[screech]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey I just pointed out how bad Brandon Phillips was despite having a 100 plus RBI season. If you looked solely at RBI you would think he had a good year. When you actually look at his own context neutral numbers you find that he was actually below average as a hitter and his RBI tally are completely misleading and, in his case, completely useless in observing his overall production.

That's why I didn't say to look just at RBI. My point is that to claim to want to see the whole picture, then ignore an entire stat doesn't make sense to me. If it's useless, why track it?

Pitchers pitching differently based on "fear" or lineup protection is largely false. The only thing ever determined when it's been studied at length is the "protected" batter might draw an extra walk or two or put an extra ball in play but the results on batted balls or overall outcomes of an bat weren't even marginally effected based on perceived "protection".

Not everything needs a number attached to it. In a big spot, a guy like Donaldson is going to warrant a different approach than Dominic Brown because he's just a more dangerous hitter and is more likely to come up with a big hit.

RISP is also a context dependant stat. It's also pretty useless. Matt Kemp drove in 100 runs. Based on what you guys are saying, he's an RBI guy and is adequately doing his job. Yet, he as barely league average offensively and with runners in scoring position was actually less than league average. It wasn't dramatically less but less is less. He hit an uninspired 270 with risp. Yet the 100 RBI lead you to believe he does his job or has some sort of skill in the position. He really doesn't. He is just another example of a mediocre hitter slotted in one of the two best lineup spots to drive in runs, and league averaged his way to a high RBI count that doesn't tell you he actually wasn't very good at bat for at bat. I get RBI has been staple of baseball stats that we've been conditioned to place importance in but it really isn't an important stat any more than pitcher wins. The guy driving in a run is just the beneficiary of a prime lineup position.

Not what I'm saying at all. Knocking in runs still matters, though, so you'd like to have a guy who can take advantage of his chances. Is it based on lineup spot and surrounding players? Sure, but you don't get put in the 3-4-5 hole for nothing.

The Yankees, the Rangers, the Astros, and the Nationals all failed to have even on player hit the heralded 100 RBI mark. 4 of the top ten teams in total runs scored. Two of this teams were in the top 3 in runs. But no 100 RBI guy. The mvp of the national league fell short. He wasn't anywhere near the lead. You wouldn't discredit him for not even being in the top ten in RBI right? You wouldn't discredit Mike Trout because at least ten guys finished with more RBI right? Would you say those guys were better than him?

You seem to be making assumptions here. I never discredited anyone or said anyone was better based on RBI. What I said was RBI carries at least a bit of weight because you still need someone to get runs home. I never said a team needed a guy with 100 RBI, or that a player even needed that many to be considered good/great.

Gorgeous just stated "it could have to do with rest of the team" if a great middle of the order bat only drives 70. That's exactly what an RBI is. It's a "what the rest of my team did prior to me getting an at bat" stat.

And I didn't dispute that, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it. It's still a part of the equation, even though there are now more parts to examine.