Trembley on "Average 3Bman" RBIs

[El Gordo]

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.

No, not in terms Newtonian physics anyway. Perhaps you have a point in terms of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Since, according to him, you can only measure one aspect of a particle, what you are getting is a reflection of that particle's nature, not the whole picture. But this is similar to RBI's. They give you(reflect) an aspect of a hitters ability. I would argue that no one metric gives you a complete picture of the hitter. You have to use a combination of metrics to do so.

[Lucky Jim]

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'll leave it to posterity (and the opinion of OHers) to determine which of the two of us has an IQ of a turnip.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I'll leave it to posterity (and the opinion of OHers) to determine which of the two of us has an IQ of a turnip.

Watch out. Ma is making soup this afternoon, and she's hunting for a turnip to throw into the pot.

Don't worry, LJ, you're safe...

[Lucky Jim]

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'll leave it to posterity (and the opinion of OHers) to determine which of the two of us has an IQ of a turnip.

So you don't miss my posts, O5F.

[El Gordo]

I'll leave it to posterity (and the opinion of OHers) to determine which of the two of us has an IQ of a turnip.

I have too high of an opinion of turnips to offer a choice. But then most of the turnips I know, manage to stay on the truck.

[Lucky Jim]

I have too high of an opinion of turnips to offer a choice. But then most of the turnips I know, manage to stay on the truck.

The three things El Gordo has a high opinion of: turnips, Felix Pie, and El Gordo. I smell threesome.

And it smells like old man and turnip.

[El Gordo]

The three things El Gordo has a high opinion of: turnips, Felix Pie, and El Gordo. I smell threesome.

And it smells like old man and turnip.

Boy, some turnips have thinner skins than others. But then again, most of the turnips I know made past their second year of college.

[VTmook213]

Well this is quite the thread ... it's interesting that a lot of people who vote for Cy Young and MVP still put far too much stock into numbers like Wins and RBIs which are, obviously, not a great measurement of one's ability.

Ok so here's the question - if our 3b next year had 90-100 RBIs, who here would complain? *looks around* Nobody? Then while I can appreciate everyone enjoying taking DT to task for perhaps misspeaking (or perhaps being an idiot), don't you think this is making a mountain out of a molehill?

ps. the "nuttier than a bag of cashews" (or whatever type of nut it was) was pretty funny :laughlol:

[BRobinsonfan]

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.

Somewhere in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia... an old man's head has just exploded.

RIP Old#5Fan.

[Lucky Jim]

Somewhere in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia... an old man's head has just exploded.

RIP Old#5Fan.

Well, before we give me too much credit I had to add this disclaimer: "*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 hit almost .100 pts higher, had 6-8 more HRs and still had 25 fewer RBIs."

In other words, Batista had 200 ABs w/ RISP. And 312 ABs overall w/ runners on. Henderson had 118 and 198. The rate then, is that Batista had 1.25 ABs a game w/ RISP. And Henderson had .86 ABs a game w/ RISP. Batista had nearly 2 runners on base a game for him. And Henderson had 1.45.

[Old#5fan]

No, not in terms Newtonian physics anyway. Perhaps you have a point in terms of Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. Since, according to him, you can only measure one aspect of a particle, what you are getting is a reflection of that particle's nature, not the whole picture. But this is similar to RBI's. They give you(reflect) an aspect of a hitters ability. I would argue that no one metric gives you a complete picture of the hitter. You have to use a combination of metrics to do so.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, this is outrageously funny.:laughlol::rofl::clap3: Possibly the most laugh out loud post I have read here EVER! Kudos!!!:clap3::mwahaha:

[Old#5fan]

So you don't miss my posts, O5F.

I didn't miss your post as I have never had you on ignore like I do some others here. Anyway, Tony Batista versus Ricky Henderson are extreme examples. Batista was a back of the lineup power hitting third baseman while Henderson a leadoff man. So of course Henderson would not get as many chances for an rbi as Batista as he leads off the game. So that certainly isn't earth breaking news!

I do get your point but you also cannot say that rbi's are meaningless because most hitters who have 100 rbi's or more are above average in hitting unlike Batista, and obviously ole Hack was superb at hitting that season with RISP.

So I guess in effect we are both right so why are we arguing again?:laughlol:

[BRobinsonfan]

Batista was a back of the lineup power hitting third baseman while Henderson a leadoff man. So of course Henderson would not get as many chances for an rbi as Batista as he leads off the game. So that certainly isn't earth breaking news!

Proving that RBI's (when taken by themselves) better reflect a player's position in the batting order rather than a player's batting ability.

I do get your point but you also cannot say that rbi's are meaningless because most hitters who have 100 rbi's or more are above average in hitting unlike Batista, and obviously ole Hack was superb at hitting that season with RISP.

Of course Lucky Jim never said they were meaningless... just an inferior measure of performance.

So I guess in effect we are both right so why are we arguing again?:laughlol:

Well you're half right in that Lucky Jim is right!