Joe Carter and 100 RBI [Archive]

Fuzzy Bear

02-24-2007, 06:59 AM

I have spent a while looking up stats and records, but I know many of you are better at this than I am. My question is, other than Joe Carter, what non HOF member has 10 or more seasons of 100 RBI? This is not an endorsement for his worthiness. Just curiosity. Thanks.

Mark McGwire has 10.
Albert Belle has 9 seasons in a row, and a 10th with 95.
Jim Rice has 8 seasons.
Juan Gonzalez has 8 seasons, total, but he's not eligible, yet.
Ditto Fred McGriff.
Jose Canseco has 7

mtortolero

02-24-2007, 07:05 AM

Manny Ramirez and Frank Thomas have eleven seasons each one with +100 rbi and counting but I suppose they doesn`t count because they will deserve the induction. Bonds have twelve seasons and Rafael Palmeiro did it too.
Bob Johnson, Jim Rice and Fred McGriff, among retired hitters and all three better values as hitters than Carter have eight seasons of +100 rbi.
Carter probably have the highest figure of +100 rbi seasons for non deserving retired players.

Yankwood

02-24-2007, 07:19 AM

So, assuming Ramirez and Thomas make the Hall and common sense telling us what we need to know about McGwire, Carter may wind up being the only "clean" 10 season RBI man not in the Hall.

THE OX

02-24-2007, 07:52 AM

A fine old player who is universally overlooked would figure in this discussion.

Del Ennis (1946-1959) had 7 seasons of 100 or more RBI, and two other seasons at 95. Eight of these 9 seasons were with a Philadelphia Phillies team whose offense was considerably less-than-robust. In fact, without Del's offensive prowess, the Phillies offense was pretty pathetic.

This is not to shortchange 3B Willie "Puddin' Head" Jones, the platoon of catchers Andy Seminick and Stan Lopata, and the occasional decent offensive season by shortstop Granny Hamner, but Del was the guy who permitted HOF'er Richie Ashburn to score the lion's share of the runs he scored!

IMO Del Ennis, if not a legitimate HOF'er, at least should be one of the brightest lights in the Hall of the Damn Good!

dgarza

02-24-2007, 08:21 AM

Jeff Kent has 8

SamtheBravesFan

02-24-2007, 08:58 AM

So, assuming Ramirez and Thomas make the Hall and common sense telling us what we need to know about McGwire, Carter may wind up being the only "clean" 10 season RBI man not in the Hall.

But you're inmplying that his 10 seasons of 100 RBI merit his induction into the Hall of Fame with that argument since he's "clean". His case is like Mazeroski's, in that the only reason people are even looking at him is because he hit a World Series-winning home run.

And how do we know he's clean? That's that thorny issue. We'll never know how many people used.

Yankwood

02-24-2007, 09:05 AM

But you're inmplying that his 10 seasons of 100 RBI merit his induction into the Hall of Fame with that argument since he's "clean". His case is like Mazeroski's, in that the only reason people are even looking at him is because he hit a World Series-winning home run.

And how do we know he's clean? That's that thorny issue. We'll never know how many people used.Well, I guess I should have figured this would lead to an argument since most everything on this website does. For the record, I believe that he does NOT belong in the Hall. I just brought it up as a point of discussion. I do not know for sure he was clean, although his seasons of remarkable consistency pre-dates the "suspected of steroids" years.

brett

02-24-2007, 09:31 AM

Yankwood

02-24-2007, 09:48 AM

SamtheBravesFan

02-24-2007, 11:20 AM

I don't know about all this ops stuff since I don't even know what it means but he sure seemed to have a knack for driving in runs. Alot of RBI will also help your batting average a little, which wasn't so great anyway.

Having a lot of RBI is a function of having a lot of opportunities to drive people in. Take a Braves fan's favorite talented punching bag, Jeff Francoeur. In 2006, he had 103 RBIs and an OPS+ of 89, which means his OPS (OBP + SLG) is 11% worse than league average. The reason he had so many RBIs is because he had a lot of people to drive in. He had 448 people on base when he batted. He drove in 74 runners other than himself, or 16.5% of them. Granted, no one would drive in that many due to the nature of baseball, but I would wager that Francoeur's 2006 ratio is pretty low.

