More recently Nick Carfardo wrote the column, but after this savage beating (administered by yours truly), he's moved on. Amalie Benjamin now writes it, and I must confess, I'm an Amalie Benjamin fan. Maybe not as much as the fine folks at Surviving Grady, but still a fan. So, in fairness to Ms. Benjamin, I should note that it isn't her words that I'm quarreling with. No, the words in question belong to someone named Bill Chuck.
You will now see how I know this:
From the Bill Chuck files: Runs produced (RBIs plus runs minus home runs) is a good tool to measure batter effectiveness. Albert Pujols led the majors in 2009 with 212 runs produced. Jason Bay ended up with 186, the same as Mark Teixeira . . .
Being the baseball stat nerd I am, I was shocked to find a statistic I hadn't previously heard of. Runs Produced. Huh.
Looking at its components, I know why I've never heard of it before: its total shit. Still, for fun, lets take a closer look.
Runs Batted In + Runs - Home Runs = Runs Produced
RBIs, huh? Allow me to quote myself quoting myself:
RBIs are worthless in determining who is and who isn't a good hitter. RBIs are a function of the lineup and where in the lineup a player plays not how good a player is.
This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. To get an RBI without homering, one must hit with a runner on base, and unless MLB has adopted the concept of single person lineups with 'ghost runners' like we did in f'n middle school, that isn't under the control of the hitter.
If the hitter is on the Yankees, he often comes up with runners on. If he is on the Padres, he often comes up with no runners on base. Neither situation has a damn bit to do with how good the hitter is.
So, RBIs are stupid. Yet they are used as a component of this Runs Produced stat. The cliche 'garbage in, garbage out' pretty much has this covered.
Short of that, Runs Produced is a good stat, right Semi-Literate Lives-In-His-Parent's-Basement Nose-Picking Wiping-It-Underneath-The-Chair Internet Guy?
Actually, no. Not at all.
Runs aren't a good stat to evaluate a player either. Think about it. If RBIs are a function of hitting with runners on base, runs scored are a function of being on base when guys behind you hit. After getting on base, there isn't much to be done but wait. Sure, some guys steal bases, but almost nobody steals three bases consecutively. Its happens, but so infrequently its not worth discussing.
A quick look at the leader board for the 2009 season will prove my point.
1. A Pujols ... 212
2. R Howard ... 201
3. P Fielder ... 198
4. R Braun ... 195
5. J Bay ... 186
5. M Teixeira ... 186
7. B Abreu ... 184
8. R Zimmerman ... 183
8. H Ramirez ... 183
10. E Longoria ... 180
The above is a list of the top 10 players ranked by Bill Chuck's Runs Produced stat. If we take that same list and replace the players name with their teams and their team's rank in runs scored
(by team), we get this:
1. Cardinals ... 18th
2. Phillies ... 4th
3. Brewers ... 9th
4. Brewers ... 9th
5. Red Sox ... 3rd
5. Yankees ... 1st
7. Angels ... 2nd
8. Nationals ... 21st
8. Marlins ... 13th
10. E Longoria ... 7th
Basically, we've got a list of players who hit in the middle of the top ten run scoring lineups in baseball. Admittedly there are a few exceptions. Albert Pujols is first on the list and the Cardinals are only 18th in runs scored. But Albert Pujols is the best hitter in baseball. We don't need a new stat to tell us that. Pujols had a .448 on-base percentage and slugged .658.
For some context, some (misguided) people were talking about Mark Teixeira for MVP in the American League. Pujols bested Teixeira in on-base by .060 and out-slugged him by .103. Technically speaking, he crushed him, and Teixeira is really good. Basically, Pujols would be in the front of the list if he played on any team in baseball. That's how good he is.
The other two are Hanley Ramirez of the Marlins and Ryan Zimmerman of the Nationals. Ramirez is an incredible talent and the Marlins weren't far out of the top 10. Zimmerman is a tougher nut to crack, but I'm guessing (I don't have the ability to look this up) that he converted a higher percentage of his RBI opportunities than he would be normally expected to do.
But none of that is the point. The point is that Runs Produced is the combination of two stats that don't tell us how good a hitter someone is, minus a stat that can (but doesn't necessarily). Runs Produced doesn't add anything to the discussion of who the best hitters in baseball are or who the most valuable hitters in baseball are, or even who can take the biggest dumps. It doesn't tell us anything, and therefore its not worth anything.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment