An R.B.I. Leader, but Not an Elite Hitter – NYTimes.com
Posted by Sean Forman on August 15, 2011
An R.B.I. Leader, but Not an Elite Hitter - NYTimes.com.
My piece in the Times this week has caused some pushback from Phillies fans. Some have pointed out that Howard is #3 in RBI perc, so it isn't just his # of opportunities.
But that ignore that Howard is an RBI hog. Rather than just get on base he is up there flailing, so he drives in a higher percentage of runs, but costs his team runs in the long run.
Here are the top 46 batters (since 2006) in percentage of runners on base (for their PA) who eventually score either due to their RBI or due to a subsequent play.
There are some teammate effects here as the better the hitters behind you, they are going to pick up the slack for you. But I think Howard has had pretty good hitters behind him, so he probably benefits on net from the teammate effect.
So you would read this as Joe Mauer came up with 1982 runners on base. He drove in 356 and 824 scored at some point in the inning for 41.6% of all baserunners.
Batter PA runners RBI-HR Rnrs who event. score % of runners that event. score | Joe Mauer | 3148 | 1982 | 356 | 824 | 41.6 | | Albert Pujols | 3827 | 2530 | 448 | 1031 | 40.8 | | Joey Votto | 2405 | 1410 | 261 | 569 | 40.4 | | Bobby Abreu | 3877 | 2443 | 442 | 975 | 39.9 | | Josh Hamilton | 2346 | 1482 | 289 | 590 | 39.8 | | Chase Utley | 3558 | 2173 | 361 | 864 | 39.8 | | Chipper Jones | 2951 | 1941 | 318 | 771 | 39.7 | | Michael Young | 3973 | 2446 | 430 | 968 | 39.6 | | Freddy Sanchez | 3122 | 1728 | 287 | 679 | 39.3 | | Todd Helton | 3236 | 1936 | 311 | 757 | 39.1 | | Mark Teixeira | 3923 | 2697 | 453 | 1044 | 38.7 | | Lance Berkman | 3448 | 2192 | 383 | 845 | 38.5 | | Ryan Braun | 3005 | 1902 | 347 | 729 | 38.3 | | Magglio Ordonez | 3120 | 2170 | 380 | 829 | 38.2 | | Dustin Pedroia | 3014 | 1766 | 245 | 673 | 38.1 | | Matt Holliday | 3740 | 2531 | 449 | 960 | 37.9 | | Jim Thome | 2735 | 1744 | 296 | 660 | 37.8 | | Carl Crawford | 3481 | 2069 | 332 | 782 | 37.8 | | Asdrubal Cabrera | 2124 | 1290 | 199 | 486 | 37.7 | | Derek Jeter | 3994 | 2282 | 343 | 858 | 37.6 | | David Ortiz | 3541 | 2539 | 427 | 953 | 37.5 | | Carlos Beltran | 3036 | 1998 | 350 | 748 | 37.4 | | Gary Sheffield | 1553 | 1100 | 140 | 411 | 37.4 | | Evan Longoria | 2223 | 1543 | 267 | 573 | 37.1 | | Vladimir Guerrero | 3384 | 2265 | 397 | 837 | 37.0 | | Miguel Cabrera | 3886 | 2588 | 472 | 954 | 36.9 | | Jason Giambi | 2140 | 1592 | 246 | 586 | 36.8 | | Gary Matthews | 2171 | 1279 | 199 | 471 | 36.8 | | David Wright | 3667 | 2428 | 421 | 893 | 36.8 | | Victor Martinez | 3224 | 2260 | 401 | 824 | 36.5 | | Justin Morneau | 3218 | 2295 | 407 | 838 | 36.5 | | Placido Polanco | 3426 | 1918 | 300 | 700 | 36.5 | | J.D. Drew | 2958 | 1994 | 285 | 726 | 36.4 | | Derrek Lee | 3176 | 2008 | 319 | 728 | 36.3 | | Aramis Ramirez | 3184 | 2177 | 399 | 789 | 36.2 | | Hanley Ramirez | 3755 | 1972 | 300 | 710 | 36.0 | | Alex Rodriguez | 3450 | 2599 | 460 | 936 | 36.0 | | Conor Jackson | 2342 | 1517 | 233 | 546 | 36.0 | | Johnny Damon | 3619 | 2047 | 303 | 734 | 35.9 | | Angel Pagan | 1842 | 1019 | 162 | 366 | 35.9 | | Kevin Youkilis | 3416 | 2337 | 383 | 838 | 35.9 | | Nick Markakis | 3897 | 2360 | 376 | 845 | 35.8 | | Jeff Keppinger | 2026 | 1145 | 166 | 410 | 35.8 | | Jeff Kent | 1509 | 1049 | 160 | 374 | 35.7 | | Ryan Zimmerman | 3435 | 2201 | 348 | 785 | 35.7 | | Shin-Soo Choo | 2214 | 1450 | 233 | 518 | 35.7 | | Shane Victorino | 3349 | 1783 | 250 | 636 | 35.7 | | Carlos Guillen | 2427 | 1659 | 258 | 592 | 35.7 | | Ryan Howard | 3886 | 2825 | 520 | 1007 | 35.6 |
August 15th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Apropos of nothing, I would like everyone to note that the plural of RBI is not RBIs. It is Rs BI.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
This chart makes no sense. And doesn't prove anything.
And RBIs is the correct term. RBI is an acronym. Therefore, a plural gets an s at the end. or apostrophe S. The Apostrophe helps eliminate typing out the full words Runs Batted In.
M's = Mariners
O's = Orioles
RBI's = Runs Batted In
August 15th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
@1 -
Only if you spell out the phrase. It's considered proper to pluralize an abbreviation with an "s" at the end, even if the correct plural term is different. Thus:
Attorneys general... AGs
Members of Parliament... MPs
Runs batted in... RBIs (or just RBI, since "runs" is already a plural)
Mothers I'd .... and you get the idea.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
OK, but what's the value of his ability to actually take advantage of the RBI opportunities he has?
It's not zero.
But that doesn't show up in WAR or any metric I've seen.
I have not done a deep analysis of this, but a cursory glance at his year-by-year stats shows that his numbers with runners on base have been consistently better than his numbers overall. This must add to his value.
We're starting to have a bit of Derek Jeter phenomenon here, where people rightfully start to realize he's overrated, but then it goes too far the other direction.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Not sure I understand the chart. Using Mauer as an example, 824 of his 1982 runners eventually scored that inning. Does he get credit in his percentage if he struck out (or popped out, grounded out, etc.) and then the batter behind him drove in the run?
Also, if a runner makes the 3rd out of the inning, does his percentage automatically drop? So for example, Howard comes up with the bases loaded and 2 out and he strikes out for the 3rd out, 3 of his runners thus didn't score and his percentage drops accordingly? And again as an example, Mauer strikes out with the bases loaded but 0 or 1 out, but then the following hitter hits a grand slam...does Mauer get credit for all 3 baserunners having scored that inning?
August 15th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
But that ignore that Howard is an RBI hog. Rather than just get on base he is up there flailing, so he drives in a higher percentage of runs, but costs his team runs in the long run.
He has to be cognizant of setting up the runners on base to score even if he doesnt get a hit? Gimme a break. That only applies to sac bunting. This stat is bull turkey.
Look, I love SABRmetrics. But I think you've just gone too far to create a stat where Howard looks bad.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Honestly I'm really not sure how to look at this. For example, Chase Utley is way up there. Would his percentage be so high without Howard's "flailing"? I'm not sure if that percentage says more about Utley or Howard.
Is the implication that the players at the top make fewer outs thus giving the team more chances to drive in runs? That's a tough one based on this but I like that you take the "% of runners driven in" idea a step further.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
[...] An R.B.I. Leader, but Not an Elite Hitter: B-R’s Sean Forman takes aim at Ryan Howard’s 2011 season — sure, Howard is driving in runs, but is it really helping the team as much as it seems? [...]
August 15th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
I'm certainly not presenting this as the last word, but every hitters goal should be to help his team score as many runs as possible.
Howard does drive in a high percentage of the runners on base when he bats, but he also soaks up lots of outs, so he takes away opportunities from his teammates.
Now that I think about this, probably the best way to look at this factor is to consider RE24. This takes into account runs driven in and the change in run expectancy from all of those outs. Howard is fourth in this measure, though would drop quite a bit if we considered it as a rate stat.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
To get back on track:
Freddy Sanchez?!?! How does this happen? Since 2006 the guy gets 1900+ ABs with the Pittsburgh juggerNOT. He draws a walk every 3-4 days. He had a decent 2010 with the Giants, but it wasn't anything special. Yes, he won a batting title (.344 in 2006) but his OBP that year was only .378. Could Jason Bay really have helped Freddy that much over 2 1/2 seasons?
Also - The presence of Utley and Victorino - and Polanco, to an extent - on this list lead me to think this stat would be better suited to judging teams rather than individuals.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Nice try, Mister Foreman. Back to the drawing board.
August 15th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Glad you posted a follow-up, as I thought the original NYTimes article had lots of glaring holes.
Obviously not making an out is the most valuable thing a hitter can do and in turn, will lead to the most run expectancy in a particular inning. If you want to put Howard in perspective, than go ahead and criticize his OBP all you want.
But to say that his RBI totals are overrated is a very poor angle to take. If you look, ISO is correalated to RBI as much as basic RBI Oppurtunity and for his career Howard has been among the all time greats in that category.
In my opinion, sabermetrics greatly undervalue the ability to score a run when its NOT expected. HR and ISO are what create runs when the base/out state is in the opposing team's favor and that should be valued much more than simply producing runs when they are expected or improving the expectancy for their teammates -- especially as run environments begin to shrink as they have in 2011.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
It's an interesting approach. But I think that, given the smallish spread (just 5 percentage points from from #1 to #46), it becomes crucial to have some gauge of the quality of batters hitting behind the given player.
And I tend to doubt that anyone could have a meaningful intuitive sense of the relative strength of the lineup behind these 46 guys, over a span of 6 years.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I have a hunch that the metric used here has a large bias in favor of #3 hitters over #4 hitters.
I'm not in the habit of defending Howard from "overrated" charges, but I can't help noticing that he's batted #4 in about 80% of his career games, while the top guys on this list have spent the bulk of their time at #3 -- Mauer, Pujols, Votto, Abreu, Hamilton, Utley, Chipper….
I think you have to go a good ways down the list to find a regular #4 hitter.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I love sabermetrics and I appreciate all sorts of statistical analysis - having taught, amon other things college states for almost 20 years. One thing I have always preached is to be careful of outliers - and Ryan howard is an outlier when it comes to rbis. I base that on the following:
In the history of Major League baseball, when considering the number of RBIs driven in over four consecutive seasons, we have:
Lou Gehrig (29-33) 648
Babe Ruth (28-31) 612
Jimmie Foxx (30-33) 608
Al Simmons (29-32) 600
Hack Wilson (27-30) 599
Sammy Sosa (97-00) 597
Hank Greenberg (35-38) 591
Ryan Howard (06-09) 572,/strong>
Sosa might be an aberration because of questionable circumstances surrounding his performance. ARod, Juan G and Manny Ramirez are within 20 of Howard. Note that Gehrig followed Ruth and simmons followed Foxx. Howard had Utley before him and Chase was usually good for 100 rbis. and the others typically knock in 75-85 so it isn't like howard is always coming up with the sacks juiced. Ryan will be in the Hall of Fame one day becausae he is what he was - one of the game's greatest rbi men - in the company of Ruth, Gehrig, simons, Foxx, Wilson and Greenberg - all Hall of Famers and all atting at a time when pitchers were expected to pitch nine innings and those in the pen had one foot in the minors.
To make a baseball team function offensively, you need guys who get on base and guys who knock them in. You need both. and it is bad when a player like Pat Burrell who is supposed to be an rbi guy acts more like a player who gets on base a lot. don't complicate things.
"The game's easy Harry." ~ Rich Ashburn
August 15th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
I agree with JA. It's not that big a spread from first to last, and you could look at the stats in an entirely different way-If you were a hitter who batted clean-up or in the second spot-you would be more likely to be picked up by the 3rd/clean up hitters than someone in the 6th spot, who is followed by the tail end of the order.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Continuing down the list ...
-- Michael Young Freddy Sanchez, I don't have to check to know they're not cleanup hitters.
-- Helton has batted #3 almost twice as much as #4.
-- Teixeira was #3 more than twice as much as #4.
-- Berkman was #3 a little more than #4.
-- Braun almost always #3.
-- Finally, the 14th man on the list, Magglio Ordonez has spent most of his time batting #4.
I'm inclined to view this list skeptically.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
@2 - no. The apostrophe in "RBI's" is never correct. The apostrophe is used to show possession - RBI ain't possessing diddley - or to show a contraction. "There's" is a contraction"; "RBI's" is not. (Unless the sentence were "RBI's a-gonna kill ya in the long run" - which would mean that one RBI was going to be quite deadly indeed.)
August 15th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
@15, Bob Orr -- Was Babe Ruth "supposed to be an RBI guy"? Was he derelict in his duty when he accepted those 2,062 walks?
Or did it help him score those 2,174 runs?
But wait -- Ruth had Gehrig behind him for several years. OK, so what about the Iron Horse? Was he a bum for averaging 112 walks in his prime 12-year stretch? Or was that a big reason that he averaged 141 runs in those years, along with 150 RBI?
I'm not sure whether you're oversimplifying or overcomplicating. But it's definitely a mistake to view a lineup as being split between guys who are supposed to get on base, and guys who are supposed to drive in runs.
Don't oversimplify things. A lineup does not break down into "guys who are supposed to get on base" and "guys who are supposed to drive in runs."
