cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
There's actually a stat for that
WPA/LI
Win Probability Added (WPA) is essentially a fancier version of RBI's, and Leverage Index (LI) essentially measures the leverage or pressure of the situation
So then WPA/LI tells you which players performed better after neutralizing for context
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
There's actually a stat for that
WPA/LI
Win Probability Added (WPA) is essentially a fancier version of RBI's, and Leverage Index (LI) essentially measures the leverage or pressure of the situation
So then WPA/LI tells you which players performed better after neutralizing for context
Thank you, Cosmo. I was unaware of that! I will look into it!
Now, is it a coachable, improvable skill ?
That's the debate. I'm not sure there's a strong correlation from one year to the next, but it's pretty clear some players are more comfortable than others in high leverage situations
Not clear what the last bit is supposed to mean but I’m 80 and an avid follower of the team since 1954. The object of the game is to score runs. Stan the Man always said his goal every year was to score 100 runs and drive in a 100 runs because that was most valuable for the team.
For the first 100 games with a top of the order of JJ, Ivan, Burly, Walker, our 1-2 hitters following the bottom of the order had 40 or so rbi each. Look at the runs scored by the bottom of the order. You can’t score runs if you’re not on base. Burly & Walker had almost twice as many rbi as the 1-2 hitters because JJ and Ivan were getting on base and scoring runs. I don’t know how to make it any simpler but by stating the obvious.
Ignore these morons who have to hide their ignorance of the game.
Figures.
Analytics are valuable. Problem is, some people try to be cute and point to nonsense as being more important than the meaningful stuff.
Juan — I am in no way arguing or disagreeing with you. Although I think analytics are very useful tools, they are just that — tools.
I’m curious which ones you believe to be “nonsense” and what stats you consider valuable and important.
Thanks.
WeeVikes, we had a poster downplaying rbi's earlier. As multiple posters have pointed out, that is a valuable part of the game. Yet your stat geeks will fawn over walk rates while downplaying batting average. Let me ask you, in the bottom of the 8th, down a run with risp, do you prefer a guy looking for a walk? Or do you want a guy looking to drive in a run?
While in general I value OBP, clearly in this situation I want someone to drive in the run.
This is the thing that drives me nuts around here — there is a happy medium between SABR stuff and, for lack of a better term, “counting stats”. They both have value. They both have their uses, depending on the circumstances. For people to completely blow off one or the other is foolishness in my mind. Data is good. Data is useful. But if one just blindly follows something without critical thought, that’s a good way to get beaten.
YMMV.
Thats why I have stated that analytics have a place but shouldn't be the only thing factored in. Analytics cant factor slumps, hot streaks, injuries, or the clutch factor.
RBI's as a descriptive stat of what happened during the game
--> perfectly reasonable use
RBI's as a predictive stat for which players are better than others
--> not a good use
Bullsh!t. Game on the line, do you want an rbi monster batting, or some pud looking for a walk?
I would use neither RBI's nor walk rate to determine which player I want in that situation
Then what the hell are you basing your decision on? Weight? Eye color? Good grief, you want the rbi producer. Its always been that. Anyone who debates that is either trying to be argumentative or is just a [fork]ing idiot.
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
Yes, its called putting the ball in play. Magically when batters hit the ball with runners in scoring position, those runners often score. Crazy concept that several on here surprisingly can't comprehend.
I dont know your age or how long you have watched baseball. But back in the mid 1980s, the Cardinals had a couple of really good teams. Do you know which player Whitey Herzog found to be the most valuable in his lineup? Jack Clark. Because the guy hit the (bleep) ball and drove in runs. Whitey knew Jack would produce. How? Jack had a track record and Whitey knew talent when he saw it. I will trust Whitey's opinion long before some moron that posts on here about "measurable stats".
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
You are welcome to your opinion. But there's a lot of information that suggests othwerwise. And they dont call your opinion stupid.
So you are telling me there is no such thing as a clutch performer? That tells me you have zero sports background.
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
Yes, its called putting the ball in play. Magically when batters hit the ball with runners in scoring position, those runners often score. Crazy concept that several on here surprisingly can't comprehend.
I dont know your age or how long you have watched baseball. But back in the mid 1980s, the Cardinals had a couple of really good teams. Do you know which player Whitey Herzog found to be the most valuable in his lineup? Jack Clark. Because the guy hit the (drat) ball and drove in runs. Whitey knew Jack would produce. How? Jack had a track record and Whitey knew talent when he saw it. I will trust Whitey's opinion long before some moron that posts on here about "measurable stats".
Yeah, I was absolutely around for Whitey’s teams! He knew ball players. But, if you read his book, you also knew he kept records in excruciating detail on where every batter his teams ever faced hit the ball. It was an early form of metrics!
