There are a multitude of contributory factors, many factors of measurement as well, OBP, BA, errors made, OPS+, Win shares, percent caught stealing, outs made, and total bases, just to name a few.
The result of a baseball game is determined by the most RUNS, anything else is merely glossing over the actual fact. Drive em in, or score em, that is really, truly, the absolutely only thing that actually counts, in the result of a ballgame.
A note on a few contibutory stats; Percentage rate types, OBP, SLG, and BA, check out the top dozen or so, post-1900, all time best for an entire career, it seems only the OBP reflects some questionable "great" hitters in its list. Ferris Fain and Max Bishop are not on many "counting" stat all time lists, either.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>The result of a baseball game is determined by the most RUNS, anything else is merely glossing over the actual fact. Drive em in, or score em, that is really, truly, the absolutely only thing that actually counts, in the result of a ballgame. >>
You're almost there. But you keep leaving off "keep the inning alive" and "advance runners" from your list of how runs get produced. Pujols and Utley absolutely TOWER over Howard in those areas, and if you ignore OBP/outs made you will always reach the wrong conclusion about who produced the most runs.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Jaxxr, I agree that you are almost there. There is no question that runs are the currency of the game, but the problem you are facing is that you aren't giving the appropriate credit to each of the players that went about in creating those runs!!
I will give this example again! Based on your method of comparisons, the Bill Buckner of 1986 is better than the Bill Buckner of 1979 by virtue of his large lead in RBI in '86.
But when you consider the following information, your tune of the better RBI man being better, should change drastically...
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 because of the extra RBI Buckner is 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 at the plate when those 102 runs came in, but the bulk of the credit for those runs goes to Wade Boggs & CO., not Bill Buckner(despite the fact that he is 'credited' with an RBI), and this is the error you and DrJ are making!!
<< <i>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. >>
Not enough data.
How many times were there men on 1st and 3rd where a double or triple knocked in both? (1 from a scoring position and 1 not) How many times were there men on 1st and 2nd where a double or triple knocked in both? (1 from a scoring position and 1 not) How many times did he hit a HR with a man on 1st ant 3rd thus getting 3 RBI's, but only driving in 1 man from a "scoring position"? How many times did he hit a HR with a man on 1st ant 2nd thus getting 3 RBI's, but only driving in 1 man from a "scoring position"?
<< <i>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. >>
Not enough data.
How many times were there men on 1st and 3rd where a double or triple knocked in both? (1 from a scoring position and 1 not) How many times were there men on 1st and 2nd where a double or triple knocked in both? (1 from a scoring position and 1 not) How many times did he hit a HR with a man on 1st ant 3rd thus getting 3 RBI's, but only driving in 1 man from a "scoring position"? How many times did he hit a HR with a man on 1st ant 2nd thus getting 3 RBI's, but only driving in 1 man from a "scoring position"? >>
skinpinch can answer if he cares to, but if you just look at the numbers and think about it, the case for Buckner in 1986 is going to get worse, not better, the more situations that you add. And why are we leaving out the number of times that Buckner made himself the runner in scoring position, or moved a runner from first to second or third? OK, I know that the reason we're leaving them out is that once we admit that those situations also produce runs the entire argument for Howard collapses under the weight of its own illogic, so forget I asked.
This is a PERFECT example, if you have anything approaching an open mind, of how looking at the number of RBI a player has makes your evaluation of how valuable that player was worse than it would have been if you hadn't looked at all. RBI is not a useless stat, it is actually WORSE than useless and this example proves it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Nam, I will update the info for you. 30 years ago there may have been insufficient data, but with every play from 1956-2008 tracked and studied that is no longer the case.
Jaxxr,DrjI, will give this example again! Based on your method of comparisons, the Bill Buckner of 1986 is better than the Bill Buckner of 1979 by virtue of his large lead in RBI in '86.
But when you consider the following information, your tune of the better RBI man being better, should change drastically...
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(This is an OBVIOUS beneficial key RBI situation).
In 1979 Buckner had 184 men on 1st and drove in 8. In 1986 Buckner had 263 men on 1st and drove in 13.
So because of the extra RBI Buckner is 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 at the plate when those 102 runs came in, but the bulk of the credit for those runs goes to Wade Boggs & CO., not Bill Buckner(despite the fact that he is 'credited' with an RBI), and this is the error you and DrJ are making!!
Now that you and Fandango are agreeing on points you have officially reached lunatic status. You will now have your computer taken away and a padded room prepared for your imminent arrival.
But when you consider the following information, your tune of the better RBI man being better, should change drastically...
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(This is an OBVIOUS beneficial key RBI situation).
In 1979 Buckner had 184 men on 1st and drove in 8. In 1986 Buckner had 263 men on 1st and drove in 13.
So because of the extra RBI Buckner is 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 at the plate when those 102 runs came in, but the bulk of the credit for those runs goes to Wade Boggs & CO., not Bill Buckner(despite the fact that he is 'credited' with an RBI), and this is the error you and DrJ are making!!
Geez you mean to tell us that you think we do not know that baseball is a team sport?
What exactly are we arguing here?
Some of us really do not care that Wade Boggs and Co get some fathom credit for Buckner's RBI's in 1986.
We know that by looking at the amount of hits Boggs had!
It goes without saying that if Buckner batted behind Boggsand CO that he drove them in quite a few times.
Actually it means he drove them in every time sans his home runs!
He could have driven in J Fred Muggs for all i care.
If you feel the need to look further into who Buckner drove in bully for you. WE know he drove in his team mates!
Furthermore in 1986 the Red Sox were in the WS in 1979 Buckner was not in the WS, so if you asked HIM I bet he would say his 1986 RBI's were more important to him. Just because he had more chances in 1986 does not nessesarily mean that those RBI's were less productive or that he was!
It only means that he had more chances to drive in RBI's and fwiw he drove in more!
For all we know some of those RBI's got him to the WS. Isn't that what the game is played for?
No Winpitcher, it isn't appearant that you don't know it is a team sport.
Yes, the problem is that you guys give too much credit to a guy like Buckner(who had the high RBI totals due to teammates).
Winpitcher, the point is,he wasn't less or more productive...he was virtually the same. BUt because of his teammates, his RBI total rose, and only an idiot woud think HE is better as a result.
