i hope i don’t get killed over this, but i don’t 100% get why RBI’s became grouped in as a meaningless stat. could someone explain that reasoning to me?
they are so dependent on stats accrued by your teammates
that it is impossible to isolate anything meaningful about the individual accruing them.
If you are in the middle of a stacked lineup you can have a down season and get a lot of Ribbys. It just means you stayed healthy and that your teammates were on base when you got your hits. Move that same player to a team with lousy offense or have him batting first in the lineup and the RBIs disappear even though his personal stats stay the same.
The objective of offense is to score runs. Batting in runs is a good thing but, as you point out, unless you are a super heavy HR hitter you are dependent on the rest of the offense and game situations in order to pull those off.
RISP is, similarly, also incomplete. Getting a hit when runners are in scoring position does not mean that the runners actually scored off of the hit that the batter acheived.
A better stat would be to merge RISP and RBI into some “rbiWrisp” percentage, breaking down how often as a percentage a hitter is able to convert opportunity.
Is a good way to judge how often a hitter drives in teammates on base. If I’m not mistaken, this type of logic is already incorporated into stats like WPA.
Those types of metrics do make more sense than the counting stats such as runs & RBI’s. If a leadoff hitter gets to third (walk & 2 SB, single & 2 SB, triple, etc), he’s done a great job of putting the team in position to score. If the next three guys make outs that don’t advance him, did he fail to do his job?
On the flip side, if that leadoff hitter gets walked & then the 2nd hitter homers, did the leadoff man do a better job in this situation?
Santa Claus, of course!!
Haha
No one believes in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy, right? As for zombies, I’m scared of them.
Seriously though, I probably pay the most attention to RISP and RBIs.
AndyHogan14 - December 17, 2010
You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Clause
red floyd - December 17, 2010
No, but there is Insanity!
Angelsfan015 - December 17, 2010
Nooooo . . .
I cannot believe that. There is no other explanation as to why there are presents under my tree.
AndyHogan14 - December 17, 2010
When Mike Scioscia passes on,
his soul will forever haunt whoever voted for CERA.
Chzburger Jones - December 17, 2010
Then his soul will be awfully busy, won't it?
It may never rest!
Angelsfan015 - December 17, 2010
CRAP!
should’ve read this before I voted
Moondoggy - December 17, 2010
CERA
The battered wife syndrome of Angels fan.
hauldog - December 17, 2010
I don't believe in Leprechauns and chasing pots of gold at the bottom of rainbows.
Which would be, of course, UZR.
Keep calculating all you want. Rivera is never gonna catch up to that fly ball.
Stirrups - December 17, 2010
not a real surprise about CERA winning this one.
i hope i don’t get killed over this, but i don’t 100% get why RBI’s became grouped in as a meaningless stat. could someone explain that reasoning to me?
IE Angel - December 17, 2010
they are so dependent on stats accrued by your teammates
that it is impossible to isolate anything meaningful about the individual accruing them.
If you are in the middle of a stacked lineup you can have a down season and get a lot of Ribbys. It just means you stayed healthy and that your teammates were on base when you got your hits. Move that same player to a team with lousy offense or have him batting first in the lineup and the RBIs disappear even though his personal stats stay the same.
Rev Halofan - December 17, 2010
I would propose that it is merely incomplete.
The objective of offense is to score runs. Batting in runs is a good thing but, as you point out, unless you are a super heavy HR hitter you are dependent on the rest of the offense and game situations in order to pull those off.
RISP is, similarly, also incomplete. Getting a hit when runners are in scoring position does not mean that the runners actually scored off of the hit that the batter acheived.
A better stat would be to merge RISP and RBI into some “rbiWrisp” percentage, breaking down how often as a percentage a hitter is able to convert opportunity.
Stirrups - December 17, 2010
"rbiWrisp" is RISP
angelsownredsux - December 17, 2010
RISP is batting average with RISP.
I believe it was proposed that a better stat would be to count the number of rbi’s when there are runners in scoring position.
b0rd3rline - December 17, 2010 via mobile
RBIs divided by "RBI Opportunities"
Is a good way to judge how often a hitter drives in teammates on base. If I’m not mistaken, this type of logic is already incorporated into stats like WPA.
Those types of metrics do make more sense than the counting stats such as runs & RBI’s. If a leadoff hitter gets to third (walk & 2 SB, single & 2 SB, triple, etc), he’s done a great job of putting the team in position to score. If the next three guys make outs that don’t advance him, did he fail to do his job?
On the flip side, if that leadoff hitter gets walked & then the 2nd hitter homers, did the leadoff man do a better job in this situation?
HuskerHalo - December 17, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Halos Heaven to post a comment.