AL/NL Rookie of the Year (1 Viewer)

[dennis.moore]

NL: Buster Posey, SF

AL: Neftali Feliz, TEX

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)

Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball.

Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

 

[oso diablo]

NL

1. Posey - 129 pts

2. Jason Heyward - 107

3. Jaime Garcia - 24

4. Gaby Sanchez - 18

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Link

Rangers closer Neftali Feliz topped Tigers center fielder Austin Jackson in the AL Rookie of the Year balloting, receiving 20 of 28 first-place votes cast by Baseball Writers Association of America members.

There will no doubt be considerably more debate about Buster Posey topping Jason Heyward in the NL, but the AL version is also worth arguing over because “Feliz or Jackson?” really boils down to a debate about the value of closers.

With a 2.73 ERA, more strikeouts than innings pitched, and a .176 opponents’ batting average Feliz was the most dominant rookie, but does that make him the best or most valuable rookie?

Feliz threw only 69 innings and faced a total of 269 batters. Jackson batted 675 times and also caught the equivalent of 130 innings worth of outs with his glove in center field. And while Feliz converting 40-of-43 save opportunities is impressive, the average big-league closer typically converts about 85 percent of ninth-inning save chances. And as we saw in the playoffs, Feliz was rarely used in high-leverage spots when there wasn’t a save to be had.

I tend to think closers are generally overrated, as too many people see a big save total and seemingly lose sight of what the job actually entails, which is getting three outs with a lead of 1-3 runs. Most decent relievers can do that 80 percent of the time, most good relievers can do that 85 percent of the time, and most great relievers (like Feliz) can do it 90 percent of the time.

Meanwhile, the Tigers got 675 plate appearances of above-average hitting and 1,256 innings of outstanding center field defense from Jackson, who easily beat Feliz in value-based stats like Wins Above Replacement. None of which is to suggest that Feliz was anything less than great, but rather that it’s tough for a pitcher to have more value facing 269 batters than a position player has batting 675 times and logging 1,256 innings at a key spot defensively.

After all, if Feliz dominating for 269 batters is enough to make him the Rookie of the Year, shouldn’t Indians stud catcher Carlos Santana get similar consideration for posting an AL rookie-high .868 OPS in 192 plate appearances while also catching 340 innings? Santana didn’t appear on a single ballot, but was nearly as effective as Feliz on a per-play basis and probably had a major hand in more plate appearances than the Rangers’ closer.

Feliz was dominant for 69 innings and racked up 40 saves to catch the voters’ collective eye, but in terms of actual runs prevented and produced for a team in all phases of the game Jackson would have been my pick. He hit .293 with a .345 on-base percentage in 675 plate appearances atop the Tigers’ lineup, stealing 27 bases and scoring 103 runs, and also played Gold Glove-caliber defense for 1,256 innings in center field.

Feliz was about as good as someone can be for 69 innings and is far from a poor Rookie of the Year choice, but Jackson was more valuable.

 

[sports_fan]

Both the correct choices IMO.

 

[dennis.moore]

Both the correct choices IMO.

Agreed. I don't have a problem with either of them as well.

 

[scoobus]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)

Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball.

Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

yeah, that's what pisses you off

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)

Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball.

Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

yeah, that's what pisses you off

Well that, too.

 

[Bogart]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball. Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

Maybe if Jackson had contributed more to his team overall success on their way to the playoffs....oh wait. Nevermind.

 

[the moops]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball. Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

Maybe if Jackson had contributed more to his team overall success on their way to the playoffs....oh wait. Nevermind.

2009 Rookies of the Year Chris Coghlan and Andrew Bailey disagree.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball. Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

Maybe if Jackson had contributed more to his team overall success on their way to the playoffs....oh wait. Nevermind.

Rangers fan talking ####.

 

[Bogart]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball. Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

Maybe if Jackson had contributed more to his team overall success on their way to the playoffs....oh wait. Nevermind.

Rangers fan talking ####.

We are due. Besides, I can't keep up with all of your teams DD, so I will take my shots where I can.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball. Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

Maybe if Jackson had contributed more to his team overall success on their way to the playoffs....oh wait. Nevermind.