Yankwood

02-24-2007, 11:35 AM

Having a lot of RBI is a function of having a lot of opportunities to drive people in. Take a Braves fan's favorite talented punching bag, Jeff Francoeur. In 2006, he had 103 RBIs and an OPS+ of 89, which means his OPS (OBP + SLG) is 11% worse than league average. The reason he had so many RBIs is because he had a lot of people to drive in. He had 448 people on base when he batted. He drove in 74 runners other than himself, or 16.5% of them. Granted, no one would drive in that many due to the nature of baseball, but I would wager that Francoeur's 2006 ratio is pretty low.I agree, that Francoeur guy is a real stiff. If pitchers never gave him any strikes to hit, he would probably hit under .200. If I was pitching, I would bounce every pitch up there and chances are he would swing at one before you could walk him. Chances are, this guy won't be in Major League baseball for too long.

SamtheBravesFan

02-24-2007, 02:09 PM

I agree, that Francoeur guy is a real stiff. If pitchers never gave him any strikes to hit, he would probably hit under .200. If I was pitching, I would bounce every pitch up there and chances are he would swing at one before you could walk him. Chances are, this guy won't be in Major League baseball for too long.

Nope, sorry. He's here to stay. No other Brave outfielder in the minors has his pop or defensive ability. That's saying more about the state of the outfielders than Francoeur, but I digress.

I support him. I think he'll improve, he's only 23. Saying he won't get any better than he is right now is ludicrous and illogical. Just an example I know well: in 1978, Dale Murphy was a struggling catcher/first baseman. Skeptics say he'll never get better. Five years later he's voted NL MVP for the second year in a row.

But I don't deny that he needs to be more selective at the plate. All I ask for right now is a .300 OBP. The rest should take care of itself.

SamtheBravesFan

02-24-2007, 03:24 PM

I don't know what else to say. :laugh I might have started it.

iPod

02-25-2007, 04:16 AM

Nope, sorry. He's here to stay. No other Brave outfielder in the minors has his pop or defensive ability. That's saying more about the state of the outfielders than Francoeur, but I digress.

Plus, I'm sure there are plenty of people who think he's a good player right now. "If he gets his 30 HR and 100 RBI, I don't care what else he does." That sort of thing.

ElHalo

02-25-2007, 05:59 AM

In 2006, he had 103 RBIs and an OPS+ of 89, which means his OPS (OBP + SLG) is 11% worse than league average.

A lot of people seem to believe this, but that's just not the case. You get the OPS+ by adding the total deviation percentage of OBP and SLG (i.e., (OBP+)s + (SLG+) - 100). So, if your OBP is six percent worse than average, and your SLG is five percent worse than average, your OPS+ would be 89, even though your OPS would only be 5.5% worse than average. a 200 OPS+ doesn't mean your OPS is double league average; it means that both your OBP and your SLG average out to being 50% better than league average. This is how some pitchers and really bad position players end up with negative OPS+'s.

Yankwood

02-25-2007, 06:02 AM

Honus Wagner Rules

02-25-2007, 06:42 AM

Francouer is definitely the type of player who could go either way because he's still young. It's whether he learns plate discipline before pitchers all realize that the guy swings at anything remotely close.
It's almost impossible for someone to learn plate disciple at the major league level. In 2006 he had 686 PAs and he made 507 outs! That is simply horrible. I say Francouer is out of the league in three years.

Yankwood

02-25-2007, 07:31 AM

It's almost impossible for someone to learn plate disciple at the major league level. In 2006 he had 686 PAs and he made 507 outs! That is simply horrible. I say Francouer is out of the league in three years.After watching him quite a bit last year I tend to agree with you. It seemed as though pitchers did him a favor putting one near the plate since he seems resigned to swing before the pitch is even delivered. I guess I still give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

SamtheBravesFan

02-25-2007, 09:05 AM

It's almost impossible for someone to learn plate disciple at the major league level. In 2006 he had 686 PAs and he made 507 outs! That is simply horrible. I say Francouer is out of the league in three years.

And I say he'll last longer than that. The Braves have zero outfielders in the high minors with any kind of power. Gregor Blanco? T. J. Bohn? Brandon Jones? Do you actually think they can have any kind of impact besides lots of singles?

Besides, If Rob Deer can have a nine-year major league career, I think Francoeur can last longer than that. You know. Rob Deer. The guy who lasted TWO full seasons after 1991, where he batted .179 with 24 home runs.

