WHats more important?

[scorekeeper]

Scoring runs, or RBI’s. Notice, I didn’t say driving runs in, but rather RBI’s.

The reason I ask is, I just read an article in TSN and they were talking to Harmon Killebrew, Griffy Jr, and Frank Thomas about different things having to do with home runs, and I read this one and it got me to thinking.

If you could hit .365 with 235 hits and, say 20 homers and 90 RBIs or .270 with 40 homers and 125 RBI’s which would you choose?

Griffey(laughing): I’m taking the .365 because I’d have a chance to win the batting title. I’ve hit 56, so that 40 doesn’t do it for me.

Killebrew: No question: RBI”s win ballgames.

Thomas: .270 because you’re more dangerous. You have a better chance to win.

[Padday]

Well there's a difference between scoring runs and getting hits. By getting a hit you set up the chance for one of your teammates to get an RBI. This article is more a question of which is more important: hits or RBIs?

[EdmondsFan#1]

I think the RBI's are more important.

Offense is about scoring runs, and you win games, by scoring runs and you would score more runs if everyone in the lineup batted .270 with 40 homers and 125 RBI's they would score more runs.

And a guy batting .365 only gets a hit 9.5% more then the guy that bats .270. I understand it adds up but is it really that big of a difference? Not really, in my opinion. The guy that hits for the higher average only gets one more hit every ten at bats than the other guy...

Also, it doesn't make sense to say that hitting .365 is more important because it allows more runners to be driven in for RBI's because this isn't taking into account on base percentage. And the guy hitting .270 could have a better OBP then the guy hitting .365. Which means that's not neccisarly true.

[Jake Patterson]

Scoring runs, or RBI’s. Notice, I didn’t say driving runs in, but rather RBI’s.

The reason I ask is, I just read an article in TSN and they were talking to Harmon Killebrew, Griffy Jr, and Frank Thomas about different things having to do with home runs, and I read this one and it got me to thinking.

If you could hit .365 with 235 hits and, say 20 homers and 90 RBIs or .270 with 40 homers and 125 RBI’s which would you choose?

Griffey(laughing): I’m taking the .365 because I’d have a chance to win the batting title. I’ve hit 56, so that 40 doesn’t do it for me.

Killebrew: No question: RBI”s win ballgames.

Thomas: .270 because you’re more dangerous. You have a better chance to win.

The answers you get to this question will give you the person's perspective of the game. Those who say .270 will tend to be about the game and team, those who say .365 will be about the individual stats.

[kylebee]

RBI's require baserunners, which are not within your control. I would rather hit .365 all day every day because in the long run I'll have many more RBI's than the other guy./

[scorekeeper]

Well there's a difference between scoring runs and getting hits. By getting a hit you set up the chance for one of your teammates to get an RBI. This article is more a question of which is more important: hits or RBIs?

Actually, you’re on the right track for what I was trying to find out. In fact, the question is more about getting on base any way you can, as opposed to the rulebook definition of an RBI.

The reason I asked about runs is, there is no qualifier about how a run. Nuts like me do all kinds of stats showing how runs that scored got on, and there are all kinds of other measures out there to tell about hits, walks, HBP’s, obstruction, and whatever, but very seldom do I see ROE’s or FC’s counted. The thing is, no one but me seems to care, but that’s ok.

The point is, runs are one of the few very objective stats. The only requirement for getting one is that a runner scores and the run counts. RBI’s however are a very different kind of metric. Take a few minutes and count the number of ways a run can score without an RBI being posted.

Since there are so many ways that can happen, how is it that an RBI can be so important? If anything, because they’ve got all kinds of strings attached, one might believe they were a lot more important than a run. But saying that would negate the very good runner who hustles a base on a bobbled ball by the C, or busts his hump to not get forced on a ground ball.

I’m not saying either one is better.

[Utility07]

It's like the chicken and the egg. Every team needs both, and you can't have alot of one without the other.

[scorekeeper]

The answers you get to this question will give you the person's perspective of the game. Those who say .270 will tend to be about the game and team, those who say .365 will be about the individual stats.

Very astute observation you old coot! I don’t know that I’d categorize the two camps quite that way but there’ll definitely be a very different philosophy at work.

One of the things I do for myself is, although I track RBI’s and Runs separately for purposes of team records and such, I also add R’s and RBI’s together to get what I call “Run Production”.

I know it doesn’t mean anything, but to me its pretty interesting to look at. If you want to see what it looks like, you can go to http://infosports.net/scorekeeper/images/cbatting.pdf page 19.

I like it because there will always be someone credited with producing a run every time a runner scores. That’s not true for RBI’s.

[Jake Patterson]

Very astute observation you old coot! I don’t know that I’d categorize the two camps quite that way but there’ll definitely be a very different philosophy at work.

One of the things I do for myself is, although I track RBI’s and Runs separately for purposes of team records and such, I also add R’s and RBI’s together to get what I call “Run Production”.

I know it doesn’t mean anything, but to me its pretty interesting to look at. If you want to see what it looks like, you can go to http://infosports.net/scorekeeper/images/cbatting.pdf page 19.

I like it because there will always be someone credited with producing a run every time a runner scores. That’s not true for RBI’s.