And that’s the beautiful part of baseball! There are stats that go back almost to the beginning of time! We can compare players from one era to another! Is it perfect? Of course not, but there’s no other sport like it for fans!
My point, and I think yours too, is that stats are valuable and have a place, but if they’re not used with an eye toward the human element as well they can be misleading.
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
Yes, its called putting the ball in play. Magically when batters hit the ball with runners in scoring position, those runners often score. Crazy concept that several on here surprisingly can't comprehend.
I dont know your age or how long you have watched baseball. But back in the mid 1980s, the Cardinals had a couple of really good teams. Do you know which player Whitey Herzog found to be the most valuable in his lineup? Jack Clark. Because the guy hit the (drat) ball and drove in runs. Whitey knew Jack would produce. How? Jack had a track record and Whitey knew talent when he saw it. I will trust Whitey's opinion long before some moron that posts on here about "measurable stats".
Yeah, I was absolutely around for Whitey’s teams! He knew ball players. But, if you read his book, you also knew he kept records in excruciating detail on where every batter his teams ever faced hit the ball. It was an early form of metrics!
And that’s the beautiful part of baseball! There are stats that go back almost to the beginning of time! We can compare players from one era to another! Is it perfect? Of course not, but there’s no other sport like it for fans!
My point, and I think yours too, is that stats are valuable and have a place, but if they’re not used with an eye toward the human element as well they can be misleading.
Sure, I agree with this. My frustration comes with people saying rbi producers aren't who they want up in clutch situations because clutch players aren't a stat.
Ignore these morons who have to hide their ignorance of the game.
Figures.
Analytics are valuable. Problem is, some people try to be cute and point to nonsense as being more important than the meaningful stuff.
Juan — I am in no way arguing or disagreeing with you. Although I think analytics are very useful tools, they are just that — tools.
I’m curious which ones you believe to be “nonsense” and what stats you consider valuable and important.
Thanks.
WeeVikes, we had a poster downplaying rbi's earlier. As multiple posters have pointed out, that is a valuable part of the game. Yet your stat geeks will fawn over walk rates while downplaying batting average. Let me ask you, in the bottom of the 8th, down a run with risp, do you prefer a guy looking for a walk? Or do you want a guy looking to drive in a run?
While in general I value OBP, clearly in this situation I want someone to drive in the run.
This is the thing that drives me nuts around here — there is a happy medium between SABR stuff and, for lack of a better term, “counting stats”. They both have value. They both have their uses, depending on the circumstances. For people to completely blow off one or the other is foolishness in my mind. Data is good. Data is useful. But if one just blindly follows something without critical thought, that’s a good way to get beaten.
YMMV.
Thats why I have stated that analytics have a place but shouldn't be the only thing factored in. Analytics cant factor slumps, hot streaks, injuries, or the clutch factor.
RBI's as a descriptive stat of what happened during the game
--> perfectly reasonable use
RBI's as a predictive stat for which players are better than others
--> not a good use
Bullsh!t. Game on the line, do you want an rbi monster batting, or some pud looking for a walk?
I would use neither RBI's nor walk rate to determine which player I want in that situation
Then what the hell are you basing your decision on? Weight? Eye color? Good grief, you want the rbi producer. Its always been that. Anyone who debates that is either trying to be argumentative or is just a [fork]ing idiot.
I provided a link to a clutch stat earlier if clutch is actually important to you
But you clearly aren't wanting to engage with anything meaningful here, so I won't waste my time. Keep burying your head in the sand and throwing tantrums when encountering new information
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
Yes, its called putting the ball in play. Magically when batters hit the ball with runners in scoring position, those runners often score. Crazy concept that several on here surprisingly can't comprehend.
I dont know your age or how long you have watched baseball. But back in the mid 1980s, the Cardinals had a couple of really good teams. Do you know which player Whitey Herzog found to be the most valuable in his lineup? Jack Clark. Because the guy hit the (drat) ball and drove in runs. Whitey knew Jack would produce. How? Jack had a track record and Whitey knew talent when he saw it. I will trust Whitey's opinion long before some moron that posts on here about "measurable stats".
Yeah, I was absolutely around for Whitey’s teams! He knew ball players. But, if you read his book, you also knew he kept records in excruciating detail on where every batter his teams ever faced hit the ball. It was an early form of metrics!
And that’s the beautiful part of baseball! There are stats that go back almost to the beginning of time! We can compare players from one era to another! Is it perfect? Of course not, but there’s no other sport like it for fans!
My point, and I think yours too, is that stats are valuable and have a place, but if they’re not used with an eye toward the human element as well they can be misleading.
