RBI, the value of the stat?

[Trov]

For years RBI was look at as an important stat, but then there was strong push back on the stat because it was called an opportunity stat, and was not fair to judge players based on thing out of their control, like hitting with runners on.  However, I still think we should take some value from the stat.  Some people say "clutch" is not a thing you can measure, but I disagree.  I feel the best hitters at minimum will hit the same no matter the amount of guys on base, and some may even do better.  I think they are a small amount, and they should be considered clutch, and their RBI's should mean something.

I am going to compare 2 HOF players, both played for Twins and have very similar batting numbers overall. 

Player A stats in RBI situations percent of RBI per PA.

RISP= .359 runner on 3rd less than 2 outs = .657 Runner on 3rd 2 outs = .414 bases loaded = .932 Runners 2nd and 3rd .651

Player B stats in RBI situations percent of RBI per PA

RISP=.392 runner on 3rd less than 2 outs = .722 Runner on 3rd 2 outs = .473 bases loaded = .874 Runners 2nd and 3rd .584

Player B over his career only hit a small amount of HR per PA more.  Both also hit 3rd the majority of their career.

To me there is a clear difference.  Player B was the more clutch player as in the overall RISP and runner on third situations player be came up with more RBI per PA in those chances.  The difference is more than the few HR that came up in those situations. Both did great overall, and player A even did better overall in bases loaded and the difference in bases loaded is Player A hit more doubles and took more walks.  The biggest advantage for player A was the 2nd and 3rd, where they hit more HR in that situation.

If you had to choose player A or player B to come up with a runner on 3rd and needing 1 run, who would you take?  Player B clearly has the advantage.  That is over a full career of chances for both players.  I am sure you can guess who is player A and player B but I just wanted to do full numbers compared by percentage.  Being the HR numbers are so similar career wise this negated the extra RBI a HR gives for knocking yourself in.  I had started to compare a different non-Twins HOF player that hit too many HR compared to Player or B and that accounted for too much of the difference it would seem. HR and RBI have a direct connection of course, so comparing a guy that hit a ton more HR over career is got a good way to compare if one was more "clutch"  

[bean5302]

Honestly, WPA is kind of a better "RBI" as it eliminates a common complaint about player performances across sports tied to the concept of garbage time.

What about just runners on 2B? A single often scores a base runner in that scenario. In addition, how many plate appearances total for each category. If it's under 300, there's just way too much noise.

Then you have to consider who was on base, right? Did the HoF player come from a time where the Twins were speedy and aggressive base runners where the hitter was say a couple spots down from Dan Gladden or did it come from the Falvey era filled with plodding corner DH's masquarading as position players? Was the player surrounded by incompetent bats where all a pitcher was going to do was throw junk because there were 3 easy outs coming up next? The era they played (impacts OPS+/wRC+), and other items which make it hard to compare apples to apples on players.

I think there are certainly players who are better under pressure than others, it's just awfully hard to get to using "RBI"

[Parfigliano]

I've noticed that TC wins more when they have more RBI in the game then their opponent.  This leads me to believe the RBI is an important statistic.