Posted: October 3rd, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 104 Comments »



There is every reason in the world for me to love the Boston Red Sox fan. One, I love Boston. Love it. Love walking around Boston, love being around people from Boston, love the accent, love the Sports Guy, love it. Two, the Red Sox hired two of my absolute favorite people in baseball — Bill James and Allard Baird. Three, the Red Sox play baseball the way I believe in baseball — especially with Fenway Park as the home park. And four, they're good. Is it so wrong to love a team that is actually GOOD?

Right or wrong, I do not love the Red Sox. I cannot just pick and and decided to love the Red Sox — it doesn't work that way for me. I believe in sports loyalty. And I was born for sports misery.

This is especially disheartening because I have now found another reason to love the Red Sox: Theo Epstein. I have always liked and appreciated Theo from afar. He's obviously very smart, very good at his job, and his grandfather and great uncle wrote Casablanca. But it has always been from afar … until I heard him discussing J.D. Drew on the radio show "Felger and Massarotti" this week.

I'll be honest: I have never been an especially big fan of J.D. Drew. I don't dislike him, but he has just never been someone I have spent a lot of time thinking about. In many ways, that makes him the perfect subject. When you are looking at baseball players you like, it's easy (and tempting) to scroll through and find statistics that back up what you want to believe. That's human nature. But when you're utterly unmoved about a player, you won't go through the same effort. J.D. Drew is a good but brittle player. I have nothing invested in him emotionally.

And so when Theo — in a clear effort to steer the conversation toward a point he wanted to make — said that J.D. Drew was second among everyday American League outfielders in OPS (behind only Boston's Jason Bay), I thought: "Hmm, where is this going?"

As it turned out, it was going to Theo Epstein explaining something that is probably the No. 4 theme on this blog — why RBIs are no way to evaluate baseball players.

"Sometimes you get stuck in the world of evaluating players through home runs and RBIs. And it's not the way that I think most clubs do it these days. And if you look at underlying performance of a lot of our guys, they bring more to the table than just the counting stats. And J.D.'s certainly having another good year for us. He's up around a .900 OPS right now, and he's playing really good defense in right field, he deserves an awful lot of credit for that, he's been pretty darned good for the three years that he's been here if you look at the underlying performance."

The radio guys here protest a little … they point out that while Drew's OPS is usually good, they aren't sure that it has led to PRODUCTION — namely runs scored and RBIs. And this is when Theo really takes over. I bold out a few of my favorite thoughts in this wonderful little lesson:

"That's not true. With RBIs, yes. Based on his skill set, he's always going to have underwhelming RBI totals. I couldn't care less. When you're putting together a winning team, that honestly doesn't matter. When you have a player who takes a ton of walks, who doesn't put the ball in play at an above average rate, and is a certain type of hitter, he's not going to drive in a lot of runs. Runs scored, you couldn't be more wrong. If you look at a rate basis, J.D. scores a ton of runs.

"And the reason he scores a ton of runs is because he does the single most important thing you can do in baseball as an offensive player. And that's NOT MAKE OUTS. He doesn't make outs. He's always among our team leaders in on-base percentage, usually among the league leaders in on-base percentage. And he's a really good base runner. So when he doesn't make outs, and he gets himself on base, he scores runs — and he has some good hitters hitting behind him. Look at his runs scored on a rate basis with the Red Sox or throughout his career. It's outstanding.

"You guys can talk about RBIs if you want, I just … we ignore them in the front office … and I think we've built some pretty good offensive clubs. If you want to talk about RBIs at all, talk about it as a percentage of opportunity but it's just simply not a way or something we use to evaluate offensive players."

I have talked many times here about a fan's desperate wish — desperate wish — to have the team see the game the way the fan sees it. I don't mean specifics — fire the coach, bench the QB, go for it on fourth down and so on. I mean see it in the macro, in a larger way. If I'm a basketball fan, I would love a team that believes in pushing the ball up the floor. If I'm a football fan, I would love a team that believes in pressuring the quarterback and working the middle of the field. If I'm a baseball fan, I would just love to know that my GM really and truly believes that one thing — that it's really, really, really important for a baseball player to not make outs.

That seems so simple to me, so utterly basic, so law of gravity. But I know that there are GMs in the league — more than you would ever believe — and lots of other people in and around baseball who do not believe this. It isn't exactly that they are opposed to players who get on base. They certainly want guys to get on base. No, it is that they believe that OBP — the ability to not make outs — falls behind other more mystical talents such as the ability drive in runners in clutch situations or be a leader in the clubhouse or play the game the right way or whatever. I'm not saying these more mystical skills do not exist. Maybe they do. But I know that if you give me a baseball team of people who do not make outs, that team will score a lot of runs. A team of guys who play the game the right way will score a lot of runs too — assuming that "playing the game the right way" includes not making outs.