Rangers fan talking ####.

We are due. Besides, I can't keep up with all of your teams DD, so I will take my shots where I can.

Well the Cubs and Tigers are due also, that isn't helping them. All what teams? I had money on the Giants, if that's what you mean.

 

[Bogart]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball. Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

Maybe if Jackson had contributed more to his team overall success on their way to the playoffs....oh wait. Nevermind.

Rangers fan talking ####.

We are due. Besides, I can't keep up with all of your teams DD, so I will take my shots where I can.

Well the Cubs and Tigers are due also, that isn't helping them. All what teams? I had money on the Giants, if that's what you mean.

No offense. It just seems that you have the oddest team affilation and multiple team affilation sometimes. My college roommate was a Yankees/Steelers/Spurs fan, so it has always been a perverse fasination with me.

 

[dparker713]

Really should have been Heyward in the NL, but Posey had a great year so there's nothing to get too up in arms about.

 

[Eephus]

Really should have been Heyward in the NL, but Posey had a great year so there's nothing to get too up in arms about.

Heyward had a fine season that would win RoY in most years, but the only thing he has over Posey is that he did it from April vs. June. Well, that and East Coast bias.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

No offense. It just seems that you have the oddest team affilation and multiple team affilation sometimes. My college roommate was a Yankees/Steelers/Spurs fan, so it has always been a perverse fasination with me.

Baseball: TigersHockey: Red WingsNBA: PistonsNFL: Seahawks/LionsCollege: Michigan (grew up), OU (grad school), Maryland (undergrad)Only weird one is the Seahawks, and that is a long story. Feliz still doesn't deserve it over Jackson. On Posey>We are doing a sim league all-time rookie draft right now (1893-2010). Posey was the 8th player off the board, Heyward still available. Posey's numbers as a rookie catcher are only matched by Carlton Fisk, his season was amazing.

 

[dparker713]

Really should have been Heyward in the NL, but Posey had a great year so there's nothing to get too up in arms about.

Heyward had a fine season that would win RoY in most years, but the only thing he has over Posey is that he did it from April vs. June. Well, that and East Coast bias.

That extra playing time equated to over a full win in both fangraphs' and baseball reference's WAR calculations. They were both the most valuable players on playoff teams and Heyward was 3 years younger than Posey. Considering the postseason is not supposed to be factored into these awards, Heyward did all that Posey did, except he did it for longer.

 

[dparker713]

No offense. It just seems that you have the oddest team affilation and multiple team affilation sometimes. My college roommate was a Yankees/Steelers/Spurs fan, so it has always been a perverse fasination with me.

Baseball: TigersHockey: Red WingsNBA: PistonsNFL: Seahawks/LionsCollege: Michigan (grew up), OU (grad school), Maryland (undergrad)Only weird one is the Seahawks, and that is a long story. Feliz still doesn't deserve it over Jackson. On Posey>We are doing a sim league all-time rookie draft right now (1893-2010). Posey was the 8th player off the board, Heyward still available. Posey's numbers as a rookie catcher are only matched by Carlton Fisk, his season was amazing.

He wasn't exactly a full time catcher.

 

[Eephus]

Really should have been Heyward in the NL, but Posey had a great year so there's nothing to get too up in arms about.

Heyward had a fine season that would win RoY in most years, but the only thing he has over Posey is that he did it from April vs. June. Well, that and East Coast bias.

That extra playing time equated to over a full win in both fangraphs' and baseball reference's WAR calculations. They were both the most valuable players on playoff teams and Heyward was 3 years younger than Posey. Considering the postseason is not supposed to be factored into these awards, Heyward did all that Posey did, except he did it for longer.

Age isn't a consideration in RoY voting. If you pro-rate the WAR by playing time, Posey comes out way ahead.

 

[SofaKings]

So 40 saves>181 hits (9th), 103 runs (6th) and 10 triples (2nd)Jackson was also 6th in MLB UZR at one of the toughest positions in baseball. Astounding. Why they don't give separate awards for pitching and hitting I'll never know, but choosing a reliever for the second straight year pisses me off.

Maybe if Jackson had contributed more to his team overall success on their way to the playoffs....oh wait. Nevermind.

