AJBurnett34 Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 Yea RBI's are more important. Homers are just icing on the cake. You win more by getting RBI's than Home runs.....its hard to explain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugg Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 You've gotta put RBI's over Home Runs, if only because, quite simply, home runs are part of the RBI's anyway. That being said, I still think RBI's are overrated. I like batting average with runners in scoring position, because a guy with 65 RBIs could still, statisically, be better at driving in runs than a 120 RBI guy, it just depends on his opportunities. I'd take a guy with 65 RBIs and a .350 avg with RISP over a guy with 120 and .260 every time. It's just a weird individual stat because it has just as much to do with what the guys in front of you do as what you actually do. As for that Ali G show question, I've heard of it, but I've never actually seen it, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Juanky Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Big ups = Ali G phrase Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownRodeo Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Let me pose it this way: Would you rather have a two-run single or a 450 foot solo shot? The hitter with the two-run single got to bat with two runners on base, while the hitter who hit the 450 foot solo shot got to bat with no one on base. You're giving credit to the hitter merely because he was lucky enough to have two hitters before him reach base. Is it solo-shot-guy's fault that no one was able to get on base in front of him? Here's a better question: If, during a season, one player hits .290 with 40 HRs and 95 RBIs, and another player hits .290 with 20 HRs and 120 RBIs, who would you rather have on your team in the future (assuming the players are the same age and play the same position)? Here's another question for those who favor RBIs over home runs: Who would you rather have on your team, Hideki Matsui or Sammy Sosa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Theres many examples other than Sosa vs Matsui if anyone was wondering...I apologize for being an a**hole about this subject I just want to help you guys broaden your minds! :lol good post DR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramp Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 come on... who wouldnt want Sosa over Matsui? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 come on... who wouldnt want Sosa over Matsui? So in what context are RBI's a better offensive stat than HR's? You just said you wouls take the player with more HRs over more RBIs....am I missing something? There are other similiar comparisons like the one DR used. How can you overlook all that you supposedly read in Moneyball and the baseballprospectus web site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramp Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Sosa also bats .310 and drives in 120 a year... Sosa to Matsui isnt a fair comparison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Sosa also bats .310 and drives in 120 a year... Sosa to Matsui isnt a fair comparison Get over the specific player comparison and look at the main points in the post. The hitter with the two-run single got to bat with two runners on base, while the hitter who hit the 450 foot solo shot got to bat with no one on base. You're giving credit to the hitter merely because he was lucky enough to have two hitters before him reach base. Is it solo-shot-guy's fault that no one was able to get on base in front of him? Here's a better question: If, during a season, one player hits .290 with 40 HRs and 95 RBIs, and another player hits .290 with 20 HRs and 120 RBIs, who would you rather have on your team in the future (assuming the players are the same age and play the same position)? Would you take the player with 40 dingers? Or the guy with 120 ribbies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramp Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 120 ribbies but you gotta look at position in the field, age, all that crap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugg Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 It's hard to answer that question. It STILL depends on what's around him. If you don't have a great lineup right now, I'd take the power hitter, he can create runs on his own. But, if you've got some good hitters at the top, give me the RBI guy. Case in point, Sosa is hitting .294 with RISP, Matsui is over .330, and Sosa strikes out a hell of a lot more. If you've got guys at the the top who can get on base, I'll take Matsui. Sure, Sosa can hit that explosive 3-run homer, but Matsui is going to drive in a lot more runs for you over the course of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 You just totally proved the point by saying it matters whats in front of you, but you still would take the guy with more Ribbies? It just comes from a theoretical difference in that I think RISP average is based on mostly luck. Can of worms I and nobody else wants to open. You have to open your own minds and research it yourself....matrix-style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownRodeo Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Sosa also bats .310 and drives in 120 a year... Sosa to Matsui isnt a fair comparison Ah, but you see, that's part of the point. A player who hits 40 homers every year will almost always drive in around 110, 120 runs. But a player who hits 20 to 25 homers every year will never consistently drive in 110, 120 runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Juanky Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 The hitter with the two-run single got to bat with two runners on base, while the hitter who hit the 450 foot solo shot got to bat with no one on base. You're giving credit to the hitter merely because he was lucky enough to have two hitters before him reach base. Is it solo-shot-guy's fault that no one was able to get on base in front of him? Here's a better question: If, during a season, one player hits .290 with 40 HRs and 95 RBIs, and another player hits .290 with 20 HRs and 120 RBIs, who would you rather have on your team in the future (assuming the