Winpitcher, the point is,he wasn't less or more productive...he was virtually the same. BUt because of his teammates, his RBI total rose, and only an idiot woud think HE is better as a result.
Steve, you keep jumping into the line of fire - at least as I see it - when you're not the target. I know you get what skinpinch is saying, but I am equally certain that several others do not.
Put another way, I disagree with all of you, but I respect the positions you're taking while some of the others are making my head explode.
On another subject that you brought up - that there is no definition of MVP - I have a question. While the word "valuable" is not defined, I assume that the words "most" and "player" can only mean one thing. Regarding "valuable", the word itself has meaning, as in you can look it up in the dictionary, and even though MLB left the word undefined, it absolutely has to track at least one of the traditional meanings or else it really is meaningless. I mean the voters can't interpret "most valuable" to mean "tallest" or "skinniest" or "having the whitest teeth", right? So simply saying it's not defined is not the end of the discussion; for the award to have more meaning than a whitest teeth trophy, the phrase "most valuable" has to have some meaning that reasonably implies having more of something that translates into scoring runs or winning games than any other player. Now, if that "something" is RBI or HR then we should just call it the Most RBI or Most HR Award, kind of like the NHL gives out awards for most goals, etc. But pitchers are also eligible, so it necessarily can't mean RBI or HR. What is it, in your opinion, that Ryan Howard has done the "most" or has the "most" of in the NL that means he is deserving of the MVP?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>No Winpitcher, it isn't appearant that you don't know it is a team sport.
Yes, the problem is that you guys give too much credit to a guy like Buckner(who had the high RBI totals due to teammates).
Winpitcher, the point is,he wasn't less or more productive...he was virtually the same. BUt because of his teammates, his RBI total rose, and only an idiot woud think HE is better as a result. >>
Why are you so fixated with Buckner in 79 and 86. What about 81 and 85? You are now exhibiting random behavior in your analysis (a stochastic problem). Time to see the Doc.
DrJ, aside from getting a ton of extra RBI from a glut of baserunners, a hitter may also achieve his share of extra RBI from exceptional hitting with men on base.
Those are two different scenarios...the first(getting RBI due to high volume of baserunners) gives no extra credit to the batter as that extra RBI credit goes to the teammates, the second(exceptional men on hitting) is the work of the hitter, adn most certainly he has to be recognized for that.
1981 for Bill Buckner saw him get 75 RBI in the short season(you do realize there was a strike that year? It seems your knowledge on baseball history is quite poor, so I thought I would inform you on that).
75 RBI was good enough for third in the league for Buck. However, he didn't achieve that due to a high volume of baserunners...he was exceptional with runners on base. He batted .420 with RISP that season! Keep in mind, this is 1981 when offense was not as easy to achieve as in the live ball era from '94 onward(again, a history lesson for you), so that is quite a feat.
Buckner in '85 was still the beneficiary of a lot of baserunners, but to his credit, he earned some of those by hitting well with men on...but still, compared to other sluggers(whom Buckner out RBIed or came close to), he was receiving artificial benefit due to a higher amount of baserunners.
If one truly understands the basic concept of RBI and chances, then they should not use RBI as a method of player evaluation UNLESS they account for the number of chances and the rate of hitting in men on situations. The moment one uses total RBI and ignores these facets shows either a lack of understanding, or simple laziness.
But then that is only half of the hitting equation, as the getting on base portion represents the other half of making runs!
Whether or not a player actually scores from his times on base(because of sub par people batting behind him) is irrelevant to the player in question's value/ability. It is however possible that a player doesn't score due to being a poor baserunning, but then that has to be(and can be) shown.
Usually over the long course of a full season, the league leader in any particular stat, has had somewhat similar chances/situations/luck, as the runner up, or the 3rd place, or the fourth place, or whatever rank, finisher. Being a league leader does have some merit.
There are exceptions, and extreme circumstances for sure, but RBI is typically, a good "single" indicator of batting skills. The more additonal factors or stats used, the better the indicator(s) will be.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
WinPithcer, they CAN even out. You treat it as if it is a guess. It isn't hard, the information is there to say exactly.
If you don't care, fine. Some probably feel the same way, but those people shouldn't be debating without the information against somebody who is using it.
If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't be in this thread
WinPitcher, come on now. Obviously there are going to be some hitters with equal opportunities in one season, but in one season, the variances are wide.
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
No offense taken. I like to wear velcro Kangaroos. It is just hard to find anyone who carries them these days.
(P.S. Turning to insults when your side of the debate has been proven invalid is an admission of defeat. I tried to explain that you cannot make an conclusion on a multifaceted result (MVP) based on a single criteria. I hope you and Hoopster have the opportunity to take some graduate level statistics courses at some point in your lives so you can make more educated and scientific sports analysis.)
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
Just so you know, Dr. J reportedly has a degree in stochastic analysis. I assume that means he once wrote a three paragraph paper on the assumptions surrounding the error term in an OLS regression for a social stats class, but who knows? Maybe he'll surprise us.
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
No offense taken. I like to wear velcro Kangaroos. It is just hard to find anyone who carries them these days.
(P.S. Turning to insults when your side of the debate has been proven invalid is an admission of defeat. I tried to explain that you cannot make an conclusion on a multifaceted result (MVP) based on a single criteria. I hope you and Hoopster have the opportunity to take some graduate level statistics courses at some point in your lives so you can make more educated and scientific sports analysis.) >>
FWIW, anyone who's passed a couple of actuarial exams-- much less anyone who's a bona fide actuarial fellow-- has forgotten more mathematics and statistics than you or I could ever hope to learn.
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
Just so you know, Dr. J reportedly has a degree in stochastic analysis. I assume that means he once wrote a three paragraph paper on the assumptions surrounding the error term in an OLS regression for a social stats class, but who knows? Maybe he'll surprise us. >>
Most of the work I have done in the field of stochastics invovles signal detection and extraction using match filter techniques. Kind of dry material, but the basis for modern radar systems. My key areas of interest are power system stability and economic dispatch. More dry material unless you are interested in how the power markets are settled each day.
FWIW, anyone who's passed a couple of actuarial exams-- much less anyone who's a bona fide actuarial fellow-- has forgotten more mathematics and statistics than you or I could ever hope to learn. >>
I won't argue with that point. Performing statustical analysis day in and day out is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. These days I use more basic probability measures to determine machine life and total system relaibility... MTBF, PFD. My wife thinks it is all boring, and since she is the "normal" one in our relationship I would tend to agree.