August 15th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Oops @19 -- I accidentally included two versions of my parting shot.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Going with the more interesting of the two discussions (where to place the 's'), it should be noted in sports other than baseball, the plural for 'time out' is actually incorrect. The use of 'time outs' is ubiquitous, but it should actually be 'times out'. Not sure that this will catch on, though.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
The NY Times story was flawed from the beginning. In case the author missed it Utley was on the DL for 45 games. Victorino missed 20 games not to mention the fact he batted behind Howard in some games. Howard had those on base hogs Wilson Valdez and Michael Martinez batting second. I won't even go into JRoll's obvious decline.
Some of this Sabremetic mumbo jumbo is interesting but then again some stat freaks like the author of the NY Times really go off the reservation.
August 15th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
take a look at the 1987 Cardinals. Jack Clark may have been the guy who was "supposed to drive in runs". Nobody on that team had more than 12 home runs while Clark had 35. But Clark walked 136 times on only 13 intentional walks. Do you think Herzog complained Clark was being too patient?
August 15th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Ryan Howard is a 2-3 win player, which is a nice piece to have.
Then you remember he's making 25MM for the next eternity and you just laugh and laugh and laugh
August 15th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
@Matt: He may not be worth $25 Mil. But he's a big reason why the Phils have the best record in baseball. Keep on laughing.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
I'm not here to defend Howard or praise him, but this stat looks like a stat designed to prove a point rather than something useful. Howard's a traditional power hitter not Albert Pujols. What is called flailing away when he doesn't square it up is called a tape measure home run when he does. He hits the ball where it's pitched and will get 30 or so doubles a hand full of triples (that will be doubles when the legs - such as they are - go), drive in 125 and hit 33 homers in his 150-175 hits. Since 2005 only Fielder, Holliday and Teixeira have had similar numbers. I'v ewitnessed him taking the sac fly instead of swinging for the fences so he's hardly a selfish hitter, Would he be more efficient (higher batting average and OBP) if he didn't swing so hard and simply poked the ball to left? Maybe. Would the Phillies score more runs? There's no way of knowing. I do know he isn't Ted Williams, Joe D or Albert. If he tried to be them he wouldn't be Ryan Howard.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Now that I think about this, probably the best way to look at this factor is to consider RE24. This takes into account runs driven in and the change in run expectancy from all of those outs. Howard is fourth in this measure, though would drop quite a bit if we considered it as a rate stat.
Not really. Among the top 200 in RE24 since 2006, he is 12th in RE/24 per PA. He is 10th if you use a minimum of 1000 PA.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Oh and for the record, the term RBI is used like data in that they are both singular and plural forms. There should be no s, 's in there anywhere.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
As much as I'd love to hop on the Ryan-Howard-is-overrated bus, I can't ignore that he is a much better batter when there's runners on base in front of him. Check out his career split for it--
Bases empty .224 /.306/.484 (245 PA)
With men on: .289/.380/.507 (266 PA)
August 15th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
So, this RBI thing isn't like Mouse or Mice, or Goose or Geese? How about Moose or....Moose?
Howard is big, so maybe Moose?
August 15th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
"RBIs" is perfectly acceptable, according to Webster's.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rbi
plural RBIs or RBI
Definition of RBI
: a run in baseball that is driven in by a batter; also : official credit to a batter for driving in a run
August 15th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
I have a question for you, Sean.
What happens if the players batting behind Howard aren't so great?
Jayson Werth is struggling mightily in his new lineup, suggesting that he was overrated by his lineup. Pedro Feliz, Carlos Ruiz, Placido Polanco and company aren't exactly sluggers.
Is Howard overrated because the guys hitting behind him don't drive him the runners in front of him?
Bear in mind, the Phillies JUST acquired Hunter Pence a couple weeks ago. Here are their numbers in 2011, for spots 5-6
#5 Spot: .244/.321/.403
#6 Spot: .245/.324/.412
Seems like runners not scoring has a lot more to do with those guys than Howard.
I've certainly never heard the term RBI-hog before.
Personally, as much as I enjoy the concept of WAR, I think of Howard as consistently on par with 4-5 WAR guys in his off-years, and up around 7-8 in his 2006 and 2009 seasons. That's just a gut feeling. Take him out of that lineup, inject Domonic Brown in his place, and that team would win 5 fewer games.
August 15th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
@29 - I think you have the wrong numbers there. But your point is valid.
Career:
Ryan Howard .287/.396/.596 with men on. .266/.339/.530 empty.
Prince Fielder .281/.408/.508 with men on. .284/.371/.565 empty.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Ryan Howard vs Giants pitching in the 2011 NLCS
5 games
20 AB
0 hits
18 strikeouts
Giants advance.
You heard it here first.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
I appreciate what Sean is trying to argue here, since Howard is not the perennial MVP candidate many seem to consider him. But I'll agree that this post (I haven't read the Times article yet) seems to be stretching too far to fit a predetermined point. The data is interesting, but obviously has a lot of noise in it, as much as RBI themselves do. I think Sean is right that RE24 probably better models what he was looking for, and Howard does look quite good by that metric. Maybe the guy really does have a special ability with runners on or in scoring position. As saber-followers, we should just accept that if that's what the data shows. I don't think one has to turn over one's saber badge by admitting that his gaudy RBI totals do, in part, reflect talent. (Or, if one doesn't want to concede he has an ability, at least we must admit he has *performed* extremely well in those situations.)
Obviously, hitting with RISP isn't everything. Sometimes even sluggers need to start rallies too, and Howard doesn't do that. Plus there's all the other parts of the game where he's average at best. Those are all separate issues, however.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
@35
which is why I think Fielder is an interesting comparison. In fewer plate appearances he's now passed Howard in terms of oWAR. But does that mean he's been a better player?
even in 2009 when Fielder's RBI stat looked Howard-esque his line was:
.306/.412/.603 bases empty
.292/.412/.602 with men on
at some point... with 1,000's of plate appearances there has to be some appreciation for a man knockin' in runs. Fact is Ryan Howard has been a beast with men on base for his career. And he's got the eye popping RBI totals to prove it.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
I think the point that Sean was trying to make with the chart in the OP was that a lower percentage of the runners score, despite the large numbers of them that he drives in himself. We should probably be looking at the difference between the 4th and the 3rd columns to see how effective he is, but this method would unfairly penalize him for the runners he actually drives in.
Howard has a high K rate, which would help explain why his at bats don't help the runners score when he doesn't drive them in.
As a LH pull hitter you might expect a lot of his ground balls to advance runners (especially those on 2nd), but because of the nature of his swing and body type, if there is a runner on 1st too many of these balls probably result in double plays.
I would also think that as a LH pull hitter his singles are more apt to score runners from 2nd than the singles of a hitter who hits the ball to left and center fields more frequently.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
How many of Utley's 503 runners that eventually score were knocked in by RBI hog Ryan Howard?
