1/4 Mark NL and AL MVPs

[757690]

That's one of the big knocks against RC if I remember correct. I haven't dug into SABR stuff in years, but wasn't there some thought that RC overrated great hitters because the formula essentially places them in a context of themselves instead of an average lineup? I'm guessing that's why the two numbers don't align.

Yep, it overvalued players with high OBP and high SLG. Someone came up with a formula that tries to counter that, but it's really complicated and involves fractions and stuff. And even that just got the numbers closer, not exact.

For the record, I really like the RC stat and use it all the time. But it's still theoretical and should be used with a grain of salt, like all theoretical stats.

[Ghosts of 1990]

AL
Miguel Cabrera
Evan Longoria
Yu Darvish
Robinson Cano
Chris Davis

NL
Justin Upton
Shin Soo Choo
Bryce Harper
Paul Goldschmidt
Jean Segura

[RedEye]

But that's true of every stat. No stat tells us the whole story. That doesn't mean no stat should be trusted. It just means no stat alone should be used to evaluate a player.

Absolutely agree with you. I would just maintain that RBI's tell a story so partial as to be dismissed from my witness stand. If you want to listen to their yarns, by all means go ahead. I just don't want them deciding any major portion of my MVP case.

[Ohayou]

AL
Miguel Cabrera
Evan Longoria
Chris Davis
Manny Machado
Dustin Pedroia

NL
Paul Goldschmidt
Shin-Soo Choo
Justin Upton
Troy Tulowitzki
Carlos Gomez

[RedsManRick]

Let me further note that I like RBI, because as 757690 noted, they do represent actual runs scored by the team and you can't win without scoring. RBI are a good thing to have. But I do think they are a can be indicator of a players value.

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?

[757690]

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.

[dougdirt]

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.

The problem is correctly assigning value to them though. Giving one person full credit for it is a problem unless they hit a solo home run.

[RedEye]

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.

OPS+ and WAR aren't perfect, but they paint a far, far more complete picture than do RBI's. If no one is on base for a player to drive in, that doesn't mean he is less skilled as a hitter -- it just means he plays for a bad team.

[Raisor]

Guy hits a home run has done his job. Someone being on base ahead of him is 100% out of his control