Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    I've been reading quite a few comments this year on the question of whether or not HR's and K's are overrated.  Just look at yesterday's game thread for examples.

    I'm going to add RBI to the mix because that is another stat that is often referred to as being overrated.  I once read a statement by Keith Law that the RBI stat was 'meaningless'.  That really irritated me.  How can RBI be meaningless?  You don't win any games if you don't score any runs.  And based on the current 2013 MLB stats, only 5% of all runs scored do not result in an RBI.

    I still have a problem with Law's statement, but part of the problem is that he didn't expand on exactly what he meant.  I have to assume that what he meant was that a player's RBI total doesn't necessarily reflect his performance. 

    A textbook example of the RBI distortion is the 2007 RBI totals of Lugo and Pedroia.  Lugo had 73 RBI in 630 PA.  Pedroia had 50 RBI in 581 PA.

    But Lugo hit 237/294/349, and Pedroia hit 317/380/442.

    The issues with HR's and K's are a little different, but I think there is a similarity.  It's not so much a question of whether a HR, RBI or K is important in the context of one at-bat, it's a question of how important it is in the context of the whole season.

    Fire away people. Smile

     

        

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I've been reading quite a few comments this year on the question of whether or not HR's and K's are overrated.  Just look at yesterday's game thread for examples.

    I'm going to add RBI to the mix because that is another stat that is often referred to as being overrated.  I once read a statement by Keith Law that the RBI stat was 'meaningless'.  That really irritated me.  How can RBI be meaningless?  You don't win any games if you don't score any runs.  And based on the current 2013 MLB stats, only 5% of all runs scored do not result in an RBI.

    I still have a problem with Law's statement, but part of the problem is that he didn't expand on exactly what he meant.  I have to assume that what he meant was that a player's RBI total doesn't necessarily reflect his performance. 

    A textbook example of the RBI distortion is the 2007 RBI totals of Lugo and Pedroia.  Lugo had 73 RBI in 630 PA.  Pedroia had 50 RBI in 581 PA.

    But Lugo hit 237/294/349, and Pedroia hit 317/380/442.

    The issues with HR's and K's are a little different, but I think there is a similarity.  It's not so much a question of whether a HR, RBI or K is important in the context of one at-bat, it's a question of how important it is in the context of the whole season.

    Fire away people. Smile

     

        




       Scoring more runs than your opponent is the entire object of the game. Home runs = instant run/runs.  Strikeouts =  instant zero.  But these things are overrated.  Yeah. Sure they are. Outscoring the opponent is overrated.  Wins and losses are overrated too.    The only things that truly matter are WAR , UZR, WHIPS , ZIPS, DIPS and BABIPS.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Leftfielder61. Show Leftfielder61's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?


    I don't think HRs can be called overrated. They independently score a run and these is no defense for the HR.

    K's depend on the situation. I would prefer a K over a DP of course. Take Jim Rice. Rice had low strikeout totals for a slugger but he was a DP machine, crippling many rallies with a 6-4-3 gdp.

    However the failure to advance runners leads to the more deadly RLOB. I would prefer a Rice and 30 DPs a year over the 130+ strikeout guys that are all over the league now.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Leftfielder61. Show Leftfielder61's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Speaking of K's. This is where the game has changed the most in my lifetime.

    I have been watching BB since the early 70's. Back in those days only the biggest of sluggers struckout 100+ times. Batters actually choked up with 2 strikes! When was the last time you saw that? Now days even the lightest hitting middle infielder is swinging from the heels in all counts and situations.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Leftfielder61. Show Leftfielder61's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    My favorite way to measure a hitter is to take their Runs and Rbis - their HRs and divide that by the teams total runs to get how much they contribute to THEIR teams offense.

    Here are our leaders:

    Papi    22.3%

    Nava   19.4%

    Napoli  19.2%

    Ells      18.3%

    Salty    12.9%

    Drew    12.4%

     

    It is really amazing that Ortiz has been involved in over 22% of our total offense when he has missed 20 games!

     

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    I think home runs can be overrated. Case in point: Dave Kingman. In 1982, he hit a league-leading 37 home runs but batted only .204/.285/.432. Plus, he did it for a team that finished 32 games below .500.

    For a pitcher, especially at the MLB level, strikeouts are overrated. As Crash Davis said, "They're facist." I'd rather have a guy who pitches to contact (as long as the contact doesn't go out of hte yard) and keeps the pitch count down. Though in certan situations (runner at third,  one out), a strikeout is exactly what you want.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Any one stat by itself can be overrated. Reddick hit 32 home runs last year, but had a low RBI total because he hit poorly w/RISP. So in his case, yes, home runs were overrated.

    Sabermetric people scoff at RBIs because they view it as it being based simply on the number of chances. There is some truth there. But there are players who are traditionally better when guys are on base.

    Strikeouts can be overrated, but I'd want to look more into when a guy is striking out. If no one is on base, big deal. If a guy is on 1B, I'd rather a strike out than a ground ball. On the other hand, if there is a guy on 2B, especially with no outs, I want a ground ball out that moves the runner over rather than a strikeout.

    GIDP can be overrated too. If you're a 3-4 batter who bats behind guys with high OBP, then like RBIs, you have more chances to GIDP than other players. That's why I always say -- you have to look at a number of stats together to put them into context.

    Even OPS can be misleading. For example, Drew one year had a high OPS but his RBIs were down. That's because instead of hitting .280 w/RISP, which was around career average I believe, he hit just .220 (give or take; it might have been lower).

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Scoring more runs than your opponent is vastly overrated.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    Scoring more runs than your opponent is vastly overrated.



    The funny thing about that is that it can be if you're talking about season stats or at least a multi-game stretch. For instance, if you outscore you're opponent 47-18 for 10 games, that looks good, like you're dominating and should have a winning record. But if it comes like this ...

    Win: 10-0
    Win: 13-2
    Win: 9-1
    Win: 8-2
    Loss: 2-3
    Loss: 3-4
    Loss: 0-1
    Loss: 1-2
    Loss: 1-3

    ... well, then it's not quite as good and you're just 4-6. Again -- you have took deeper into any stat.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    I've been reading quite a few comments this year on the question of whether or not HR's and K's are overrated.  Just look at yesterday's game thread for examples.

    I'm going to add RBI to the mix because that is another stat that is often referred to as being overrated.  I once read a statement by Keith Law that the RBI stat was 'meaningless'.  That really irritated me.  How can RBI be meaningless?  You don't win any games if you don't score any runs.  And based on the current 2013 MLB stats, only 5% of all runs scored do not result in an RBI.

    I still have a problem with Law's statement, but part of the problem is that he didn't expand on exactly what he meant.  I have to assume that what he meant was that a player's RBI total doesn't necessarily reflect his performance. 

    A textbook example of the RBI distortion is the 2007 RBI totals of Lugo and Pedroia.  Lugo had 73 RBI in 630 PA.  Pedroia had 50 RBI in 581 PA.

    But Lugo hit 237/294/349, and Pedroia hit 317/380/442.

    The issues with HR's and K's are a little different, but I think there is a similarity.  It's not so much a question of whether a HR, RBI or K is important in the context of one at-bat, it's a question of how important it is in the context of the whole season.

    Fire away people. Smile

        

     



    Hf,

     

    My biggest problem is with guys who SO too much under all circumstances, but especially with RISP like Napoli.  The primary reason our team is still on top of the division are the much improved OBP's across the board.  If guys like Napoli, Gomes, Salty, Middy and Drew had a better eye at the plate it would make us even better.  To Naps credit he does at least drive in some runs and take more BB's to cover up his K's a bit better.

    Our big K numbers in most cases kill more rallies than the occassional HR'S/RBI'S we get from these guys in return.  They are also normally our lowest OBP guys which pretty much tells the story.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to TheExaminer's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Scoring more runs than your opponent is vastly overrated.

     



    The funny thing about that is that it can be if you're talking about season stats or at least a multi-game stretch. For instance, if you outscore you're opponent 47-18 for 10 games, that looks good, like you're dominating and should have a winning record. But if it comes like this ...

     

    Win: 10-0
    Win: 13-2
    Win: 9-1
    Win: 8-2
    Loss: 2-3
    Loss: 3-4
    Loss: 0-1
    Loss: 1-2
    Loss: 1-3

    ... well, then it's not quite as good and you're just 4-6. Again -- you have took deeper into any stat.

    [/QUOTE]


     

    to add to your point roy

    the nose diving yanks are still 4 gms over 500

    but have a negitive 14 run differenial :-(

     

    HR are rally killers

    just kidding

    while I do think a hitters  K's are overated

    the key to this thread is roys other point

     

    '' Any one stat by itself can be overrated ''

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Home runs are not overrated...they are instant runs, and in a game where you can't get down a safety squeeze, or you can't score a guy because you send him to the plate banking on that over an RBI type guy driving that person in next up, then that's all the more reason why home runs are indeed important. RBI is more important than home runs, however. Your ability to drive in runs with 2 outs, 1 out, or in any game situation is tied into your ability to be clutch hitter for your team. It's hard for a No. 1 or 2 guy to drive in runs, so RBI in those spots are often gravy for your team, but RBI in general is, like home runs, an important stat. I don't think either of those two are overrated.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

    I think home runs can be overrated. Case in point: Dave Kingman. In 1982, he hit a league-leading 37 home runs but batted only .204/.285/.432. Plus, he did it for a team that finished 32 games below .500.

    For a pitcher, especially at the MLB level, strikeouts are overrated. As Crash Davis said, "They're facist." I'd rather have a guy who pitches to contact (as long as the contact doesn't go out of hte yard) and keeps the pitch count down. Though in certan situations (runner at third,  one out), a strikeout is exactly what you want.

     



    Almost any response that doesn't look at the overall picture is doomed to irrelevancy.

    For those that love the HR, a guy that hits 30 a year with a .180 and a 200/40 K/W won't help the team.  The 30 HRs represent 30 runs.  The other 570 ABs, he has done very little to help the team.

    Since 2000, the team that has led the AL in scoring has led the AL in HRs twice.

    Since 2000, the team that has led the AL in scoring has led the AL in OPS 9 times.

    Comparing HRs to OPS is not even discussionable.  The question is really OBP v SLG%.

    And the question isn't strikeouts.  It is K/W.  Plenty of guys can have 150 Ks and have a good season.  Very few will have a good season if their K/W is > 3:1, and that is the outside limit.

    And RBIs mostly just follow SLG%, while runs follow OBP.  There is no real reason to over-emphasize either RBIs or runs.  It doesn't matter who leads off for the RS.  If they both have the same OBP and speed, they will have pretty close scoring totals.  If the #4 hitter on the RS has a .550 SLG and is replaced by someoen with a .500, the .550 will do better.  The rest is just noise.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    Home runs are not overrated...they are instant runs, and in a game where you can't get down a safety squeeze, or you can't score a guy because you send him to the plate banking on that over an RBI type guy driving that person in next up, then that's all the more reason why home runs are indeed important. RBI is more important than home runs, however. Your ability to drive in runs with 2 outs, 1 out, or in any game situation is tied into your ability to be clutch hitter for your team. It's hard for a No. 1 or 2 guy to drive in runs, so RBI in those spots are often gravy for your team, but RBI in general is, like home runs, an important stat. I don't think either of those two are overrated.



    That assumes that there is such a thing as a clutch hitter.  There are some that are slightly better and some that are slightly worse, but by and large, RBIs are dictated by how often you bat with guys on base.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dannycater's comment:

     

    Home runs are not overrated...they are instant runs, and in a game where you can't get down a safety squeeze, or you can't score a guy because you send him to the plate banking on that over an RBI type guy driving that person in next up, then that's all the more reason why home runs are indeed important. RBI is more important than home runs, however. Your ability to drive in runs with 2 outs, 1 out, or in any game situation is tied into your ability to be clutch hitter for your team. It's hard for a No. 1 or 2 guy to drive in runs, so RBI in those spots are often gravy for your team, but RBI in general is, like home runs, an important stat. I don't think either of those two are overrated.

     



    Hey DC, in our case "Papi" who leads the team in HR's and Nava second with 10 mean much more to our club than Gomes, Salty, Drew, Middy and even Nap at times because they do everything to help the club.  High OBP, BB's HR'S and RBI'S so although HR'S are instant runs its the frequency and timely hitting all round that help a club most.