Rangers fan talking ####.

Never seen that before!

 

[Regular Crust Pizza]

No offense. It just seems that you have the oddest team affilation and multiple team affilation sometimes. My college roommate was a Yankees/Steelers/Spurs fan, so it has always been a perverse fasination with me.

Baseball: TigersHockey: Red WingsNBA: PistonsNFL: Seahawks/LionsCollege: Michigan (grew up), OU (grad school), Maryland (undergrad)Only weird one is the Seahawks, and that is a long story. Feliz still doesn't deserve it over Jackson. On Posey>We are doing a sim league all-time rookie draft right now (1893-2010). Posey was the 8th player off the board, Heyward still available. Posey's numbers as a rookie catcher are only matched by Carlton Fisk, his season was amazing.

He wasn't exactly a full time catcher.

To be exact, neither was Posey. He only played about 75% of his games there. The others were at 1st.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

No offense. It just seems that you have the oddest team affilation and multiple team affilation sometimes. My college roommate was a Yankees/Steelers/Spurs fan, so it has always been a perverse fasination with me.

Baseball: TigersHockey: Red WingsNBA: PistonsNFL: Seahawks/LionsCollege: Michigan (grew up), OU (grad school), Maryland (undergrad)Only weird one is the Seahawks, and that is a long story. Feliz still doesn't deserve it over Jackson. On Posey>We are doing a sim league all-time rookie draft right now (1893-2010). Posey was the 8th player off the board, Heyward still available. Posey's numbers as a rookie catcher are only matched by Carlton Fisk, his season was amazing.

He wasn't exactly a full time catcher.

To be exact, neither was Posey. He only played about 75% of his games there. The others were at 1st.

He has to be talking about Posey, Fisk played 131 games as a rookie and all were at catcher. Posey played 76 of 106 at catcher.

 

[dparker713]

Really should have been Heyward in the NL, but Posey had a great year so there's nothing to get too up in arms about.

Heyward had a fine season that would win RoY in most years, but the only thing he has over Posey is that he did it from April vs. June. Well, that and East Coast bias.

That extra playing time equated to over a full win in both fangraphs' and baseball reference's WAR calculations. They were both the most valuable players on playoff teams and Heyward was 3 years younger than Posey. Considering the postseason is not supposed to be factored into these awards, Heyward did all that Posey did, except he did it for longer.

Age isn't a consideration in RoY voting. If you pro-rate the WAR by playing time, Posey comes out way ahead.

Why on Earth would you pro-rate a counting stat like WAR for an award vote? And even if you pro-rate, Posey barely ahead in fangraphs WAR and more significantly behind in B-R WAR. And anything can be a consideration in RoY voting. For some people its purely a performance award, some people include future potential. In the future potential category, age would very much be a factor.

 

[dparker713]

No offense. It just seems that you have the oddest team affilation and multiple team affilation sometimes. My college roommate was a Yankees/Steelers/Spurs fan, so it has always been a perverse fasination with me.

Baseball: TigersHockey: Red WingsNBA: PistonsNFL: Seahawks/LionsCollege: Michigan (grew up), OU (grad school), Maryland (undergrad)Only weird one is the Seahawks, and that is a long story. Feliz still doesn't deserve it over Jackson. On Posey>We are doing a sim league all-time rookie draft right now (1893-2010). Posey was the 8th player off the board, Heyward still available. Posey's numbers as a rookie catcher are only matched by Carlton Fisk, his season was amazing.

He wasn't exactly a full time catcher.

To be exact, neither was Posey. He only played about 75% of his games there. The others were at 1st.

He has to be talking about Posey, Fisk played 131 games as a rookie and all were at catcher. Posey played 76 of 106 at catcher.

Yes, thats what I was referring to. He had an amazing year, but he wasn't an everyday catcher which alot of people tend to gloss over when discussing him.

 

[Eephus]

Really should have been Heyward in the NL, but Posey had a great year so there's nothing to get too up in arms about.

Heyward had a fine season that would win RoY in most years, but the only thing he has over Posey is that he did it from April vs. June. Well, that and East Coast bias.

