Is this Brian Kenny on MLB Real ?

[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.

[riggs336]

Originally Posted by 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.

+1

[insidethewrapper]

I really have to laugh when they try to use "defensive" stats. I think most of the centerfielders are very good and make great plays, not really much difference between them. In a regular game, most outfielders catch of couple of routine fly balls and that is the only plays they are involved with. How about the first baseman who is involved with several plays ? His value has to be more than the outfielder. How many plays do you see each day that the first baseman has to dig the ball out of the dirt or stretch etc. How do you value one position vs another ?

Many of the stats are nonsense but makes for interesting discussions. I think Batting Average or On Base % with RISP is a good stat. This shows valuable hitting in clutch situations when a team needs it. Many of the great hitters get walked when they are in key situations and lose the advantage of knocking in many runs. Just think how many more they would have if not walked.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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.

.

I don't really follow stats, but last time I looked a sacrifice fly, fielder's choice or suicide squeeze are all cases when an out produces a run. Your statement is an absolute which is incorrect.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I don't really follow stats, but last time I looked a sacrifice fly, fielder's choice or suicide squeeze are all cases when an out produces a run. Your statement is an absolute which is incorrect.

An out can drive in a run, it never scores a run.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

An out can drive in a run, it never scores a run.

If it is not a run scored then why is the batter credited with an RBI?

Rule 9.02(a)(1) of the Official Baseball Rules[1] a sacrifice fly is not counted as a time at bat for the batter, though the batter is credited with a run batted in

[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.

[ejharrington]

My favorite quote from one of the stat geeks: "Wins don't matter".

I am a stat geek but c'mon...

[Snapolit1]

I am not an advanced stats guy. It seems to me, as a relative simpleton, that the ultimate judge of how valuable an offensive player is both: RBI and getting on base. The old "keep the line moving" canard. I get that Paul O'Neil got a boatload more RBI's on the Yankees that he would have gotten on the Mets the same year because the Yankees were stacked and the Mets sucked. He was fortunate to frequently come up with guys already on base. I get it. But to somehow denigrate the fact that he came through and knocked them in? That I don't get it. Sounds like arguing that Tom Brady's career TD tally really isn't very impressive because he has had guys working with him who are good at catching the balls he's thrown.

Seems like the advance stat guys knock some guys because all they did was get RBI and have a low OBP and knock other guys because all they did was getting on base and have little to show for it.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

My favorite quote from one of the stat geeks: "Wins don't matter".

I am a stat geek but c'mon...

If I may guess the context, the stat guy probably meant that which pitcher is officially credited with the win doesn't matter as much as actually winning the game. And the corollary, that the ranking of how good different pitchers are is not identical to the ranking of how many wins they have (either in a season or in a career). It may have also been an attempted Yogi-ism that only makes sense in the context of understanding that we've lived through an era in which season win totals became much less predictive of Cy Young Awards than they used to be.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

My favorite quote from one of the stat geeks: "Wins don't matter".

I am a stat geek but c'mon...

W L ERA IP K BB
8 16 2.76 211.2 270 87

17 12 3.93 251.2 138 107

Tell me how wins mean anything.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

My favorite quote from one of the stat geeks: "Wins don't matter".

I am a stat geek but c'mon...

They don't mean team wins. They mean pitching wins and that does make some sense. if you have a guy who throws 220 or more innings and his team sucks but his ERA is 2.5 with 1K per innings and his record is 10-12.

Facing another guy with 185 innings an ERA of 4 and not as good other stats whose team scores a lot of runs and goes 15-5.

Tell me who really had the better year.

Rich

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

They don't mean team wins. They mean pitching wins and that does make some sense. if you have a guy who throws 220 or more innings and his team sucks but his ERA is 2.5 with 1K per innings and his record is 10-12.

Facing another guy with 185 innings an ERA of 4 and not as good other stats whose team scores a lot of runs and goes 15-5.

Tell me who really had the better year.

Rich

LOL see above post