Rbioty

[frankbmd]

A new stat is proposed in this thread for runs batted in other than yourself.

A home run is still a home run, but with the bases empty it seems to be a cheap RBI. With ducks on the pond the value of a home run is far greater.

I have followed baseball rather closely for the last 60 years. Historically the top home run hitters seemed to have RBI totals roughly three times the number of HRs.

This year with the season winding down two of the highly regarded "stars" are falling far short of that benchmark.

Both Aaron Judge and Mike Trout currently have only 32 RBIOTY. Granted both have lost some time due to injury, but 32 RBIOTY means they are batting in a teammate once every five days.

Perhaps we should examine offensive value to the team by considering RBIOTY, instead of other metrics or at least in addition to them.

Earlier this year Trout was envisioned as having the best season ever by an offensive player (pardon me WAR aficionados). Without more RBIOTYs I think not.

[FourStrikes]

RBIs matter, but nevertheless, chicks (and non-chick) fans dig the long ball.

P.S. - either way, Trout is awesome.

.

[frankbmd]

ANGELS

59 Simmons
49 Upton
45 Pujols
37 Calhoun
32 Trout
29 Ohtani
27 Maldonado
24 Fletcher
24 Valbuena
24 Fletcher

YANKEES

53 Andujar
52 Gregorius
51 Stanton
44 Hicks
44 Torres
35 Judge
30 Walker
30 Snachez
29 Gardner
29 Romine

Chicks digging the long ball wasn't the point of the thread.

A low RBI total as a home run hitter was the point.

Having the most runs scored at the end of the game determines the winner.

If you are standing on second base, your chance of scoring is better with nine other players on the Angels and Yankees than with Mike or Aaron.

Just sayin'

[Peter_Spaeth]

I remember a friend of mine and I looking up seasons where guys had the lowest ratio of RBI to HR. Bonds I think had one under 2. Might have been the 73HR season.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I remember a friend of mine and I looking up seasons where guys had the lowest ratio of RBI to HR. Bonds I think had one under 2.

Expecting 200 RBIs from a guy who hits 60-70 HRs is probably unrealistic.

The 40 HR guys in the 50s and 60s generally had over 100 RBIs though and many had 120.

The Red Sox of 2018 currently have eight players ahead of Judge in RBIOTYs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

ANGELS


If you are standing on second base, your chance of scoring is better with nine other players on the Angels and Yankees than with Mike or Aaron.

Just sayin'

That's not true because you aren't counting the possibility of scoring on a HR by Trout or Judge. All you are capturing is the possibility of scoring on a non HR.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's not true because you aren't counting the possibility of scoring on a HR by Trout or Judge. All you are capturing is the possibility of scoring on a non HR.

We already know that their HRs are offset by an increased number of strikeouts. Of course second base is closer to your position in the field than the dugout, unless you are a designated hitter, so being stranded on second has its advantages.

[Peter_Spaeth]

My pre-caffeine analysis appears wrong. Very odd that Trout would score so low in that metric. I am searching for an explanation.

[BearBailey]

And how many times with a runner on second and first base open is that top tier batter pitched around? I can for one do without rbioty.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My pre-caffeine analysis appears wrong. Very odd that Trout would score so low in that metric. I am searching for an explanation.

My best explanation is that in the first half of the season he batted second behind Kinsler who was hitting less than .200. I suspect he had a higher percentage of solo home runs as a result. Kinsler certainly wasn’t setting the table for him.

Yes, he is pitched around. Intentional walks and semi-intentional walks inflate OBS and no doubt WAR. If he had better hitters behind him than Upton and Pujols or behind guys in front of him in the line up, I suspect his RBIOTY would be more respectable.

I just cannot buy into his “greatest” season ever with an RBI total in the low 60s in September.

Peter’s caffeinated reassessment is appreciated.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I doubt the incremental AB a power hitter gets batting leadoff (Betts) or second (Trout) are worth the tradeoff in hitting behind weaker hitters. There is a reason power hitters almost always throughout history have been 3 4 and 5.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

A new stat is proposed in this thread for runs batted in other than yourself.

A home run is still a home run, but with the bases empty it seems to be a cheap RBI. With ducks on the pond the value of a home run is far greater.

I have followed baseball rather closely for the last 60 years. Historically the top home run hitters seemed to have RBI totals roughly three times the number of HRs.

This year with the season winding down two of the highly regarded "stars" are falling far short of that benchmark.

Both Aaron Judge and Mike Trout currently have only 32 RBIOTY. Granted both have lost some time due to injury, but 32 RBIOTY means they are batting in a teammate once every five days.

Perhaps we should examine offensive value to the team by considering RBIOTY, instead of other metrics or at least in addition to them.

Earlier this year Trout was envisioned as having the best season ever by an offensive player (pardon me WAR aficionados). Without more RBIOTYs I think not.

Frank,

You're only scratching the surface. We should also consider the following factors to (somehow) be weighted into the equation.

• Which base the runner(s) are on? A bigger impact with a guy on first than on third (single almost always scores the former, and almost never scores the latter).
  
• How many outs there were at the time? Again, with no outs there is more opportunity left than with 2 outs.
  
• What affect did it have on the score? Any HR when up 12-0 is less important than when it's a 2-1 game.
  
• As above, along with the inning in which this occurred.
  
• And I'm sure other 'factors' that aren't off the top of my head.

Hey, I don't have the answers. I just ask the questions.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by tschock

Frank,

You're only scratching the surface. We should also consider the following factors to (somehow) be weighted into the equation.

• Which base the runner(s) are on? A bigger impact with a guy on first than on third (single almost always scores the former, and almost never scores the latter).
  
• How many outs there were at the time? Again, with no outs there is more opportunity left than with 2 outs.
  
• What affect did it have on the score? Any HR when up 12-0 is less important than when it's a 2-1 game.
  
• As above, along with the inning in which this occurred.
  
• And I'm sure other 'factors' that aren't off the top of my head.

Hey, I don't have the answers. I just ask the questions.

The paralysis of analysis is common in the world of baseball stats. My point was simply that when I see an established star like a Trout or a Judge with 30+ HRS and only 60+ RBIs in September, I scratch my head and ask is this guy really a clutch hitting asset to his team or is the rest of the so bad that the “star” comes to the plate an inordinate number of times wth the bases empty.

When 4 or 5 of the “Stars” teammates have more rbiotys than the star I have to scratch my head even more.