How does this ignorance still exist?

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

Sorry for the confusion - TNP thought 'RBI' meant 'Really Bald Intellectuals'

he's in love with men lately

I think you mean "Ridiculously Burly Irishmen".

[Alloutwar]

ooh much better

hat tip to YD

[haveacigar]

Sounds like TNP to me.

[KowboyKoop]

You down with TNP?

Yeah you gay me!!

[acetoolguy]

I admit to being in love with the 'old school' stats because i understand them better. To me it seems a bases loaded double has more value than a double with a runner on first. If no one wants to take the time to show me why RBI's are a useless stat could you at least direct me to a site/article that illustrates this point?

[haveacigar]

I admit to being in love with the 'old school' stats because i understand them better. To me it seems a bases loaded double has more value than a double with a runner on first. If no one wants to take the time to show me why RBI's are a useless stat could you at least direct me to a site/article that illustrates this point?

No one would ever say that 1-on doubles are better than bases loaded doubles. That's not the point.

The point is, whats the difference between a 1-on double and a bases loaded double? The other people in the lineup. So what does that have to do with the player being discussed?

RBI totals are simply a function of a player's hitting ability (measured in ways like HRs and OPS) and the ability of the surrounding lineup to get on base. Because the latter part is irrelevant to that player's ability, you just isolate the former when talking about a player's hitting ability. And since we already have the measures to measure the hitting ability, the RBI stat simply adds a factor which is not relevant to that player's ability, and is thus useless.

[HoustonGM]

Yep. That a bases loaded double has more value than a double with a runner on first is absolutely true, but that value is being generated from multiple players - the players that got on base and the player that hit the double - and thus, shouldn't be fully attributed to the hitter. That the hitter happened to be up with the bases loaded is a function of circumstance, not the hitter's ability.

[acetoolguy]

Yep. That a bases loaded double has more value than a double with a runner on first is absolutely true, but that value is being generated from multiple players - the players that got on base and the player that hit the double - and thus, shouldn't be fully attributed to the hitter. That the hitter happened to be up with the bases loaded is a function of circumstance, not the hitter's ability.

That part I get, its the 'useless' part mentioned earlier that I don't. Through the course of a season all hitters are going to be faced with the opportunity to drive in runs, some are going to better than others at it. Which measuerment to you feels best reflects that skill?

[etothep]

That part I get, its the 'useless' part mentioned earlier that I don't. Through the course of a season all hitters are going to be faced with the opportunity to drive in runs, some are going to better than others at it. Which measuerment to you feels best reflects that skill?

OBPwRISP?

[HoustonGM]

That part I get, its the 'useless' part mentioned earlier that I don't. Through the course of a season all hitters are going to be faced with the opportunity to drive in runs, some are going to better than others at it. Which measuerment to you feels best reflects that skill?

I don't think "driving in runs" is a skill in and of itself. A good hitter will drive in more runs given the same number of opportunities as a worse hitter.

The "catch" here is that given two hitters of similar overall offensive value, the one that gets more of his value from extra base hits will drive in more runs than a similar overall hitter that gets more of his value from singles/walks - for example, Ichiro and Bobby Abreu (at this stage of his career) are similar in terms of their overall offensive value, but Abreu is probably "better at driving in runs" because a lot of Ichiro's value comes from infield singles, whereas Abreu gets more extra base hits. So, the best hitters at "driving in runs" will be the best all-around hitters that derive a good amount of value from extra base hits.

I don't think it's necessary to measure that though, since it's already accounted for if you simply evaluate a player based on his offensive skills.

[filihok]

That part I get, its the 'useless' part mentioned earlier that I don't. Through the course of a season all hitters are going to be faced with the opportunity to drive in runs, some are going to better than others at it. Which measuerment to you feels best reflects that skill?

the claim is that hitting with the opportunity to drive in runners is exactly the same as hitting without the opportunity to drive in runners.

A bases loaded double takes the same skill as a bases empty double

[acetoolguy]

Yeah, 'skill' was a poor choise of words. I get what your saying, thanks for taking the time.



I still like RBI's.....lol.

[haveacigar]

That part I get, its the 'useless' part mentioned earlier that I don't. Through the course of a season all hitters are going to be faced with the opportunity to drive in runs, some are going to better than others at it. Which measuerment to you feels best reflects that skill?

Well, that gets into the tricky question of whether there are hitters that are better at hitting with runners on than not. Any data I've seen would say that hitting with RISP isn't a repeatable skill, and that there isn't a repeated ability to hit with RISP better than that player's normal offensive baseline.

However, whether or not that's true, RBI is still is a bad stat because it doesn't actually say whether the hitter has more RBIs because he's better or because he has more opportunities. There's just nothing useful to be gained from it

[filihok]

xRBI

[StreetMedic]

*beat beat beat*

TNP, I believe the term you're looking for is "FAP".

As in: *FAP FAP FAP*