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
Just so you know, Dr. J reportedly has a degree in stochastic analysis. I assume that means he once wrote a three paragraph paper on the assumptions surrounding the error term in an OLS regression for a social stats class, but who knows? Maybe he'll surprise us. >>
Most of the work I have done in the field of stochastics invovles signal detection and extraction using match filter techniques. Kind of dry material, but the basis for modern radar systems. My key areas of interest are power system stability and economic dispatch. More dry material unless you are interested in how the power markets are settled each day. >>
If this is true then you should know full well that a statement such as this- "...The performance of teammates ahead and behind a player which affects the quality of pitches seen by a batter"-Needs to be demonstrated before it's admitted to the argument. And for what it's worth the last time I checked there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the caliber of the hitters in front of or behind a given hitter has any impact on the quality of the pitches that said player can expect to see.
Also--and this must be added-- anyone with a background in statistics should be able to immediately recognize that if you want to compare the value of two given hitters' run production then you must control for all other causal effects which impact these players' stats and which are beyond those players' sphere of control. I mean, seriously-- I know that if your credentials are as you say they are then you can't possibly argue this.
If I hit 2000 golf balls from a par three tee every day, and Tiger Woods hits 20 golf balls from a par four tee, and I end up with 30 more hole in ones at the end of the year, does this mean you should take me at minus odds over Tiger in a accuracy contest from the par three tees? Because this, in essence is what you're arguing. There is no way to construct the argument that, ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size.
If this is true then you should know full well that a statement such as this- "...The performance of teammates ahead and behind a player which affects the quality of pitches seen by a batter"-Needs to be demonstrated before it's admitted to the argument. And for what it's worth the last time I checked there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the caliber of the hitters in front of or behind a given hitter has any impact on the quality of the pitches that said player can expect to see. >>
That is part of the beauty of baseball. It is an incredible stat based games, but at the end of the day there are certain intangibles that cannot be measured with empirical evidence. Call it the human factor, which keeps fans watching year after year. If games were worn on paper with simply stats, the Cardinals would not have dropped 6 straight games with Pujols in the lineup.
Also--and this must be added-- anyone with a background in statistics should be able to immediately recognize that if you want to compare the value of two given hitters' run production then you must control for all other causal effects which impact these players' stats and which are beyond those players' sphere of control. I mean, seriously-- I know that if your credentials are as you say they are then you can't possibly argue this.
If I hit 2000 golf balls from a par three tee every day, and Tiger Woods hits 20 golf balls from a par four tee, and I end up with 30 more hole in ones at the end of the year, does this mean you should take me at minus odds over Tiger in a accuracy contest from the par three tees? Because this, in essence is what you're arguing. There is no way to construct the argument that, ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size. >>
You are agreeing with my original point to the tee. Unfortunately I don't have the time or inclination to analyze the Howard vs. Pujols debate with the rigor required for a full statistical analysis of performance. It is not worth the time or effort for an internet message board debate. You however are welcome to add your own analysis to the discussion instead of taking your usual seagull approach (Fly in, crap, and fly off to watch the aftermath).
LOL. You're a piece of work, man. I mean seriously. The entire point here is that looking at absolute RBI production is not all that interesting-- you need to look at the ratio between RBI's produced and RBI opportunities which the hitter has been presented with. If you don't get why this distinction is important then there really isn't anything else to say. And, just so the record is clear, you have not (to my knowledge) at any point in this thread shown evidence that you understand why this distinction is valuable. In fact, you've gone so far as to point out that Howard is leading Pujols by 35 RBI, suggesting you think this disparity is in some way revelatory. I'm fully prepared to admit that I've totally misread your posts in this thread-- it wouldn't be the first time I've made that mistake-- but if I have correctly read and interpreted your remarks then you really need to rethink your position on this.
In any case, just answer me this one question: Do you think that a hitter's actual RBI total is more indicative of his talent/ability/value to the team then, say, the ratio between RBI and RBI opportunities?
<< <i>ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size. >>
I got to use "moot" earlier, but you got to use "ceteris paribus". You win today, my friend, you win today.
And I'm sorry, but while I am willing to believe that Dr. J. can push the correct buttons on a computer that a statistician has helped program, I will eat my freaking house if he understands how it works. He's used the word stochastic about a dozen times now, and some of the time he's even used it correctly, but come on, you're not buying it either, are you?
Also, apropos of nothing, my horoscope for the day, seriously, is "there is no point in arguing with someone who isn't listening".
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Also--and this must be added-- anyone with a background in statistics should be able to immediately recognize that if you want to compare the value of two given hitters' run production then you must control for all other causal effects which impact these players' stats and which are beyond those players' sphere of control. I mean, seriously-- I know that if your credentials are as you say they are then you can't possibly argue this.
If I hit 2000 golf balls from a par three tee every day, and Tiger Woods hits 20 golf balls from a par four tee, and I end up with 30 more hole in ones at the end of the year, does this mean you should take me at minus odds over Tiger in a accuracy contest from the par three tees? Because this, in essence is what you're arguing. There is no way to construct the argument that, ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size. >>
You are agreeing with my original point to the tee. Unfortunately I don't have the time or inclination to analyze the Howard vs. Pujols debate with the rigor required for a full statistical analysis of performance. It is not worth the time or effort for an internet message board debate. You however are welcome to add your own analysis to the discussion instead of taking your usual seagull approach (Fly in, crap, and fly off to watch the aftermath). >>
Just to clarify, nobody's asking for a full statistical analysis. All anyone is asking is that you publicly acknowledge that actual RBI is not nearly as accurate a measurement of a hitter's ability as the ratio between RBI produced and RBI opportunities.
<< <i>ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size. >>
I got to use "moot" earlier, but you got to use "ceteris paribus". You win today, my friend, you win today.
And I'm sorry, but while I am willing to believe that Dr. J. can push the correct buttons on a computer that a statistician has helped program, I will eat my freaking house if he understands how it works. He's used the word stochastic about a dozen times now, and some of the time he's even used it correctly, but come on, you're not buying it either, are you?
