Jump to content

Trembley on "Average 3Bman" RBIs


Arthur_Bryant

Recommended Posts

All you have to do is try to imagine Rick Dempsey, Anita Marks, Tom Davis, Jim Hunter, Gary Thorne, or Buck Martinez saying any of this, to prove my point. Sorry but I do believe you've gotten your head stuck somewhere the sun don't shine.:laughlol:

Why should anyone take you seriously with such a condescending attitude? Especially when you dare to lecture others on what you perceive as the same attitude from them?

Maybe people are taking things out of context, and maybe a couple of dumb things were said ("Trembley sounds like an idiot", for one), but to completely throw out an entire debate because some people aren't up-to-date, especially one among people who ARE up-to-date, is asinine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I know you can look up numbers on the internet, you don't have to prove it to anybody.

Jeez Louise, DT was just saying he wants a 3B who can hit the dang ball and knock in a bunch of runs, OK? I hope he gets one. Sorry you didn't like how he said it.

Is this suppose to be some kind of insult?

I shouldn't have said DT sounds like an idiot. But what he said didn't make sense on multiple levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should anyone take you seriously with such a condescending attitude? Especially when you dare to lecture others on what you perceive as the same attitude from them?

Maybe people are taking things out of context, and maybe a couple of dumb things were said ("Trembley sounds like an idiot", for one), but to completely throw out an entire debate because some people aren't up-to-date, especially one among people who ARE up-to-date, is asinine.

I don't know what debate you are having? I'm not contesting the idea that RBI's are not a good measure of a hitters ability by itself. My only point, which you seem so unable to understand that I have doubts about your sentience, is that the difference between RBI's as a measure and the other metrics, like wOBA and OPS, is too arcane for the mainstream media.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average AL team got 81 RBI at 3B. We got 67. The average AL team had 33 2B and 19 HR at 3B. We had 26 and 14. Trembley may be a little off on his numbers, but his point was correct -- we need more power and more RBIs at 3B than we got in 2009.

I never understood the "you gotta have power at the corners" maxim. Why?

Why can't you have high average at the corners and power up the middle? What difference does it make? There are 9 places in the line up - as long as you have a balance there I can see no reason for certain defensive positions being expected to generate a certain offensive output. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood the "you gotta have power at the corners" maxim. Why?

Why can't you have high average at the corners and power up the middle? What difference does it make? There are 9 places in the line up - as long as you have a balance there I can see no reason for certain defensive positions producing a certain offensive output. :confused:

Defense up the middle is more important than defense at the corners.

Traditionally, the best defensive players were smaller, faster guys who tended to lack power.

So to avoid sacrificing defense at a key position, historically, you had to get your power from the corners or from catcher.

Now in the past few decades you have seen the rise of great athletes that can combine defense and power. There have been more power hitting shortstops since Cal came up than there were in 100+ years before him.

So it's not as true anymore. But there is still some level of truth to it...it's a lot easier to get a Cesar Izturis to fill your hole at SS than it is to find a guy who combines defense and slugging. And you can get by defensively with a Ryan Braun or Adam Dunn at a corner position, because their slugging more than makes up for their poor defense. Up the middle, their poor defense would hurt you too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point out where I ever used the word "reflect."

Point out where I said that RBIs and hitting skill have "no relationship".

Go to my posts, now, and use my own language to show where I said either such thing. Use the quote function.

"RBIs don't measure the quality of the hitter." Measure and reflect are the same to me. So if rbi's don't "measure" or "reflect" the quality of the hitter again, your statement would imply that Hack Wilson's 190 rbi's have no reflection or measure of his ability as a hitter. I not only disagree, but I think you need to admit that you made a blanket statement that is simply wrong in applying to all situations.

Or, just re-state it as rbi's may not always measure or reflect the quality of the hitter. Just do that and you won't need to try to call others a troll and blame me for pointing out your clear fallacy in such a statement.:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"RBIs don't measure the quality of the hitter." Measure and reflect are the same to me. So if rbi's don't "measure" or "reflect" the quality of the hitter again, your statement would imply that Hack Wilson's 190 rbi's have no reflection or measure of his ability as a hitter. I not only disagree, but I think you need to admit that you made a blanket statement that is simply wrong in applying to all situations.

Or, just re-state it as rbi's may not always measure or reflect the quality of the hitter. Just do that and you won't need to try to call others a troll and blame me for pointing out your clear fallacy in such a statement.:mad:

You won't understand this but what the heck...

See... you can be a really great hitter, i.e. Hack Wilson in 1930 have over 100 RBI's and you can be a really putrid hitter, i.e. Tony Batista pretty much his whole career, and have over 100 RBI's. That's why RBI's are such a poor measure of a hitter's ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"RBIs don't measure the quality of the hitter." Measure and reflect are the same to me. So if rbi's don't "measure" or "reflect" the quality of the hitter again, your statement would imply that Hack Wilson's 190 rbi's have no reflection or measure of his ability as a hitter. I not only disagree, but I think you need to admit that you made a blanket statement that is simply wrong in applying to all situations.

