and an extra 60 odd at bats to do so.
Meteroiteguy, Dallas did that because Clark was actually somewhat close to Brett in performance, unlike this where Howard is a mere shadow of Pujols.
A very simple way to look at it would be if the players switched teams. I don't know how it could be proved, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if Pujols played with the Phillies lineup, it wouldn't even be a contest.
Shane
Also, in the examples provided does it matter if an RBI opportunity resulted in multiple RBI? It seems like if Howard had 30 multi-RBI hits then his ABs when he failed to drive in the run would actually be higher, right?
<< <i>
DrJ, if this other stuff is over your head, just walk away realizing that Howard drove in 19 more runs with RISP than Pujols, and he needed 81 more baserunners on 2nd or 3rd while he batted, and an extra 60 odd at bats to do so.
>>
Hoopster. No need to turn to personal insults when people disagree with your assumptions. I actually understand these statistics implicitly (I have M.S. in Electrical Engineering with a heavy concentration in statistical and stochastic analysis...). You still did not normalize based on batting position and number of at bats. I have to fly into the Hurricane zone tomorrow for business (restarting a plant)... if I get some downtime over the next few days I will provide a more complete analysis.
DrJ, if this other stuff is over your head, just walk away realizing that Howard drove in 19 more runs with RISP than Pujols, and he needed 81 more baserunners on 2nd or 3rd while he batted, and an extra 60 odd at bats to do so.
Hoop even I get it, I just don't think it is as important as you make it out to be. Maybe I'm wrong.
Does the fact that Howard could have been on a team that out hit the Cards have any impact here?
What I mean is say the Phillies averaged 15 baserunners per game while the Cards had 10?
Wouldn't Howard then get up to bat more often then PUjols?
Also, and does this matter? Wasn't Pujols hurt for part of this season? Thus another reason Howard has more at bats?
In any event Hoop you have opened my eyes.
Steve
It makes no difference if a player batted 1st, 2ne 4th, or 9th. The fact is that you are using Howard's 130 RBI as an emphasis on how good he is. The reality is that he bats in a favorable lineup slot, and favorable lineup, and those are big reasons why he has 130 RBI, and BETTER players(like Pujols) do not. That is why I am spelling out how many opportunities he has had to get to those totals....and how he has done a a poor job of creating RBI's for the next guy in the lineup. No malice intended for the over the head line(just seemed that you were glossing over the obvious).
Von, those are basically all outs. There may be a few instances of a single that didn't score a guy from second. But those instances would be in Pujols's favor.
WinPitcher, being on a team that scores more does make one bat more(though not a whole lot), and if a player is getting more RBI as a result of this, it is not because of his ability, but the ability of his teammates. Yes, being injured could cost.
BUt if there is one thing that people walk away from this thread with, it should be that making a lot of outs in favorable scoring situations is a very bad thing to the team's chances at scoring runs, and puts a huge dent into the positive times where a player did come through. If a player is getting a lot of RBI by virtue of swinging at everything or by virtue of having good hitters in front of him, then you MUST NOT tout that players RBI total without taking this into account...because they have also made many costly outs that deter his team from scoring runs...outs that better hitters don't make as often.
Seasons with 130 or more RBI are quite rare for even the greatest players in the game. Just to give you and idea of where Howard stacks up with some of the best hitters of all time who had some of the most potent offenses of all time....
The results are quite shocking....
Seasons with 130 or more RBI
Howard -- 3
Pujols -- 2
ARod -- 5
Mantle -- 1
Williams - 3
Dimaggio -- 4
Aaron -- 2
Ruth -- 10
Gehrig -- 9
Foxx -- 6
Schmidt -- 0
R. Jackson -- 0
Banks -- 1
Mays -- 1
Griffey -- 4
Killebrew -- 1
F. Robinson -- 1
Bonds -- 0
This is not to say Howard is in the class of any of these guys since he needs to do it over the long haul (another 8 to 10 years), but he is well on his way to cementing himself as one of the greatest run producers of all time. 130 RBI is an awesome accomplishment, and something even the greatest hitters of all time could only accomplish less than 50% of the time (Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx) and for the rest of the all-time greats was a once every 5-6 year or more accomplishment.