Also, apropos of nothing, my horoscope for the day, seriously, is "there is no point in arguing with someone who isn't listening". >>
Once again Dallas you try to turn to insults when your position becomes untenable. Please behave like an adult and not an internet computer screen tough guy.
<< <i> Just to clarify, nobody's asking for a full statistical analysis. All anyone is asking is that you publicly acknowledge that actual RBI is not nearly as accurate a measurement of a hitter's ability as the ratio between RBI produced and RBI opportunities. >>
Boopots once again you provide no original thoughts of your own and edit your posts repeatedly once again, but I will humor you.
RBI produced vs. RBI opportunities is an indicator of a player's worth but not the end all and be all. Over a long season it is a good indicator that a player will have a certain probability of producing runs when the situation arises. What it doesn't do is take into account the players performance relative to game situation (does the player have empty RBI), a particular pitcher, or a particular team, a particular stadium, home vs. away, performance during a pennant race, or lefties vs. righties, etc. For this detailed analysis you have to look further into each at bat, and a players historical performance in each situation. This ratio does not take into account the game by game situations which cause games to be won or lost. We cannot make an assumption that X player would have more RBIs than Y player if given the same number of opportunities because it is nothing more than conjecture. We can say we have an inkling he would do better, but it must play out in the real world which makes baseball so great.
This is where actual RBI have real merit. They are runs which made it to the scoreboard and had a bottom line impact on a team's success. They are not a statistical hypothesis but something tangible. All the Pujols fans seem to be getting in a twit, thinking I am saying Howard is a better player of overall hitter than Pujols. This I never breathed. What Howard is, is a better power hitter and "real" run producer than Pujols this seaon, which should make as worthy as any other candidate for MVP.
When a person cannot recognize the rarity of 130+ RBI season from a historical standpoint it becomes laughable. It just does not happen every year, and when it does happen, the fans and players should recognize the rarity of such seasons from a player's standpoint.
<< <i>What Howard is, is a better power hitter and "real" run producer than Pujols this seaon >>
No, he's not. And until you figure out why, statisticians will continue to laugh at you. Throw the word "real" around all you want - it only means whatever you want it to mean - the key word is "producer". Driving in a run is one way to contribute to producing a run, but it is only one of may ways; until you recognize and take into account all of the other ways, your analysis is to statistics what mold is to cheese.
And for the record, it was you who threw the first personal insult (at hoopster); that told me that you were fair game and I could actually say what everyone else was just thinking.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
And for the record, it was you who threw the first personal insult (at hoopster); that told me that you were fair game and I could actually say what everyone else was just thinking.
hmmm I'm not so sure about that, I thought it was he (hoopster) that did that.
Regardless, (and i am also guilty of it) insults ought to be left out.
<< <i> Just to clarify, nobody's asking for a full statistical analysis. All anyone is asking is that you publicly acknowledge that actual RBI is not nearly as accurate a measurement of a hitter's ability as the ratio between RBI produced and RBI opportunities. >>
Boopots once again you provide no original thoughts of your own and edit your posts repeatedly once again, but I will humor you.
RBI produced vs. RBI opportunities is an indicator of a player's worth but not the end all and be all. Over a long season it is a good indicator that a player will have a certain probability of producing runs when the situation arises. What it doesn't do is take into account the players performance relative to game situation (does the player have empty RBI), a particular pitcher, or a particular team, a particular stadium, home vs. away, performance during a pennant race, or lefties vs. righties, etc. For this detailed analysis you have to look further into each at bat, and a players historical performance in each situation. This ratio does not take into account the game by game situations which cause games to be won or lost. We cannot make an assumption that X player would have more RBIs than Y player if given the same number of opportunities because it is nothing more than conjecture. We can say we have an inkling he would do better, but it must play out in the real world which makes baseball so great.
This is where actual RBI have real merit. They are runs which made it to the scoreboard and had a bottom line impact on a team's success. They are not a statistical hypothesis but something tangible. All the Pujols fans seem to be getting in a twit, thinking I am saying Howard is a better player of overall hitter than Pujols. This I never breathed. What Howard is, is a better power hitter and "real" run producer than Pujols this seaon, which should make as worthy as any other candidate for MVP.
When a person cannot recognize the rarity of 130+ RBI season from a historical standpoint it becomes laughable. It just does not happen every year, and when it does happen, the fans and players should recognize the rarity of such seasons from a player's standpoint. >>
OK, then. I still think this is a terrifically stupid argument, but at least it a terrifically stupid argument that makes sense now.
<< <i>When a person cannot recognize the rarity of 130+ RBI season from a historical standpoint it becomes laughable >>
If a person doesn't know how to use baseballreference to learn that a 130+ RBI season has happened over 200 times, while a 1.100 OPS has happened fewere than 100 times, it is absolutely laughable
<< <i>We cannot make an assumption that X player would have more RBIs than Y player if given the same number of opportunities because it is nothing more than conjecture >>
But we can know for sure the when Albert Pujols had the bat in his hands he did a lot more than Ryan Howard. To believe that Ryan Howard has some sort of unidentified skill that allowed him to accumulate so many RBIs when another player would not in the exact same sitautions is also nothing more than conjecture
If a person doesn't know how to use baseballreference to learn that a 130+ RBI season has happened over 200 times, while a 1.100 OPS has happened fewere than 100 times, it is absolutely laughable
Tom you are correct it has happened around 200 times. However, that is over the course of 125 years, something you failed to mention.
Consider all the players during this time and around 200 times seems scarce to me.
Now I realize I am not comparing it to OPS like you have, but still, 130 Ribbies (and counting) is still a feat, regardless of who should get credit for them.
Also there should be less players that have an OPS of 1.100 as some of that time was during the deadball era.
In 132 years of Major League Baseball, the 130 RBI level has been reached over 200 times. In the past 14 years it has been reached over 70 times, something you failed to mention. (and shrinks to just under 70 if we use the 131 RBI level)
Bringing it a step further an OPS of 1.100 has happened 92 times in the history of baseball YET it has happened 32 times in the past 14 years. Again, I see it as no greater an achievement then 130+ RBI's when taken in that context.
Again, besides the fact that 461 + 645 = 1.106 why did you choose an OPS of 1.100 or better?
If it was mentioned earlier in a post I oppologise in advance.