players are the same age and play the same position)? Here's another question for those who favor RBIs over home runs: Who would you rather have on your team, Hideki Matsui or Sammy Sosa? I would take the 120 RBI man, in a heart beat. The Sosa comparison isn't fair because Sosa has triple digit RBIs most of the time anyways. Who would you rather have.....Marcus Giles (20 jacks, 68 RBIs) or Mike Lieberthal (13 jacks, 80 RBIs)? All Marlins loyalty aside, I'll take Lieby, thank you very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownRodeo Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 The Sosa comparison isn't fair because Sosa has triple digit RBIs most of the time anyways. Again, read my post above. That's exactly my point. Players who hit 40-some homers every year will almost always get triple digit RBIs. Players who hit 20 to 25 homers every year will never consistently get triple digit RBIs. If you'd rather take the 120 RBI man, you'd be foolish, because no one who averages 20 homers a season will consistently get 120 RBI. Who would you rather have.....Marcus Giles (20 jacks, 68 RBIs) or Mike Lieberthal (13 jacks, 80 RBIs)? Marcus Giles. Don't you think a huge reason he doesn't have as many RBIs as Lieberthal is because he usually bats 2nd while Lieberthal usually bats 5th (directly behind Jim Thome and Bobby Abreu)? Just another example of how RBI are so dependent on the hitters around you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins2003 Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Sosa also bats .310 and drives in 120 a year... Sosa to Matsui isnt a fair comparison Ah, but you see, that's part of the point. A player who hits 40 homers every year will almost always drive in around 110, 120 runs. But a player who hits 20 to 25 homers every year will never consistently drive in 110, 120 runs. I have no complaint with the hypothesis you and Sham put forward but I think the flaw in your argument is when words like "never" are used. If you were to moderate your words to say "seldom" or its "much more difficult" (in this case for a 25 home run hitter vs someone hitting 40 hrs) you would gain much more support for your position. People responding to a post like this are responding often to the language and not the overall sense of the post. "Never" is a long time. In the seventies and eighties when 40 home run reasons were practicularly unheard of, several players had 120 rbi seasons. The two, high rbis and moderate hrs are not mutually exclusive, its just alot easier to have a high rbi count with a ton of hrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Juanky Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 I really hope you don't think Marcus Giles is a better hitter than Mike Lieberthal. If you do then i regret to inform you that you are incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami15 Posted September 22, 2003 Author Share Posted September 22, 2003 if your'e gonna hit 40 hrs, on the right team youll drive in 120 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 We "never" get a sense of your stance on the issue 03. And when DR uses the word "never," consistently is the word that immediately follows it, which means it may happen but not too many times. I doubt its the language other posters are responding too. They whole heartedly believe that RBIs are a better measure of offensive performance then the amount of power a player generates. (HR) I'd like to know your position. The 70s and 80s argument is out of context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins2003 Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 We "never" get a sense of your stance on the issue 03. And when DR uses the word "never," consistently is the word that immediately follows it, which means it may happen but not too many times. I doubt its the language other posters are responding too. They whole heartedly believe that RBIs are a better measure of offensive performance then the amount of power a player generates. (HR) I'd like to know your position. The 70s and 80s argument is out of context. Sham, I was trying to point out that some people may be incited to caustic or poorly thought out replies by the language and not the content of your posts. I actually agree with you and Down more than you realize. You guys are well informed, you obviously enjoy stats, you do your homework, my only complaint, is that you guys come accross as absolutists. If X, then Y. I read what Down wrote, I read every word, I'm merely suggesting that when you're trying to make your points, to try and not be so absolute. I made a comment about the seventies and eighties. Your response is that it's out of context. Not that baseball has changed, not that there were more doubleheaders then, or more day games, or some other reason, just that its out of context. I don't know why it's out of context, they played on the same diamond as today, there were nine men on a side, what I think you meant to say is the game has changed in the last twenty-thirty years. Can a 20 homerun hitter "consistently" knock in 120 rbi? sure, however slim the chances, but THAT'S THE MAGIC OF BASEBALL. As Tommy Hutton likes to say, "Baseball makes no sense". As for my opinion? On this one I'm in your camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 Most statheads are absolutists inculding myself and I come across as an a**hole without meaning to. I respect most everyone's opinion I just want you guys to take it a little further. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I believe strongly in my opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Juanky Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 Most statheads are absolutists inculding myself and I come across as an a**hole without meaning to. I respect most everyone's opinion I just want you guys to take it a little further. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I believe strongly in my opinions. Well, I respect your side of arguements for sure. Usually don't agree with them, but that is because I am more of a baseball purist and you tend to be the opposite. But that is ok, because this falls into the phrase of one of my favorite quotes (I forgot who said it, sorry): "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.