    Nap is kind of a strange exception, he gets OB a bit more and still drives in runs even though he leads the team in SO's.  Salty is a perfect example of HR's not being more important than an all round game.  Salty hit 25 HR's last season but didn't drive in many runs while having a 222 BA and 288 OBP.  This season he has helped the team much more. 

    We don't just need HR's from a guy, it takes more to help the lineup.

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to royf19's comment:

    Any one stat by itself can be overrated. Reddick hit 32 home runs last year, but had a low RBI total because he hit poorly w/RISP. So in his case, yes, home runs were overrated.

    Sabermetric people scoff at RBIs because they view it as it being based simply on the number of chances. There is some truth there. But there are players who are traditionally better when guys are on base.

    Strikeouts can be overrated, but I'd want to look more into when a guy is striking out. If no one is on base, big deal. If a guy is on 1B, I'd rather a strike out than a ground ball. On the other hand, if there is a guy on 2B, especially with no outs, I want a ground ball out that moves the runner over rather than a strikeout.

    GIDP can be overrated too. If you're a 3-4 batter who bats behind guys with high OBP, then like RBIs, you have more chances to GIDP than other players. That's why I always say -- you have to look at a number of stats together to put them into context.

    Even OPS can be misleading. For example, Drew one year had a high OPS but his RBIs were down. That's because instead of hitting .280 w/RISP, which was around career average I believe, he hit just .220 (give or take; it might have been lower).



    A strikeout is a totally non- productive at bat. A ground ball may result in a double play, but also may result in a base hit or a productive out. The point is , if you don't put the ball in play you accomplish nothing. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Any one stat by itself can be overrated. Reddick hit 32 home runs last year, but had a low RBI total because he hit poorly w/RISP. So in his case, yes, home runs were overrated.

    Sabermetric people scoff at RBIs because they view it as it being based simply on the number of chances. There is some truth there. But there are players who are traditionally better when guys are on base.

    Strikeouts can be overrated, but I'd want to look more into when a guy is striking out. If no one is on base, big deal. If a guy is on 1B, I'd rather a strike out than a ground ball. On the other hand, if there is a guy on 2B, especially with no outs, I want a ground ball out that moves the runner over rather than a strikeout.

    GIDP can be overrated too. If you're a 3-4 batter who bats behind guys with high OBP, then like RBIs, you have more chances to GIDP than other players. That's why I always say -- you have to look at a number of stats together to put them into context.

    Even OPS can be misleading. For example, Drew one year had a high OPS but his RBIs were down. That's because instead of hitting .280 w/RISP, which was around career average I believe, he hit just .220 (give or take; it might have been lower).

     



    A strikeout is a totally non- productive at bat. A ground ball may result in a double play, but also may result in a base hit or a productive out. The point is , if you don't put the ball in play you accomplish nothing. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    But generally speaking, you won't have as many HRs without strikeouts.  The productive side of a strikeout is a 1:15 chance of a HR.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?


    As stated by some smart people above, any stat can be over- or under-rated if used out of context. I personally love home runs, and probably overate them.   However, the ability to score many runs quickly, turn games around in just a few a/b's, is great. Some guy named Earl Weaver used to preach " Pitching, defense, and three -run homers " as his baseball philosohy.

    IMO, if any stat is overated it is OPS. One's on base % counts hits along with walks, etc. and then slugging % counts those hits AGAIN.   Better would be adding isolated power to OBP.

    Tom Boswell in " Inside Sports " magazine used to compile the best offensive measurement I think, called Total Average.  He counted ALL bases, HBP's, BB's, bases from hits, NET stolen bases,.........and then divided by ALL outs, including pickoffs, caught stealing, extra outs for GIDP, etc. I believe only balks, errors, and catcher interferences weren't counted.

    It was cumbersome yet elegant, and identified promising up-and comers early in their careers.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Ill take K's all day if it's coupled with a high walk rate and a good average.  

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Hlfx,

    Always like these types of threads.

    Here's my take. The HR is a game changer teams that have power are never out of any game and late in close games are a swing of the bat from tying it or going ahead. also most ofvthe top Hr guys also are near the top in doubles to. K's are in fact meaniful in that it allows you to measure a players ability to put the ball in play. The strikeout is the least productive at bat. Although some might argue gdp is, many times a doulble play yields a run. the strikeout only produces an out...The Rbi while it is dependent on having players on the bases, it's a very valuable team stat not unlike sac flies and sac bunts. It measures a players ability to be productive with runners in scoring position. 

