Joe Posnanski on RBIs, runs scored, and homers

by Adam J. Morris on Nov 21, 2008 8:51 AM CST Comment 12 comments

I was thinking the other day that I should do a blog post about RBIs and runs scored, and how silly it is that RBIs are considered to be very meaningful and telling (see, e.g., Ryan Howard) while runs scored are an afterthought.

And then I look on the interwebs this morning and find that Joe Posnanski has a great piece up that, among other things, touches on this very issue.

So now I don't have to write it.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You are getting lazy

This is the second time this week….

"Colt mccoy sucks, mack brown needs to be fired." - Longhorn

by DaheelzCM on Nov 21, 2008 8:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think

Adam reads the articles in his sleep then dreams about it and thinks man I should write an article about that then wakes up and “TA DA!” there is one on the web how awesome!

by bushe on Nov 21, 2008 9:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Also acceptable

Joe Posnanski may in fact just be Adam’s repressed super ego that types articles while Adam believes himself to be writing depositions.

by bushe on Nov 21, 2008 9:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see

The problem with counting RBIs “over” runs scored (for what it’s worth, I think both should be taken into account.)

While Posnanski may be correct that scoring a run requires more tasks, I think the distinction is that one is the actual cause of a run in the game. If you start trying to weight the significance of a guy getting on base vs. a guy hitting him home, you really get caught in a logical problem: the runner wouldn’t have scored if the batter hadn’t hit him home, and the batter wouldn’t have hit him home if the runner hadn’t gotten on base.

The easiest thing to do, it seems to me, is to draw that hard line in the sand. RBIs it is.

by brettgardner on Nov 21, 2008 9:15 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think he makes this point, but I'm not sure...

A runner on third could still score without a batter getting a hit (via wild pitch or passed ball). Certainly isn’t prevalent, but nonetheless possible.

Honestly, I discount both entirely for the very reason you mention. If there’s a significant question about who’s responsible for the more important action, then it’s too hard to draw conclusions based on the stat for me.

by jwiscarson on Nov 21, 2008 10:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice

I think, IOW, that you’re saying it’s hard enough to get on base, but it’s slightly harder to score someone once they’re on.

I’m sure you could look at it from several different metrics. Scoring a run is like needing to flip a coin tails two times in a row, imo.

Bring up Matt West '09

by Chase Irwin on Nov 21, 2008 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Joe Posnanski

is my hero. His blog is awesome.

"LSB: We’re all-scaploading, all the time." -AJM

by BAC on Nov 21, 2008 10:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Me-nah-me-nah

do-doo-de-do-doot….

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Nov 21, 2008 10:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Nice piece...

…not in the Kristin Kreuk sense. In the classic Frank Deford sense.

Physician: Primum non nocere

Batter: First, make no out

by Chad Crudup on Nov 21, 2008 11:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Good read

“The boy who always walks”

I was a horrendous baseball player when I was a kid. I skipped the coach pitch years (lazy, I don’t know) and went straight to kid pitch. So of course they were horrendous and I, having never seen live pitching, was horrified. That first season I dont think I got a hit all year – basically stood up there with my bat on my shoulder scared silly by the fat kid who couldn’t hit the back screen, much less the plate. Got hit by pitches 3 times, walked probably 60% of the time, and scored a dozen or so runs, even though our team finished last.

My line was .000/.600/.000. I’m going to be proud of that from now on.

by JBImaknee on Nov 21, 2008 12:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

another thing to consider

is that runs scored as an individual statistic correlate directly with runs that your team puts up on the board. a team could theoretically score 600 runs in a season without a single RBI (okay, probably more unlikely than winning the lottery 10 times in a row, but still theoretically possible). for this i think its a stat that more accurately reflects the real contribution that you make to your team.

by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Nov 21, 2008 12:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

So you think

Someone who got 100 HBP made more of a contribution than someone who hit 100 RBIs?

If we’re going to take the argument to its outer limits, then a batter could be hit by a pitch, and then 3 wild pitches in a row score him home. To say that that runner has made more of a contribution than a guy who actually made contact with guys on 2nd and 3rd, scored them, and got on base himself, seems to stretch the imagination.

It seems the main argument is that a player may have to expend more energy scoring a run than getting an RBI. I’m just not sure that energy expended is the more important metric.

by brettgardner on Nov 21, 2008 12:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs