Originally Posted by RedsManRick
Sure. This is the nuance that is lost though. If you have RBI and other things that make up for its deficiencies, then RBI can be helpful -- part of the picture. But once you add in those other things, runs, stolen bases, etc. why not just look at the more well-rounded stats to begin with?
But you can say that of every stat, even OPS+. Even WAR. They all have deficiencies and issues, and none, not even OPS+, not even WAR, can be used singularly to tell us how valuable a player truely was to his team.
To me RBI's is one of the more important stats in understanding how valuable a player was to his team, because they directly measure the most valuable commodity in baseball, runs. They tell us how many runs this player directly, actually helped produce for his team.
One of the big problems that some people unfairly have with RBI's, is that there is debate over how much skill is involved in accumulating RBI's. That debate clouds some people's judgement over RBI's value. It shouldn't.
It could be that zero skill is involved in accumulating RBI's (we know that's not the case,) but that doesn't effect the value that a RBI has in helping teams win games. It seems that some people get confused and conclude that because they believe that accumulating RBI's isn't much of a skill, that they must believe that it doesn't have much value. That's a false conclusion.
Btw, the same mentality exists for some people about saves.
The fact is that regardless of how much skill is involved in accumulating RBI's, they are extremely valuable in helping a team win games. In fact, there's not much else that is more valuable.