If it was simply used to prove your point then my use of 1.000 is just as valid.
Comments
OBP, BA, errors made, OPS+, Win shares, percent caught stealing, outs made, and total bases, just to name a few.
The result of a baseball game is determined by the most RUNS, anything else is merely glossing over the actual fact.
Drive em in, or score em, that is really, truly, the absolutely only thing that actually counts, in the result of a ballgame.
A note on a few contibutory stats;
Percentage rate types, OBP, SLG, and BA, check out the top dozen or so, post-1900, all time best for an entire career, it seems only the OBP reflects some questionable "great" hitters in its list. Ferris Fain and Max Bishop are not on many "counting" stat all time lists, either.
<< <i>The result of a baseball game is determined by the most RUNS, anything else is merely glossing over the actual fact.
Drive em in, or score em, that is really, truly, the absolutely only thing that actually counts, in the result of a ballgame.
>>
You're almost there. But you keep leaving off "keep the inning alive" and "advance runners" from your list of how runs get produced. Pujols and Utley absolutely TOWER over Howard in those areas, and if you ignore OBP/outs made you will always reach the wrong conclusion about who produced the most runs.
I will give this example again! Based on your method of comparisons, the Bill Buckner of 1986 is better than the Bill Buckner of 1979 by virtue of his large lead in RBI in '86.
YEAR...NAME....AB.....HR......RBI......AVG.......OB.....SLG
1979 Buckner..591...14......66.......284......319......437
1986 Buckner.629....18.....102......267......311......421
But when you consider the following information, your tune of the better RBI man being better, should change drastically...
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 because of the extra RBI Buckner is 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 at the plate when those 102 runs came in, but the bulk of the credit for those runs goes to Wade Boggs & CO., not Bill Buckner(despite the fact that he is 'credited' with an RBI), and this is the error you and DrJ are making!!
<< <i>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. >>
Not enough data.
How many times were there men on 1st and 3rd where a double or triple knocked in both? (1 from a scoring position and 1 not)
How many times were there men on 1st and 2nd where a double or triple knocked in both? (1 from a scoring position and 1 not)
How many times did he hit a HR with a man on 1st ant 3rd thus getting 3 RBI's, but only driving in 1 man from a "scoring position"?
How many times did he hit a HR with a man on 1st ant 2nd thus getting 3 RBI's, but only driving in 1 man from a "scoring position"?
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
Not enough data.
How many times were there men on 1st and 3rd where a double or triple knocked in both? (1 from a scoring position and 1 not)
How many times were there men on 1st and 2nd where a double or triple knocked in both? (1 from a scoring position and 1 not)
How many times did he hit a HR with a man on 1st ant 3rd thus getting 3 RBI's, but only driving in 1 man from a "scoring position"?
How many times did he hit a HR with a man on 1st ant 2nd thus getting 3 RBI's, but only driving in 1 man from a "scoring position"? >>
skinpinch can answer if he cares to, but if you just look at the numbers and think about it, the case for Buckner in 1986 is going to get worse, not better, the more situations that you add. And why are we leaving out the number of times that Buckner made himself the runner in scoring position, or moved a runner from first to second or third? OK, I know that the reason we're leaving them out is that once we admit that those situations also produce runs the entire argument for Howard collapses under the weight of its own illogic, so forget I asked.
This is a PERFECT example, if you have anything approaching an open mind, of how looking at the number of RBI a player has makes your evaluation of how valuable that player was worse than it would have been if you hadn't looked at all. RBI is not a useless stat, it is actually WORSE than useless and this example proves it.
Jaxxr,DrjI, will give this example again! Based on your method of comparisons, the Bill Buckner of 1986 is better than the Bill Buckner of 1979 by virtue of his large lead in RBI in '86.
YEAR...NAME....AB.....HR......RBI......AVG.......OB.....SLG
1979 Buckner..591...14......66.......284......319......437
1986 Buckner.629....18.....102......267......311......421
But when you consider the following information, your tune of the better RBI man being better, should change drastically...
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(This is an OBVIOUS beneficial key RBI situation).
In 1979 Buckner had 184 men on 1st and drove in 8.
In 1986 Buckner had 263 men on 1st and drove in 13.
So because of the extra RBI Buckner is 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 at the plate when those 102 runs came in, but the bulk of the credit for those runs goes to Wade Boggs & CO., not Bill Buckner(despite the fact that he is 'credited' with an RBI), and this is the error you and DrJ are making!!
Now that you and Fandango are agreeing on points you have officially reached lunatic status. You will now have your computer taken away and a padded room prepared for your imminent arrival.
YEAR...NAME....AB.....HR......RBI......AVG.......OB.....SLG
1979 Buckner..591...14......66.......284......319......437
1986 Buckner.629....18.....102......267......311......421
But when you consider the following information, your tune of the better RBI man being better, should change drastically...
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(This is an OBVIOUS beneficial key RBI situation).
In 1979 Buckner had 184 men on 1st and drove in 8.
In 1986 Buckner had 263 men on 1st and drove in 13.
So because of the extra RBI Buckner is 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.
Geez you mean to tell us that you think we do not know that baseball is a team sport?
What exactly are we arguing here?
Some of us really do not care that Wade Boggs and Co get some fathom credit for Buckner's RBI's in 1986.
We know that by looking at the amount of hits Boggs had!
It goes without saying that if Buckner batted behind Boggsand CO that he drove them in quite a few times.
Actually it means he drove them in every time sans his home runs!
He could have driven in J Fred Muggs for all i care.
If you feel the need to look further into who Buckner drove in
bully for you. WE know he drove in his team mates!
Furthermore in 1986 the Red Sox were in the WS in 1979 Buckner was not in the WS, so if you asked HIM I bet he would say his 1986 RBI's were
more important to him. Just because he had more chances in 1986 does not nessesarily mean that those RBI's were less productive or that he was!
It only means that he had more chances to drive in RBI's and fwiw he drove in more!
For all we know some of those RBI's got him to the WS. Isn't that what the game is played for?
Steve
Yes, the problem is that you guys give too much credit to a guy like Buckner(who had the high RBI totals due to teammates).
Winpitcher, the point is,he wasn't less or more productive...he was virtually the same. BUt because of his teammates, his RBI total rose, and only an idiot woud think HE is better as a result.
lol
Steve
Put another way, I disagree with all of you, but I respect the positions you're taking while some of the others are making my head explode.
