RBI's/LOB

by Coolbean04 on May 14, 2008 1:10 PM CDT

Some people say that RBI is a useless stat, which I agree. Just having RBI's doesn't really say much about a hitter other than he having chances to drive people in.

Is there a stat that can compare RBI's to people LOB or better yet, people left in scoring position?

If we can find a stat that does RBI's/RLISP and get a %, it can provide a better stat then someone's BA in RISP.

For example, say a player got 100 RBI's out of a possible 120 players in scoring position. That would mean he was 83.3% out of 100% perfect efficiency.

That sounds a lot more telling than say him batting .320 in RISP.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

That's interesting

hadn’t thought of it like that, but I definitely agree that RBI’s are useless without better context.

"I hope it's a special dumb person hell so that I don’t have to meet up with you after I die."

- The D-tron

by Chase Irwin on May 14, 2008 2:10 PM CDT 0 recs

Look at BP's RBI Opportunities Stats

Here’s a link: LINK

It’s a really easy way to see the number of PAs with runners on, what bases they were on, how many guys were driven in, and what bases they were on when driven in. These are also represented in percentage form.

You’ll notice that Hamilton’s RBI prowess this season has partially been due to having the 5th most runners on during his PAs (133) and partially because he’s driving in runners at the 3rd highest clip in the majors for guys with more than 100 PAs (~26%). There’s all kinds of fun numbers in there.

by TexasTiger on May 14, 2008 2:10 PM CDT 0 recs

I wish they would break

it down even further and tell me averages with runners on in 2-3 run or closer games. Then we could settle this clutch hitting debate once and for all.

by corbsclinton on May 14, 2008 6:23 PM CDT 0 recs

What clutch hitting debate?

There IS no real debate.

It’s kind of like BABIP for Major-league pitchers.

If you’re a Major-league hitter, your “clutch hitting” in one year has virtually no relationship to your “clutch hitting” in another year.

There have been suggestions that people do choke, but basically, it seems that the “clutch” players are really those who’ve been able to essentially perform at the same level in “pressure” situations. And the amount of “chokers” in MLB in negligibly small (presumably because if you’ve gotten to that level, you’ve faced so many pressure situations, that one situation becomes likes another).

by Requiem on May 14, 2008 9:14 PM CDT up 0 recs

With the logic that "clutch hitting"

has virtually no relationship to another years then you are in essence saying that trending doesn’t exist because there is no way to tell a guy is going to hit around .300 two years in a row. We know thats not right. You acknowledge chockers (although negligibly small) , why can’t you have their opposites? (negligibly small as well)

by corbsclinton on May 15, 2008 9:18 AM CDT up 0 recs

spelling

i belive “chocker” is spelled “choker”

"HELLO WIN COLUMN"

by dmurphnextrusygreer on May 15, 2008 9:58 AM CDT up 0 recs

you are correct

You should read this. Its pretty funny:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/

by corbsclinton on May 15, 2008 10:04 AM CDT up 0 recs

Huh?

I don’t understand this argument:

With the logic that “clutch hitting” has virtually no relationship to another years then you are in essence saying that trending doesn’t exist because there is no way to tell a guy is going to hit around .300 two years in a row.

BA HAS been shown to have a relationship between years. It’s not as strong as OPS, but there’s definitely some correlation (don’t remember how much right now). BA/OPS differential between “clutch” situations and “non-clutch” situations has shown no correlation beyond normal variation.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

You acknowledge chockers (although negligibly small) , why can’t you have their opposites? (negligibly small as well)

Because I don’t believe that anyone whose compensation is dependent on his SEASONAL stats will jeopardize it by “taking it easy” in the “non-clutch” situations (which are the majority of situations). Especially since the focus is almost completely on the batter EVERY at-bat. Thus, if a player starts tanking when he’s in a “non-clutch” situation, he likely won’t last long in the major leagues.

by Requiem on May 15, 2008 7:34 PM CDT up 0 recs

RBI

I disagree that RBI is a useless stat.. it does capture the most important aspect of hitting in baseball.. scoring runs.

RBIs counts your success with runners in scoring position
It counts those pesky runners that score from first on a double, or triple. Some hits are better than others.. the bloop double b/w third and LF is not as good of a hit (in terms of driving in runs) as the solid 1B in the to RF that scores the runner from second. You have a lower SLG % for that hit, but the fact is you drove in the run, which is the name of the game.
It includes the run you score yourself when you hit a home run.

by mattrpav on May 15, 2008 2:01 PM CDT 0 recs

Who said it was useless?

Like all stats, it needs to be used correctly and with the understanding that it is opportunity driven whereas many other stats are not so much. Use it, but use it wisely.

...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on May 15, 2008 2:33 PM CDT up 0 recs

He said it in his post..

Some people say that RBI is a useless stat, which I agree.

by mattrpav on May 15, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up 0 recs

Oh, yeah

bouncing around from post to post, didn’t remember what I was commenting on. He’s looking for the right idea in all the wrong places.

...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on May 15, 2008 2:46 PM CDT up 0 recs

Problem with that

It does NOT capture “scoring runs” ONLY.

It captures a whole lot of other information some of which we don’t care about (e.g., # of RBI opportunities).

And that additional information so warps the data that it’s “useless” to really use as any gauge of ability or performance.

Now, of course, no information is ever useless, when used in the right context, but the value of RBI totals is so low informatively, and people use that information so wrongly, that IMO, the negatives outweigh the positives to make it “useless.”

From another post (problems with RBI):

1) It’s not a predictive stat. RBIs are largely a function of how often people in-front of you get on base and how many HRs you hit. There is how well you do when you have people on base while you’re hitting, but studies have shown that most MLBers produce in that situation about as well as they normally hit.

2) It’s value as an evaluative stat is no good either, mainly because it relies so much on the hitter’s teammates.

3) It’s value as a "clutch stat" is unuseful, because it combines the hitter’s teammates value into it and there are other stats you can look at to measure "clutchness." OPS w/ RISP, OPS in late innings in close games, etc.

by Requiem on May 15, 2008 7:40 PM CDT up 0 recs