What's more overrated? RBIs or ERA?

[Dodgerfan1]

I have seen a couple of people on this forum talk about how overrated they think RBIs are. How they are too contingent upon other teammates getting into scoring position which enables the batter to acquire RBIs. I, personally, have always felt that a pitcher's ERA was also not always accurate as a true measurable. How many times have we seen a pitcher get the first two batters in an inning, then give up a ground ball that is played into an error, then give up a bunch of hits and runs, only to realize that NONE of them are earned? Well, okay, so that doesn't happen THAT often, but it does happen.

Anyway, what statistic do you believe to be the most misleading, as far as being a reliable measure of a player's success? A bunch of RBIs or a low ERA?

[Old Sweater]

neither IMO.

[W_Marone]

neither IMO.

my sentiments exactly

[ReignInBlood]

Neither, but great pitchers usually have really low ERA's and an average hitter with low BA and OBP can have a great amount of RBI's.

[EvanAparra]

Easily RBI, IMO.

[slugger33]

Easily RBI, IMO.
Neither is over rated. But if I had to choose.....probably RBI. Ichiro has low RBI, but he would get more money than a good pitcher with a high ERA.

[milladrive]

This is a tough question. ...A good question, but not an easy one to answer. I'll have to give it some thought.

[Cubsfan97]

Neither is over-rated, RBIs show how well a batter can perform with men on base, which essentially is important, and ERA tells us how much runs to expect a pitcher to give up, give or take a run or two. If you want to talk about an over-rated stat, talk about the OBP and the pitchers record. OBP isnt as truthful as some would like to think, say you get a groundball to third with man on 1st and 2nd,with no outs, they tag 3rd, throw to 2nd get a double play and the hitter reaches, thats a duoble play from the hitter, yet his OBP rises. Or a W/L a pitcher can go 9 innings, give up 1 run and get chareged with a loss (wasnt Haddix xharged with a loss in that 13 inning perfect game) or a pitcher can give up 7 runs and still get a win.

[ReignInBlood]

OBP isnt as truthful as some would like to think, say you get a groundball to third with man on 1st and 2nd,with no outs, they tag 3rd, throw to 2nd get a double play and the hitter reaches, thats a duoble play from the hitter, yet his OBP rises.

That would be a fielder's choice, and his OBP would decrease, not increase.

[Colorado Express]

Without a doubt, it has to be RBIs. RBIs are very dependant on the players around you while ERA is a much better reflection of an individuals performance. Although RBIs DO reflect a players ability to drive in runs, there are more likely to be abberations with this stat than with ERA. A less than stellar performer can drive in a lot of runs if the guys in front of him are on base, while it's tough for a mediocre pitcher to suddenly post a great ERA (yes, I know there are exceptions and examples).

Maybe it's not that RBIs are more overrated, but that they can be more misleading than an ERA (RBIs compare more favorably to wins than ERA).

[PopTop]

I'm with the 'none of the above' crowd. Both stats are important to me in trying to determine a player's value and contributions to his team's effort.

[KCGHOST]

Take a look at Joe Carter's career and you will see it is RBI's. Great teammates batting in front of you means lots of RBI's. To have a good ERA year-in and year-out means you must be doing something right.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I have to RBis are more overated then Era for a couple of reasons, the first is That ERA is a very accurate and important statistic. An ERA is a wonderful interpitation of how good/effective or how bad a pitcher is, and the fact that ERA is not overrated whatsoever.
Secondly the RBI is not nessisary the best representation of how great a player is; RBIs depend greatly upon runners on base. The RBI is a decent barometer of how good a hitter is, however it is not the be all end all of statistics.

[SoxSon]

At the risk of getting smacked in the head for this, I'd like to mention that RBI is the plural form. "RBIs" is redundant. ;)

Oh, and I'll go with RBI over ERA, if I must pick one. Both are important descriptors of performance, but over the long haul, I think a low ERA requires more from the individual himself. Of course, as soon as I say that, I'm reminded of the importance of a good fielding team for a pitcher to maintain a low ERA. :ughh

[Dodgerfan1]

At the risk of getting smacked in the head for this, I'd like to mention that RBI is the plural form. "RBIs" is redundant. ;)

AHA! One of those guys who gets uppity when someone says "What's your PIN number?" Just remember dude, redundancy is the sincerest form of repetitiveness. :D

[milladrive]

...redundancy is the sincerest form of repetitiveness. :D

LOL, I say that every time I go to the ATM machine.

[milladrive]

Incidentally, after giving it some thought, I'd have to go with the notion that in the long term, ERA is a bit more reflective of sustenance than RBI. ...Gun to my head, of course.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

LOL, I say that every time I go to the ATM machine. I'm suprised you didn't say automatic ATM Machine.:D

[SoxSon]

AHA! One of those guys who gets uppity when someone says "What's your PIN number?" Just remember dude, redundancy is the sincerest form of repetitiveness. :D

Yeah...guilty as charged. :D
I've always thought that baseball appeals to people with OCD.

[Dodgerfan1]

Yeah...guilty as charged. :D
I've always thought that baseball appeals to people with OCD.

You mean OCD disorder, don't you?? :D

Okay, enough of this stuff or the mods will shut down my own thread!

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

I won't say that one is overrated, but I really think that someone batting cleanup, might have more RBI's than someone batting ninth. And in that way an RBI stat may not give us a right view.

But on the other hand... a bad batter won't hit cleanup.

[milladrive]

You mean OCD disorder, don't you?? :D

Okay, enough of this stuff or the mods will shut down my own thread!

rofl :laugh :laugh

[Dodgerfan1]

I think there should also be some sort of reverse 'mercy' rule for pitchers' ERAs. If an error occurs in an inning, which would make all subsequent runs in that inning unearned by current rules, there should be a limit to how many runs can score that will NOT count toward ERA. I think two unearned runs should be the limit, then any runs after that (that are due to hits) should then count toward ERA. That might make ERA a little more accurate.