Boy, I'd love to have you as my SC... Most HS teams don't keep this many stats. Well done..

[scorekeeper]

It's like the chicken and the egg. Every team needs both, and you can't have alot of one without the other.

But the rub, that isn’t true, at least not equally true up and down through all the levels.

People perceive it to be true, but it isn’t. For the last 42 games, our HS team has scored 235 runs, but only has had 182 RBIs. That’s over 77%, but it’s a far cry from begin equal. I checked a couple other HS teams I know the SKs on and am pretty sure they know the rules about what constitutes an RBI, and they seem to be right around 80%.

What’s interesting is, a typical ML team, I chose Cleveland because they’re have the highest RPG right now, is over 97% RBIs to runs. I checked a few D1 schools and it looks like what’s pretty typical is about 90%.

Of course the reason the lower the level the lower the relationship is pretty easy to figger. Without even considering kiddyball(lower than HS), a lot of runs in HS come from WP’s or PB’s with a runner on 3rd, an E on a grounder with 2 outs, balks, and any number of other mistakes that are made at every level, but with much greater frequency the lower the level because the skills of the players are much lower too.

All I’m trying to point out is, sure, Griffy, Killer, Hurt, and other ML Players can very easily believe what they say about RBI’s and it would be pretty valid, but people shouldn’t just assume the same thing is true for every level, because it isn’t. In short, thse numbers need to be kept in perspective.

[XV84]

It doesn't sound like any of you have delved into "sabermetrics" much, but the AVG, Runs and RBI stats are overrated in terms of evaluating who's good or not. It's only good for "records" and bragging rights.

There is an actual stat called Runs Created you can look into.

[TG Coach]

Scoring runs, or RBI’s. Notice, I didn’t say driving runs in, but rather RBI’s.

The reason I ask is, I just read an article in TSN and they were talking to Harmon Killebrew, Griffy Jr, and Frank Thomas about different things having to do with home runs, and I read this one and it got me to thinking.

If you could hit .365 with 235 hits and, say 20 homers and 90 RBIs or .270 with 40 homers and 125 RBI’s which would you choose?

Griffey(laughing): I’m taking the .365 because I’d have a chance to win the batting title. I’ve hit 56, so that 40 doesn’t do it for me.

Killebrew: No question: RBI”s win ballgames.

Thomas: .270 because you’re more dangerous. You have a better chance to win.

First, regarding the three players responses we don't know the context in which the question was asked and what assumptions the player makes about what addidtional stats the provided stats would render.

The first thing I's asssume about .365 is on a good team he's scoring about 140 runs. We don't know if the .365 guy added 45 doubles and ten triples while the .270 is a slow slug adding 25 doubles and no triples and cloging up the bases all year.

I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from the posed question or the responses. Besides as someone else mentioned there are other stats that may be more meaningful in determining a players usefulness to a team. I'd want to know each scenarios OPS before even attempting to provide an answer.

Chances are both sets of stats would be considered very valuable to a team.

[scorekeeper]

It doesn't sound like any of you have delved into "sabermetrics" much, but the AVG, Runs and RBI stats are overrated in terms of evaluating who's good or not. It's only good for "records" and bragging rights.

There is an actual stat called Runs Created you can look into.

One doesn’t have to delve into sabermetrics to understand that BA, R, RBI, ERA, and just about all of the standard stats kids have grown up with, suck as ways to evaluate who’s good.

I do compute RC, but only at the basic level. Unfortunately I don’t have the data available to compute it to the nth degree as they do at the highest levels of the game where they use BPFs and linear weights applies to all of the different batting situations.

Recently, I started calculating bases per out. Although it may not be quite as comprehensive as the highest form of RC, its very easy to calculate, its easily understood by most people, and it gives a pretty good picture about what’s going on. But, one of the things I like most about it is, it can be used to rank either hitters or pitchers, and still retain its understandability and its veracity.

[Utility07]

But the rub, that isn’t true, at least not equally true up and down through all the levels.

People perceive it to be true, but it isn’t. For the last 42 games, our HS team has scored 235 runs, but only has had 182 RBIs. That’s over 77%, but it’s a far cry from begin equal. I checked a couple other HS teams I know the SKs on and am pretty sure they know the rules about what constitutes an RBI, and they seem to be right around 80%.

What’s interesting is, a typical ML team, I chose Cleveland because they’re have the highest RPG right now, is over 97% RBIs to runs. I checked a few D1 schools and it looks like what’s pretty typical is about 90%.

Of course the reason the lower the level the lower the relationship is pretty easy to figger. Without even considering kiddyball(lower than HS), a lot of runs in HS come from WP’s or PB’s with a runner on 3rd, an E on a grounder with 2 outs, balks, and any number of other mistakes that are made at every level, but with much greater frequency the lower the level because the skills of the players are much lower too.

All I’m trying to point out is, sure, Griffy, Killer, Hurt, and other ML Players can very easily believe what they say about RBI’s and it would be pretty valid, but people shouldn’t just assume the same thing is true for every level, because it isn’t. In short, thse numbers need to be kept in perspective.



Keyword in my previous statement:alot.

You arent gonna win many games with 53 runs over 42 games.