All Francoeur needs to stop doing is committing to swing before the pitch is even thrown. I think he can do that. I'm not going to call him stupid or retarded like certain other Braves fans. For God's sake, he's 23 years old. It's illogical to say he won't improve. There's always the possibility that he will.

Heh heh heh heh. We're talking about Francoeur in the Hall of Fame forum thanks to me. ;)

538280

02-25-2007, 09:49 AM

I just noticed that in '97 he had over 100 RBI with a 76 OPS+! He also had seasons of 85 and 90 OPS+ with 100 RBI.

He also stole 231 bases at an excellent 77% clip, was a 30/30 guy and hit 396 home runs.

I don't think he should be in, but sometimes I wonder if the 104 OPS+ and .306 OBP do him justice-he played a role. I remember that he would bunt in runners from 3rd with 1 out, which may not be "saber" valuable, but may very well be valuable in a particular game.

I agree. I started a thread about Carter once and I think that he probably did his role even if it wasn't the most valuable role. The thing is that he was probably encouraged to fill that role even since he came up. The problem is that his role isn't really optimal unless it's in the late innings of a close game. For example he came up with one out and a runner on third in, say, the 2nd inning with no runs yet scored he'd try to make contact at all costs to drive the runner in, even if he had to swing at a bad pitch. He'd make an out but drive the runner in. This sounds good because they get a run but in the long run is really costly. If he would have taken a regular approach, and perhaps taken a walk, they wouldn't have gotten that one but would have greatly maximized the team's chances for multiple runs. So it is really better to just take a regular approach there, but Carter never would because people wanted him to fill that role. It's a foolish role but that's what he tried to fill. Most people tend to assume that Carter's RBI were just a natural function of his lineup spot and the people in front of him but this isn't really true. If you look at that thread I started earlier there was a study done on this and Carter still well exceeded his expectation. Like I said he filled his role well. The problem is just that in general it was not a needed or smart role for someone to have. It would be interesting to see the situations in which he did go into the swing away approach though.

This all changes in the late innings of a close game though. There you should try to play more to just be sure you're going to get a run rather than try to maximize your run

SamtheBravesFan

02-25-2007, 09:52 AM

I agree. I started a thread about Carter once and I think that he probably did his role even if it wasn't the most valuable role. The thing is that he was probably encouraged to fill that role even since he came up. The problem is that his role isn't really optimal unless it's in the late innings of a close game. For example he came up with one out and a runner on third in, say, the 2nd inning with no runs yet scored he'd try to make contact at all costs to drive the runner in, even if he had to swing at a bad pitch. He'd make an out but drive the runner in. This sounds good because they get a run but in the long run is really costly. If he would have taken a regular approach, and perhaps taken a walk, they wouldn't have gotten that one but would have greatly maximized the team's chances for multiple runs. So it is really better to just take a regular approach there, but Carter never would because people wanted him to fill that role. It's a foolish role but that's what he tried to fill.

This all changes in the late innings of a close game though. There you should try to play more to just be sure you're going to get a run rather than try to maximize your runs.

That's the most sensible post I've ever seen. :)

ElHalo

02-25-2007, 11:25 AM

Besides, If Rob Deer can have a nine-year major league career, I think Francoeur can last longer than that. You know. Rob Deer. The guy who lasted TWO full seasons after 1991, where he batted .179 with 24 home runs.

But Rob Deer drew 81 walks / 162 games, and had an OBP 104 points higher than his BA for his career. I'd think he'd be a SABR guy's wet dream, as he was essentially the same hitter as guys like Harmon Killebrew and Mike Schmidt and Dave Kingman that SABR guys seem to drool over. He was in the top ten in walks that year he hit .179.

digglahhh

02-25-2007, 11:39 AM

Fuzzy Bear

02-25-2007, 03:21 PM

It's almost impossible for someone to learn plate disciple at the major league level. In 2006 he had 686 PAs and he made 507 outs! That is simply horrible. I say Francouer is out of the league in three years.

Sammy Sosa and Julio Franco say "Hi!".

Both Sosa and Franco became much more disciplined hitters in the middle of their MLB careers. The same may be coming true for Alfonso Soriano. Plate discipline, though never learned by some, is the one aspect of hitting that can be acquired on, or significantly improved on, at the major league level.