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Good examples in today's game. Bautista tied it with one swing.  Then , Victorino puts the ball in play and good things happen. If Shane had struck out, we still need a two out hit.  Who knows if we win the game. 

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from illinoisredsox. Show illinoisredsox's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

     

     

     

    HR are rally killers

    just kidding

     

     

     

     




     


    Good pitchers will tell you home runs are rally killers.  A single and a home run gives up 5 bases and 2 runs.  If it's a starting pitcher, he now gets to go back to the wind-up, where he is probably more comfortable.   Even a grand slam gives the pitcher a fresh start.

    5 singles also gives up 5 bases and 2-3 runs, with 2-3 men still on, leaving the potential for more damage and the pitcher is still out of the stretch.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to illinoisredsox's comment:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    HR are rally killers

    just kidding

     

     

     

     




     


    Good pitchers will tell you home runs are rally killers.  A single and a home run gives up 5 bases and 2 runs.  If it's a starting pitcher, he now gets to go back to the wind-up, where he is probably more comfortable. 

    5 singles also gives up 5 bases and 2-3 runs, with 2-3 men still on, leaving the potential for more damage and the pitcher is stilol out of the stretch.

    [/QUOTE]

    Conversley 2 singles and two homers = 4 runs. Over the coarse of a long season rarely can teams sustain offense over long period relying on singles nor waiting for someone to go deep...Earl Weaver once said that his strategy with the orioles in the early seventies was pitching, defense and the 3 run homer. Tommy Lasorda liked to build his lineup with 6 or 7 guys capable of hitting 20 homers and batting .280 which is the blueprint still used in today's game. What I would say is that I would rather have 9 Pedrioa's over 9 Dunn's. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from seabeachfred. Show seabeachfred's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I've been reading quite a few comments this year on the question of whether or not HR's and K's are overrated.  Just look at yesterday's game thread for examples.

    I'm going to add RBI to the mix because that is another stat that is often referred to as being overrated.  I once read a statement by Keith Law that the RBI stat was 'meaningless'.  That really irritated me.  How can RBI be meaningless?  You don't win any games if you don't score any runs.  And based on the current 2013 MLB stats, only 5% of all runs scored do not result in an RBI.

    I still have a problem with Law's statement, but part of the problem is that he didn't expand on exactly what he meant.  I have to assume that what he meant was that a player's RBI total doesn't necessarily reflect his performance. 

    A textbook example of the RBI distortion is the 2007 RBI totals of Lugo and Pedroia.  Lugo had 73 RBI in 630 PA.  Pedroia had 50 RBI in 581 PA.

    But Lugo hit 237/294/349, and Pedroia hit 317/380/442.

    The issues with HR's and K's are a little different, but I think there is a similarity.  It's not so much a question of whether a HR, RBI or K is important in the context of one at-bat, it's a question of how important it is in the context of the whole season.

    Fire away people. Smile

     

        




    With all this talk about WAR, BAPIB and a host of other things I still think are overrated, I cannot understand how some can desercate RBI's.  Keep this in mind--IF YOU DON'T GET THOSE RUNS HOME YOU DON'T WIN.  Something else to consider.  Some batters simply cannot hit with runners in scoring position.  Whether it is nerves, changes in approach, or lack of confidence, they simply cannot get the job done.  And there are those customers who relish those spots and are comfortable in the box with the game on the line.  Most of you most likely know players who fall in these positions.  RBI's score runs, runs wins games, winning games lead to pennants.  Pretty simple from where I sit.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    K's are over-rated by most on this site. 

    RBIs are often a product of opportunities, and it is hard to find any MLB who has consistently batted much higher with men on base than otherwise, of hit better "in clutch situations" than otherwise.

    HRs are important, but I do think some give them more weight than they deserve.

     

    Most over-rated stats (not in order listed):

    1) FLG%

    2) Pitcher's wins

    3) Catcher's CS%

    4) BA (as opposed to OBP)

     

    Sox4ever

     

Share