On another subject that you brought up - that there is no definition of MVP - I have a question. While the word "valuable" is not defined, I assume that the words "most" and "player" can only mean one thing. Regarding "valuable", the word itself has meaning, as in you can look it up in the dictionary, and even though MLB left the word undefined, it absolutely has to track at least one of the traditional meanings or else it really is meaningless. I mean the voters can't interpret "most valuable" to mean "tallest" or "skinniest" or "having the whitest teeth", right? So simply saying it's not defined is not the end of the discussion; for the award to have more meaning than a whitest teeth trophy, the phrase "most valuable" has to have some meaning that reasonably implies having more of something that translates into scoring runs or winning games than any other player. Now, if that "something" is RBI or HR then we should just call it the Most RBI or Most HR Award, kind of like the NHL gives out awards for most goals, etc. But pitchers are also eligible, so it necessarily can't mean RBI or HR. What is it, in your opinion, that Ryan Howard has done the "most" or has the "most" of in the NL that means he is deserving of the MVP?
<< <i>No Winpitcher, it isn't appearant that you don't know it is a team sport.
Yes, the problem is that you guys give too much credit to a guy like Buckner(who had the high RBI totals due to teammates).
Winpitcher, the point is,he wasn't less or more productive...he was virtually the same. BUt because of his teammates, his RBI total rose, and only an idiot woud think HE is better as a result. >>
Why are you so fixated with Buckner in 79 and 86. What about 81 and 85? You are now exhibiting random behavior in your analysis (a stochastic problem). Time to see the Doc.
Those are two different scenarios...the first(getting RBI due to high volume of baserunners) gives no extra credit to the batter as that extra RBI credit goes to the teammates, the second(exceptional men on hitting) is the work of the hitter, adn most certainly he has to be recognized for that.
1981 for Bill Buckner saw him get 75 RBI in the short season(you do realize there was a strike that year? It seems your knowledge on baseball history is quite poor, so I thought I would inform you on that).
75 RBI was good enough for third in the league for Buck. However, he didn't achieve that due to a high volume of baserunners...he was exceptional with runners on base. He batted .420 with RISP that season! Keep in mind, this is 1981 when offense was not as easy to achieve as in the live ball era from '94 onward(again, a history lesson for you), so that is quite a feat.
Buckner in '85 was still the beneficiary of a lot of baserunners, but to his credit, he earned some of those by hitting well with men on...but still, compared to other sluggers(whom Buckner out RBIed or came close to), he was receiving artificial benefit due to a higher amount of baserunners.
If one truly understands the basic concept of RBI and chances, then they should not use RBI as a method of player evaluation UNLESS they account for the number of chances and the rate of hitting in men on situations. The moment one uses total RBI and ignores these facets shows either a lack of understanding, or simple laziness.
But then that is only half of the hitting equation, as the getting on base portion represents the other half of making runs!
Whether or not a player actually scores from his times on base(because of sub par people batting behind him) is irrelevant to the player in question's value/ability. It is however possible that a player doesn't score due to being a poor baserunning, but then that has to be(and can be) shown.
Usually over the long course of a full season, the league leader in any particular stat, has had somewhat similar chances/situations/luck, as the runner up, or the 3rd place, or the fourth place, or whatever rank, finisher. Being a league leader does have some merit.
There are exceptions, and extreme circumstances for sure, but RBI is typically, a good "single" indicator of batting skills.
The more additonal factors or stats used, the better the indicator(s) will be.
They do typically even out, but there are enough instances where they do not, where it needs to be looked at fully.
During the course of one season, they do NOT even out for the middle of the order hitters. There are always vast differences within one season.
hmmm maybe they do, the Mets this year have 3 players with 100 RBI's and they happen to be the 3, 4 and 5 hitters.
Now of course I did NOT look to see how many chances each of the three had either.
Not because I'm lazy or ignorant of the fact, I simply do not care to know.
Steve
If you don't care, fine. Some probably feel the same way, but those people shouldn't be debating without the information against somebody who is using it.
If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't be in this thread
I never said I did not care about the thread, I said I did not care to look further into it.
I was hoping you would.
Steve
Pujols tonight... 0-4, 6th straight cardinals loss.
Howard.. 3 RBI, 2 Runs 4 Hits, Game Winning HR and a Triple to Boot. Phils in 1st and MVP all but locked up.
I guess those RBIs do have an impact on a team's success.
136 and counting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope that crow tastes good tonight.
These are real RBI which are far less valuable then the Pujols limited edition "Hoopster Virtual" RBI.
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
No offense taken. I like to wear velcro Kangaroos. It is just hard to find anyone who carries them these days.
(P.S. Turning to insults when your side of the debate has been proven invalid is an admission of defeat. I tried to explain that you cannot make an conclusion on a multifaceted result (MVP) based on a single criteria. I hope you and Hoopster have the opportunity to take some graduate level statistics courses at some point in your lives so you can make more educated and scientific sports analysis.)
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
Just so you know, Dr. J reportedly has a degree in stochastic analysis. I assume that means he once wrote a three paragraph paper on the assumptions surrounding the error term in an OLS regression for a social stats class, but who knows? Maybe he'll surprise us.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
No offense taken. I like to wear velcro Kangaroos. It is just hard to find anyone who carries them these days.
(P.S. Turning to insults when your side of the debate has been proven invalid is an admission of defeat. I tried to explain that you cannot make an conclusion on a multifaceted result (MVP) based on a single criteria. I hope you and Hoopster have the opportunity to take some graduate level statistics courses at some point in your lives so you can make more educated and scientific sports analysis.) >>
FWIW, anyone who's passed a couple of actuarial exams-- much less anyone who's a bona fide actuarial fellow-- has forgotten more mathematics and statistics than you or I could ever hope to learn.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
Just so you know, Dr. J reportedly has a degree in stochastic analysis. I assume that means he once wrote a three paragraph paper on the assumptions surrounding the error term in an OLS regression for a social stats class, but who knows? Maybe he'll surprise us. >>
Most of the work I have done in the field of stochastics invovles signal detection and extraction using match filter techniques. Kind of dry material, but the basis for modern radar systems. My key areas of interest are power system stability and economic dispatch. More dry material unless you are interested in how the power markets are settled each day.