Sure, I agree with this. My frustration comes with people saying rbi producers aren't who they want up in clutch situations because clutch players aren't a stat.
I literally provided you with a link to a clutch stat. Too much reading for you?
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
You are welcome to your opinion. But there's a lot of information that suggests othwerwise. And they dont call your opinion stupid.
So you are telling me there is no such thing as a clutch performer? That tells me you have zero sports background.
1) That's not what I said.
2) You seem more interested in confrontation than conversation.
3) I have a lifetime of athletic competition which I still participate in at an elite level. So whatever you use to tell you things, try something else
4) Buh Bye
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
You are welcome to your opinion. But there's a lot of information that suggests othwerwise. And they dont call your opinion stupid.
So you are telling me there is no such thing as a clutch performer? That tells me you have zero sports background.
1) That's not what I said.
2) You seem more interested in confrontation than conversation.
3) I have a lifetime of athletic competition which I still participate in at an elite level. So whatever you use to tell you things, try something else
4) Buh Bye
1. My statement was about clutch performers. You replied "there is a lot of information that suggests otherwise. " so yes, you were arguing the validity of clutch performers.
2. Sorry i didn't fall into line with your viewpoint. People are allowed to have differing opinions and to even express them. When I see something senseless posted, I argue.
3. Unless you are a professional athlete (guessing you arent), you are not doing anything at an "elite" level.
4. Anyone who ends a post with "buh bye" is a squirrel.
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
Yes, its called putting the ball in play. Magically when batters hit the ball with runners in scoring position, those runners often score. Crazy concept that several on here surprisingly can't comprehend.
I dont know your age or how long you have watched baseball. But back in the mid 1980s, the Cardinals had a couple of really good teams. Do you know which player Whitey Herzog found to be the most valuable in his lineup? Jack Clark. Because the guy hit the (drat) ball and drove in runs. Whitey knew Jack would produce. How? Jack had a track record and Whitey knew talent when he saw it. I will trust Whitey's opinion long before some moron that posts on here about "measurable stats".
Yeah, I was absolutely around for Whitey’s teams! He knew ball players. But, if you read his book, you also knew he kept records in excruciating detail on where every batter his teams ever faced hit the ball. It was an early form of metrics!
And that’s the beautiful part of baseball! There are stats that go back almost to the beginning of time! We can compare players from one era to another! Is it perfect? Of course not, but there’s no other sport like it for fans!
My point, and I think yours too, is that stats are valuable and have a place, but if they’re not used with an eye toward the human element as well they can be misleading.
Sure, I agree with this. My frustration comes with people saying rbi producers aren't who they want up in clutch situations because clutch players aren't a stat.
I literally provided you with a link to a clutch stat. Too much reading for you?
Go bury your head in the sand
This was a conversation between me and another poster.
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
Yes, its called putting the ball in play. Magically when batters hit the ball with runners in scoring position, those runners often score. Crazy concept that several on here surprisingly can't comprehend.
I dont know your age or how long you have watched baseball. But back in the mid 1980s, the Cardinals had a couple of really good teams. Do you know which player Whitey Herzog found to be the most valuable in his lineup? Jack Clark. Because the guy hit the (drat) ball and drove in runs. Whitey knew Jack would produce. How? Jack had a track record and Whitey knew talent when he saw it. I will trust Whitey's opinion long before some moron that posts on here about "measurable stats".
Yeah, I was absolutely around for Whitey’s teams! He knew ball players. But, if you read his book, you also knew he kept records in excruciating detail on where every batter his teams ever faced hit the ball. It was an early form of metrics!
And that’s the beautiful part of baseball! There are stats that go back almost to the beginning of time! We can compare players from one era to another! Is it perfect? Of course not, but there’s no other sport like it for fans!
My point, and I think yours too, is that stats are valuable and have a place, but if they’re not used with an eye toward the human element as well they can be misleading.
Sure, I agree with this. My frustration comes with people saying rbi producers aren't who they want up in clutch situations because clutch players aren't a stat.
Hence the need for both numbers AND human intuition and experience.
Maybe a number one could point to would be percentage of time a player put the ball in play per plate appearance. That might be useful.
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
Yes, its called putting the ball in play. Magically when batters hit the ball with runners in scoring position, those runners often score. Crazy concept that several on here surprisingly can't comprehend.
I dont know your age or how long you have watched baseball. But back in the mid 1980s, the Cardinals had a couple of really good teams. Do you know which player Whitey Herzog found to be the most valuable in his lineup? Jack Clark. Because the guy hit the (drat) ball and drove in runs. Whitey knew Jack would produce. How? Jack had a track record and Whitey knew talent when he saw it. I will trust Whitey's opinion long before some moron that posts on here about "measurable stats".
