cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pmThe 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.
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.
No, I’m being completely sincere! Even if we don’t see eye to eye on everything, I find our conversations enjoyable! I don’t have it in me to be a jerk to someone I don’t know, and if I were simply poking fun, I’d make it extremely obvious and non-confrontational!
cosmo.kramer wrote: ↑01 Aug 2026 12:09 pmThe 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.
Who's the quoted OP in your entire chain?
Some annoying (Obnoxious person) with a Seinfeld fetish.
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.
No, I’m being completely sincere! Even if we don’t see eye to eye on everything, I find our conversations enjoyable! I don’t have it in me to be a jerk to someone I don’t know, and if I were simply poking fun, I’d make it extremely obvious and non-confrontational!
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.
Juan-It isn't that you are too old schooled to fit in with this board. It’s that you have no understanding of advanced metrics, than you get mad when other posters use them to support their sides of an argument. Guys (myself included) can be wrong in their views even when supported by newer metrics than what we used back in the sixties. And that doesn't automatically mean we never played the game or sports or any of the other go to insults you use. I respect you stepping up for the service industry people who get made fun of. So be that guy. Study newer metrics and advanced metrics and what they mean. If you can read you can do it. You don't have to agree with it. But it may relieve the frustration when you are conversing with guys using them as reference. PS I am old and I did it ( to the best of my ability ).
