Soriano

[ruby23]

Also, since Soriano will get more PAs than Ramirez (if both stay healthy the whole year) since he leads off, the difference in RBI totals should actually be even less than 25 RBI.

[Runnys]

I know people think RBI is an overrated stat...I am not one of them. If A-Ram has 25-40 RBI's than Alf, then he IS more valuable than Alf. Where would we be if he doesn't drive in those runs? He doesn't get those RBI's for free just for having a PA.

Seriously, I will never understand why people bitch about RBI's. I know it is contingent on guys being on base in front of the hitter, but the hitter still has to produce and drive them in.

[kbwsb]

Runnys, I agree with you that driving in runs is important.
I don't think that there are many people bitching about driving in runs. Getting those ducks on the pond across home plate is the very point of the contest.

I think what people are objecting to is the notion that driving in runs is a special skill, different from actual hitting skill. Making a big deal of the RBI stat implies that a hitter like, say, Ryan Howard is merely a decent hitter with the bases empty; however, with runners in scoring position, he somehow turns into a truly great hitter, and thus gets tons of RBI's.

It's a cool notion; the idea that some guys are just naturally "clutch," and can turn it on and off as the situation calls for it. However nothing in the statistical record (which has been complied for well over a century) indicates that there is any special "RBI" skill whatsoever. Good hitters are good hitters, and if there are men on base when they get their usual amount of doubles and homers, they'll accumulate a lot of RBI's. If there aren't many men on base, they <i>won't</i> get many RBI's (see Lee, Derrek 2005).

[rok]

I'll never be convinced that certain types of players don't respond to high pressure situations like when there are RISP better than others. Never. Sure, a good hitter should produce regardless of the situation compared to an average or shitty hitter, but it doesn't always work out that way in reality.

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=29503:date=Apr 11 2009, 02:00 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Apr 11 2009, 02:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'll never be convinced that certain types of players don't respond to high pressure situations like when there are RISP better than others. Never. Sure, a good hitter should produce regardless of the situation compared to an average or shitty hitter, but it doesn't always work out that way in reality.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know. It goes against all human thinking. I don't like it myself.
But the statistics simply do <i>not</i> support that notion.

[kbwsb]

Sometimes, I hate the unvarnished truth. I want to believe that Lou Gehrig was the king of RBI's because he was a "hero," and a "champion."
And to me, he <i>was</i> both of those things.

But the <i>reason</i> he got all those ribbies was because 1) he was a great hitter, and 2)(very important) he had a lot of RBI chances. A whole lot. Batting in front of him, for most of his career, was Earle Combs, a HOFer leadoff guy, and that Babe Ruth guy...who was on-base more often than any player in the history of the sport (except for Ted Williams). And when Ruth was traded, they replaced him with that DiMaggio fellow.

Equation: Great hitter + Lots of RBI <i>opportunities</i> = Lots of RBI's.

[leonardsipes]

It makes no sense hitters have different skill levels at every aspect of hitting except hitting with men on base. Soriano has over 5K PA, 3K w/o men on base and 2K with. He hits significantly better w/o men on base. Clearly indicating he is not an ideal middle of the order guy.

Managers can evaluate a hitter and use them in a way to maximize their results. People then take the stats after the fact, plug the numbers into a computer and say that a different lineup could have scored x additional runs.

[rok]

Stats smooth out reality sometimes too neatly. I still don't completely buy the notion, and Alf is a perfect example of this. One more thing, sports statisticians love to make generalities. Saying that "on average" if you're good, you'll hit in all situations regardless of the pressure involved, isn't realistic. I'm sure the stats will show that I'm wrong "on average," but it doesn't mean that this is the case for all hitters, just in the "majority" of cases. There are always outliers and special cases though, and that's where the notions of being clutch and un-clutch come from.

[bz]

Stats do their job. The problem lies in interpreters not evaluating CONTEXT.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=29505:date=Apr 11 2009, 03:30 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Apr 11 2009, 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Sometimes, I hate the unvarnished truth. I want to believe that Lou Gehrig was the king of RBI's because he was a "hero," and a "champion."
And to me, he <i>was</i> both of those things.

But the <i>reason</i> he got all those ribbies was because 1) he was a great hitter, and 2)(very important) he had a lot of RBI chances. A whole lot. Batting in front of him, for most of his career, was Earle Combs, a HOFer leadoff guy, and that Babe Ruth guy...who was on-base more often than any player in the history of the sport (except for Ted Williams). And when Ruth was traded, they replaced him with that DiMaggio fellow.

Equation: Great hitter + Lots of RBI <i>opportunities</i> = Lots of RBI's.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


You fail to take into mind the fact that the pitcher is a huge variable here KB.