That extra playing time equated to over a full win in both fangraphs' and baseball reference's WAR calculations. They were both the most valuable players on playoff teams and Heyward was 3 years younger than Posey. Considering the postseason is not supposed to be factored into these awards, Heyward did all that Posey did, except he did it for longer.

Age isn't a consideration in RoY voting. If you pro-rate the WAR by playing time, Posey comes out way ahead.

Why on Earth would you pro-rate a counting stat like WAR for an award vote? And even if you pro-rate, Posey barely ahead in fangraphs WAR and more significantly behind in B-R WAR. And anything can be a consideration in RoY voting. For some people its purely a performance award, some people include future potential. In the future potential category, age would very much be a factor.

Well, I don't think many real voters jump to WAR as their primary metric. If you look at the traditional stats, Posey is ahead in AVG and tied in HR. He trails in RBI by only five in spite of almost 200 fewer PAs. Missing two months of the year due to injury is enough to rule most players out of the MVP or CYA voting, but RoY is unique among the season awards because players arrive on the scene at different times of the year. It's outside of the rookie's control when they get called up. Posey clearly performed better in the time he was up and the vote was recognition of this.I can't think of a single instance where age or future potential was a deciding factor in RoY voting.

 

[oso diablo]

as i mentioned in the rookie draft thread, you can make a good case that Posey had the 2nd best rookie catcher season of all-time, behind only Fisk.

and while i know the votes are cast before the post-season, it was instructive to note that Posey became the first rookie catcher in history to hit cleanup in a World Series

 

[dparker713]

Posey clearly performed better in the time he was up and the vote was recognition of this.

He clearly did no such thing. Please repeat after me: RBI are meaningless.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Posey clearly performed better in the time he was up and the vote was recognition of this.

He clearly did no such thing. Please repeat after me: RBI are meaningless.

Yes, rbi's are a total garbage stat. Who needs to score runs?

 

[the moops]

Posey clearly performed better in the time he was up and the vote was recognition of this.

He clearly did no such thing. Please repeat after me: RBI are meaningless.

Yes, rbi's are a total garbage stat. Who needs to score runs?

Looking at how each of them performed with runners ins coring position may be a better way of looking at it.Buster Posey had an OPS of .923 with RISPJayson Heyward had an OPS of .927 with RISP

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Please repeat after me: RBI are meaningless.

RBIs are probably the single most important offensive stat in baseball. Not measure, but statistic. They are earned, they are critical to a baseball team's success and they are are a great indicator of individual offensive prowess. You've been Bill James'd to death, I couldn't even enjoy talking about the sport if I thought RBIs were meaningless.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Posey clearly performed better in the time he was up and the vote was recognition of this.

He clearly did no such thing. Please repeat after me: RBI are meaningless.

Yes, rbi's are a total garbage stat. Who needs to score runs?

Looking at how each of them performed with runners ins coring position may be a better way of looking at it.Buster Posey had an OPS of .923 with RISPJayson Heyward had an OPS of .927 with RISP

This I'm good with. I certainly realize rbi's are a flawed stat as it largely depends on the team around you, but it's not meaningless.

 

[dparker713]

Please repeat after me: RBI are meaningless.

RBIs are probably the single most important offensive stat in baseball. Not measure, but statistic. They are earned, they are critical to a baseball team's success and they are are a great indicator of individual offensive prowess. You've been Bill James'd to death, I couldn't even enjoy talking about the sport if I thought RBIs were meaningless.

Its not even an internally consistent statistic. Why no RBI for a GIDP when the runner scores? Why do you get credit for a run BATTED in when the pitcher walks someone with the bases loaded, but not for a wild pitch? Atleast runs are consistent. Still meaningless, but atleast consistent.

 

[oso diablo]

now RUNS are meaningless?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Although there is no correlation between OPS and RBI's, take a look at the best RBI seasons ever:

Hack Wilson 191 1.177

Lou Gehrig 184 1.108

Hank Greenberg 183 1.105

Jimmy Foxx 175 1.166

Lou Gehrig 175 1.240

Of the top 25 best OPS seasons, only Bonds who is a statistical outlier because of the walks did not get to 100 RBIs. Bagwell's 1994 season with a 1.200 OPS had just 116 RBIs, which is low for the group. Most of these top OPS seasons are 130-180 in RBI's, and the fact is these were great hitters who hit for power regardless of circumstance.

RBI's are situational and dependent on who reaches in front of you, but the entire object of the game is to get runs home in situations where there are runners on base. It's really a pretty simple game. This is why Wade Boggs' crazy amount of walks with two outs and RISP shows what kind of player Boggs' really was. The top hitters on a team can often work a walk with runners on first and third late in games, or really anytime, because of the simple math applied to pitching to the hitter or pitching to the presumably weaker hitter behind him.

Now these hitters do face RBI challenges because of these situations, and very good OPS guys can see their RBI totals cut into with the walk. Guys like 1990 Joe Carter take advantage of these situations and can string together 75 key hits to drive in over 100 runs with an OPS hovering around .600. So does that mean Joe Carter is any less valuable? Absolutely not, if a player is going to be one dimensional offensively you always want that dimension IMO to be an RBI guy. 15 Hrs and 100 RBIs is better than 35 HRs and 80 RBIs, because run production is the essence of baseball. To that end there is a correlation between runs scored and OPS, so OPS is probably the best measure of individual success because again...the whole point of baseball is scoring runs. But guys who trend towards higher OPS numbers also face the prospect of getting there with more walks and those who discount the RBI also inflate the walk IMO. A walk is not as good as a single, never was and never will be. A walk, a bases empty double and two ground outs is not as good as an RBI single, a single and two pop outs.

 

[the moops]

This is why Wade Boggs' crazy amount of walks with two outs and RISP shows what kind of player Boggs' really was.

A guy who knew that he would make more outs and in his team would score less runs if he swung at bad pitches?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

now RUNS are meaningless?

I just got my wife to understand what a home run is this past season. Now I have to explain to her that the act of the two guys crossing home plate and the act of guy hitting the ball that let the two guys cross home plate, are meaningless. I can see a "but how do they decide who wins the game?" question coming, but I'm sure that will work itself out over time.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This is why Wade Boggs' crazy amount of walks with two outs and RISP shows what kind of player Boggs' really was.

A guy who knew that he would make more outs and in his team would score less runs if he swung at bad pitches?

A guy who worked walks because he didn't want to face the pressure of being the guy who couldn't bring home the winning runs.

 

[dparker713]

Although there is no correlation between OPS and RBI's, take a look at the best RBI seasons ever:Hack Wilson 191 1.177Lou Gehrig 184 1.108Hank Greenberg 183 1.105Jimmy Foxx 175 1.166Lou Gehrig 175 1.240Of the top 25 best OPS seasons, only Bonds who is a statistical outlier because of the walks did not get to 100 RBIs. Bagwell's 1994 season with a 1.200 OPS had just 116 RBIs, which is low for the group. Most of these top OPS seasons are 130-180 in RBI's, and the fact is these were great hitters who hit for power regardless of circumstance. RBI's are situational and dependent on who reaches in front of you, but the entire object of the game is to get runs home in situations where there are runners on base. It's really a pretty simple game. This is why Wade Boggs' crazy amount of walks with two outs and RISP shows what kind of player Boggs' really was. The top hitters on a team can often work a walk with runners on first and third late in games, or really anytime, because of the simple math applied to pitching to the hitter or pitching to the presumably weaker hitter behind him. Now these hitters do face RBI challenges because of these situations, and very good OPS guys can see their RBI totals cut into with the walk. Guys like 1990 Joe Carter take advantage of these situations and can string together 75 key hits to drive in over 100 runs with an OPS hovering around .600. So does that mean Joe Carter is any less valuable? Absolutely not, if a player is going to be one dimensional offensively you always want that dimension IMO to be an RBI guy. 15 Hrs and 100 RBIs is better than 35 HRs and 80 RBIs, because run production is the essence of baseball. To that end there is a correlation between runs scored and OPS, so OPS is probably the best measure of individual success because again...the whole point of baseball is scoring runs. But guys who trend towards higher OPS numbers also face the prospect of getting there with more walks and those who discount the RBI also inflate the walk IMO. A walk is not as good as a single, never was and never will be. A walk, a bases empty double and two ground outs is not as good as an RBI single, a single and two pop outs.