For Howard is but up these numbers in his first 3 full seaons is really astonishing now that I look at the historical context.
J
Again, the entire point goes right past you.
So then I guess Juan Gonzalez simply dwarfs Barry Bonds offensively being that Gonzalez has FOUR 130+ RBI seasons, and Bonds zero.
Bonds is by far the greatest offensive player of this generation.
The over the head comment actually looks a little more telling now...
And do you realize that in 1996 alone that 10 guys achieved 130+ RBI? It is not a rare feat in the live ball era. I don't even want to get into the affect of era's on these totals...that would make for a good Advil commercial.
<< <i>DRJ,
Again, the entire point goes right past you.
So then I guess Juan Gonzalez simply dwarfs Barry Bonds offensively being that Gonzalez has FOUR 130+ RBI seasons, and Bonds zero.
Bonds is by far the greatest offensive player of this generation.
The over the head comment actually looks a little more telling now... >>
Hoopster,
You immaturity shows once again. It is becoming a recurring theme in your threads. When someone disagrees with you, you attempt to insult them or their knowledge. I am not one to brag about knowledge, since I believe education is the key to success, but you really need to take a step back and realize when you are a boy playing with men.
You are now trying to make arguments that have no bearing on the original topic. Statistics 101... with a data set sufficiently small, you can argue for or against a particular outcome with great success. Expanding the data set is where the rubber meets the road.
J
Could such a discussion and analysis be possible in any other sport?
/s/ JackWESQ
If immaturity is banging one's head against the wall because one completely glosses over and misses the point, then call me immature.
You are the one who just 'expanded' the point by putting up Howard's total 130 RBI seasons in measurement against the greats as if it means something special. Yet you completely ignored the context that the RBI occured in, and you still don't get the point that total RBI is part product of hitting, and part product of teammates. Please don't say you do, because if you did, then you would not still be looking at total RBI without also looking at the number of chances!
There really isn't much to disagree about. He got a lot of RBI, but got a lot of opportunites, made a lot of outs in the process, and wasn't great at getting on base. He is good, but not nearly as good as others who have LESS RBI, like a Pujols.
And please don't forget the ON BASE portion of hitting, and the function of making outs and how it costs plate appearances for teammates.
P.S. You are probably a great Electrical Engineer...but you may not be so great at this.
<< <i>DrJ,
If immaturity is banging one's head against the wall because one completely glosses over and misses the point, then call me immature.
You are the one who just 'expanded' the point by putting up Howard's total 130 RBI seasons in measurement against the greats as if it means something special. Yet you completely ignored the context that the RBI occured in, and you still don't get the point that total RBI is part product of hitting, and part product of teammates. Please don't say you do, because if you did, then you would not still be looking at total RBI without also looking at the number of chances!
There really isn't much to disagree about. He got a lot of RBI, but got a lot of opportunites, made a lot of outs in the process, and wasn't great at getting on base. He is good, but not nearly as good as others who have LESS RBI, like a Pujols.
And please don't forget the ON BASE portion of hitting, and the function of making outs and how it costs plate appearances for teammates.
P.S. You are probably a great Electrical Engineer...but you may not be so great at this. >>
Hoopster you are contradicting yourself again. Earlier in this thread I mentioned opportunites were part and parcel with the with a players surrounding teammates, which you dismissed and now you are using it as an excuse why Howard has more RBIs then Pujols.
I realize you are a Pujols fan, and never once did I not say Pujols is not a better all around hitter than Howard. This point cannot be argued with Pujols ob% and BA over his career. The point is Pujols is not a better run producer this season than Howard which you just cannot get through your head for some reason. The cold hard facts are contained in the total of RBIs + Runs Scored.
If Pujols had better teammates and did not get miss time so often his numbers may be better, however we have to deal with reality and durability in the analysis as well. Another shocking stat....
For the year the Philles have scored 2.5% More runs than the cardinals (720 vs. 702). This shows the lineups are not that different from a run production standpoint. However Ryan Howard has driven in 29% more runs than Pujols this year (131 vs. 101). What gives?