Anyway, I thought Theo put it perfectly. There's no question that the Red Sox have some huge advantages over most teams in baseball. They have and spend a lot more money than most, which allows them to be better in so many ways. But they're awfully smart too. One argument I have never understood is the one where people say that money doesn't matter because some big money teams lose: "Oh, if money is so important, how come the Mets haven't won more? The Cubs spend a ton of money, and they didn't win. The Astros." And so on. To me that's a false argument — people have been wasting money since, well, since the invention of money.

But matching money with solid reasoning and serious brainpower, that's an awfully tough combination to beat … even in a game as volatile and unpredictable as baseball. The Red Sox win every year. And I suspect they will keep winning every year. And I suspect that it would be a whole lot of fun to be a Boston Red Sox fan.

....OBP — the ability to not make outs....

This argument was incredibly painful to read in the first place. So now its not only going to be resurrected, but given its own thread? Jesus.

And while I think he agrees in principle with some of this, I don't think he really believes it to the point where he thinks ignoring RBIs makes sense.

Before we get into Pedro Feliz — and I will admit you have to work through a few things before we get to him — I have a question for you: Let’s say you’re a manager of a Major League baseball team in 2009. And before the game, a genie says to you that you can have one of two things happen. (1) Your team could have more hits than the opponent or (2) Your team could hit three or more home runs.

Which of those two options would give you a better chance of winning?


* * *

There are many things I love about reading the words of my friend Bill James. But I think the thing I love most is that whenever I read anything by him — an essay, a blurb, an email, whatever — I find that it sparks me to write something. I’ve never really talked with Bill about this, but to me that is a unique quality of his writing: A reader feeds off it. To read Bill is to have a conversation with him. He writes interactively.

I thought about this again the other day when I was reading an essay in The Bill James Gold Mine 2010, and I came across the most perfect sentence I’ve read about the problem with RBIs.

As you probably know, the problem with RBIs and the similar problem with pitcher wins have been two of the hotter topics on this blog for a long time. Bill actually begins the essay — which is called “The Attribution Problem (in Baseball and in Life) — by talking about pitcher wins. He writes:

We attribute the victory won by the team to the individual pitcher — and then conclude, based essentially on that attribution, that the pitcher is the key to victory.

That sums it up pretty well, doesn’t it? The win is all about sleight of hand. Pitchers don’t win games, and pitchers don’t lose games — that should be obvious to everyone. But people decided a long time ago just the opposite: That pitchers do win and lose games. We actually credit them with wins and losses. And based on that decision we have made many suspect judgments through the years based on little evidence — such as the dubious idea that pitchers can “pitch to the score,” or the concept that some pitchers are “Just winners,” or the various calculations that estimate pitching is 60% of baseball or 75% of baseball or 90% of baseball.

Similar thing with RBIs — though I think the attribution problem is even more stark with RBIs. At least with wins and losses, hey, a pitcher does have quite a lot of control over the run prevention half of baseball. He doesn’t do it alone, not even close to alone. He will rely on his defense, and he will rely on his ballpark, and he will rely on his catcher, and he will rely on whoever is calling pitches, and he will rely on luck and countless other things, but few would argue with the premise that when it comes to stopping the other team’s offense, you begin with the pitcher.

The RBI guy, though, is not necessarily the most important guy when it comes to scoring runs. It SEEMS that he is because that’s what we are conditioned to believe. We are taught, throughout our baseball fan lives, to lionize the big-time RBI players. We have been conditioned — by MVP votes, by fantasy baseball, by all the stories in newspapers about “productive” hitters, by announcer voices that celebrate the clutch hits — to believe that runs, for the most part, come about because of the hitter who drives them in.

But it really isn’t so. Take this situation: One out, Rick Manning cracks a line drive single. Duane Kuiper hits a high chopper in front of the plate, he’s out, but Manning takes second. Jim Norris, with first base open and two outs, works for a walk. Manning and Norris move up on a wild pitch. Pitcher works around Andre Thornton, and he walks. Then, with a 3-1 count and the bases loaded, the pitcher has to throw a fastball that catches too much of the plate, and Rico Carty rolls a single between short and third, scoring two runs.