Or, just re-state it as rbi's may not always measure or reflect the quality of the hitter. Just do that and you won't need to try to call others a troll and blame me for pointing out your clear fallacy in such a statement.:mad:

If you think that a measurement and a reflection are the same thing, then you've proven my box of hair hypothesis to be spot-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"RBIs don't measure the quality of the hitter." Measure and reflect are the same to me. So if rbi's don't "measure" or "reflect" the quality of the hitter again, your statement would imply that Hack Wilson's 190 rbi's have no reflection or measure of his ability as a hitter. I not only disagree, but I think you need to admit that you made a blanket statement that is simply wrong in applying to all situations.

Or, just re-state it as rbi's may not always measure or reflect the quality of the hitter. Just do that and you won't need to try to call others a troll and blame me for pointing out your clear fallacy in such a statement.:mad:

You have to be a decent contact hitter who becomes blessed with a LOT of opportunity....

Like I said, I bet the league leaders in RBI look pretty identical to the league leaders in runners left on base and/or in scoring position. A lot of good hitters (eg Nick) would LOVE to hit behind base-cloggers like Roberts and Reimold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think that a measurement and a reflection are the same thing, then you've proven my box of hair hypothesis to be spot-on.

Isn't to measure something to reflect or determine what it is by using some sort of standard of judgment?

So again Mr. Genius, just answer this simple question - does Hack Wilson's 190 rbi's measure or reflect anything regarding his hitting skills that season?

You won't answer this question because I am the one who is spot on here and you are too lost in space some where to realize it. Of course those 190 rbi's measure that he was hitting the hell out of the ball that season. It is just common sense. Someone with the IQ of a turnip could understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't to measure something to reflect or determine what it is by using some sort of standard of judgment?

So again Mr. Genius, just answer this simple question - does Hack Wilson's 190 rbi's measure or reflect anything regarding his hitting skills that season?

You won't answer this question because I am the one who is spot on here and you are too lost in space some where to realize it. Of course those 190 rbi's measure that he was hitting the hell out of the ball that season. It is just common sense. Someone with the IQ of a turnip could understand that.

I'm glad you brought up Hack Wilson.

No other major leaguer has ever had 190 RBI, much less 190 in 154 games.

If you believe that RBI are a measure of hitting ability, then you have to conclude that Hack Wilson that year was the greatest hitter big league baseball has ever seen.

To answer your question, of course he was hitting the heck out of the ball that season. But those 190 RBI don't tell you how well he was hitting compared to other great players in other great seasons.

EDIT: If you take a look at the 1930 Cubs, you'll see that Hack was hitting behind a bunch of guys who spent a lot of time on the basepaths. That sorta helps the RBI total, right? Put him on a team that didn't have quite as good a lineup, say the 1928 Cubs, and even though that was still a good-hitting team, it wasn't good enough to let him sniff 190 RBI. Not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't to measure something to reflect or determine what it is by using some sort of standard of judgment?

They're very different things to me.

That said, the point was that RBIs aren't a "measure" (i.e., metric for valuation) of the quality of a hitter because there are too many things that it fails to account for. Thus, a great hitter may have a lot of RBIs or he may not.

In 1990 Rickey Henderson hit .325/.439/.577. He hit 28 HRs.

In 2003 Tony Batista hit .235/.270/.393. He hit 26 HRs.

So here is what I'm talking about in terms of imperfect correlation: Rickey Henderson led Tony Batista in two Triple Crown stats: BA and HRs.

In clutch situations Batista had an OPS under .700. Henderson had an OPS over .900.

With men on, Henderson was over .900 OPS. With men on, Batista was under .700.

With men on, Batista hit .243. Henderson hit over .300.

Now, taking all that into account - who hit better in the clutch, with men on base, who hit for a higher average, who hit for more power. The answer to each is Henderson.

And yet Henderson had 61 RBIs on the year. And Batista had 99.

So, you see, while someone having a great year might accumulate a lot of RBIs (like Hack Wilson in 1930) the RBIs themselves are not a good measure of the quality of the hitter.

Thus, while RBIs might "reflect" - i.e., offer something like an image of a good hitter - like all mirrors, distortion is a fundamental problem. And RBIs don't, in any trustworthy way, measure the quality of an individual year. Or the quality of the hitter. Not if your measure is anything other than some rudimentary binary like "good" or "bad".

A correlation between high RBI years and good hitters exists. But only those with the intellectual savvy to see through those numbers - which, it appears, is virtually everyone on this board but you - understand that RBIs are not a proper measure of hitter quality.*

*I should note that Batista played 25 more games or so than Henderson. In the interest of fairness. And thus Henderson was likely to have something like 12 more RBIs - but also 5-6 more HRs. So he was still likely to have had 25 fewer RBIs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...