There is evidence to support your argument, but this statistic is just absurd and clearly biased, as many have pointed out, towards #2 and #3 hitters.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Perhaps a more useful way to to set up this study would be to see how many of those runs score after the player in question does something positive. Besides actual RBI, it could include hits that don't drive in a run, walks, productive outs. If the batter makes an unproductive out, he gets no credit for subsequent runs. That still gives credit to the guys like Mauer who help keep the lineup turning over but may not get a ton of RBI themselves. It also counts actual runs, as opposed to RE24 which is partly theoretical about how many future runs are expected to score.
August 15th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@36, yes, I think the stat line comparison does demonstrate that Fielder has been the better player. Teams don't win just because their cleanup hitter hits better when runners are on base. They also benefit when their cleanup hitter gets on base, even when nobody else is on base. It's just as good to be a run than to drive in a run. Ryan Howard may be good at finishing a rally, but he won't be the one starting it. Fielder is just as good at starting a rally as finishing it. I'd take Fielder.
August 15th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Here is a simpler formula: RBI % since 2004 (minimum 500 runners on base). Howard ranks 5th.
Player Runners RBI HR RBI Pct.
Josh Hamilton 1482 396 107 19.50
Joey Votto 1410 370 109 18.51
Aramis Ramirez 2880 746 219 18.30
Ryan Braun 1902 497 150 18.24
Ryan Howard 3113 843 279 18.12
Vladimir Guerrero 3095 772 212 18.09
Julio Franco 690 141 18 17.83
Neil Walker 629 133 21 17.81
David Ortiz 3522 910 284 17.77
Miguel Cabrera 3570 892 258 17.76
Bobby Abreu 3351 741 146 17.76
Matt Holliday 3159 758 198 17.73
Michael Young 3249 708 134 17.67
Magglio Ordonez 2527 561 115 17.65
Victor Martinez 3094 681 135 17.65
Andrew McCutchen 760 178 44 17.63
Garret Anderson 2264 493 94 17.62
Olmedo Saenz 642 151 38 17.60
Manny Ramirez 2747 691 208 17.58
Albert Pujols 3421 924 323 17.57
August 15th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Since it's clearly established here that Howard is a better hitter with runners on base, one question comes to my mind: Are his empty-based "struggles" related to the pitchers throwing from the wind-up?
August 15th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
This is a poor argument. Lots to point out that falls short in Forman's statements both here and in that article.
Here, he says Howard "is up there flailing away", and "costs his team runs" in the long run- but never backs that statement up or explains how someone who has put up epic numbers hinders a lineup which is in the midst of a dynasty.
His article mentions that "Since 2006, Howard had 2,815 runners on base, well ahead of the runner-up, Mark Teixeira, with 2,689"
Well, that only equals 126 more baserunners over 5 1/2 years, which translates to only about 20 more a year. Hardly a huge number. And in that time, he drove in 775 to Teixeira's 653: which is 122 more RBI's in that span. In other words, Tex would have to drive in just about EVERY SINGLE ONE of those runners just to be on par with Howard! So this example actually supports the OPPOSITE of his intent with it.
For the number lovers here is their % of runners driven in:
Howard: 27.5%
Teixiera: 24.2%
So, the % is higher and the RBI's more. Who would YOU want?
Yeah. Poor point to stress.
And this article mentions his "poor OPS" stats. Well, his CAREER OPS of .931 ranks 36th all time in the history of the game- which is not too shabby. (note: Teixiera's is .907)
Ok, so Howard is not a "pure hitter"- of which there are few today anyways. This we know. But he IS a bona fide slugger, a feared bat who has had some big time production and who has put up power and RBI numbers on an historic level. In other words: he IS an ELITE hitter. He is a classic slugger whose resume is full of strikeouts, walks and mammoth homeruns. His RBI numbers are huge. His impact in the heart of the lineup of team that has won a Series and is a current powerhouse cannot be underscored.
If Forman wants to use OPS (which we already established is hardly a "shortcoming" with Howard- see that "36th all-time" thing) and talk about guys who set up the rest of the lineup, let's look at that. J.D. Drew of the Boston Red Sox is one of the game's most polarizing players. His detractors say someone who hits in the heart of the lineup and drives in 64 runs a year is coming up way short of his 14 Million salary. His defenders, which include the people who sign those checks, point to his OPS. But Drew bats 6th, and has always had guys sluggers like Ortiz, Ramirez, et al. In other words, guys just like Howard. If Drew was batting 4th for the Sox, they would be in trouble and so would he: he would have been burned at the stake by the masses sometime around early 2008.
Howard's job is to crush the ball, bring guys home, and put fear in the other team's pitcher- all of which he does, and does as well as anyone ever has. Go dig and see how many players have his RBI numbers to start their careers. He is about to lead the league for the 4th time. This article also does not mention the positive effect his bat has on those bats around him, who see better pitches since they have Howard looming on deck.
Bottom line: an argument which is not backed up. One which is unclear, full of holes and full of statements unexplained and contradicted. Maybe focusing on which batters overall drives in the most % of men on base would be a good focus, and a way to see who is most productive and who benefits from tons of guys on base. But to say Howard is not an elite hitter and use the arguments which he does here was clearly half-baked.
-Patrick Mawn
August 15th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
@Josh: much like pitchers have a better BAA with the bases empty than men on base. Seriously. I think 95%* of pitchers are like that. But I think I am right.
*totally made up stat
August 15th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Here's the state we need; call it RBI Factor.
Each game situation--you'd have to figure out which variables to use, probably inning, out, run differential, at least--has an RBI Expectancy. Example: first batter of the game probably homers maybe 5% of the time; RBI Expectancy=0.05. Another example: Top of the first, bases loaded, none out; maybe the RBI Expectancy is 1.5, counting all the times that no runs scored and all the times that more than one scored. You'd have to create a chart, just like for WPA.
Then, add the RBI Expectancy for each of a player's at-bats; this is his Expected RBI Total. Then, divided the players Actual RBIs by Expected RBI Total to come up with the RBI Factor. 1 is by definition exactly average; >1 indicates a player who is driving in more runs than we would expect, <1 is driving in less.
August 15th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
the charts percentages seem really close together, i mean i don't feel like there's a real conclusion to be drawn there. i mean sure compare these guys to say a hitter with a good rep whose % is 16 or something, well then you have a conclusion. this chart looks like evidence for "the natural state of rbi % is somewhere between 1/3 and 2/5."
August 15th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Here's the problem I have with your NYT post:
"Howard is good at what he does. When a runner is on base, he can bring him home, but the problem with R.B.I. is that they give too much of the credit to the hitter and not enough to the player driven in."
That's not a "problem with the RBI"! When guys get on base, you want them to be driven in. Your analysis and point-of-view suggest that Howard's accomplishment in driving in runs should be diminished because he does just that, he drives in runs.
August 15th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
BDF/45, what you've described is very close to RE24. The only difference is that RE24 is based on the total run expectancy from that point through the end of the inning, not just for that one PA.