As for Carter: I normally dismiss the idea of a "clutch hitter" RBI guy as a function of luck. With Carter, there seems to be more to it; no one is THAT consistent of an RBI man as Carter was on luck, alone. Carter may have been able to bear down in pressure situations; he may have thrived on pressure, but been nonchalant in situations that were not critical. I don't support Carter for the HOF, but I do think that he had an unusual ability to hit in the clutch that made him more valuable than his stats would indicate.

Westlake

02-25-2007, 03:31 PM

His case is like Mazeroski's, in that the only reason people are even looking at him is because he hit a World Series-winning home run

Actually no, that's not really true. I am voting for him in the mock elections, and that vote has nothing to do with that HR.

538280

02-25-2007, 05:16 PM

You know what another funny thing about Carter is? I think that, even subconsciously, we still often fail to take proper context into account. Carter's 100 RBI man persona is funny to me often because if he played in most other, much lower scoring, eras, he would have had one or two 100 RBI seasons in his career. Carter also always seemed to *just* get over the mark, he was always over 100 but never had a REALLY high RBI total (like 135 or higher). Who knows, though, 1994 may have been that year for him.

538280

02-25-2007, 05:17 PM

Actually no, that's not really true. I am voting for him in the mock elections, and that vote has nothing to do with that HR.

Why will you be voting for him then? And he's not going to be on the ballot until 2004 so you can't be voting for him now (his last MLB season was 1998).

Westlake

02-25-2007, 05:17 PM

Why will you be voting for him then? And he's not going to be on the ballot until 2004 so you can't be voting for him now (his last MLB season was 1998).

I was talking about Bill Mazeroski.

Yankwood

02-25-2007, 05:29 PM

I was talking about Bill Mazeroski.Understood. And like he said, why would you be voting for him? He is the most obvious "one swing puts him in" player in the history of baseball. His fielding was superb, granted, but his hitting was so ordinary that without the homerun he's just another gloveman on the outside looking in.

Westlake

02-25-2007, 05:32 PM

Understood. And like he said, why would you be voting for him? He is the most obvious "one swing puts him in" player in the history of baseball. His fielding was superb, granted, but his hitting was so ordinary that without the homerun he's just another gloveman on the outside looking in.

Because I believe the best of the best glovemen deserve recognition. Just like I agree with Rabbit Maranville, Ozzie Smith, and Ray Schalk being in the hall.

Yankwood

02-25-2007, 06:06 PM

Because I believe the best of the best glovemen deserve recognition. Just like I agree with Rabbit Maranville, Ozzie Smith, and Ray Schalk being in the hall.That's OK. But then how would you stack Bobby Grich up as an all around player compared to Maz?

Westlake

02-25-2007, 06:10 PM

That's OK. But then how would you stack Bobby Grich up as an all around player compared to Maz?

You know, i'm not all that familiar with Grich. His last year was the year I was born, so I didnt get to see him, and I havent read much on him.

Grich's offense seems to make up whatever Maz had on him defensively, but i'm not sure about as an all-around player. I dont want to make an un-informed opinion.

DoubleX

02-25-2007, 07:16 PM

You know, i'm not all that familiar with Grich. His last year was the year I was born, so I didnt get to see him, and I havent read much on him.

Grich's offense seems to make up whatever Maz had on him defensively, but i'm not sure about as an all-around player. I dont want to make an un-informed opinion.

There will probably be a lot of conversation about Grich when he comes up in the Mock HoF project, which I believe is in 1992. I believe Grich should be in the Hall and think he's just below players like Santo, Blyleven, and Minoso (among a few others) on the list of truly egregious omissions from the Hall. It would have been nice if his career was a little longer, but he could really do it all as a 2Bman - 125 OPS+ and terrific defense. I have him in my top dozen or so all time at 2B (I think, I'll have to recheck). Anyway, I'm sure there will be others who will state the case for Grich much better than I can.

Yankwood

02-25-2007, 08:05 PM

I'm glad to hear you guys have some appreciation for Grich who I grew up cheering for in Rochester as a member of the Red Wings. He was the Minor League player of the year in 1971 before going up to join the Orioles at the end of that season. He actually played SS in AAA then and was quite good at that position and became an even better 2nd baseman in the majors. I'm not sure if I would call him a Hall of Famer but I wuldn't object to anyone who thought so. Maybe a little longer career or a little healthier and I think he would have come closer than he did. I do believe however that if everyone who ever held the position of General Manager had a choice between he and Mazeroski that Grich would have been the popular choice.