Dr. Detroit, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. I was considering going through your entire post, but it would take a really long time to correct all of your errors. I'll just highlight the most glaring one. The object of baseball is NOT to get runs home in situations where there are runners on base. The object of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Although there is no correlation between OPS and RBI's, take a look at the best RBI seasons ever:Hack Wilson 191 1.177Lou Gehrig 184 1.108Hank Greenberg 183 1.105Jimmy Foxx 175 1.166Lou Gehrig 175 1.240Of the top 25 best OPS seasons, only Bonds who is a statistical outlier because of the walks did not get to 100 RBIs. Bagwell's 1994 season with a 1.200 OPS had just 116 RBIs, which is low for the group. Most of these top OPS seasons are 130-180 in RBI's, and the fact is these were great hitters who hit for power regardless of circumstance. RBI's are situational and dependent on who reaches in front of you, but the entire object of the game is to get runs home in situations where there are runners on base. It's really a pretty simple game. This is why Wade Boggs' crazy amount of walks with two outs and RISP shows what kind of player Boggs' really was. The top hitters on a team can often work a walk with runners on first and third late in games, or really anytime, because of the simple math applied to pitching to the hitter or pitching to the presumably weaker hitter behind him. Now these hitters do face RBI challenges because of these situations, and very good OPS guys can see their RBI totals cut into with the walk. Guys like 1990 Joe Carter take advantage of these situations and can string together 75 key hits to drive in over 100 runs with an OPS hovering around .600. So does that mean Joe Carter is any less valuable? Absolutely not, if a player is going to be one dimensional offensively you always want that dimension IMO to be an RBI guy. 15 Hrs and 100 RBIs is better than 35 HRs and 80 RBIs, because run production is the essence of baseball. To that end there is a correlation between runs scored and OPS, so OPS is probably the best measure of individual success because again...the whole point of baseball is scoring runs. But guys who trend towards higher OPS numbers also face the prospect of getting there with more walks and those who discount the RBI also inflate the walk IMO. A walk is not as good as a single, never was and never will be. A walk, a bases empty double and two ground outs is not as good as an RBI single, a single and two pop outs.

Dr. Detroit, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. I was considering going through your entire post, but it would take a really long time to correct all of your errors. I'll just highlight the most glaring one. The object of baseball is NOT to get runs home in situations where men there are runners on base. The object of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent.

I think pretty much everyone at this forum thinks you're about as useful as a wet bag of mice, so I'll take this with a grain of salt. Your college football posts are worse than your baseball posts though, the pompous, asinine and unreadable garbage you post over there should be placed in an aluminum box and shot into outer space.

 

[boubucarow]

Neither of you are right or wrong. Getting on base and driving in runs are the two most important things a batter can accomplish. Over a stretch of a full career where "clutch" batting has largely proven to be non-existent, RBIs are kind of meaningless. However, in any given year, a batter could be statistically "clutch" and should get credit for that when it comes to awards. A stat that accounts for number of runs driven in divided by possible RBIs (or a more complicated formula based on base runner position) would be much better that simple RBI numbers to see who helped their team and hurt their team the most.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Neither of you are right or wrong. Getting on base and driving in runs are the two most important things a batter can accomplish. Over a stretch of a full career where "clutch" batting has largely proven to be non-existent, RBIs are kind of meaningless. However, in any given year, a batter could be statistically "clutch" and should get credit for that when it comes to awards. A stat that accounts for number of runs driven in divided by possible RBIs (or a more complicated formula based on base runner position) would be much better that simple RBI numbers to see who helped their team and hurt their team the most.

What is great about baseball cats and stats is they are a mile deep and a foot wide leaving a lot of subjective analysis and discussion.

 

[dparker713]

Neither of you are right or wrong. Getting on base and driving in runs are the two most important things a batter can accomplish. Over a stretch of a full career where "clutch" batting has largely proven to be non-existent, RBIs are kind of meaningless. However, in any given year, a batter could be statistically "clutch" and should get credit for that when it comes to awards. A stat that accounts for number of runs driven in divided by possible RBIs (or a more complicated formula based on base runner position) would be much better that simple RBI numbers to see who helped their team and hurt their team the most.

