Is this Brian Kenny on MLB Real ?

[insidethewrapper]

Is this Brian Kenny on MLB Real ? I've been a member of SABR for decades and this guy keeps saying that RBI's are not a good measure of a player's ability ? You win games by scoring more runs than your opponent. Runs scored and Runs Batted In are a "Real Stat". That's how you win games. These other stats are based on formula's, I just don't get it !

Top Ten RBI: Aaron, Ruth, Arod, Bonds ,Gehrig, Pujols, Musial,Cobb,Foxx, Murray

Top 10 Runs: Henderson,Cobb,Bonds,Aaron,Ruth,Rose,Mays,Arod,Mus ial,Jeter

Pretty good list of players !!!!

[Jim65]

Brian Kenny is a pompous ass, his book was interesting but his "I know more than everyone else" attitude and constant referring to people who use advanced stats as "the smart people" made me really hate him.

[ctownboy]

BK's big problem is that he thinks RBI's are an antiquated way of looking at things. To have a lot of RBI's requires for the batter to have a lot of men getting on base in front of him so that is not really in the batters control as much as say a walk is.

So, Joe Carter having numerous 100 RBI seasons doesn't mean much to BK because he had a lot of guys getting on base in front of him but didn't do much else as a ball player (as far as the advanced stats say).

[rats60]

The only way that is true is if the player drives in a lot of runs by hitting poorly with RISP. A player with hits his average with RISP and high leverage situations has earned his RBIs.

The thing that I don't get is people like him that over value walks. The only way to drive in a run with a walk is if the bases are loaded. In general for a star player, drawing a walk is a bad thing. It is his job to drive in runs, not pass his responsibility on to a lesser player. A player who drives in more runs by getting hits and walking less is far more value than the guy with a high OBP, but fewer RBIs, assuming equal situations with RISP.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by rats60

The only way that is true is if the player drives in a lot of runs by hitting poorly with RISP. A player with hits his average with RISP and high leverage situations has earned his RBIs.

The thing that I don't get is people like him that over value walks. The only way to drive in a run with a walk is if the bases are loaded. In general for a star player, drawing a walk is a bad thing. It is his job to drive in runs, not pass his responsibility on to a lesser player. A player who drives in more runs by getting hits and walking less is far more value than the guy with a high OBP, but fewer RBIs, assuming equal situations with RISP.

With all due respect, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Jimmy Foxx, Ralph Kiner, Joe Morgan, Mickey Mantle, and Lou Gehrig would all disagree with you. They all posted numerous 100+ runs scored seasons, due to terrific OBP's (due to both hits and walks) plus pure power (Kiner had a fantastic OBP of .398, despite just a .279 lifetime BA, due to his tremendous amount of walks drawn. That resulted in six 100+ runs scored seasons before back injuries took hold, despite the fact that he was nowhere near fast). See also Mike Trout for a modern example of this type of player, with a tremendous OBP (due both to his BA and an ability to draw a ton of walks) plus power. Through history, this has been the best combination for run production by far. I haven't checked it, but would be willing to bet that Ruth and Williams, due not only to their high BA's but also their tremendous propensity for drawing walks, producing lifetime OBP's of .464 and .482 respectively, scored the highest number of runs in history per plate appearance. Per Keith Law, who has quite a background in analytics, on-base % plus slugging (OPS, which is a gross over-simplification of James' runs created formula, and less accurate) has a 92% correlation to runs scored. Simply put, the team which puts more runners on base, whether by hit or walk, and is capable of driving them in, scores more runs. RBI's, while continuing to be a valuable statistic to a far greater extent than the enormously egotistical Brian Kenny would acknowledge, are indeed context dependent, both on the conditions under which the game was played during different eras (example: in the '20's and early '30's, LEAGUE BATTING AVERAGES hovered around .280 all the way up to a high of .301 in the NL in 1930. Why? smaller parks with regard to both the outfield fences and foul territory, and virtually no sliders, a pitch which did not come into prominence until after WWII), and the ability of the players batting ahead of the particular hitter of concern to get on base. Getting back to the slider, Ted Williams called it the one single pitch which did the most to reduce batting averages after the 2nd World War, and had the charts to prove it. Compare, for example, Joe D's hitting pre and post WWII. It wasn't just age that made the difference--Williams also stated that Joe had trouble with the slider, and his Red Sox would have played DiMag's Yankees 22X per year. He oughta know! For those who may not know, a slider leaves the pitcher's hand exactly the same way as his fastball does, and looks like one until it breaks. If you can't spot and react fast enough to the small circle about which it is spinning in time, you are very susceptible to looking like a total fool swinging at a pitch that starts out looking like a strike middle-out, but ends up down and away, in the dirt. The curve ball, on the other hand, has traditionally had a slight arc upwards from the instant the pitcher releases it.