I wonder if there's an easy way to convert run expectancies into an RBI expectancy for that single PA. I will try to think about this more later.
August 15th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
I find it perfectly cromulent to add an "r" to abbreviations in the plural.
August 15th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
@45: check out http://www.thephaithful.com/aeratio I did this about two years ago before RE24 one upped me. It is expected RBI.
August 15th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
I'm into sabermetrics, and have been for more than twenty years, yet I'm having difficulty with this analysis and conclusion. I'll keep an open mind, though, although it does feel as if this is yet another story knocking Howard, who has become the poster-child for those questioning RBIs (and, yes, this is the correct usage, short of A.P. style requirng periods after each letter in R.B.I.!) It's similar to Derek Jeter. For so many years he became the sabermetric poster child to illustrate something negative, so much so that along the way some people failed to notice he was a HOFer and one of the ten greatest shortstops in the game's history.
Howard's press clipping are bigger than his accomplishments, but he's still a fine hitter. Unfortunately, for the next five years he'll be an overpaid hitter as his stats decline. (Woops, I guess I just did it myself!)
August 15th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
would you rather have howard swing (flail) away to drive in runs or be more selective and draw more walks and hit a bunch of meaningless singles and let ben francisco or michael martinez try to pick up the rbi (as would have been the case earlier in the season)? i'm sure there is a nice middle ground, but i would have the more aggressive batter.
i think this is a problem a lot of sluggers have and the phillies, before howard, they had burrell batting clean up and would take a lot of walks and then have someone like travis lee or mike lieberthal at bat to try and drive in the runs. the way the lineups are built, the batters after your clean up hitter are not clean up hitters, they are more like, "leave risp hitters." adam dunn is another example of this...
August 15th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
When Howard's at the plate in any ballpark with any pitcher he is in run scoring position. He can flick his wrist and hit it 375 feet. I'm a Brave fan and I know how dangerous he is. Howard is a beast. Saying what he can't do is like saying Well I own this tank but it's not very good for hunting quail.
August 15th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
a) the article says he is 7/12 among NL first baseman in OPS. He is now 6/14. I can understand moving up a spot with 1-2 good games[he didn't play yesterday], but did 2 extra first baseman really qualify in that timespan.
b) Howard hits into the overshift a lot. When men are on base the opponents can't overshift as much. It really is as simple as that why his numbers are much better with men on base.
Howard is worth around 15 million a year; he's making 20 million. Big deal. I don't understand all the Ryan Howard hate.
August 15th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Seems a little bit like the criticism Joe Carter gets here a lot. (Having said that, Howard is a much better hitter than Carter ever was).
August 15th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
For perspective, what would Barry Bonds rate have been from 2000-2004?
August 15th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Sean does not define "elite" hitter in his NY Times article. That should be noted.
At risk of oversimplfying, I think that what is the heart of Sean's thinking is the fallacy of using RBI, on its own, as a measure of the quality of a hitter.
We can pick at some of the specifics of the article, but the fact remains that a batter cannot control the number of runners on base when he comes to the plate. He only has control over turning himself into an RBI with the long ball.
RBI is a stat, like wins for a pitcher, that is used by those uninclined to dig a little deeper. Look at the amount of weight it is given by MVP voters!
Think about it for a minute before you go off on me. Is it possible that there is some similarity between how Joe Carter was viewed at the time and how Ryan Howard is seen today? Hold on, hold on, hear me out.
Ryan Howard is a much more productive hitter than Carter ever was. However, just as Carter's reputation was inflated by his RBI totals, so may Howard's today.
Sean's article is provocative, but don't lose sight of his main point, in my opinion.
I think the table posted in this blog is not a good follow-up to the NY Times article. It tends to obscure the RBI issue as it relates to Howard rather than illuminating it.
August 15th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Sean does not define "elite" hitter in his NY Times article. That should be noted.
At risk of oversimplfying, I think that what is the heart of Sean's thinking is the fallacy of using RBI, on its own, as a measure of the quality of a hitter.
We can pick at some of the specifics of the article, but the fact remains that a batter cannot control the number of runners on base when he comes to the plate. He only has control over turning himself into an RBI with the long ball.
RBI is a stat, like wins for a pitcher, that is used by those uninclined to dig a little deeper. Look at the amount of weight it is given by MVP voters!
Think about it for a minute before you go off on me. Is it possible that there is some similarity between how Joe Carter was viewed at the time and how Ryan Howard is seen today? Hold on, hold on, hear me out.
Ryan Howard is a much more productive hitter than Carter ever was. However, just as Carter's reputation was inflated by his RBI totals, so may Howard's today.
Sean's article is provocative, but don't lose sight of his main point, in my opinion.
I think the table posted in this blog is not a good follow-up to the NY Times article. It tends to obscure the RBI issue as it relates to Howard rather than illuminating it.
August 15th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
@55
Solace, sorry, I took a long time writing my post and didn't refresh.
The Joe Carter comparison was my first thought also.
August 15th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
In response to Jimbo's inquiry on Barry bonds.
Bonds twice knocked in 456 runs over a four year period (1990-93; and 1995-98) From 2000-03, he knocked in 443. bonds was a great RBI man and home run hitter. But, and this I hope strengthens the argument that Howard is becoming one of the greatest RBI men the game has ever known. Lots of players can average 100 RBIs over a four year stretch; lots of players can boost that total to 440 over a like period. But many of the game's great sluggers: Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Williams, Jackson, Ott, Killebrew, Schmidt, and you can add a bevy of your personal favorites, have great trouble getting past 500. To put this in very real perspective: Henry Aaron (502); Willie Mays (478); Reggie Jackson (405); Mickey Mantle (420); Mike Schmidt (431); continued postings would prove just as surprising.
No an RBI man is not necessarily an elite hitter - and Howard is not an elite hitter. But, and I have argued this until I'm blue in the face, RBI men of his prowess come along maybe once a generation. Day in and day out, year in and year out, there is something special about RBI men who can drive home at least 135 per year. I don't know what it is but is is rare.
August 15th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
This is garbage the guy produces runs and home runs i could care less about this crap the phillies are 37 games over 500 hundred...who cares about this
August 15th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
Before we make too much of Howard's split data showing a better BA with runners on than with bases empty, we should keep in mind that most hitters have a higher BA with men on, and especially lefty pull hitters when a runner is being held on 1st base.
Also, sac flies inflate BA with runners on. Howard's true BA with men on is .281, not .287, when you count sac flies as outs.
In the 2 situations in which the 1st baseman almost always holds a runner on -- man on 1st base only, and men on 1st and 3rd -- Ryan's BA is over .290. But with a man on 2nd only -- the classic RBI opportunity, "all we need is a bingle!" -- his BA is .264.
I'm not denying that he's a better hitter with men on. His HR rate is somewhat higher. But his K rate is about the same, as is his walk rate once you remove IBBs. I would not assume that he's substantially changing his approach in RBI situations.
