Comments on: Worst 100 RBI seasons http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-46258 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:30:18 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-46258 Dude....you are mixing my post with what commenters said. I don't agree with the sentiment of #10 either, which has nothing to do with my original post. You and I actually seem to agree for the most part.

]]>
By: Buckner Rules http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-46210 Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:09:52 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-46210 Post #10 says: "I was shocked looking at Buckner's page how close he came to getting 3k hits while being barely better than a replacement player for his career."

That is a condemnation of his entire career. It is ignorant.

Regarding his 1986 season: I am not going to try to decipher the cryptic stats for a non-credible list, but the worst part appears to be the 25 GIDP. The guy had maybe half a good leg at that time. He also had only 25 Ks -- far fewer than anyone else on the list. I would bet that means he advanced quite a few runners on groundouts or fly balls. Does this cryptic, non-credible list take that into account? If not, it should.

The all-time list also has at least two people who won batting titles. Parker won more than one batting title. Robin Yount finished second in batting one season. I seem to recall Chipper Jones doing quite well in BA at least one season.

In summary, these lists are horribly flawed. Time to get a new list.

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-45956 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 12:47:33 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-45956 #86: My opinion about Buckner is that he was a very talented player who was slowed by injuries. His final career numbers are A) better than most people remember them and B) not nearly as good as they would have been if not for his injuries.

However, when looking just at raw numbers, that season of his that makes the list above was definitely on the stinkier side. It's not a condemnation of his entire career, his effort, or him as a person. Obviously Buckner's legs were in very bad shape that year, which contributed significantly to his performance with the bat as well as the famous play for which he is remembered.

]]>
By: Buckner Rules http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-45857 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:15:39 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-45857 The post about Bill Buckner being barely better than a replacement player shows how ignorant seamheads can be, especially when they can manufacture numbers to make a non-existent point.

Buckner has a batting title. Before his knee injuries, he was a player who possessed speed and the ability to hit for average. His power numbers were a little low for someone who played in hitters' parks, but they were not terrible for the era in which he played. Clearly the person who made the anti-Buckner comment never saw him when he played for the Dodgers in the 1970s. Probably never saw him play at any time.

I see your list of players with 1400-1500 RBIs includes Andres Galarraga, a player who also won a batting title. Dave Parker won two batting titles and had a cannon for an arm in the outfield. This "summary" is a prime example of how to misuse statistics -- you gather the 19 people with a superior quality (RBIs), then rank them with a sketchy formula and bash the people who don't pass muster.

These FACTS lead me to conclude a couple of things:

* Your list makes little sense, regardless of what magic you used to create it.

* You are seamheads without much knowledge of the game.

Go back to Strat-O-Matic, seamheads. The Jose Valentins, Joe Carters, and even the Dante Bichettes of the world fall into this category. People with batting titles don't.

]]>
By: Lawrence Azrin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-43806 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:13:27 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-43806 #85/"Andy Says: Nice explanation Lawrence...I strongly agree."

Yes, it's not that Joe Carter was a total stiff; it's just that he had some positives and also some negatives. Positives were hitting for power, being a decent defensive outfielder and decent baserunner. Negatives included not hitting for average and (especially) not drawing walks. Problem is those two negatives pretty much canceled out his positives. Since he got to bat cleanup for good teams most of his career, he piled up lots of RBI, and the general public though of him as some clutch-hitting god and great offensive force. He wasn't (either one; except in 1986, when he WAS great).

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-43749 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:11:14 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-43749 Nice explanation Lawrence...I strongly agree. Carter was the beneficiary of being in the right place at the right time. He did the bare minimum to achieve the counting stat totals that he did. (Don't misread...I'm not trying to say that he was terrible--just not nearly as good as every other player with similar counting stat totals.)

]]>
By: Lawrence Azrin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-43747 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:07:45 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-43747 #82/"Matt #78 While yes, they are on base, the fact of the matter is that there needs to be a batter to drive them in. So lets say someone like Joe Carter, since there's so much debate about him here, and has a game where he goes 3 for 4 and drives in the 4 runs. Sure there were batters who got hits, and maybe walks, but didn't get the key hits to drive in the runs then how does it fall Joe Carter or whoever drove in the runs? Maybe Joe Carter didn't walk as much as he should have. He did, however, drive in runs. It would be nice if every player is a 5-tool player but that doesn't happen on a regular basis. He drove in runs. What more does anybody want?"

What more do I want? Well, I want someone like Joe Carter to GET ON BASE MORE, so that other players besides Joe Carter also have an opportunity to drive in runs. Think of it as bookkeeping- someone is credited for the RBI's, and Joe Carter mostly batted cleanup on good-hitting teams, so that HE got the RBI. However, he didn't get on base as often as the guys he drove in, so he DECREASED the chances for the guys batting behind him to get RBI. Now, you may think this is good trade-off; I do not.

Looking at Carter's breakdowns, he didn't hit any better in any of the so-called "clutch" situations (he actually hit noticeably WORSE in "close and late") ,so it's not like he "rose to the occasion"; he simply got a lot of chances to drive in runs. That may have helped Carter look like a better hitter, but that doesn't mean his team scored more runs over a season.

]]>
By: Matt http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-43619 Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:43:07 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-43619 #78 While yes, they are on base, the fact of the matter is that there needs to be a batter to drive them in. So lets say someone like Joe Carter, since there's so much debate about him here, and has a game where he goes 3 for 4 and drives in the 4 runs. Sure there were batters who got hits, and maybe walks, but didn't get the key hits to drive in the runs then how does it fall Joe Carter or whoever drove in the runs? Maybe Joe Carter didn't walk as much as he should have. He did, however, drive in runs. It would be nice if every player is a 5-tool player but that doesn't happen on a regular basis. He drove in runs. What more does anybody want?

]]>
By: Matt Y http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-43479 Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:18:24 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-43479 I completely agree that WAR is the best single metric we have, but with that said, it is seriously flawed and is only an estimate of ones entire package. Defensive numbers should be taken with some very big grains of salt, hitting context, particularly situational hitting, is far too distilled, and it seems clear to me that BB are overvalued a bit too much. Great debate.......as long as some of the WAR pontificates don't beat their drum like WAR is some gospel. Even WAR is a number based on a formula that is man-made and therefore it only gives us estimates. It provides us with another, likely better way, to evaluate players. For every Jim Rice writers induct, sabermetricians would induct a Willie Randolph or Darrell Evans. I respect different approaches to evaluating players, and so I understand I/we have to live with a few players that are anomalies getting inducted every once in a great while.

]]>
By: DavidJ http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7948/comment-page-1#comment-43062 Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:34:42 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7948#comment-43062 #72: "Im sorry but, WAR ruins so much of the fun and nostalgia of the game."

Speak for yourself. I enjoy stats like WAR, and I also enjoy the fun and nostalgia of the game. It's not an either/or.

]]>