The change in playing conditions through different eras affected the ability to score runs, which is why the best players of the '20's and early '30's drove in more runs than those playing the bulk of their careers after WWII. Runs were significantly easier to score then simply because more runners were on base. Which is why you can't simply count up RBI's and equate them to any individual player's ability to produce runs. See Bill James' discussion of Mantle versus DiMaggio concerning run production in James' Historical Baseball Abstracts. While DiMaggio had higher RBI seasons, Mantle created substantially more runs as against the league average player during their respective times because of the greater ease in scoring runs during DiMag's time, PLUS Mantle's far superior ability to draw walks and consequently substantially higher OBP, despite a career BA 27 points lower.

Which is why, as a matter of interest, Bill Terry's 1930 campaign (23 HR's, .401 BA) does not differ significantly in era-independent run production value from that of Carl Yaz's 1968 season of .301 with 23 HR's. Terry topped the entire NL average by approximately 33%, while Yaz (facing sliders which Terry virtually never saw) topped the AL average by about 31%.

As to the value of walks in particular, they can readily be seen to often be of great value even when the recipient thereof neither scores nor drives in a run. Example: Two outs, man on first, and Mark McGwire (who drew an enormous number of walks!) at bat. McGwire doesn't get a hit, but doesn't make an out either. Instead, he draws one of his many walks, moving the man on first to second. The next batter lines one to right center, scoring the player initially on first base before McGwire came to bat. McGwire got neither a run scored nor an RBI on the play, YET THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO RUN SCORED HAD HE MADE AN OUT RATHER THAN WALKING. The walk was indisputably fundamental in creating that run. This kind of event occurs many, many times during the course of any team's season.

We've been far beyond simply counting numbers to accurately evaluate players of different eras whose careers were played under different conditions since James' Baseball abstracts of the'80's.

While we may disagree, you have, as always as a valuable contributor in this forum, my highest regards,

Larry

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

BK's big problem is that he thinks RBI's are an antiquated way of looking at things. To have a lot of RBI's requires for the batter to have a lot of men getting on base in front of him so that is not really in the batters control as much as say a walk is.

So, Joe Carter having numerous 100 RBI seasons doesn't mean much to BK because he had a lot of guys getting on base in front of him but didn't do much else as a ball player (as far as the advanced stats say).

In one of his 100 RBI seasons, Joe Carter hit something like .236 and he said something to the effect of "I may have gotten to 100 RBI's but I had a really bad year. There were so many runners on for me, that 100 RBI's was almost a given." He knew that season was not a real good one for him

Carter did not walk, was a decent but not great fielder after about age 27. But that 1993 walk-off home run and his counting stats will always put him in some sort of a HOF discussion.

[Jim65]

The advanced stats guys view RBIs as being in the right place at the right time which is silly, they really believe that the same guys year after year are just lucky.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

No that's not what they believe at all. They believe that Carl Yastrzemski would have driven in a LOT less runs with, let's say the Indians, than he did with the Red Sox.

Guys who analyze stats deeper than the back of a 1981 Topps cards are not ruining the game. They are analyzing what actually translates to winning games, which, last I checked, is the point.

