Comments on: Seasons With 502+ PA & BABIP >=.400 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Johnny Twisto Tue, 17 May 2011 02:41:25 +0000 Runs scored is the most overrated (individual) stat in baseball.

YOU were the one who brought up RBI!

OK, now I read #67 and see you think RBI are much more important than R. All I can say is, you are wrong. RBI and R are equally important (or unimportant, for those who believe that). You will find it difficult to drive in any runs if no one scores them.
No one is discussing the "luck" theory of BABIP on this thread, yet I read about it all the time.

What you read about is "luck" in re *pitchers'* BABIP. (Personally, I hate the term "luck" when talking about such things. I prefer "chance." Or as BSK mentioned, sometimes "variance" is appropriate. Regardless...)

Batters have a much wider spread in BABIP talent than pitchers. League average BABIP is usually around .300. A hitter can have a BABIP of, say, .350 for year after year, and it's more likely that is his true talent. It is probable that no pitcher's true talent in BABIP is .250. If you see a pitcher put up a .250 one season, it's probably due more to defense and chance than his actual ability, and it will regress the next season.

By: Borman Mon, 16 May 2011 01:34:20 +0000 @68 Rickie Weeks strikeouts really aren't the big problem with the Brewers. A bit of solidity in the bullpen and some clutch hitting would be nice. But to the Weeks point, its a leadoff man's job to get on base and produce runs. In the 2010 season, the only player in Milwaukee with a higher OBP was Prince Fielder, and he's never been a leadoff guy. He lead the team in runs scored, and also drove in his share. The same amount as Prince in fact. So to the big point about leading off, getting on base and scoring runs, he does it better than anyone else in Milwaukee.

Would he be better of cutting out the strikeouts? Of course. Nobody wants to strike out. But there's certainly nothing wrong with Weeks's ability to lead off.

By: Timmy Patrick Sat, 14 May 2011 23:32:49 +0000 @64 Your point is taken, runs are probably not overrated. When you start looking for MVP's, all-stars, ROYs and such, it is often overlooked. The fact that Rickey Week's seems to score runs does not make up for the many other problems in his game. Weeks has some good tools, but so many K's in the leadoff spot in the NL, I think hurts the Brewers. If ever there was a team that could use an old time manger, it's the Brewers.

By: Timmy Patrick Sat, 14 May 2011 23:26:41 +0000 @66 I was not talking about Mark Reynolds, I was talking about Dan Ugly. I am routing for Mark Reynolds because you are correct, his days are numbered.
As far as runs vs. RBI? The RBI is the most important stat in baseball, maybe in sports. It's the hardest to accomplish, and along with number of hits, and strike outs, is the first thing I look at when evaluating a player.
Beards vs. Braids, Jimmy Rollins use to have braids, he got rid of them, then went on to have an MVP year, is the leader of his team, and is a great SS. Damon had a crazy beard but he shaved it off and now it looks like he will be in the HOF. The Yankees have it right, no long hair, no facial hair! BTW anybody notice what a great year Micheal Young is having? 2000 hits before his 35th birthday, 7 time all-star incl 2011. DHing might save some wear and tear on his body. Still with his great year the Rangers have really missed Hamilton. Goes to show that with all the great things Young can do, the big HR guy is still the straw that stirs the drink.

By: Jimbo Sat, 14 May 2011 15:33:43 +0000 Mark Reynolds is not a .260 hitter.

I'm not even sure if he's a .200 hitter anymore.

.198 last year
.178 this year
.239 career

And, he doesn't strike out 170 times a year....he strikes out 218 times a year!!!

His days are numbered if he doesn't right the ship.

By: BSK Sat, 14 May 2011 14:20:00 +0000 JA-

I suppose it depends on how you rate Rs. I've always considered Rs and RBIs to be over equal evaluative value, which is to say, not much. If that is the case, Rs is indeed overrated, since any valuing of it likely overvalues it. Is it as overrated as RBIs? Certainly not.

Now, I may be operating from a false premise, namely that the problems with RBIs are also the problems with Rs: too context specific, too reliant on other players, too reliant on batting order position.

By: John Autin Sat, 14 May 2011 14:15:32 +0000 I respectfully disagree with the poster who said that individual runs scored is the most overrated stat in the game. I think it is actually much closer to being the most underrated stat.

Comparing Runs and RBI in terms of general esteem:
-- Most baseball fans know that Hack Wilson holds the season RBI record with 191. Fewer know that Ruth holds the modern Runs record with 177.
-- The Triple Crown includes RBI, not Runs.
-- Without doing a count, I'd venture to say that season RBI leaders have won far more MVP Awards than Runs leaders.

Perhaps the poster meant that Runs is overrated by some particular group. But it's hard to find any evidence that Runs is generally overrated.

By: Bad Week For A Relief Pitcher » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive Sat, 14 May 2011 13:40:12 +0000 [...] Michael recently asked if any pitcher had a week like the one Brandon League had this week.  And, the answer is [...]

By: BSK Sat, 14 May 2011 13:28:34 +0000 Paul-

There is still a certain element of luck. Perhaps no moreso than in any other area of the game, but we can't completely dismiss the role of luck.

However, when people discuss "luck", I think they are often referring to something more akin to "fortuitousness". For instance, a great line driver hitter might have a career BABiP of .350. In any given year, with no observable change to his talent or his line drive hitting ability, he may have years of .380 or .320 or .400 or .300. In the years where he is significantly above his career norm with no discernible reason why, we attribute it to good luck. In the years where he is significantly below his career norm with no discernible reason why, we attribute it to bad luck. So, the issue is not "luck" in the sense that the guy is lucky to have a career .350 BABiP; but more so the fact that there will be great variance in this number which, in turn, will lead to great variance in more traditional stats. As such, a guy may seem to be having a far better or worse year than his standards when in reality, he is competing at the same level but things either are or are not going his way at the "typical" rate.

Basically, Player Y may be talented enough to, on average, have 35% of the balls he puts in play fall for hits. He is able to hit the ball well enough that his percentage of batted balls for hits is higher than most guys. However, he still only has so much control over the outcome of an individual batted ball. So, when he has variance from his career norm, we say he is either lucky or unlucky. If he hits .400 one year on BABiP, we have two possible conclusions: he hit the ball better that year OR he was lucky. Without evidence to the former, we must conclude the latter. Which is not a knock on the guy (as many people interpret the label of "lucky"); just an acknowledgment of the various factors at play.

Traditionally, there was an understanding that ALL hitters averaged out to around the same and anyone above or below that was coined lucky or unlucky. We now understand that there is much greater variance, particularly among batters, and each has an individual baseline from which luck must be determined.

By: Steve Lombardi Sat, 14 May 2011 12:49:38 +0000 @ #55 - Detroit Michael

I have a post on that scheduled to publish around 10 am today.