SamtheBravesFan

02-25-2007, 09:27 PM

Actually no, that's not really true. I am voting for him in the mock elections, and that vote has nothing to do with that HR.

I know, me too. I'm voting for him because it's proven that he is the best defensive second baseman ever. I wonder if the home run is the reason that he was elected in real life.

Westlake

02-25-2007, 09:34 PM

I know, me too. I'm voting for him because it's proven that he is the best defensive second baseman ever. I wonder if the home run is the reason that he was elected in real life.

I wouldn't exactly call it proven that he was the best ever, because of all the praise I've heard for Bid McPhee, but I think he's definately one of the elite, which is good enough for me.

I'm sure the HR had something to do with him getting elected in the real HOF, but I think he was also somewhat thought of a clutch hitter even before that home run. I've looked through a lot of old game recaps and found many with headlines such as "Mazeroski HR in the 9th wins it" or "Mazeroski has 3 RBI in a close Pittsburg victory". Maz was surely a superstar player before that home run, and I think the WS walkoff just cemented his place in the HOF.

dl4060

02-26-2007, 03:54 PM

But Rob Deer drew 81 walks / 162 games, and had an OBP 104 points higher than his BA for his career. I'd think he'd be a SABR guy's wet dream, as he was essentially the same hitter as guys like Harmon Killebrew and Mike Schmidt and Dave Kingman that SABR guys seem to drool over. He was in the top ten in walks that year he hit .179.

Not sure how Kingman ends up in a group with Killebrew and Schmidt. Those two had batting averages near the league average of when they played, and OBP's well above average for their time. Kingman was well below the league average in both figures.

waltweiss

02-26-2007, 08:26 PM

joe carter is one of those players that makes you think of all the other cool players that will never make the HOF. he deserves a spot somewhere in recognition, but i guess that spot will have to be here for now.

yankillaz

02-28-2007, 12:09 PM

Mark McGwire has 10.
Albert Belle has 9 seasons in a row, and a 10th with 95.
Jim Rice has 8 seasons.
Juan Gonzalez has 8 seasons, total, but he's not eligible, yet.
Ditto Fred McGriff.
Jose Canseco has 7

What about Sammy and his 9 with 100+ and a 10th with 93???

mtortolero

02-28-2007, 05:57 PM

If you look Carter´s aplits at baseball-reference there is a really weird stat at first sight : 212 of his 396 hrs were with anyone on base.
Other thing is his OPS with RISP was way better than when he was at bat with anyone on base. Probably his approach at the plate was very effective to drive risp but very innefective when the team need he got on base.

SamtheBravesFan

02-28-2007, 06:52 PM

mtortolero

02-28-2007, 07:04 PM

Homers with people on base do get you more RBIs. ;)
That is the weird thing, those 212 hrs without runners on base (53% of his hrs carrer total) is not the kind of stat you expect to find in the splits a rbi machine as Carter.

Fuzzy Bear

02-28-2007, 08:44 PM

What about Sammy and his 9 with 100+ and a 10th with 93???

Sammy's still active.

McGriff isn't eligible yet, so I probably shouldn't have mentioned him, either.

brett

02-28-2007, 10:18 PM

That is the weird thing, those 212 hrs without runners on base (53% of his hrs carrer total) is not the kind of stat you expect to find in the splits a rbi machine as Carter.

but was 100 RBI (barely) with 650+ plate appearances in the #4 spot really better than what any #4 hitter would have done in those situations?

plask_stirlac

02-28-2007, 10:26 PM

But Rob Deer drew 81 walks / 162 games, and had an OBP 104 points higher than his BA for his career. I'd think he'd be a SABR guy's wet dream, as he was essentially the same hitter as guys like Harmon Killebrew and Mike Schmidt and Dave Kingman that SABR guys seem to drool over. He was in the top ten in walks that year he hit .179.

Rob Deer was bad, walks made him less awful. It's like WHIP instead of H/IP, more detail. Walks matter.

A Sabermetrician's "wet dream" can be Wade Boggs or Ty Cobb, too. Peace.