One last point: Howard has more career PAs with men on base than with bases empty, which is rare, and has almost equal ABs in both splits. Jim Thome, who spent most of his career in a prime scoring context, has about 300 more PAs and about 500 more ABs with the bases empty. Albert Pujols has more PAs with bases empty, and about 450 more ABs with bases empty.
August 15th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
check out http://www.thephaithful.com/aeratio I did this about two years ago before RE24 one upped me. It is expected RBI.
This is good stuff. I was going to try calculating something similar, but I'm a bit stymied by the fact that the Event Finder can only search one season at a time for each player. That will make it take way too long to run calculations for just one guy, let alone many. (It already took me forever to get the expected RBI for each situation.)
However, it looks like you did your calculations a little different than I planned to, and I wonder why. You seem to be looking at average RBI for each type of hit in each situation. Why do you care about the types of hits (or outs)? I created an RBI matrix by just looking at the MLB average of RBI per PA for each for the 24 base-out states (over 2006-11, to correspond to the chart above), and then I was going to compare the player's RBI per PA in each of those states. Why does it matter how many times he got doubles or sac flies or whatever?
August 15th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
we should keep in mind that most hitters have a higher BA with men on, and especially lefty pull hitters when a runner is being held on 1st base.
True, but Howard's split is bigger than average.
And actually, this season the NL is hitting slightly worse with runners on/RISP (I know this is not usual).
Travis/54 makes a good point about the overshift's effect on Howard's splits.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:04 am
Howard's running a 127 OPS+ this season--about the level of a big Steve Garvey season. Which brings two thoughts to mind:
--while Garvey is probably underrated these days due to gleeful trashing of the weaknesses in his game by those in the know, we know that he was significantly overrated as a hitter during his time in the league. Howard had a 127 OPS+ last year too, so this is likely to be his new real production level rather than the 167 he put up in 2006, and he shouldn't really be a serious MVP candidate any more;
--I stopped taking RBI remotely seriously as a statistical category when Vinny Castilla won an RBI title in 2004 with a 109 OPS+ that didn't even break .900 OPS with the assistance of Coors Field.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:06 am
Oh, and if Howard really is the seventh best hitter in this lineup, the Phillies are going to grind the rest of MLB to mulch, which I will sit back in amused awe to watch as my Dodgers weren't going to win anything this year anyway.
August 16th, 2011 at 6:03 am
So Hanley Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, and Kevin Youkilis are also overrated?
Three basic points about Howard need to be emphasized.
First, Howard hasn't just been a guy eking out 100 RBI seasons. For four straight years from 2006-2009, he drove in at least 136 runs, including more than 140 RBI in three of those years, leading the majors all three times. Some players can be overrated on the basis of reaching 100 RBI, such as Jeff Francoeur for Atlanta in 2006 and 2007. But Francoeur attained 103 and 105 RBI, respectively, in those seasons, whereas Howard averaged about forty more RBI (143) over that four-year span. Any player who can average 140 or more runs batted in over a stretch of four seasons can only be "overrated" to such a modest degree that the point becomes virtually irrelevant. After all, Howard's Phillies became the National League's premier team during that time, even before the arrival of Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Roy Oswalt and superlative overall pitching. .
Second, the greatest reason for Howard's exorbitant RBI tallies stems from his spectacular home run totals. Over that four-year duration from 2006-2009, Howard smashed at least 45 homers each season, averaging 50. The single-most consequential play in baseball, by far, is the home run, because a home run means at least one (and often multiple) guaranteed, automatic, instantaneous run on the scoreboard. Everything else in offensive baseball merely gives a club a chance to score, and the more and better chances that a player creates, the more likely that he will help his team score runs. But invariably, many of those chances will go by the wayside and result in nothing, whereas the home run represents an instant, complete cash-in irrespective of whatever may happen with the subsequent hitters. Indeed, a home run on average is probably worth at least a handful of other chances that a player creates by avoiding outs, thus emphasizing the value of a slugger such as Howard.
(And Howard has actually hit more home runs on the road than at home in his career, thus eliminating the "stadium" disclaimer.)
The best hitters in baseball history have excelled at both hitting home runs and avoiding outs. Howard isn't historically exceptional in the latter regard, but he has proved so prodigious in the former that he deserves his praise. About as well as any player over the last half-dozen seasons, Howard has created an abundance of automatic runs, as opposed to improved odds that may or may not bear fruit.
Third, the devaluing of RBI (which is sometimes justified, but not necessarily in the case of a player like Howard who has proved so overwhelmingly prolific in that regard and has hit so many home runs) seems to have led many observers away from the fact that his career on-base percentage and slugging average, the two most important "pure statistics" for a hitter, are commendable. His career .369 OBP is very good; his career .563 SLG is the fifteenth-highest in the history of major league baseball, fourth among active players. (And despite playing his home games in a hitter's haven, OPS+ would seem to unfairly deflate Howard's value because he has actually totaled more home runs, doubles, and extra-base hits on the road in his career.) Even his career .276 batting average is surprisingly solid considering his huge strikeout totals and strikeouts are less pertinent for a slugger such as Howard who posts gargantuan amounts of home runs and thus guaranteed runs.
When one thinks about the game in a "common sense yet thoughtful" manner, as I believe I've done here, Howard arguably comes across as more underrated than overrated. He may be overpaid by league-wide standards, but the Phillies (like the Yankees and Red Sox) operate by inflated payroll measures due their inflated revenues and Howard has constituted a major reason for Philadelphia's lucrative cash streams of recent years. In effect, he paid himself in large part by being historically elite at producing automatic runs. For all his supposed “flailing,” Howard’s ability to create instant runs far outweighs his overstated offensive weaknesses.
August 16th, 2011 at 9:00 am
@Merlin
I was just thinking about that. Howard got a huge contract. I think most people agree that it was too much, based on his numbers and age. However, I know that when Howard is up to bat, no one gets up to go get a snack or go to the bathroom. People love to watch Ryan Howard at bat. Putting people in the seats is an important part managing a baseball team. I wish I knew of some way to view correlations between things like: attendance, favorite player status, jersey sales, ticket sales, and overall revenue. For example, if Howard got hurt, before the year's season tickets went on sale, and he was going to be out all year, how much would that affect sales?
August 16th, 2011 at 9:23 am
johnny/63: I wrote a SQL formula to recalculate the RBI matrix every single season. So my 2007 and 2008 matrix are exclusive to each other, to keep all things comparative of that particular season.
I did not want look at 'average RBI per PA', i wanted to find the exact circumstances. I used retrosheet to tell me everytime an exact event actually happened in a given season. You also can NOT use PA, because then a player would be penaltized for taking a walk.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:48 am
@49
It embiggens me to read your post
August 16th, 2011 at 10:49 am
@40 " It's just as good to be a run than to drive in a run. Ryan Howard may be good at finishing a rally, but he won't be the one starting it. Fielder is just as good at starting a rally as finishing it. I'd take Fielder."