Yes a walk doesn't often drive in a run, but an out never scores a run. Using Rickey as an example, scoring runs is out of his control, but between walks and steals he puts himself in position to score more often than a slow, low OBP guy. So it's not the runs that made Rickey great, though they were evidence of what made him great.

WAR is supposed to be a measure of a player's contribution to the bottom line of winning games. Is it flawed, sure there's disagreements on calculation between the two major statistical sites.

However the underlying thoughts are solid. They are simple thoughts, and they have fairly simple math to back them up. There's a reason front offices pay it credence, and it's not just to aggravate traditionalists!

I know it's pointless to try and make these arguments because the people who disagree don't want to hear anything different than what they believe, but it really doesn't have to be earth-shattering. It's merely looking a little deeper into what translates into winning, and what is within a player's control.

[darwinbulldog]

It's not luck, is it? It's just that if the manager knows what he's doing, the top 3 guys in the lineup are going to get on base more often than the middle three or bottom three, so some players are given more RBI opportunities than the other players get. If you want to look at RBIs but control for the average number of runners on base during a given player's plate appearances then you'd have a better measure of how good a hitter someone is. But if for some reason you batted a .375/40 HR guy eighth in your lineup every day he'd likely have fewer RBI than a .300/30 HR guy batting cleanup.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Brian Kenny is a pompous ass, his book was interesting but his "I know more than everyone else" attitude and constant referring to people who use advanced stats as "the smart people" made me really hate him.

A big +1 there! While Kenny always starts the show by claiming "This is the show for the thinking fan," his real agenda is to use it to show off what he believes his his incredible, albeit largely undiscovered, genius. He is the epitome of the old phrase "a legend in his own mind." His ego is boundless, yet without any real foundation. He had, for example, the single person in charge of calculating defensive runs saved as a guest on the show. Ken Rosenthal put to this guest the direct and pointed question: "But a defensive run save is not actually a defensive run saved, now is it?" The guest had to admit that it was not, because the context of when an outstanding defensive play is made, robbing the batter of a hit, is totally ignored (such a play therefore counts the same, whether it is made with two outs and the bases loaded, or two outs and no one on base). Defensive runs saved is an integral part of the WAR ("worthless analytical ratshit") stat, yet we can see that it is grossly overrated due to the lack of accuracy in the defensive evaluation of a player alone. The same is true concerning WAR's weighting of baserunning, i.e., the ability to take the extra base. We know from Bill James' formulas concerning runs created, which were consistently accurate within 2-3 percent in correlating to the actual number of runs a team would score, yet considered no aspects of baserunning except stolen bases versus times caught stealing, and times grounding into double plays, that the aforesaid ability, while productive, really does not play a huge factor in the ability of a team to score runs. Luis Aparicio, for example, was very fast and undoubtedly among the best at taking the extra base, yet he NEVER EVER scored over 100 runs in a single season in his career! Ralph Kiner, on the other hand, who certainly never had exceptional speed at all, scored 100 or more runs six times. So much for WAR, upon which Kenny has largely built his ego and claim to undiscovered genius!

Kenny has also been told many times by baseball insiders (especially former and current general managers) that WAR is simply one stat that is looked at, strongly implying it does not carry the special weight Kenny accords to it. When he is contradicted, on this point, however, he is likely to rudely interrupt and do his best to talk over the more knowledgeable person! Why? Because he has built that legendary genius that exists solely within his own mind by his reliance upon it.

Simply stated, the show is a far better one, and enormously more informative, when it has a guest host and Kenny is elsewhere!

Best wishes,

Larry

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Don't get me wrong, Kenny is a tool. You can't be a genius when you haven't contributed anything. Merely parroting others work (incorrectly at that) doesn't even make you an expert, let alone a genius.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by riggs336

I think in today's environment Quality Starts is a better pitching measurement than Wins. It all but eliminates offensive production of the pitcher's teammates.

Quality Starts replaced yesterday’s Complete Games. Expect starting pitchers to continue the trend to fewer innings per start, due to pitch counts and other analytics.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Nine Out Starts replaces Quality Starts as a metric for starting pitchers when the average start reaches 4 innings.