Bottom line is runs are what determine whether a team wins and loses a game, and Howard is at the top of the NL this season. Could he have even more RBIs and runs... of course! Howard was in a major slump for the first couple months of the season, which obviously skewed his numbers. Howard strikes out more than any player in History which also hurts his cause. Over his first 4 years however, he has also been one of the most prolific HR hitters and run producers all-time.
Dismissing RBIs is simply absurd, and I am sure any of the HOFers I listed above would explain to you how incredibly difficult it is to reach 130 RBI even on loaded championship teams. Some of the best hitters of all time could not even sniff the plateau or only accomplished the feat once or twice in their career.
P.S. Keep your insults out the thread and debate like a man. You are quickly getting a reputation around here. I got t ocatch a flight to TX (I can't stand the state by the way), but hopefully we can continue the debate in a civil manner.
I hear that, I may not agree wholeheartedly with it but I hear it.
Steve
there were less personal insults, less narrow minded opinions, fewer references to prayer, and less extreme views.
I shall present two lists, and I will not state any conclusion with a tremendous bias, trying to scare anyone or shame anyone, into seeing any possible result.
All time best career RBI and career OBP, no active players, nor those pre 1900;
RBI, top 12= Aaron, Ruth, Bonds, Gehrig, Musial, Cobb, Foxx, Murray, Mays, Ott, Yaz, Williams
OBP, top12= Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Hornsby, Cobb, Foxx, Speaker, Collins, Fain, Bishop, Jackson
Some of the very best are on both lists of the dozen best ever, some on only one list.
Does anyone think Ferris Fain and/or Max Bishop were better hitters than any player on the RBI all time best list ?
Does anyone think an actual real event, a run produced, can be more important than a potential, or chance of, a run produced ?
Does anyone think perhaps OBP could be more of a "myth" than RBI ?
My view, is that ANY stat, in and of itself, might not prove too much, the context, and combinations therein are much more telling.
We all have our opinions, our unique frames of reference, and hopefully, we all enjoy baseball and its rich stat laden history.
<< <i>RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION WHEN AT BAT
Howard 193
Pujols 112
RBI WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION
Howard 81
Pujols 62
HOW MANY RUNNERS DID THEY FAIL TO DRIVE IN FROM SCORING POSITION? CALL THIS RALLY KILLERS..
Howard 112
Pujols 50 >>
The above stats are hard to deem accurate because:
A) They do not take into account if a runner was also on 1st base when other runners were in "scoring position," and a double, triple, or HR may have scored the man on first as well.
What I mean is that if the bases are loaded, then the stats say that 2 men are in "scoring position" (the guy on 2nd and the guy on 3rd), but if the player hits a grand slam he will get 4 RBI's added to his RBI's with runners in scoring position, which would render the "rally killer" stat inaccurate.
If the RBI's with runners in scoring position stat above has only counted players that scored from 2nd base and/or 3rd base at the time of the hit (I have never seen that though), then my above comments are inaccurate.
Also, none of that is me arguing for or against either player in this thread.
Again, the point isn't dismissing RBI, it is simply taking into account the number of opportunties to achieve such a total(which basically is showing how often a player is failing to drive in a run).
Jaxxr, Dallas addressed your point on the career leaders previously.
A Run Producer!
The first player hits a single, the second player hits a single to make it 1st and 3rd, and the fourth player gets a sac fly. The first player gets credited with a run scored, and the third credited with an RBI. The middle guy gets no credit as a 'run producer' yet his single is more beneficial to a team than the Sac Fly guys event is.
This is how runs are built, and every event leads to different levels of chances of creating runs. When measuring one player vs. another you have to measure them on neutral terms. When looking at total runs scored, or total RBI as the measurment, it is no longer neutral terms because even though Pujols can get on base x number of times, if the guys behind him don't drive him in, it isn't because Pujol's isn't a 'run producer', it is because the other hitters aren't doing it as well as Howard's.
All this is recorded in the play by play date of every at bat since 1956, and it is amazing people just dismiss this, amazing! Since this is seemingly complicated for fans that don't realize the magnitude of the study of the play by play data, I put it into RBI terms...