For the record from 2006-current Howard has scored 11 more runs in 87 fewer PAs compared to Fielder. Granted it has a lot to do with the team but there it is FWIW.
Howard's career numbers are great but they do make his current value seem higher than it is. He will never, unfortunately, come close to duplicating that MVP year.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:09 am
@67 -- "the devaluing of RBI ... seems to have led many observers away from the fact that his career on-base percentage and slugging average ... are commendable."
Howard's OBP and SLG are commendable. The main point of the "RBI detractors," though, is that his OBP and SLG are not nearly as commendable as is suggested by his RBI, nor do they place him among the elite contemporary first basemen.
Since 2005 (when Howard became a regular), 25 players have amassed at least 2,000 PAs while playing 1B primarily. Among those 25, Howard ranks:
-- 1st in RBI;
-- 5th in raw OPS (behind Pujols, M.Cabrera, Votto and Berkman);
-- 7th in OPS+ (Pujols, Cabrera, Votto, Berkman, Fielder, A.Gonzalez);
-- 7th in WAR Runs Batting (Pujols, Cabrera, Berkman, Teixeira, Fielder, Gonzalez);
-- 7th in total WAR (Pujols, Cabrera, Teixeira, Youkilis, Gonzalez, Berkman).
And to borrow a term from another comment, making this point does not constitute "Ryan Howard hate." I'm a Ryan Howard fan, but I can still say that his contract is beyond ridiculous.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:12 am
@49 / 70 -- I can just hear Lisa Simpson addressing a crowd at Citizens Bank Park: "Ryan Howard was ... he was ... ... great! He was great!"
August 16th, 2011 at 11:17 am
You can say his contract is beyond ridiculous, but one can fairly argue that Ryan Howard is worth far more to the Phillies than the statistics he delivers in the box score. I have no way of quantifying it, but Howard's popularity in Philadelphia is enormous. He's one of the primary reasons the Phillies have sold out every home game for more than two years now. If we were judging his contract solely on his stats, yes, it would be beyond ridiculous. But, much like Derek Jeter and the Yankees, Ryan Howard is worth much more than he would be to other teams. It may be a ridiculous contract, but justification is not entirely missing.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Without getting into the numbers, there seem to be two contradictory arguments moving in parallel in this post:
- Ryan Howard is _OVERrated_ by the mainstream press, mainly because of his prodigious RBI totals
- he is _UNDERrated_ by advanced statistical analysis, because (most of them) do not account for his proven ability to hit better with runners on base
The truth is somewhere in between; he is not as good as Albert Pujols, but he's a whole lot better than Joe Carter. I do think the BBWAA love for him in the MVP voting is kinda silly, though.
These are his most similar batters from BB-r:
Richie Sexson (928)
David Ortiz (905)
Willie McCovey (897) * (HOF)
Fred McGriff (894) (future HOF?)
Cecil Fielder (893)
Mark McGwire (893)
Mo Vaughn (891)
Carlos Delgado (891)
Tino Martinez (880)
Norm Cash (877)
It would be disappointing if his career turned out like Sexson or Fielder or Vaughn, reasonable to expect a career like Ortiz, and optimistic to expect it be as good as McCovey or McGriff.
August 16th, 2011 at 11:53 am
@74 -- "He's one of the primary reasons the Phillies have sold out every home game for more than two years now."
OK, so, which of the better 1B do you think would cause an attendance decrease if he replaced Howard in the Philly lineup? Pujols? Gonzalez? Votto?
I'm sure Howard is as popular as you say. I'm equally sure that the sellouts are maybe 1% due to Howard's popularity, and 99% due to the Phillies winning 4 straight division titles (soon to be 5).
Fans of a winning team will always manage to find someone to love.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
The Phillies are never going to get Pujols, Gonzalez, or Votto, and had little to no chance of acquiring any of those players even before the Howard contract, so that is a moot point.
Also, given that the Phillies would not have had any of the aforementioned first basemen during the last four years with or without Howard, it is extremely unlikely that they would've won 4 straight division titles without him.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Don't wanna argue about Howard so I will ignore all that and address RBI/RBIs.
RBI *does not* only stand for "Runs batted in." It also clearly stands for "Run batted in." It is the singular usage of RBI for run batted from which one derives RBIs from runs batted in.
That is to say that RBI is not fully a singular/plural noun without the "s" and hence the proscription against it is not really warranted.
Also let it be noted that words that are the same for both the singular and plural are annoying and awkward, and we should not endeavor force one upon each other. 🙂
August 16th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
@78
Learn to proof-read, geez.
August 16th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
@76
Not one of those guys would result in an attendance decrease for the Phillies, but then again, not one of those guys would have been available to the Phillies so it negates your point. And, sure, sellouts have been common for the Phillies as a result of all the winning, but you cannot say that Ryan Howard hasn't been a huge part of all that winning. It's pretty simple: Ryan Howard is a very good, not great player, but he is extremely valuable to the Phillies and their ongoing success. Couple that with his off-field value to the Phillies, and we can get into the realm of saying his contract can be justified.
All that said, I think it's a terrible contract because I have doubts as to how well he'll age, and as a Phillies fan, I wish they didn't give it to him. There was no need for it. He was under team control through this season anyway. Still, I can understand it, and it's not my money. If the Phillies can afford it, they can feel free to pay him whatever they feel he's worth.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
@72
And I agree about the fallaciousness of attempting to judge overall hitting ability or value through one simple (if sometimes significant) statistic such as RBI. That said, placing fifth in the majors in raw OPS (a technically nonsensical measure, but acceptable enough as a cursory barometer) at a premium offensive position such as first base over a relatively long period of time is arguably elite and certainly excellent. In my original post (#67), I think that I offered a reasonable argument for why OPS+ is a little misleading and unfairly diminishing in Howard's case and I'm not sure that any of these metrics ideally account for the value of his home runs and the superiority of "automatic runs" as opposed to merely improved odds of creating runs.
Certainly, Howard is not perennially on the level of Pujols or Cabrera or now Gonzalez because those guys are great hitters with great power, whereas Howard is merely a good hitter with great power. But even though Howard is more "high risk" at the plate than some of his All-Star rivals, he has historically been "higher reward" than most of them. If he never returns to his power levels from 2006-2009 or his slugging averages from 2004-2009, then he'll probably never again be worthy of serious MVP consideration. But he's still a major cleanup hitter for a major team and in that sense, I would analogize him to Fred McGriff for Atlanta in 1995 and 1996, when the Braves won consecutive National League pennants and a World Series. McGriff no longer constituted an elite slugger, but he was still a star and a force to be reckoned with.