When Aramis Ramirez comes up in the 2nd inning with nobody on base and 1 out, he has a pretty decent chance of getting on base versus coming up in the 7th with 2 men in scoring position and 2 outs. In the latter scenario, the pitcher is going to use everything he's got to get Aramis out. Or, the manager is going to bring in his Marmol-esque relief pitcher, or will bring in a RHP instead of his lefty that was on the mound.

You can't just take any single plate appearance and judge it as if it's the same as any other plate appearance. RBI chances do come a lot for some guys, but the player still has to face the situation and come out on top. I would say usually, the RBI opportunities are going to be more difficult. It's not that the hitter get's a magical feeling inside that allows him to "turn up" his ability. It's the fact that he has the ability to face the best a pitcher/team has to throw at him.

[veryzer]

all i know is this: if soriano didn't lead off yesterday, then he doesn't hit the game winning home run in the ninth and the cubs probably lose. can we all agree on that?

and if the riot and the font keep hitting the ball (and soto when he returns), soriano is going to get plenty of rbi opportunities. the cubs are solid 1-8 and even their pitchers are decent hitters.

[Vine]

<!--quoteo(post=29661:date=Apr 12 2009, 01:37 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Apr 12 2009, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->all i know is this: if soriano didn't lead off yesterday, then he doesn't hit the game winning home run in the ninth and the cubs probably lose. can we all agree on that?

and if the riot and the font keep hitting the ball (and soto when he returns), soriano is going to get plenty of rbi opportunities. the cubs are solid 1-8 and even their pitchers are decent hitters.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yeah, but, but, it's those dreaded first inning solo HRs that drive us greedy fans crazy Tom. Get it?

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=29661:date=Apr 12 2009, 12:37 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Apr 12 2009, 12:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->all i know is this: if soriano didn't lead off yesterday, then he doesn't hit the game winning home run in the ninth and the cubs probably lose. can we all agree on that?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(sigh)
There are limitless possibilities that could have happened if Alf had been batting lower in the lineup, say cleanup. My take? He's hot as hell right now, and thus would have homered at cleanup too. Only the bases might have been loaded, so instead of a 1-run squeaker, we win by 3, and thus don't have to waste a Marmol appearance, which saves wear and tear on his valuable arm, and helps us win the pennant.

<b>Or</b>, as you've kind of suggested (correct me if I'm wrong) he might have been <b><i>so </i></b> freaked out and discombobulated by not being allowed to lead off the game, that even 2-3 hours later, he still would be dizzy and weak, and thus might have struck out in the 9th.

I guess both scenarios are equally plausible.

[Kid]

Soriano batting 1st
G - 705
PA - 3322
AB - 3062
H - 898
2B - 207 (16.0 PA/2B)
3B - 13 (255.5 PA/3B)
HR - 186 (17.9 PA/HR)
RBI - 430 (7.7 PA/RBI)
BB - 199 (16.7 PA/BB)
K - 673 (4.9 PA/K)
BA - .293
OBP - .342
SLG - .552
OPS - .894
BAbip - .321

Soriano batting anywhere other than 1st
G - 505
PA - 2042
AB - 1897
H - 500
2B - 104 (19.6 PA/2B)
3B - 10 (204.2 PA/3B)
HR - 87 (23.5 PA/HR)
RBI - 280 (7.3 PA/RBI)
BB - 100 (20.4 PA/BB)
K - 401 (5.1 PA/K)
BA - .264
OBP - .306
SLG - .467
OPS - .773
BAbip - .289

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=29697:date=Apr 12 2009, 08:09 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Apr 12 2009, 08:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=29661:date=Apr 12 2009, 12:37 PM:name=veryzer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (veryzer @ Apr 12 2009, 12:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->all i know is this: if soriano didn't lead off yesterday, then he doesn't hit the game winning home run in the ninth and the cubs probably lose. can we all agree on that?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(sigh)
There are limitless possibilities that could have happened if Alf had been batting lower in the lineup, say cleanup. My take? He's hot as hell right now, and thus would have homered at cleanup too. Only the bases might have been loaded, so instead of a 1-run squeaker, we win by 3, and thus don't have to waste a Marmol appearance, which saves wear and tear on his valuable arm, and helps us win the pennant.

<b>Or</b>, as you've kind of suggested (correct me if I'm wrong) he might have been <b><i>so </i></b> freaked out and discombobulated by not being allowed to lead off the game, that even 2-3 hours later, he still would be dizzy and weak, and thus might have struck out in the 9th.

I guess both scenarios are equally plausible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think that it is plausible that, perhaps, one player out of the 750 active could defy all sense of logic and statistical analysis and be within a minute margin of error? That's probably not possible is it?