The two most important things a batter can do are hit a homerun and not make an out. And you're using a team stat to attempt to qualify individual performance when there are much better stats to isolate a given player's contributions in run generation. If you want to adjust for context, then you should adjust the expected run environment of each game played. Instead you're trying to save an inherently flawed and outdated stat inextricably tied to the performance to the other players in the lineup.

 

[dparker713]

Although there is no correlation between OPS and RBI's, take a look at the best RBI seasons ever:Hack Wilson 191 1.177Lou Gehrig 184 1.108Hank Greenberg 183 1.105Jimmy Foxx 175 1.166Lou Gehrig 175 1.240Of the top 25 best OPS seasons, only Bonds who is a statistical outlier because of the walks did not get to 100 RBIs. Bagwell's 1994 season with a 1.200 OPS had just 116 RBIs, which is low for the group. Most of these top OPS seasons are 130-180 in RBI's, and the fact is these were great hitters who hit for power regardless of circumstance. RBI's are situational and dependent on who reaches in front of you, but the entire object of the game is to get runs home in situations where there are runners on base. It's really a pretty simple game. This is why Wade Boggs' crazy amount of walks with two outs and RISP shows what kind of player Boggs' really was. The top hitters on a team can often work a walk with runners on first and third late in games, or really anytime, because of the simple math applied to pitching to the hitter or pitching to the presumably weaker hitter behind him. Now these hitters do face RBI challenges because of these situations, and very good OPS guys can see their RBI totals cut into with the walk. Guys like 1990 Joe Carter take advantage of these situations and can string together 75 key hits to drive in over 100 runs with an OPS hovering around .600. So does that mean Joe Carter is any less valuable? Absolutely not, if a player is going to be one dimensional offensively you always want that dimension IMO to be an RBI guy. 15 Hrs and 100 RBIs is better than 35 HRs and 80 RBIs, because run production is the essence of baseball. To that end there is a correlation between runs scored and OPS, so OPS is probably the best measure of individual success because again...the whole point of baseball is scoring runs. But guys who trend towards higher OPS numbers also face the prospect of getting there with more walks and those who discount the RBI also inflate the walk IMO. A walk is not as good as a single, never was and never will be. A walk, a bases empty double and two ground outs is not as good as an RBI single, a single and two pop outs.

Dr. Detroit, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. I was considering going through your entire post, but it would take a really long time to correct all of your errors. I'll just highlight the most glaring one. The object of baseball is NOT to get runs home in situations where men there are runners on base. The object of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent.

I think pretty much everyone at this forum thinks you're about as useful as a wet bag of mice, so I'll take this with a grain of salt. Your college football posts are worse than your baseball posts though, the pompous, asinine and unreadable garbage you post over there should be placed in an aluminum box and shot into outer space.

Ah, a person defending RBI and that fails to recognize the Billy Madison quote flinging poo. I'm hurt... no really, I'm hurt.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Even more important than RBI is saying RBI and not RBIs.

 

[boubucarow]

Neither of you are right or wrong. Getting on base and driving in runs are the two most important things a batter can accomplish. Over a stretch of a full career where "clutch" batting has largely proven to be non-existent, RBIs are kind of meaningless. However, in any given year, a batter could be statistically "clutch" and should get credit for that when it comes to awards. A stat that accounts for number of runs driven in divided by possible RBIs (or a more complicated formula based on base runner position) would be much better that simple RBI numbers to see who helped their team and hurt their team the most.

The two most important things a batter can do are hit a homerun and not make an out. And you're using a team stat to attempt to qualify individual performance when there are much better stats to isolate a given player's contributions in run generation. If you want to adjust for context, then you should adjust the expected run environment of each game played. Instead you're trying to save an inherently flawed and outdated stat inextricably tied to the performance to the other players in the lineup.

So, IYO the player with the best combo of OBP and HR should be the MVP (assuming all non offensive and base running considerations are not a factor).All I am saying is that if a player clearly does a much better job in the clutch and with runners on base with a similar OBP, he could be the MVP and not the guy with a lot of homers. I realize that every batter has varying amounts of RBI opportunities and that the ability to perform "when it matters" is in the long run no different that a players normal performance. But it is entirely possible that a player bats 430 with RISP, driving in more runs accounting for opportunity than anyone else and is clearly more valuable to his team than a player with the same OBP and 15 more home runs. Of course, such a fluke season won't be repeated but it doesn't make it any less valuable.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Although there is no correlation between OPS and RBI's, take a look at the best RBI seasons ever:

Hack Wilson 191 1.177

Lou Gehrig 184 1.108

Hank Greenberg 183 1.105

Jimmy Foxx 175 1.166

Lou Gehrig 175 1.240

Of the top 25 best OPS seasons, only Bonds who is a statistical outlier because of the walks did not get to 100 RBIs. Bagwell's 1994 season with a 1.200 OPS had just 116 RBIs, which is low for the group. Most of these top OPS seasons are 130-180 in RBI's, and the fact is these were great hitters who hit for power regardless of circumstance.

RBI's are situational and dependent on who reaches in front of you, but the entire object of the game is to get runs home in situations where there are runners on base. It's really a pretty simple game. This is why Wade Boggs' crazy amount of walks with two outs and RISP shows what kind of player Boggs' really was. The top hitters on a team can often work a walk with runners on first and third late in games, or really anytime, because of the simple math applied to pitching to the hitter or pitching to the presumably weaker hitter behind him.

Now these hitters do face RBI challenges because of these situations, and very good OPS guys can see their RBI totals cut into with the walk. Guys like 1990 Joe Carter take advantage of these situations and can string together 75 key hits to drive in over 100 runs with an OPS hovering around .600. So does that mean Joe Carter is any less valuable? Absolutely not, if a player is going to be one dimensional offensively you always want that dimension IMO to be an RBI guy. 15 Hrs and 100 RBIs is better than 35 HRs and 80 RBIs, because run production is the essence of baseball. To that end there is a correlation between runs scored and OPS, so OPS is probably the best measure of individual success because again...the whole point of baseball is scoring runs. But guys who trend towards higher OPS numbers also face the prospect of getting there with more walks and those who discount the RBI also inflate the walk IMO. A walk is not as good as a single, never was and never will be. A walk, a bases empty double and two ground outs is not as good as an RBI single, a single and two pop outs.

Dr. Detroit, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. I was considering going through your entire post, but it would take a really long time to correct all of your errors. I'll just highlight the most glaring one. The object of baseball is NOT to get runs home in situations where men there are runners on base. The object of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent.

I think pretty much everyone at this forum thinks you're about as useful as a wet bag of mice, so I'll take this with a grain of salt. Your college football posts are worse than your baseball posts though, the pompous, asinine and unreadable garbage you post over there should be placed in an aluminum box and shot into outer space.

Ah, a person defending RBI and that fails to recognize the Billy Madison quote flinging poo. I'm hurt... no really, I'm hurt.

I wasn't mad at the harmless Billy Madison quote, I think everything around it was pretty terrible though. Why not just argue point by point? This isn't about abortion, religion or national defense spending so I'm not sure why you are hurling insults around on a subjective conversation about baseball hitting categories.

 

[igbomb]

Awesome. Another RBI debate. I fall in the camp that the RBI is a terrible stat, only surpassed in worthlessness by the win.

But no, that does not mean that I think that players with a ton of RBIs are no better than those with very few. RBIs have a positive correlation with player ability. In other words, a player with a lot of RBIs is probably a very good player. But people use it as the ultimate stat, and it isn't. It is highly dependent on variables other than a single player's performance at the plate. If we want to measure a player's ability and performance, let's use metrics that don't penalize the guys on terrible teams, or the guys who get to bat first in the order because they have speed and high OBP.

Also, Jackson was robbed.

Neftali - 1.7 WAR

Jackson - 3.8 WAR

 

[Dr. Awesome]

GB the baseball forum.

 

[oso diablo]

i doubt Posey won because of his RBI total