By the way, part of my problem with Mr. Foreman's analysis is that he writes as if Howard is a guy who's just up there hacking, who drives in his runs yet undermines their value by giving away so many plate appearances and rarely reaching base, much like Jeff Francoeur in 2006 (when he totaled 29 homers and 103 RBIs, but just 23 walks and a .293 OBP). However, Howard's on-base percentages, both this year (.344) and for his career (.369), are good. He's not on the level of Pujols, Cabrera, or Gonzalez, but he's hardly a liability in terms of reaching base.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
@60:
I would guess that many of those all-time elite hitters with nice but not overly spectacular RBI figures were limited both by the teams they were on and by their own superior level of overall fearsomeness. Bonds was so out of control nobody would pitch to him for years. Add to his hit, RBI, and home run totals based on his rates if half of his walks had been regular at-bats and you get lifetime totals that are off the charts (400 hits, 250 RBIs, 100 HR, I'm sure his RBI totals were especially diminished since he was walked even more if anyone was on base). Sometimes he had decent hitters behind him and sometimes he didn't.
The same is true of the other guys on that list. They were so awesome that they were often pitched around, and Aaron still drove in 100-plus for what seemed like decades. Howard fails enough by comparison that opposing managers must think the benefit of the outs he makes outweighs the loss of whoever he might drive in.
All of this takes nothing away from Howard. Driving in runs is driving in runs, and his teams have won. He may not be Aaron or Mays, but he holds down a spot effectively for who he is. All of the guys on the provided list are individuals with different situations, teams, strengths, and weaknesses. Howard is just using his unique set of abilities to excel in his own unique way--same as every other ballplayer.
Works for me.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
@75
... quality post. Joe Carter would really be a better model for the type of hitter that Mr. Foreman is describing. Howard, conversely, is superior, especially at reaching base.
(Of course, Carter's base-running value proved far higher and I imagine that he was a more valuable defender.)
By the way, I, too, drew an analogy to McGriff (see post #81) and one can trace similar trend lines pertaining to overall offensive performance. The question is whether Howard will compile the same types of career numbers because he didn't become a regular major leaguer until age twenty-five and he lacks McGriff's lean, athletic build, which proved conducive to longevity (as late as age thirty-eight, McGriff was still hitting .273 BA/.353 OBP/.505 SLG with 30 homers and 103 RBIs while playing in the National League).
And I certainly believe that McGriff should be receiving greater Hall of Fame consideration, especially in light of the steroids revelations suffered by so many of his contemporaries. If 493 home runs, 1,550 RBIs, and .284 BA/.377 OBP/.503 SLG over nineteen seasons aren't Hall of Fame numbers for a presumed non-juicer who led both leagues in homers, then isn't something wrong?
And I might add that in 50 postseason games, McGriff hit .303 BA/.385 OBP/.532 SLG with 10 dingers, 37 RBIs, and 36 runs scored, including .279 BA/.385 OBP/.605 SLG with 4 homers, 9 RBIs, and 9 runs scored in 12 World Series games.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
@ 3
Your explanation and examples convinced me and changed my thinking; well-done.
August 16th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
@81/ joekiddluischama - thanks for the compliment
#81 was an excellent analysis that doesn't get too bogged down in a lot of numbers. My summation would be:
Ryan Howard is an excellent hitter, he's just not one of the very best hitters in baseball; use more than his HR/RBI totals to evaluate him.
@83 - A minor problem with the McGriff comparison is that McGriff didn't have quite the peak that Howard had. Also, as you noted, they have different body types, so McGriff isn't as useful for longterm career projections.
McGriff has a good HOF case, but the competition amongst his 1B contemporaries is very very tough.
August 16th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
@ Splint Chesthair
Howard's value is exactly what his team driven by the market thinks it is. Teams are often wrong - Jim Hendry in Chicago, Sabien in SF have made horrible mistakes - but once guaranteed it's sunken cost. As far as butts in the seats I suspect though have no way of quantifying that fringe fans and those who know only that a home run, stolen base looks awesome come to see a player. Real fans come to see a team whoever is playing. When a team is in dynasty mode as in Philly fringe fans come and talk trash, when you're losing like the Pirates were, the Orioles are and the Astros will be only hard core fans turn up.
I never leave my seat if something impressive is going on for either team. I watched Johnson throw a perfecto at my Braves and applauded his work. So Howard brings in say 10% of 35000 or so. Not enough to pay his freight perhaps but the winning thing does that. Just MHO of course YMMV
August 16th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Not going to try slogging through the math, but if Howard actually brought in 10% of Phillies' attendance, he'd probably be underpaid.
August 17th, 2011 at 10:40 am
@85
McGriff certainly never enjoyed a peak season akin to Howard's in 2006, although the "Crime Dog" may have made a run at 50 homers in 1994 had the strike not intervened (of course, the same could be said of several other sluggers that year, namely Matt Williams, Ken Griffey, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Barry Bonds, and Albert Belle). And I agree that Howard's historic levels of home run power from 2006-2009 would seem to render the peak phase of his career a little more impressive than McGriff's. Then again, McGriff led both leagues in home runs (the AL in 1989 and the NL in 1992) before the 1990s expansions that grievously diluted pitching and before there was Interleague play and as much video and personnel changes between leagues, making the feat more impressive for the era. And while I have argued in my posts (especially #67) that OPS+ may unfairly diminish Howard, his OPS+ from 2006-2009 was 144, compared to 155 for McGriff from 1988-1994. Even accounting for Howard being unfairly penalized due to his home ballpark (which, despite being a band-box, has not meant more home runs, doubles, and extra-base hits for him at home), one might say that he and McGriff are fairly even in terms of peak phase OPS value and McGriff's peak phase lasted longer. One could also argue that McGriff's performance with Atlanta in 1993 and 1994 placed him on Howard's multiple-year peak level. Unfortunately, McGriff's stints with the Braves in '93 and '94 failed to amount to full seasons, in the first case because he didn't arrive until late July from San Diego and in the second case due to the strike. (Had circumstances allowed McGriff to play complete campaigns with Atlanta in those two years, he was on pace to respectively produce 45 HR/131 RBI and 48 HR/134 RBI, numbers certainly in Howard’s wheelhouse from 2007-2009, when he averaged 47 HR/141 RBI.)
After a seven-year span as an elite hitter from 1988-1994, McGriff remained a very good hitter for another eight years from 1995-2002 (OPS of .860 and OPS+ of 121, unfairly deflated by the rampant steroids use of others). Likewise, Howard beginning last season has seemed to take a step down from elite to very good (OPS of .850 and OPS+ of 127 in 2010-2011), but the question is whether he will enjoy McGriff's longevity. As we've both noted, his body type is very different and frankly more similar to that of Cecil Fielder, who enjoyed his last prime season at age thirty-two in 1996 and played his final game at age thirty-four in 1998. Indeed, seeing how Ryan Howard and Prince Fielder fare over the arcs of their careers shall be intriguing, although Willie Stargell received an MVP Award and led Pittsburgh to its last World Series crown as a big, burly thirty-nine-year old in 1979.
August 18th, 2011 at 12:35 am
Even accounting for Howard being unfairly penalized due to his home ballpark
IT'S NOT A PENALTY