Yeah, I was absolutely around for Whitey’s teams! He knew ball players. But, if you read his book, you also knew he kept records in excruciating detail on where every batter his teams ever faced hit the ball. It was an early form of metrics!
And that’s the beautiful part of baseball! There are stats that go back almost to the beginning of time! We can compare players from one era to another! Is it perfect? Of course not, but there’s no other sport like it for fans!
My point, and I think yours too, is that stats are valuable and have a place, but if they’re not used with an eye toward the human element as well they can be misleading.
Sure, I agree with this. My frustration comes with people saying rbi producers aren't who they want up in clutch situations because clutch players aren't a stat.
Hence the need for both numbers AND human intuition and experience.
Maybe a number one could point to would be percentage of time a player put the ball in play per plate appearance. That might be useful.
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
Yes, its called putting the ball in play. Magically when batters hit the ball with runners in scoring position, those runners often score. Crazy concept that several on here surprisingly can't comprehend.
I dont know your age or how long you have watched baseball. But back in the mid 1980s, the Cardinals had a couple of really good teams. Do you know which player Whitey Herzog found to be the most valuable in his lineup? Jack Clark. Because the guy hit the (drat) ball and drove in runs. Whitey knew Jack would produce. How? Jack had a track record and Whitey knew talent when he saw it. I will trust Whitey's opinion long before some moron that posts on here about "measurable stats".
Yeah, I was absolutely around for Whitey’s teams! He knew ball players. But, if you read his book, you also knew he kept records in excruciating detail on where every batter his teams ever faced hit the ball. It was an early form of metrics!
And that’s the beautiful part of baseball! There are stats that go back almost to the beginning of time! We can compare players from one era to another! Is it perfect? Of course not, but there’s no other sport like it for fans!
My point, and I think yours too, is that stats are valuable and have a place, but if they’re not used with an eye toward the human element as well they can be misleading.
Sure, I agree with this. My frustration comes with people saying rbi producers aren't who they want up in clutch situations because clutch players aren't a stat.
Hence the need for both numbers AND human intuition and experience.
Maybe a number one could point to would be percentage of time a player put the ball in play per plate appearance. That might be useful.
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pm
The obsession with RBI's in the year 2026 is something else
Though I suppose it's expected given the demographics of internet message boards
Not trying to argue but how are rbi's not important? You literally need to score runs to win games.
"Runs Batted In (RBI) are less important today because they measure opportunity and lineup context more than an individual hitter's actual skill."
Completely stupid. There is a thing called coming through in the clutch. Some players have that unique ability, some don't. Stat nerds who never played don't seem to understand that.
Fair. However, is that a measurable, quantifiable, repeatable skill? Is it something one might develop drills for so that skill could be taught or improved?
I am in 100% agreement with you that there are intangible skills that stats completely miss. How do you measure leadership? Toughness? Passion? You can’t! However, this discussion is revolving around stats — measurables. You could have the most clutch person in the world, but if they’re not given an opportunity to come thru in the clutch — i.e. drive in runs, becsuse they don’t happen to come up with others on, RBI might be a somewhat dubious stat.
My opinion. YMMV.
Yes, its called putting the ball in play. Magically when batters hit the ball with runners in scoring position, those runners often score. Crazy concept that several on here surprisingly can't comprehend.
I dont know your age or how long you have watched baseball. But back in the mid 1980s, the Cardinals had a couple of really good teams. Do you know which player Whitey Herzog found to be the most valuable in his lineup? Jack Clark. Because the guy hit the (drat) ball and drove in runs. Whitey knew Jack would produce. How? Jack had a track record and Whitey knew talent when he saw it. I will trust Whitey's opinion long before some moron that posts on here about "measurable stats".
Yeah, I was absolutely around for Whitey’s teams! He knew ball players. But, if you read his book, you also knew he kept records in excruciating detail on where every batter his teams ever faced hit the ball. It was an early form of metrics!
And that’s the beautiful part of baseball! There are stats that go back almost to the beginning of time! We can compare players from one era to another! Is it perfect? Of course not, but there’s no other sport like it for fans!
My point, and I think yours too, is that stats are valuable and have a place, but if they’re not used with an eye toward the human element as well they can be misleading.
Sure, I agree with this. My frustration comes with people saying rbi producers aren't who they want up in clutch situations because clutch players aren't a stat.
Hence the need for both numbers AND human intuition and experience.
Maybe a number one could point to would be percentage of time a player put the ball in play per plate appearance. That might be useful.
Very useful.
Juan, you are an interesting guy to talk to.
I know you are making fun of me. Its ok. I am understanding today that I am too old school to fit with much of this board.
?
