Comments on: Lowest RBI per HR ratios in history http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Tony http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-108707 Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:28:16 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-108707 "Surprised no one has mentioned that Barry is the only guy with 25+ HRs to go 2.00 or lower - and he did it twice! Clearly he was only being pitched to those years when no one was on, but still, sheesh."

Barry batted leadoff those seasons in PIT.

]]>
By: Less Is Less | Ducksnorts http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-108067 Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:14:49 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-108067 [...] Lowest RBI per HR ratios in history (Baseball-Reference). Hey, I can see the holes in Ruben Rivera’s swing from here. Meanwhile, in this corner we have a Dan Walters reference. [...]

]]>
By: VW Parts http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-107673 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 09:24:52 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-107673 Hello,
this was also the case in the earlier days of professional baseball. The fielders may have been more coordinated than the average 8-year-old, but their gloves were tiny and the fields weren't well-kept. Even on a "routine" grounder, there was a reasonable chance of reaching base safely. There was a benefit to putting the ball in play.
..............
allen

]]>
By: Neil L. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-107617 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 02:18:25 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-107617 @45
JT, there is no arguing against your logic.

For some reason it is still hard for me to say that bat control is overrated. Advancing a runner from 2nd with a grounder to the right side, hitting a fly ball to score a run from 3rd instead of swinging for the fences, executing a hit-and-run. Shortening a swing with two strikes.

All these "littleball" things are out of place in today's offensive context, I guess.

]]>
By: Tmckelv http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-107565 Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:48:58 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-107565 2 things:

1) I read all of JT's post, but anything after the first paragraph is a blurr since reading about my Little League failures sent me into a tailspin.

2) Kevin Maas

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-107559 Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:26:21 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-107559 Great stuff, JT.

]]>
By: Johnny Twisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-107556 Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:21:30 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-107556 It's still hard for me to give my (entrenched) belief that a strikeout is more harmful than an attempted single or even an out or any kind of contact.

Well, we all start in Little League, where strikeouts are very harmful. If you just get the ball in play, there's a good chance you will reach base safely. The fielders are not good. And there is a wide range of ability at that level. Good hitters put the ball in play almost every time and get on base most of the time. Bad hitters will hardly ever get on base, and will strike out most of the time. So yes, we are indoctrinated to believe Strikeouts = Bad.

To a certain extent, this was also the case in the earlier days of professional baseball. The fielders may have been more coordinated than the average 8-year-old, but their gloves were tiny and the fields weren't well-kept. Even on a "routine" grounder, there was a reasonable chance of reaching base safely. There was a benefit to putting the ball in play.

But this is 2011. The gloves are much improved, the fields are improved, the players' skill level is much improved. Dinking the ball into play is useless -- it will most likely be turned into an out. The best way for most players to reach base consistently is to hit the ball hard. This requires swinging hard, which leads to a greater possibility of missing the ball entirely. This is *one* of the reasons strikeouts have increased.

It's all well and good to say that putting the ball in play gives the opportunity for an error, or for runners to advance. Yes, there is that possibility, but most of the time it doesn't happen. As Autin noted, there are not that many ROE. Anyone watching a game can see that on most outs, runners do *not* advance. The average strikeout therefore is only marginally costlier than the average non-K out. You can try to measure this yourself, or you can accept the run-expectancy tables and linear weights values of events which have already been calculated for us.

This being the major leagues, the talent spread has been severely compressed. All the hitters are very good, and yet they all get out most of the time. Some hitters will strike out more than others, but they all strike out. Usually, additional strikeouts will be the cost of additional extra-base hits and walks. Unless we are looking at a specific situation, how often a batter strikes out does not mean that much on its own. Look at his overall production -- including the strikeouts. If a guy struck out 300 times in a season, but got a hit every other time up, and half of them were homers, who would complain about the strikeouts?

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-107498 Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:11:21 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-107498 Nice analysis Artie. Plus I love anything that points out how overrated Joe Carter was.

See also:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/300

]]>
By: Artie Z http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-107477 Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:55:20 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-107477 @36 - Brook Jacoby's 1987 season is one of my favorites. He had some "fantastic" OBP guys hitting ahead of him in that order, so he didn't really have all that many guys on base, especially since those guys hitting in front of him happened to hit HRs.

He normally hit 6th or 7th, and while he did not do well with RISP (.221/.362/.295) and only OK with men on base (.274/.383/.393) he didn't do much than Joe Carter with RISP (.246/.297/.377) and men on base (.241/.278/.396). Yet Carter drove in 106 runs with the same amount of HR (32) and only a .264 AVG. But Carter had 60 more PAs with men on base, and he didn't walk at all (which helps his RBI total but hurts ... Brook Jacoby's chances of having men on base).

Carter (.304 OBP), Mel Hall (.309) and Cory Snyder (.273) were the guys who regularly hit in front of Jacoby looking at the 1987 Indians batting order.

The 1-2-3 hitters on the Indians - Brett Butler (.399), Julio Franco (.389) and Pat Tabler (.369) all gave the regular 4-5-6 hitters (Carter, Hall, and Snyder) ample opportunities to drive in runs. But the 4-5-6 guys didn't really do all that much to help out Jacoby's chances.

]]>
By: Dave http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/10785/comment-page-1#comment-107474 Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:41:05 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=10785#comment-107474 @1....Tommy Herr in 1982 I believe...from memory (Strat-O-Matic days) he had like 8 homers and 110 RBI.

]]>