Jump to content

Trembley on "Average 3Bman" RBIs


Arthur_Bryant

Recommended Posts

You are really bending over back wards to make something out of next to nothing. If I were a marketing guy and were asked to chose between DT's statement and yours, I would choose DT's because it is simple and clear to the average fan. DT said he needed 90 -100 RBI's from 3B and 1B. Generally speaking people who put up those kind of numbers have good OPS, OBP, etc. because they are good hitters. If they weren't, they wouldn't be put in situations that would give them the oportunity to get that many RBI's. FRobby pointed out that the average production from 3B was 81 RBI's, so he was off by 9 RBI's, big deal. DT only responds to questions from the press. When was the last time you heard Roch or anyone else referring to the distinction between OBP, OPS, BA, and RBI's or ERA vs WHIP, K/9 BB/9 and K/BB. These distinctions seem to matter a great deal to some folks here because it affords them the opportunity to hold themselves superior in some way, but they matter little to the media.

This is priceless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I think this thread is another example of armchair baseball geniuses patting themselves on the back because they know a little baseball stats 101. If you think that DT isn't aware of the difference between RBI's and OPS, etc. then you are an even bigger idiot than he is He is being interviewed for the general press audience. They don't know from these terms; it would be pointless for him to be spouting off stuff like wOBA. I doubt even Roch would know what he was talking about. His simple point is that we need much more production from 1B and 3B. It is easier for the average fan to understand that, in terms of conventional stats like RBI's, no matter how crude that may seem to "knowledgeable" OH posers......uh posters.:laughlol:

I have no idea why I called you a condescending poster. My bad.

I saw a manager that consistently made odd decisions regarding the lineup, the bullpen, non-use of platoons and playing to hitters split strengths when deciding when to give someone a day in the lineup (or a day off), strange pinch hitting choices (and non use of it early in the season), and on and on. I wish I had the amount of free time that you are fortunate to seem to have today, I'd love to put more color on my point. It's a hectic day for me, so I am off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are really bending over back wards to make something out of next to nothing. If I were a marketing guy and were asked to chose between DT's statement and yours, I would choose DT's because it is simple and clear to the average fan. D.

It is also freakin' incorrect. If he logged in here anonymously and made that statement, he would have half a dozen people setting him straight in the first 10 minutes. Maybe even you, if you didn't like the argument that he was using that statement to suppport.

Forget the question of whether RBI is a meaningful stat : it just isn't even close to true that 90-100 RBI is average for a 3Bman in recent years. Hell, half the teams in MLB don't get more than 82 RBI this season out of that position,much less out of a single player.

Let him use RBI as a meaningful stat if he wants. Is it too much to ask that he actually knows what a reasonable RBI total is for a third baseman in the majors? I mean, I assume that he is putting together a wish list for AM over the winter, if he hasn't already done so. If he is putting "third baseman with 90-100 RBI" on the list, should he not know how few third baseman can actually be expected to do that -- and how hard they will be to pry loose?

"Simple and clear to the average fan" isn't worth much if it's also misinformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sure would not bring up his RBI totals.

Agent: Need I remind you, Nick drove in 101 last year.

GM: Yes, indeed. Roberts, Jones and Reimold really clogged up those pesky bases didn't they?

I wonder where I can find the "number of men left on base" category. I'd bet Nick and the other 100 rbi guys would be way up on that too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list changes even more if we go by wOBA.

1. A-Rod

2. Sandoval

3. A. Ramirez

4. Young

5. Reynolds

6. Longoria

7. Zimmerman

8. Wright

9. McGehee

10. Figgins

Give me wOBA over OPS+ any day of the week.

How so?

FWIW, I was just using the original 10. Didn't go into anyone outside of that list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DT statement isn't dumb down. It is just wrong. RBI's is a meaningless stat.

Absolutely the least intelligent thing I've ever seen you (or pretty much anyone) post on here. Often I agree with you--here, you come off as a person with less than capable mental facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also freakin' incorrect. If he logged in here anonymously and made that statement, he would have half a dozen people setting him straight in the first 10 minutes. Maybe even you, if you didn't like the argument that he was using that statement to suppport.

Forget the question of whether RBI is a meaningful stat : it just isn't even close to true that 90-100 RBI is average for a 3Bman in recent years. Hell, half the teams in MLB don't get more than 82 RBI this season out of that position,much less out of a single player.

Let him use RBI as a meaningful stat if he wants. Is it too much to ask that he actually knows what a reasonable RBI total is for a third baseman in the majors? I mean, I assume that he is putting together a wish list for AM over the winter, if he hasn't already done so. If he is putting "third baseman with 90-100 RBI" on the list, should he not know how few third baseman can actually be expected to do that -- and how hard they will be to pry loose?

"Simple and clear to the average fan" isn't worth much if it's also misinformed.