I know that will bring up some other problems that I am not factoring in, but it doesn't seem right that a pitcher should be able to give up 7 hits and 4 runs in an inning, but NONE are earned because of an earlier error.

[milladrive]

I think there should also be some sort of reverse 'mercy' rule for pitchers' ERAs. If an error occurs in an inning, which would make all subsequent runs in that inning unearned by current rules, there should be a limit to how many runs can score that will NOT count toward ERA. I think two unearned runs should be the limit, then any runs after that (that are due to hits) should then count toward ERA. That might make ERA a little more accurate.

I know that will bring up some other problems that I am not factoring in, but it doesn't seem right that a pitcher should be able to give up 7 hits and 4 runs in an inning, but NONE are earned because of an earlier error.

It's a thought, but imo, that's why we have WHIP, a stat much more helpful than ERA.

[SoxSon]

rofl :laugh :laugh


Particularly since I'm the mod he's talking about. :clapping :laugh

[milladrive]

Particularly since I'm the mod he's talking about. :clapping :laugh

Heh, yes indeed. I'm pretty sure, though, you don't wanna get your RAID disks in an uproar. :p

Okay okay, I'm done now, too. :crazy

[ChrisLDuncan]

Easily RBI, IMO.

I dunno RBIs are important though, I don't think any are overrated. Although here I would say that RBIs are underrated.

[Dodgerfan1]

Particularly since I'm the mod he's talking about. :clapping :laugh

Oh oh! Cheese it, the coppers!

[panman36]

i voted E.R.A because I'm thinking it's unfair, when a guy leaves a man on first with no two outs, then the reliever gives it up, it hurts the first guy. also the other reasons stated. I only dislike how if a pitcher makes an error, it's not an earned run

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

ed. I only dislike how if a pitcher makes an error, it's not an earned run
Please...... Thats ridiculous. :rolleyes:
If a pitcher makes an error and a runner scores, how did the other team "earn" that run. It was an error, and and a unearned run and should be treated as such.

[Dodgerfan1]

Please...... Thats ridiculous. :rolleyes:
If a pitcher makes an error and a runner scores, how did the other team "earn" that run. It was an error, and and a unearned run and should be treated as such.

Agreed, however I still find it misleading to count every subsequent run following an error as unearned, especially when the pitcher has given up several hits and runs afterwards. That is not a true measure of how badly he pitched in that inning, as it gives the illusion of his having allowed nothing that was earned by the hitting team.

[Dodgerfan1]

Please...... Thats ridiculous. :rolleyes:
If a pitcher makes an error and a runner scores, how did the other team "earn" that run. It was an error, and and a unearned run and should be treated as such.

Perhaps panman36 is trying to say that if it is the pitcher who makes the error, the runs should not be unearned, since it was the pitcher's own fault for making the error. It was within his power to see to it that no runs scored, unlike when a fielder makes an error behind him.

I don't know, of course, but that's what I got out of his comment. Maybe he/she can elaborate.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Perhaps panman36 is trying to say that if it is the pitcher who makes the error, the runs should not be unearned, since it was the pitcher's own fault for making the error. It was within his power to see to it that no runs scored, unlike when a fielder makes an error behind him.

I don't know, of course, but that's what I got out of his comment. Maybe he/she can elaborate.
Nevertheless it was in the pitchers own power or not, how did the offense earn the run?

[EdmondsFan#1]

I voted RBI's because it is more of a opportunity stat, imo, then ERA. And it has to do more with where you are batting in the lineup. Where you are in the rotation or bullpen, however, does not affect your ERA.

[Artard]

RBI is nothing more than a function of AB/BA/SLG and to a small degree OBA, coupled with place in the batting order and the quality of the players hitting before you in the lineup. It really doesn't measure anything and can be derived with great accuracy from these other metrics. Joe Carter drove in 100+ runs for years and was thought of as a superstar, despite the fact that he was . . . well he just wasn't very good. He batted in the middle of a potent lineup, hit a lot of home runs, and didn't miss games. Voila, 100 RBIs!. Take a look at his RC/27 stats and you get an idea of just how mediocre a player Carter was and how overrated RBI are.

ERA on the other hand is the strongest indicator of pitching ability. Go take a look at the career ERA leaders since WWII - or active leaders for that matter - and you get an idea of the correlation between ERA and success. It's a stat that can produce odd results in the short run as far as W-L record (Storm Davis 1989 on one end, Nolan Ryan 1987 on the other), but is a marvelous indicator of future success. Good pitchers will sustain good ERAs over a long enough time horizon, and bad pitchers cannot. The very notion of asking if ERA is overrated is akin to asking if your physical health is overrated; in other words its importance can't be overstated enough.

I understand that ballparks and defenses have a significant effect on a pitcher's ERA. However, the effect has never been enough, over the long haul, to make a bad pitcher appear good or vice-versa. Throw 2000 innings of 3.00 baseball and you've done something special, even in Chavez Ravine or Comerica. Of course do it in Denver and you're superhuman.

[Dodgerfan1]

Nevertheless it was in the pitchers own power or not, how did the offense earn the run?

It doesn't unless more hits and runs follow, but you should ask panman36. I was only trying to interpret what he said. That isn't my opinion.

[cubsfan1073]

I say definitely RBIs. The object as a hitter is to create runs, either by scoring or driving them in. RBIs are a lot of luck and being in the right place at the right time. The object as a pitcher is to not allow runs, and allowing runs will give the opponent a higher chance to win. There is less luck involved in ERA than RBIs and RBIs are more misleading.