RBI (Ridiculously Bad Indicator) (playoffs, man, Yankees, Mets)

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by twista6002

I'm sure they do bring in viable insight. But I'm not a scout or GM. I watch baseball for leisure, not for homework.

I hear you and I agree with you completely. Too many statistics, and not enough enjoyment of the game. Seems to me that if people were enjoying and appreciating baseball for more than a hundred years without all the nitpicking and decimal points, there's something intrinsically good about the game. And that something should be left alone.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

I hear you and I agree with you completely. Too many statistics, and not enough enjoyment of the game. Seems to me that if people were enjoying and appreciating baseball for more than a hundred years without all the nitpicking and decimal points, there's something intrinsically good about the game. And that something should be left alone.

Generally agree with your comment. I find it a bit funny how some of the "new wave" stat geeks have a need to dis the traditional stats. What I have found, as a "reformed" new wave stat geek, is that all of the new information didn't make it any easier to predict who had value and ability the next season.

I do find it interesting though, and read stuff like Baseball Prospectus or The Hardball Times Baseball Annual each year, just to keep up on the current thinking and analysis. However, I think those who follow just the old basic stat stuff really have plenty of insights to enjoy and accurately analyze the teams/players.

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Generally agree with your comment. I find it a bit funny how some of the "new wave" stat geeks have a need to dis the traditional stats. What I have found, as a "reformed" new wave stat geek, is that all of the new information didn't make it any easier to predict who had value and ability the next season.

I do find it interesting though, and read stuff like Baseball Prospectus or The Hardball Times Baseball Annual each year, just to keep up on the current thinking and analysis. However, I think those who follow just the old basic stat stuff really have plenty of insights to enjoy and accurately analyze the teams/players.

Yep. And keep in mind, the traditional stats also confirm what the new stat geeks reinvent the wheel to confirm: guys like Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams were the best hitters ever.

[Fred314X]

I believe I like that term, "stat geek." And I don't think they've come to infest baseball out of any particular love or appreciation for the game. They do what they do because they're stat geeks.

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

I believe I like that term, "stat geek." And I don't think they've come to infest baseball out of any particular love or appreciation for the game. They do what they do because they're stat geeks.

I guess I'll consult them much like the Spartans consulted those creepy little guys before they went to war in 300. Like a last resort type thing. Until then I'm going to say things like "Utley is the best 2nd baseman in baseball" off of observations and as someone who is an avid fan of the game, not because the refuge of the damned told me so.

[filihok]

Originally Posted by twista6002

Yep. And keep in mind, the traditional stats also confirm what the new stat geeks reinvent the wheel to confirm: guys like Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams were the best hitters ever.

You're right it doesn't take a genius to see who the best players are. Any idiot can see that Pujols is the best player in the game.

Oops...

Traditional hitting stats do an ok job of telling who the best hitters are. In On Base Percentage would replace batting average, and people wouldn't give so much weight to RBI (the subject of this thread)

Where SABR stats really outshine the traditional stats is in measuring the complete player. Sure Brad Hawpe can hit the ball, but using him as a fielder means that other 'lesser players' actually help your team to win more games.

Brad Hawpe » Statistics » Batting | FanGraphs Baseball

The value under hitting says that Hawpe produces 26 more runs than an average hitter

The value under defense says that Hawpe gives up 19 more runs than an average fielder

His net is only 7 runs. Just looking at errors doesn't give you that kind of insight.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by gman5431

The purpose of baseball is to score runs. RBIs measures an players ability to drive in runs. Its a useful stat. But as demonstrated above, it can be misleading. This is no different than Runs, Batting Average, OBP, any stat doesnt tell the whole tale. They are after all, just stats. But you cant tell me that RBIs dont mean anything. Ryan Howard isnt important? Hank Aaron is over rated? RBI is stat like any other and leading the league in RBIs is an achievement.

G Rizzle

Well said.

It's the basketball equivalent of points scored, way over-valued. (You can score 30pts in a game but if you shot 30% from the field your team probably lost *cough* Iverson lol.)

[filihok]

Originally Posted by twista6002

I guess I'll consult them much like the Spartans consulted those creepy little guys before they went to war in 300. Like a last resort type thing. Until then I'm going to say things like "Utley is the best 2nd baseman in baseball" off of observations and as someone who is an avid fan of the game, not because the refuge of the damned told me so.

It's ok. Some people don't like innovation.

I assume you still use a sundial since it tells time just as well as a digital clock right. I'm surprised you're typing on a computer instead of a typewriter or sending a letter written with a quill pen via pony express

[twista6002]

Originally Posted by filihok

You're right it doesn't take a genius to see who the best players are. Any idiot can see that Pujols is the best player in the game.

Oops...

Traditional hitting stats do an ok job of telling who the best hitters are. In On Base Percentage would replace batting average, and people wouldn't give so much weight to RBI (the subject of this thread)

Where SABR stats really outshine the traditional stats is in measuring the complete player. Sure Brad Hawpe can hit the ball, but using him as a fielder means that other 'lesser players' actually help your team to win more games.

Brad Hawpe » Statistics » Batting | FanGraphs Baseball

The value under hitting says that Hawpe produces 26 more runs than an average hitter

The value under defense says that Hawpe gives up 19 more runs than an average fielder

His net is only 7 runs. Errors doesn't give you that kind of insight.

Cry me a river. Writers who give about the same size crap I do about parlysis by analysis voted one guy less deserving as MVP than another. Both guys have won a WS, and are considered elite talents. I'm sure neither in their right minds cares a fraction as much as the people raising hell about it, and neither do the intelligent fans of both fanbases. As a Phillies fan I can say Howard wasn't as deserving as Pujols but then again it's a superflous award that has no bearing on the outcomes of games. Most people in their right minds wouldn't lose a second of sleep over it. I know I haven't.

[filihok]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

I hear you and I agree with you completely. Too many statistics, and not enough enjoyment of the game. Seems to me that if people were enjoying and appreciating baseball for more than a hundred years without all the nitpicking and decimal points, there's something intrinsically good about the game. And that something should be left alone.

You realize that ERA and Batting Average have decimal points, right?