The RBI is a hallowed stat for traditional baseball fans. It is said that driving in runs is an important skill and that without proven run producers, a team will fall on its face offensively. The modern take is that an RBI is due more to lineup placement and the ability of the guys in front of the batter to get on base and not a good descriptive statistic for how good a player is.
To test this, had a post on this subject back in August and it made me want to look at how the Giants fared in this category. They looked at players with 100 or more RBIs in a season and then sorted by lowest Wins Above Replacement and there were some real bad seasons in there.
For some of these guys, they were "producing runs" but costing their teams quite a bit and probably didn't deserve the playing time that they were given.
Rk | Player | WAR | RBI | Year | Age | Tm | G | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | BB | SO | SB | Pos | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | -2.8 | 133 | 1999 | 35 | 151 | 593 | 104 | 177 | 38 | 2 | 34 | 54 | 84 | 6 | .298 | .354 | .541 | *7/D | ||
2 | -2.4 | 101 | 1993 | 27 | 158 | 630 | 77 | 147 | 23 | 5 | 22 | 52 | 97 | 25 | .233 | .288 | .390 | *9D | ||
3 | -1.4 | 115 | 1990 | 30 | 162 | 634 | 79 | 147 | 27 | 1 | 24 | 48 | 93 | 22 | .232 | .290 | .391 | *873 | ||
4 | -1.4 | 107 | 1983 | 29 | 145 | 574 | 77 | 125 | 23 | 2 | 36 | 29 | 131 | 0 | .218 | .254 | .453 | *8D | ||
5 | -1.3 | 107 | 1996 | 36 | 157 | 625 | 84 | 158 | 35 | 7 | 30 | 44 | 106 | 7 | .253 | .306 | .475 | *73D | ||
6 | -1.3 | 102 | 1953 | 32 | 156 | 615 | 64 | 152 | 28 | 4 | 22 | 63 | 56 | 1 | .247 | .322 | .413 | *3 | ||
7 | -1.2 | 102 | 1997 | 37 | 157 | 612 | 76 | 143 | 30 | 4 | 21 | 40 | 105 | 8 | .234 | .284 | .399 | D379 | ||
8 | -0.6 | 100 | 1964 | 23 | 160 | 613 | 71 | 154 | 12 | 3 | 28 | 24 | 63 | 2 | .251 | .281 | .418 | *38/9 | ||
9 | -0.5 | 112 | 1992 | 32 | 155 | 627 | 74 | 160 | 27 | 0 | 25 | 31 | 97 | 5 | .255 | .294 | .418 | *D7 | ||
10 | -0.5 | 102 | 1986 | 36 | 153 | 629 | 73 | 168 | 39 | 2 | 18 | 40 | 25 | 6 | .267 | .311 | .421 | *3D | ||
11 | -0.3 | 117 | 2005 | 23 | 150 | 598 | 73 | 171 | 40 | 1 | 28 | 19 | 83 | 1 | .286 | .311 | .497 | *45D | ||
12 | -0.3 | 106 | 1969 | 38 | 155 | 565 | 60 | 143 | 19 | 2 | 23 | 42 | 101 | 0 | .253 | .309 | .416 | *3 | ||
13 | -0.3 | 105 | 1957 | 32 | 136 | 490 | 61 | 140 | 24 | 3 | 24 | 37 | 50 | 1 | .286 | .332 | .494 | *79 | ||
14 | -0.3 | 101 | 1934 | 28 | 148 | 564 | 71 | 168 | 24 | 6 | 7 | 29 | 67 | 1 | .298 | .333 | .399 | *78/9 | ||
15 | -0.2 | 102 | 1999 | 29 | 157 | 619 | 90 | 172 | 29 | 4 | 24 | 54 | 132 | 8 | .278 | .336 | .454 | *3 | ||
16 | -0.2 | 101 | 1996 | 33 | 132 | 472 | 58 | 120 | 23 | 3 | 27 | 64 | 128 | 1 | .254 | .340 | .487 | *9/D | ||
17 | -0.1 | 105 | 1980 | 38 | 151 | 585 | 73 | 161 | 31 | 3 | 25 | 41 | 93 | 1 | .275 | .320 | .467 | *3D |
Provided by :
Generated 2/17/2011.
Generated 2/17/2011.
Some of these guys were just plain bad, so how have the Giants done? Much better. Here is the San Francisco Giants top 10 worst seasons with 100+ RBIs:
Rk | Player | WAR/pos | RBI | Year | Age | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | BB | SO | SB | Pos | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 3.1 | 114 | 1962 | 24 | 162 | 676 | 625 | 105 | 191 | 26 | 1 | 35 | 37 | 97 | 10 | .306 | .347 | .518 | *3/79 | |
2 | 3.4 | 105 | 1959 | 21 | 151 | 647 | 605 | 92 | 192 | 35 | 4 | 27 | 33 | 100 | 23 | .317 | .355 | .522 | *37/5 | |
3 | 3.5 | 104 | 1997 | 29 | 157 | 637 | 531 | 81 | 149 | 36 | 1 | 28 | 96 | 124 | 6 | .281 | .387 | .510 | *3 | |
4 | 3.7 | 101 | 1999 | 31 | 138 | 585 | 511 | 86 | 148 | 40 | 2 | 23 | 61 | 112 | 13 | .290 | .366 | .511 | *4/3 | |
5 | 3.8 | 103 | 1982 | 26 | 157 | 659 | 563 | 90 | 154 | 30 | 3 | 27 | 90 | 91 | 6 | .274 | .372 | .481 | *9 | |
6 | 4.4 | 122 | 1990 | 24 | 159 | 664 | 617 | 87 | 171 | 27 | 2 | 33 | 33 | 138 | 7 | .277 | .319 | .488 | *5 | |
7 | 4.5 | 107 | 1970 | 28 | 148 | 612 | 493 | 82 | 148 | 36 | 2 | 22 | 109 | 106 | 0 | .300 | .426 | .515 | *2 | |
8 | 4.6 | 121 | 1997 | 29 | 155 | 651 | 580 | 90 | 145 | 38 | 2 | 29 | 48 | 133 | 11 | .250 | .316 | .472 | *43 | |
9 | 4.9 | 116 | 1991 | 27 | 148 | 622 | 565 | 84 | 170 | 32 | 7 | 29 | 51 | 91 | 4 | .301 | .359 | .536 | *3 | |
10 | 5.0 | 128 | 1998 | 30 | 137 | 594 | 526 | 94 | 156 | 37 | 3 | 31 | 48 | 110 | 9 | .297 | .359 | .555 | *4/3 |
Provided by :
Generated 2/17/2011.
I am not sure if that means the Giants have been better than other teams through the years at not lusting after RBI numbers or just got lucky that the players they trusted as "run producers" didn't have good RBI numbers and bad numbers every where else.
If you're on Twitter, you should definitely follow . If you're not, you should really consider joining; lots of good stuff going on there.
No comments:
Post a Comment