Rocky Colavito: Stick it up their ***

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Buy it or not it's a fact that RBI's are team contingent and extremely volatile. They are next to worthless for judging individual production because the batter has no control over who is or isn't on base when he comes to bat. Plenty of great seasons have come without 100 RBI's just because they played on a bad team who sucked at getting on base.

Oh, and Ruth is like #2 or 3 in walks and BB% all time, of course Gehrig got a ton of RBI chances!

At .342 lifetime I think Ruth probably had a ton of hits where he ended up on base too. Is there an advanced stat for runs driven in/runners on base or something like that, that would be informative?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

At .342 lifetime I think Ruth probably had a ton of hits where he ended up on base too. Is there an advanced stat for runs driven in/runners on base or something like that, that would be informative?

you could look at situational hitting, but it tends to be all over the place from one year to the next (and over a career tends to be similar to their hitting in ALL situations)

But, it tends to be true that good middle of the order hitters will get more RBI's if the guys in front of them are better at getting on base than an equally good hitter on a lesser team.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

you could look at situational hitting, but it tends to be all over the place from one year to the next (and over a career tends to be similar to their hitting in ALL situations)

But, it tends to be true that good middle of the order hitters will get more RBI's if the guys in front of them are better at getting on base than an equally good hitter on a lesser team.

Yes that certainly makes sense I would have thought without researching it that a team (50s mid 60s Yankees) that was perhaps the greatest dynasty in history would have been quite adept at putting men on base, but perhaps not?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes that certainly makes sense I would have thought without researching it that a team (50s mid 60s Yankees) that was perhaps the greatest dynasty in history would have been quite adept at putting men on base, but perhaps not?

They looked to be above avg at getting on base. But here's something i just noticed:

Mantle only got 100 RBI's 4 times true, but he got 90+9 times and got walked 90 or more times in 13 seasons. So, with all those walks, he was missing out RBI opps.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yeah, that was the first thing I mentioned, all those walks. He was ahead of his time. It's interesting that even in his last two mediocre seasons, he walked over 100 times in each. Odd that. And .421 OBP lifetime.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah, that was the first thing I mentioned, all those walks. He was ahead of his time. It's interesting that even in his last two mediocre seasons, he walked over 100 times in each. Odd that. And .421 OBP lifetime.

You wanna see real sickness?

Ted Williams - career .482 OBP and 20.6 BB%

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

You wanna see real sickness?

Ted Williams - career .482 OBP and 20.6 BB%

Yep. Early on hornsby told him, get a good pitch to hit. He took it to hesrt.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

You wanna see real sickness?

Ted Williams - career .482 OBP and 20.6 BB%

And zero rings. Maybe he should have swung at a few more pitches, then he would have won a few.

Lol at Boston fans. When it comes to Bill Russell or Tom Brady, rings are the only thing that matters. When it comes to Ted Williams or Larry Bird (vs. Magic Johnson), rings are irrelevant.