It can't be all that difficult as Tony Batista did it several times and the last I heard he was playing in Japan!:laughlol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely the least intelligent thing I've ever seen you (or pretty much anyone) post on here. Often I agree with you--here, you come off as a person with less than capable mental facilities.

Yeah, it is so meaningless that it is part of the Triple Crown that since the 1960's has been like the Holy Grail, impossible to capture.:laughlol::rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rochester
Agent: Need I remind you, Nick drove in 101 last year.

GM: Yes, indeed. Roberts, Jones and Reimold really clogged up those pesky bases didn't they?

I wonder where I can find the "number of men left on base" category. I'd bet Nick and the other 100 rbi guys would be way up on that too...

This is an interesting thought - for our stat experts, is this available? I know we have the BA with RISC but... this is probably already out there and I am using my (what I call) "reason for reading OH so often so I can obtain knowledge" tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is so meaningless that it is part of the Triple Crown that since the 1960's has been like the Holy Grail, impossible to capture.:laughlol::rofl:

That's because there's an imperfect correlation between the stats that measure the Triple Crown. The difficulty of getting a Triple Crown is, in some ways, evidence of the fact that RBIs don't measure the quality of the hitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because there's an imperfect correlation between the stats that measure the Triple Crown. The difficulty of getting a Triple Crown is, in some ways, evidence of the fact that RBIs don't measure the quality of the hitter.

Perceptive. Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because there's an imperfect correlation between the stats that measure the Triple Crown. The difficulty of getting a Triple Crown is, in some ways, evidence of the fact that RBIs don't measure the quality of the hitter.

I'd like it if some day it's replaced with OPS with RISP. :scratchchinhmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because there's an imperfect correlation between the stats that measure the Triple Crown. The difficulty of getting a Triple Crown is, in some ways, evidence of the fact that RBIs don't measure the quality of the hitter.

Oh, so ole Hack Wilson knocking in 190 runs didn't mean he was a good hitter that season?:rofl: It doesn't take an Einstein to realize you would want him in anyone's lineup when he driving in runs like that!.:eektf:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Apparently the whole point of moving back the leftfield wall was to put the Orioles in a position to justify acquiring / starting mediocre to below average pitchers (Gibson and Irvin). Based on how OPACY ballpark factor is trending I don't see any reason to believe Irvin's success at home won't continue, even if it's to a slightly lesser extent. So worst case scenario you're probably looking at a possible uptick in ERA to the low 4.00s, which certainly isn't going to be enough to get him bumped from the rotation.  #23 - Oriole Park at Camden Yards (Orioles) - 95.3 Overall Park Factor, 86.0 Fly Ball (24th), 83 Home Run (27th) Well, the Orioles moved the left field fence way in before the 2022 season, and it clearly had the desired impact. Both its fly ball and home run park factors reached their lowest points over the past decade, and that 83 home run mark marked its first foray below 100 over that span. Even before the fences came in, this park was one of those that yielded homers, but not all that many runs. It hasn’t posted a higher than average doubles or triples park factor over the last decade. #27 - RingCentral Coliseum (Athletics) - 93.5 Overall Park Factor, 85.9 Fly Ball (25th), 92 Home Run (22nd) First and foremost, this place is a dump. That said, this marks 10 straight years as a pitchers’ park for RingCentral. When you suppress both homers (8 straight years below 100 HR park factor) and singles (10 straight years), there simply aren’t many avenues to behaving as a hitters’ park.
    • The LHH 1B thing makes me wonder how often we’ll be playing the splits…  Not just @ 1B but elsewhere too. Irvin has already earned over the last few years being an ML starter.
    • I guess you mean in the minors.  There are 7-11 realistic starters on the O's major league roster.
    • I didn't post a number but it would have been 10 years starting in 2021.
    • Listened to Elias on MASN Hot Stove last night.   While many things are TBD, two things seem firm. 1)  He wants a left-handed hitter to back up Mountcastle at first.   This is not a revelation to many.  But I needed to hear it from him.  He suggested Santander, Vavra, O'Hearn and said he is still looking.   That means no Westburg backing up 1B.  Time for me to adjust. 2) Cole Irvin is in the rotation.    Its being handed to him.  He does not have to earn it.    I take it that its settled, Irvin will be in rotation on March 30 for the beginning of the season.  His two seasons in the majors and the 180 IP are what seems to matter. His 5.26 ERA outside the Oakland Coliseum does not.   I remain skeptical he can hold the starting spot over Wells and Voth into May.   But I protest too much.  Time to sit back and watch what happens with Irvin.
    • @Can_of_corn What was the proposed deal you said we should have given Gunnar last year and then just called him up?  We should just do that with Jackson Holliday in September. Give him 10/200. 
    • Gibson will probably pitch 50 more IP than Grienke. With more Ks. That’s about it. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...