Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Article: The Century Club (100 RBI minor leaguers)

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 7,450 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 12:24 AM

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.co...minor-leaguers)

#2 scottsilvi

scottsilvi

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 01:33 AM

Perhaps one thing that could be gleaned from this chart... that 7 year gap between Winfree & Sano coincides with some serious dearth of sluggers to man the middle of our lineup, which has really hurt our depth, ability to score runs, drive in runs, help our pitchers relax, etc etc. Yeah, lots of hits & misses from 81-2005. But at least guys were producing in a big way down in the minors. I would imagine a fairly strong correlation between the number of 100 RBI guys you have, the number MLB caliber players you have...even if the MLB players are the ones setting the table.

#3 Kwak

Kwak

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,291 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 05:55 AM

Kevin West, 2004. I have never heard his name, ever. It seems he would have had a callup sometime--what happened to him?

#4 Thrylos

Thrylos

    Yes

  • Members
  • 4,286 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 07:26 AM

Interesting stuff, but I think that this chart is a proof that RBIs do not matter :)

From all of those players listed who hit 100+ RBI only 2 (Hrbek and Ortiz) were All Stars. Another handful (Koskie, Kubel, Walker) were MLB regulars for more than 5 years, few more were role players (Larkin, Laudner, Teufel, Sorrento, Davidson) and the majority even never made the majors or did for a cup of coffee.

Just this list is proof that 100+ RBI says zip for a players' future. Slugging percentage, wRC+ and OPS+ (outside the PCL) on the other hand...

#5 jsimssd72

jsimssd72

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 08:14 AM

I have a RC of Kevin West not sure what happened but saw him play against my hometown Northern indy league Sioux Falls Canaries (pheasants at that time) about 3-4 years ago. He was playing for Winnipeg I believe.

#6 Forever34

Forever34

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 08:26 AM

I'm not a big sabermetrics guy but there should be a stat that measures productivity in RBI type situations. Obviously there is BA with RiSP, but is there something more comprehensive?

#7 SD Buhr

SD Buhr

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 669 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 08:55 AM

In theory, every player should focus equally every plate appearance on getting a hit, hitting the ball hard, yadda yadda. But over the course of a 140-game minor league season, that's really not practical, imo.

From talking to Walker and his coaches, I know he takes pride in driving in runs. When there are potential ribbies out there, he's intent on driving them in. Statistically, does that mean he's successful any more frequently than he would be anyway? I dunno. I'm not smart like you stat-guys. But I do know he's been very good in those situations and it has been enjoyable to watch.

#8 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 6,051 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 08:58 AM

I'm not a big sabermetrics guy but there should be a stat that measures productivity in RBI type situations. Obviously there is BA with RiSP, but is there something more comprehensive?


There are a lot of said stats.....it's just that over time, they even out to the "same" number as when guys aren't on base (for the HUGE majority of players).
Lighten up Francis....

#9 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 908 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 09:01 AM

I'm not a big sabermetrics guy but there should be a stat that measures productivity in RBI type situations. Obviously there is BA with RiSP, but is there something more comprehensive?


There's a few things out there, but Win Probability Added (WPA) gets pretty close to what you're talking about and weights more to late inning "clutchness".

It's basically a sum of the probability that a batter added or subtracted towards winning a game over the course of the season. An example: if you hit a double in the bottom of the 9th with guys on to take the lead, you would get a big positive mark. Leave them stranded with a strikeout and you'd get a negative mark. Add up all the ABs over the season and you get your WPA.

Major League Leaderboards » 2013 » Batters » Win Probability Statistics | FanGraphs Baseball

#10 James

James

    Sideburns Specialist

  • Members
  • 1,422 posts
  • LocationThe dive bars of NE Minneapolis

Posted 22 August 2013 - 09:44 AM

Interesting stuff, but I think that this chart is a proof that RBIs do not matter :)

From all of those players listed who hit 100+ RBI only 2 (Hrbek and Ortiz) were All Stars. Another handful (Koskie, Kubel, Walker) were MLB regulars for more than 5 years, few more were role players (Larkin, Laudner, Teufel, Sorrento, Davidson) and the majority even never made the majors or did for a cup of coffee.

Just this list is proof that 100+ RBI says zip for a players' future. Slugging percentage, wRC+ and OPS+ (outside the PCL) on the other hand...

You forgot to mention 1995 ROY [COLOR=#3E3E3E]Marty Cordova. Not that he was that big of a deal besides winning ROY that year. [/COLOR]

You can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that.


#11 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,736 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:02 AM

When you have good hitters, period, the situational hitting will usually sort itself out over the long term.

#12 Seth Stohs

Seth Stohs

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 7,450 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 12:14 PM

I'm fully on board with the concept/theory that RBI are not a good stat to determine how good a baseball player or a prospect is. I used to be a little more vocal about that, but now I'm thinking it's "so overrated that they are underrated." Like I wrote... someone needs to drive in the runs, and when you've got RBI opportunities, find a way to get the run in. I don't think there is a good way to say that statistically. I don't even think that WPA is great because, in my mind, a two-run single in the 1st inning is pretty important too.

Again, my point wasn't to say that this impacts their prospect rankings. I have Walker in the 11-15 range, and I have Hicks in the low 30s probably. It is to recognize a pretty cool feat and then show the randomness of what it means long-term.

#13 CGNikolic

CGNikolic

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 04:25 PM

David Ortiz... Forever he haunts us :(

#14 Jham

Jham

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 20 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 09:56 PM

Interesting stuff, but I think that this chart is a proof that RBIs do not matter :)

From all of those players listed who hit 100+ RBI only 2 (Hrbek and Ortiz) were All Stars. Another handful (Koskie, Kubel, Walker) were MLB regulars for more than 5 years, few more were role players (Larkin, Laudner, Teufel, Sorrento, Davidson) and the majority even never made the majors or did for a cup of coffee.

Just this list is proof that 100+ RBI says zip for a players' future. Slugging percentage, wRC+ and OPS+ (outside the PCL) on the other hand...



I believe Laudner was an All Star as well! And I'd consider Sorrento a reg with Twins/Cleveland.

#15 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Twins Moderator

  • Twins Mods
  • 4,736 posts
  • LocationLake Tahoe, Nevada

Posted 23 August 2013 - 02:42 PM

A prolific poster on the Internet twenty years ago who would annoy me to distraction used to say that RBI are important because they are a measure of celebration. Despite who said it, I think there is a lot to that. No, I wouldn't use RBI as much of a source for assessing a player's future. But a high number does mean the fans got to cheer a lot, and the hitter was the one they were cheering loudest for, and for that I'm happy to add another cheer when a milestone like 100 is reached. It means something; it doesn't mean what we arm-chair analysts might want a number to mean, but it does mean something about what the players are playing for.

#16 Don't Feed the Greed Guy

Don't Feed the Greed Guy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 437 posts

Posted 23 August 2013 - 03:30 PM

The reverse is also true: Mauer, Morneau and Cuddyer never made the list: Mauer collected 85 RBI in 2003, over 509 at bats--his high in the majors is 96 in 2009. Morneau drove in 97 runs in 471 at-bats in 2001--he went on to have four 100+ RBI seasons in the majors. And Cuddyer had 87 RBI in 2001. He drove in 109 in 2006. Again, OBP, SLG, and RISP are much more significant than RBI.