If you love RBI, then you have to HATE a guy who FAILS to get an RBI when presented with the chance!
For anyone who doesn't get that point, I have a proposal. I will have a free throw shooting contest with you, and we will see who can make 10 free throws...You get 12 attempts to do so, and I get 20. We need to do this, because it is only when unfairness is applied directly at one, do they truly recognize it....otherwise it is brushed off while they bask in unworthy glory.
IMO a guy could fail 7 times out of 10 to drive in a run BUT if he leads the league in RBI's he is Valuable.
Great analogy on the free throws though!
Steve
What did the 3rd player do?
Steve
A.) please re- read my most recent prior post, it has changed greatly from the original simple concept of quality within RBI leaders,
it has two lists, for one's interpretation, and the career list of RBI has been expanded as well. There is another, completely DIFFERENT point, trying to be made, perhaps you overlooked this in your haste to respond.
B.) because you merely say he did, does not automatically make it true,
nor does it preclude the possibility it was addressed incorrectly, incompletely, or perhaps perfectly.
That was the best post in this thread.
Steve
I'm not sure what you're getting at with your lists. If you pick any single stat like RBI or OBP and stop after 10 or 20 names you are going to find lots of the same all-time greats on all of the lists. If you pick a cumulative stat like RBI, runs, hits, etc. every list will be mostly the same, with the order jumbled somewhat. If you pick an average stat, like BA, OBP, etc. you'll get many of the same names and also some people with shorter careers who were very good at whatever stat you're looking at.
Ferris Fain and Max Bishop were two of the best ever at taking a walk. That has value, but obviously not as much as a hit or especialy an extra base hit. Fain had decent power and he was undoubtedly a much better player than people realize; Bishop had nothing else in his offensive arsenal and he's really only remembered, to the degree he's remembered at all, for the walks.
We're back to the larger point that you are ignoring - the better the information you use, the better your evaluations of players will be. Listing RBI is better than listing OBP because, as a cumulative stat, the length of the players career is in there, too. But either list by itself means very little; is the player who is number 28 on the RBI list "better" than number 88? Without considering many other things, there is no way of knowing; once we consider all of the other things, we'll find that their position on the RBI list turned out to be meaningless.
Even if you list out 20 different things and don't also consider things like when and where the players played, you still won't have accomplished all that much. Yes, as always, Ruth and Aaron, etc. will be at the top - it makes no difference what you do, you will always find that Ruth and the rest of the top 10 were great. This only matters for players below that, and the further below that they are the more that getting better information matters.
If you must only look at lists, then by far the best you can do is look at OPS+ and plate appearances. Try ranking players by their OPS+ times the square root of their plate appearances (yes, I said square root, I'm a dork) and I'll wager that you'll get (1) the same basic top 10 you always get, and (2) a damn fine approximation of a best hitters list. You won't find Ferris Fain sneaking in to the top 250, let alone the top 10.
And you'll have a list that takes into account length of career, OBP, slugging, park factors and era context. You give me those two stats, you take all the rest, and I will know who the better hitters were to a degree MUCH better than you will. If you're evaluating players and not looking at OPS+ (or another park adjusted stat) then you are wasting your time. No "IMO" coming here - you are flat out wasting your time.
And keep in mind that at the end of the day, even if we've looked at all of the stats, all we've found out is who the best hitters are - not the best players. The Howard backers are, perhaps intentionally, completely ignoring the fact that Howard can't play baseball - he can only hit. Playing first base poorly has no value - ANYBODY can play first base as poorly as Howard plays it. It's one of the primary reasons that Howard isn't even close to the most valuable player on his own team.
Howard OPS .854 (similar to a weak hitting middle infielder)
Pujols OPS 1.115 (MVP caliber #)
should not even be close.......
Braun and Berkman will finish ahead of Howard (and behind Pujols)
The title of this thread starts with " The RBI myth..."
Thus it is being talked about herein the thread. So, a little defense of that all-encompasing statement is presented by many, I am trying to show ANY stat, such as OBP or RBI, can be shown as somewhat of a "myth".
Lists may not be perfect, but they are accurate and factual.
We all can interpret them based on a multitude of different choices, influences, beliefs, favorites, etc.
Looking at Dallas's reply is why I said "it was already" addressed before. There is nothing to add to his response. It is truly a professional quality response, and is one of the best and MOST VALID responses ever written on these message boards.
OBP or SLG% are not myths when isolating the value or greatness of a player, because those performances are the doing of the player, and not the doing of his teammates(like RBI are very often). The important thing is to isolate the players value, NOT the teammates.
There is a tiny possibility that if lineup protection exists to a small degree that teammates could affect a players OPS+, or Batter RUns...but other than that it is all the players doing, and not the doing of his teammates that clouds the truth(like RBI does). But we know that lineup protection is basically another myth.
Would you be willing to sign a player to a three year contract because he has 20 more RBI than another player...KNOWING THAT IT TOOK HIM 120 EXTRA CHANCES TO ACHIEVE THOSE RBI? Isn't it common sense that if he gets 100 less chances the next year, that he will also take a huge hit in RBI? So what changed? A player hits the exact same from one season to the next, and he has 20 less RBI to show for it because there were less baserunners. Why on earth would you hold that against the player in question, or promote another on the opposite spectrum?
Jaxxr,
I say again, the best way to understand this point is to feel it. We need to have a free throw contest to see who can make 10 free throws, but you get 12 attempts, and I get 20. It is only when unfairness is applied to oneself do they actually understand it.
We even had a name for it.
It was called richie hebner disease.
When George Foster came to the Mets Pete Rose wondered 'Who is George going to drive in'?
Steve
YEAR...NAME....AB.....HR......RBI......AVG.......OB.....SLG
1979 Buckner..591...14......66.......284......319......437
1986 Buckner.629....18.....102......267......311......421
What changed? He was a better hitter in 1979, and even though he had four less HR, he had a higher SLG% in '79. He had 40 more total at bats in 1986. So he basically hit the same in 1979 as he did in 1986, yet in 1986 he managed to get 36 more RBI.
Turn yourself into a sleuth, and see if you can come up with how that happened.
The answer is obvious, he had more baserunners in front of him in 1986 thanks to Boggs and CO. replacing Ivan Dejesus and CO.
So why on earth would you tarnish him for having only 66 RBI in 1979, or praise him for having 102 in 1986? He did the same thing! In 1986, he got the 20 free throw attempts
IF he achieved the higher RBI as a result of being a beast with men on base, THEN he should be given credit for it, but that isn't the case. He actually hit better with men on in 1979, than he did in 1986.
In 1979 Buckner had 166 men on 2nd and 3rd.........10 of which were bases loaded situations.
In 1986 Buckner had 232 men on 2nd and 3rd.........25 of which were bases loaded situations.
So DRJ will alll of a sudden mark Buckner as a run producer in 1986? And you will say because of his higher RBI total that, "a real run driven in is more valuable than a potential run." ??
Buckner was NOT anymore of a run producer in 1986, in fact he was a WORSE run producer in 1986.
There is no denying that Buckner was the man batting when those 102 runs came in, but the bulk of the credit goes to Wade Boggs, not Bill Buckner, and this is the error you and DrJ are making!
Edited to add: I just read WinPitchers post about Hebner disease...that is funny...and very accurate.
Although,
I have NEVER claimed Howard to be a better hitter than Pujols, re-read the posts if you doubt that.
I have said, RBI or ANY stat, may be over-rated by some who are narrow minded.
However, The Ferris Fains and Max Bishops of the baseball world, would suggest RBI might be a better evaluator of hitting skill, over the player's entire career, than OBP might be.
Panthers are tuff !
44 HR
133 RBI
93 Runs
and counting....
No matter what he does in the next 1000 games it will not change the fact that your use of RBI as a measurement tool is poor.
I think you may need to read the Buckner post above, or perhaps you have(or you must have) since you have moved away from the topic at hand(convenient), to avoid the prevailing logic.
<< <i>However, The Ferris Fains and Max Bishops of the baseball world, would suggest RBI might be a better evaluator of hitting skill, over the player's entire career, than OBP might be. >>
Yes, it is; I said it was earlier. But you're glossing right past the reason why.