Re: The Official "756" Thread This is such a mindblowingly idiotic argument. Someone asks me how steroids affect the game, I state obvious facts, then acts like a little sh*t about it. If you don't want to hear common sense, don't ask about it. Barry's obviously been doing steroids for a long time, just like a lot of other guys.Oh yeah, all the great black pitchers of the 90's brought down Barry's huge numbers. Give me a break, homer.And Felipe Alou is a mediocre manager. There are better managers below and above Alou. He's been in the game a long time and had a mediocre winning percentage. There's a reason he's unemployed right now.
Re: The Official "756" Thread <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 23 2007, 06:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To The Captain (again) since the server went down and we lost some of the posts in this thread. You're argument for RBI's being a bad measure on how to judge a hitter is inaccurate, and here's why. Here are the top 10 RBI leaders of all-time:1. Hank Aaron 2,2972. Babe Ruth 2,2173. Cap Anson 2,0764. Lou Gehrig 1,9955. Barry Bonds* 1,9786. Stan Musial 1,9517. Ty Cobb 1,9378. Jimmie Foxx 1,9229. Eddie Murray 1,91710. Willie Mays 1,903--------------------------13. Ted Williams 1,839There's not one player on that list that you can tell me is a bad hitter. Since there is no official stat for RBI opportunities, here are the top 10 leaders in plate appearances:1. Pete Rose 15,8612. Carl Yastrzemski 13,9913. Hank Aaron 13,9404. Rickey Henderson 13,3465. Ty Cobb 13,0726. Cal Ripken 12,8837. Eddie Murray 12,8178. Stan Musial 12,7129. Willie Mays 12,493 10. Barry Bonds* 12,459As you can tell, the more plate appearances (RBI opportunities) you get does not necessarily translate into how many RBI's you get in your career or else you would see Pete Rose somewhere in the top 10 (he's #86 on the RBI list despite having 1,870 more plate appearances than Yastrzemski) so that's why I think RBI's are a good measure of how great a hitter really is...</div>Of course every one of those players are going to be good. Good players have a lot of RBI. I'm saying it's bad to compare two players by, simply because of the fact of it's too inconsistant. Plate appearances have nothing to do with it. Someone could have 20,000 PA, but if no one is on base for the majority of them, their RBI numbers aren't going to be that great. Like I said MANY times, RBI is too dependant on your teammates.
Re: The Official "756" Thread Alright, if you are dead set on using RBI, let's go ahead and use them.Bonds- 1978 RBIWilliams- 1839 RBIVery close, no?Williams was more efficient than Bonds, getting 139 less than him in 3 less seasons. Williams once had 159 RBI in a season, so I'm sure he would have surpassed Bonds easily given 2500 more plate appearances.
Re: The Official "756" Thread <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 23 2007, 06:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ted Williams - First 17 Seasons - 7,663 AB'sBarry Bonds - First 17 Seasons - 7,932 AB'sYou can't use career RBI's, especially when Bonds has played five more seasons than Williams. Although Williams had more RBI's in about 300 less AB's during his first 17 seasons, he also broke into the majors on one of the best teams in baseball with an all-star cast...</div>Don't forget, after Williams's first four years, he didn't touch a baseball bat until four years later after returning from war. You're taking away four years from his prime, and inserting four years when he was on his decline.
Re: The Official "756" Thread <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 23 2007, 07:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I can't help that. I didn't count the years during the lockout (1952-1953) because he only had 43 AB's in those two years. I still want to know your definition of an RBI opportunity, because every time you step up to bat is technically an RBI opportunity...</div>I know you can't help it, but it's still there. If you took away the four years in his decline in the 17 you put down, and added four in his prime, you'd be looking at another 150+ RBI. It IS an RBI opportunity every time you go up to bat, but if you had a guy on, that becomes a 2 RBI opportunity. 3 men on? A 3 RBI opportunity. Bases loaded? A 4 RBI opportunity. More chances at more RBI when guys are on. You don't have to hit a home run to drive someone in when there are runners on base. That's what makes it a bad stat to compare two players with.
Re: The Official "756" Thread <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 23 2007, 07:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's impossible to determine. You can't just assume he would have 150+ RBI's in every one of those seasons. 150+ RBI seasons are incredibly hard to get and he only got over 135 RBI's in three of his nineteen seasons...</div>I meant an extra 150+ RBI total throughout the four seasons, not in each season.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Ok, but earlier you were mentioning how Bonds had more plate appearances than Ted Williams (he's played five more seasons and has been in an era with more hits/runs) and therefore had a better chance at RBI's which I proved wrong. The RBI's depend on who gets on base for you (more likely with a better team/teammates) and how you hit with RISP. Ted Williams had better teammates and only 300 less plate appearances than Barry Bonds. During Bonds' 22 year career, he's grounded into 162 double plays, while Ted Williams has grounded into 197 double plays. Although Williams RISP efficiency was higher, the GDP show that he most likely had more players on base for him during his career.</div>So you've finally learned that RBI is a bad stat to use?
Re: The Official "756" Thread <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 23 2007, 08:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hope you realize how little that is over four seasons in your prime, especially for a player the caliber of Ted Williams.</div>I guess you're not understanding. Alright, you took his first 17 years and added his RBI. However, he missed 4 years in his prime at war. So I took the four years near the end of his career, and added them up. Then I took 120 RBI, about what he was getting each year in his prime years, and multiplied that by four. I subtracted that, and the RBI I added before, and got 148. It's just a rough estimation.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I don't remember saying that. I'm showing you that Williams must have had more RBI opportunities in his first 17 seasons if he grounded into that many double plays, and therefore his RBI numbers would be a lot closer to Bonds...</div>I guess it's possible. GIDP is not directly related to RBI opportunites, but whatever.
Re: The Official "756" Thread <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 23 2007, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So did you get 148 each year or 148 total over four seasons? I think either way is either overestimating how many he would get a season or cutting him short on how many he'd get in four seasons...</div>148 is the difference between the 8 years. RBI in 4 missed years-RBI in 4 declining years=148.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You realize there has to be someone on base to even ground into a double play? That someone on base is an RBI opportunity.</div>Yes, but a runner on 1st isn't a runner in scoring position, and isn't an ideal RBI situation.
Re: The Official "756" Thread <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 23 2007, 08:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Alright, I understand how you got the math, I just don't understand if that 148 is over four years or in each season during his prime.</div>Over four years. Sorry for the confusion.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I thought we already went through this. Ever at-bat is technically an RBI situation, so he had a chance at getting that runner on first home through a triple or a homerun. It's obviously less likely, but it's still a chance at an RBI.</div>But it's not a good one. You know what I mean? Every at-bat is an RBI situation, but it's an even better one with runners in scoring position.