<< <i>
FWIW, anyone who's passed a couple of actuarial exams-- much less anyone who's a bona fide actuarial fellow-- has forgotten more mathematics and statistics than you or I could ever hope to learn. >>
I won't argue with that point. Performing statustical analysis day in and day out is not something I would wish on my worst enemy. These days I use more basic probability measures to determine machine life and total system relaibility... MTBF, PFD. My wife thinks it is all boring, and since she is the "normal" one in our relationship I would tend to agree.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Dr. J, and if this is offensive then I apologize, but do you have someone to tie your shoes, or do you just wear the kind with the Velcro? >>
Just so you know, Dr. J reportedly has a degree in stochastic analysis. I assume that means he once wrote a three paragraph paper on the assumptions surrounding the error term in an OLS regression for a social stats class, but who knows? Maybe he'll surprise us. >>
Most of the work I have done in the field of stochastics invovles signal detection and extraction using match filter techniques. Kind of dry material, but the basis for modern radar systems. My key areas of interest are power system stability and economic dispatch. More dry material unless you are interested in how the power markets are settled each day. >>
If this is true then you should know full well that a statement such as this- "...The performance of teammates ahead and behind a player which affects the quality of pitches seen by a batter"-Needs to be demonstrated before it's admitted to the argument. And for what it's worth the last time I checked there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the caliber of the hitters in front of or behind a given hitter has any impact on the quality of the pitches that said player can expect to see.
Also--and this must be added-- anyone with a background in statistics should be able to immediately recognize that if you want to compare the value of two given hitters' run production then you must control for all other causal effects which impact these players' stats and which are beyond those players' sphere of control. I mean, seriously-- I know that if your credentials are as you say they are then you can't possibly argue this.
If I hit 2000 golf balls from a par three tee every day, and Tiger Woods hits 20 golf balls from a par four tee, and I end up with 30 more hole in ones at the end of the year, does this mean you should take me at minus odds over Tiger in a accuracy contest from the par three tees? Because this, in essence is what you're arguing. There is no way to construct the argument that, ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size.
<< <i>
If this is true then you should know full well that a statement such as this- "...The performance of teammates ahead and behind a player which affects the quality of pitches seen by a batter"-Needs to be demonstrated before it's admitted to the argument. And for what it's worth the last time I checked there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the caliber of the hitters in front of or behind a given hitter has any impact on the quality of the pitches that said player can expect to see. >>
That is part of the beauty of baseball. It is an incredible stat based games, but at the end of the day there are certain intangibles that cannot be measured with empirical evidence. Call it the human factor, which keeps fans watching year after year. If games were worn on paper with simply stats, the Cardinals would not have dropped 6 straight games with Pujols in the lineup.
<< <i>
Also--and this must be added-- anyone with a background in statistics should be able to immediately recognize that if you want to compare the value of two given hitters' run production then you must control for all other causal effects which impact these players' stats and which are beyond those players' sphere of control. I mean, seriously-- I know that if your credentials are as you say they are then you can't possibly argue this.
If I hit 2000 golf balls from a par three tee every day, and Tiger Woods hits 20 golf balls from a par four tee, and I end up with 30 more hole in ones at the end of the year, does this mean you should take me at minus odds over Tiger in a accuracy contest from the par three tees? Because this, in essence is what you're arguing. There is no way to construct the argument that, ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size. >>
You are agreeing with my original point to the tee. Unfortunately I don't have the time or inclination to analyze the Howard vs. Pujols debate with the rigor required for a full statistical analysis of performance. It is not worth the time or effort for an internet message board debate. You however are welcome to add your own analysis to the discussion instead of taking your usual seagull approach (Fly in, crap, and fly off to watch the aftermath).
In any case, just answer me this one question: Do you think that a hitter's actual RBI total is more indicative of his talent/ability/value to the team then, say, the ratio between RBI and RBI opportunities?
<< <i>ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size. >>
I got to use "moot" earlier, but you got to use "ceteris paribus". You win today, my friend, you win today.
And I'm sorry, but while I am willing to believe that Dr. J. can push the correct buttons on a computer that a statistician has helped program, I will eat my freaking house if he understands how it works. He's used the word stochastic about a dozen times now, and some of the time he's even used it correctly, but come on, you're not buying it either, are you?
Also, apropos of nothing, my horoscope for the day, seriously, is "there is no point in arguing with someone who isn't listening".
<< <i>
<< <i>
Also--and this must be added-- anyone with a background in statistics should be able to immediately recognize that if you want to compare the value of two given hitters' run production then you must control for all other causal effects which impact these players' stats and which are beyond those players' sphere of control. I mean, seriously-- I know that if your credentials are as you say they are then you can't possibly argue this.
If I hit 2000 golf balls from a par three tee every day, and Tiger Woods hits 20 golf balls from a par four tee, and I end up with 30 more hole in ones at the end of the year, does this mean you should take me at minus odds over Tiger in a accuracy contest from the par three tees? Because this, in essence is what you're arguing. There is no way to construct the argument that, ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size. >>
You are agreeing with my original point to the tee. Unfortunately I don't have the time or inclination to analyze the Howard vs. Pujols debate with the rigor required for a full statistical analysis of performance. It is not worth the time or effort for an internet message board debate. You however are welcome to add your own analysis to the discussion instead of taking your usual seagull approach (Fly in, crap, and fly off to watch the aftermath). >>
Just to clarify, nobody's asking for a full statistical analysis. All anyone is asking is that you publicly acknowledge that actual RBI is not nearly as accurate a measurement of a hitter's ability as the ratio between RBI produced and RBI opportunities.
<< <i>
<< <i>ceteris paribus, a hitter who converts, say, 20% of his RBI opportunities is superior run producer to a player who converts 50% over a meaningful sample size. >>
I got to use "moot" earlier, but you got to use "ceteris paribus". You win today, my friend, you win today.
And I'm sorry, but while I am willing to believe that Dr. J. can push the correct buttons on a computer that a statistician has helped program, I will eat my freaking house if he understands how it works. He's used the word stochastic about a dozen times now, and some of the time he's even used it correctly, but come on, you're not buying it either, are you?
Also, apropos of nothing, my horoscope for the day, seriously, is "there is no point in arguing with someone who isn't listening". >>
Once again Dallas you try to turn to insults when your position becomes untenable. Please behave like an adult and not an internet computer screen tough guy.
<< <i>
Just to clarify, nobody's asking for a full statistical analysis. All anyone is asking is that you publicly acknowledge that actual RBI is not nearly as accurate a measurement of a hitter's ability as the ratio between RBI produced and RBI opportunities. >>
Boopots once again you provide no original thoughts of your own and edit your posts repeatedly once again, but I will humor you.
RBI produced vs. RBI opportunities is an indicator of a player's worth but not the end all and be all. Over a long season it is a good indicator that a player will have a certain probability of producing runs when the situation arises. What it doesn't do is take into account the players performance relative to game situation (does the player have empty RBI), a particular pitcher, or a particular team, a particular stadium, home vs. away, performance during a pennant race, or lefties vs. righties, etc. For this detailed analysis you have to look further into each at bat, and a players historical performance in each situation. This ratio does not take into account the game by game situations which cause games to be won or lost. We cannot make an assumption that X player would have more RBIs than Y player if given the same number of opportunities because it is nothing more than conjecture. We can say we have an inkling he would do better, but it must play out in the real world which makes baseball so great.
This is where actual RBI have real merit. They are runs which made it to the scoreboard and had a bottom line impact on a team's success. They are not a statistical hypothesis but something tangible. All the Pujols fans seem to be getting in a twit, thinking I am saying Howard is a better player of overall hitter than Pujols. This I never breathed. What Howard is, is a better power hitter and "real" run producer than Pujols this seaon, which should make as worthy as any other candidate for MVP.
When a person cannot recognize the rarity of 130+ RBI season from a historical standpoint it becomes laughable. It just does not happen every year, and when it does happen, the fans and players should recognize the rarity of such seasons from a player's standpoint.
<< <i>What Howard is, is a better power hitter and "real" run producer than Pujols this seaon >>
No, he's not. And until you figure out why, statisticians will continue to laugh at you. Throw the word "real" around all you want - it only means whatever you want it to mean - the key word is "producer". Driving in a run is one way to contribute to producing a run, but it is only one of may ways; until you recognize and take into account all of the other ways, your analysis is to statistics what mold is to cheese.
And for the record, it was you who threw the first personal insult (at hoopster); that told me that you were fair game and I could actually say what everyone else was just thinking.
hmmm I'm not so sure about that, I thought it was he (hoopster) that did that.
Regardless, (and i am also guilty of it) insults ought to be left out.
;-)
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
Just to clarify, nobody's asking for a full statistical analysis. All anyone is asking is that you publicly acknowledge that actual RBI is not nearly as accurate a measurement of a hitter's ability as the ratio between RBI produced and RBI opportunities. >>
Boopots once again you provide no original thoughts of your own and edit your posts repeatedly once again, but I will humor you.
RBI produced vs. RBI opportunities is an indicator of a player's worth but not the end all and be all. Over a long season it is a good indicator that a player will have a certain probability of producing runs when the situation arises. What it doesn't do is take into account the players performance relative to game situation (does the player have empty RBI), a particular pitcher, or a particular team, a particular stadium, home vs. away, performance during a pennant race, or lefties vs. righties, etc. For this detailed analysis you have to look further into each at bat, and a players historical performance in each situation. This ratio does not take into account the game by game situations which cause games to be won or lost. We cannot make an assumption that X player would have more RBIs than Y player if given the same number of opportunities because it is nothing more than conjecture. We can say we have an inkling he would do better, but it must play out in the real world which makes baseball so great.
This is where actual RBI have real merit. They are runs which made it to the scoreboard and had a bottom line impact on a team's success. They are not a statistical hypothesis but something tangible. All the Pujols fans seem to be getting in a twit, thinking I am saying Howard is a better player of overall hitter than Pujols. This I never breathed. What Howard is, is a better power hitter and "real" run producer than Pujols this seaon, which should make as worthy as any other candidate for MVP.
When a person cannot recognize the rarity of 130+ RBI season from a historical standpoint it becomes laughable. It just does not happen every year, and when it does happen, the fans and players should recognize the rarity of such seasons from a player's standpoint. >>
OK, then. I still think this is a terrifically stupid argument, but at least it a terrifically stupid argument that makes sense now.
<< <i>When a person cannot recognize the rarity of 130+ RBI season from a historical standpoint it becomes laughable >>
If a person doesn't know how to use baseballreference to learn that a 130+ RBI season has happened over 200 times, while a 1.100 OPS has happened fewere than 100 times, it is absolutely laughable
<< <i>We cannot make an assumption that X player would have more RBIs than Y player if given the same number of opportunities because it is nothing more than conjecture >>
But we can know for sure the when Albert Pujols had the bat in his hands he did a lot more than Ryan Howard. To believe that Ryan Howard has some sort of unidentified skill that allowed him to accumulate so many RBIs when another player would not in the exact same sitautions is also nothing more than conjecture
Tom you are correct it has happened around 200 times. However, that is over the course of 125 years, something you failed to mention.
Consider all the players during this time and around 200 times seems scarce to me.
Now I realize I am not comparing it to OPS like you have, but still, 130 Ribbies (and counting) is still a feat, regardless of who should get credit for them.
Also there should be less players that have an OPS of 1.100 as some of that time was during the deadball era.
JMHO
Steve
Was that the standard measure or something?
Because if one uses an OPS of 1.000 (which IMO is a great season) it has happened 388 times.
Thus compared to 130 RBI's the RBI's look awfully better.
Also if one uses 131 RBI as a standard the amount shrinks as well. I think to around 180.
Steve
That's why
In 132 years of Major League Baseball, the 130 RBI level has been reached over 200 times. In the past 14 years it has been reached over 70 times, something you failed to mention. (and shrinks to just under 70 if we use the 131 RBI level)
As for the past 14 years I wonder how many of the players that 'achieved' that goal had help?
Something else to consider
Steve
32 times in the past 14 years. Again, I see it as no greater an achievement then 130+ RBI's when taken in that context.
Again, besides the fact that 461 + 645 = 1.106 why did you choose an OPS of 1.100 or better?
If it was mentioned earlier in a post I oppologise in advance.
If it was simply used to prove your point then my use of 1.000 is just as valid.
Steve