That’s a fairly typical sequence, I would guess. In our mind and in our statbook, Carty is the hero — two RBIs. He is, in fan and media shorthand, RESPONSIBLE for those runs. But he isn’t. Carty’s single didn’t make those two runs happen. Those two runs scored because of a series of events, and Carty’s single was just the last of those events.

And this is the point: Teams don’t score runs because they have uniquely talented RBI men. Teams score runs because more often than their opponents, they put together a string of useful offensive plays — walks, hits, stolen bases, hit-by-pitch, beating out double play grounders, taking extra bases, advancing on throws , on and on and on. That, most of the time, is what lead to runs.* The RBI guy cannot do it himself except with solo home runs. And teams don’t win games by hitting solo home runs. No, really, they don’t. I looked it up. In 2009, offenses that scored all their runs on solo home runs were 24-193. Houston lost a game to Cincinnati 6-5 while hitting five solo home runs. For the decade, teams relying entirely on solo home runs went 267-1837.**

*You can reduce the confusion and make it pretty simple, really. Here’s a Bill James stat to think about, and it focuses only on hits: How often does a team win when they get more hits than their opponents? Well, in 2009 the answer: 80.3% of the time. Teams won four out of five games when they got more hits than their opponents. How remarkable is this? Well, I’m glad you asked — we go back to the trivia question at the top. You’re a manager of a baseball team, and before the game the genie gives you the choice: You can either outhit your opponent tonight or you can hit three or more homers tonight … which one would be more likely to bring you the victory.

And since I gave you the lead, you already know the answer:

Teams that outhit their opponents won 80.3% of the time.
Teams that hit three-or-more homers won 78.4% of the time.

**And for the record: Only one team in baseball since 1954 scored exclusively on six solo home runs in a game — the 1991 Oakland A’s. They lost 8-6 to Minnesota.

So, my point is, that people have through the years counted RBIs and celebrated RBIs and given too much credit to to the men who knock them in. And, as a result, many people have come to determine that RBI men are the most valuable part of an offense. That’s the circular thinking we have here.

Well, I have been bouncing around this topic for a long time, never quite getting to the heart of things. And it wasn’t until I read the following sentence from Bill that it all snapped into place for me:

If you add a low-average power hitter to a bad team, the low average power hitter will lead the team in RBI — and the team will score fewer runs, not more.

Bingo. There it is. All this time, I’ve been wondering, for instance, why Jose Guillen’s 97 RBIs for Kansas City in 2008 bothered me so much. I mean, sure, I knew Guillen was mostly crummy that year (a 95 OPS+ despite two extremely hot months). And I knew that those 97 RBIs just felt pointless. But, hey, I’m not immune to the seductive powers of RBIs. I will see 97 RBIs, especially for a Royals player, and think “Well, hey, that’s a lot.” The Royals had not had anyone with more than 86 RBIs since Carlos Beltran and Raul Ibanez left town. So, hey, at least Guillen did that, right?

But it bugged me. And as soon as I read that Bill statement, I instinctively knew why. I went to Baseball Reference, and confirmed what I was thinking.

The Royals without Guillen scored 706 runs in 2007.
The Royals with Guillen’s RBIs scored 691 runs in 2008.

That was it all right. Guillen’s RBIs were an illusion. He did not make the team’s offense any better at all. He may have contributed RBIs — giving the Royals someone to credit for their lousy offense — but he did not contribute any actual improvement to the offense. Frankly, he made the Royals offense worse. Several players — Alex Gordon, David DeJesus, Mike Aviles — had markedly better years than in 2007. But the Royals had Jose Guillen and his dreadful .300 on-base percentage hitting in the middle of the lineup. He drove in runs. But he did not help.

This is not an uncommon theme in baseball history. Bad teams (and, to be fair, mediocre and good teams too) often will fall for the allure of the RBI guy. A middle of the order bat. A producer. And, hey, it can help you if you get an RBI guy who is also, you know, a GOOD HITTER, you know, someone who hits for an average and gets on base and slugs and all that. But the teams aren’t necessarily looking for good. No. They are looking for “productive.” They are looking for RBI men.

After winning 89 games during the 1989 season, San Diego felt like it needed a middle-of-the-order bat, so the Padres traded for RBI guru Joe Carter. And Carter did exactly what they hoped he would do — he drove in 115 RBIs. Unfortunately, he also punched up an 85 OPS+ … and the Padres dropped from fifth to eighth in runs scored and and finished 75-87.

Just before the 1992 season started — I mean just before, on March 30 — the Chicago White Sox determined they needed a middle of the order bat to make a run. So they traded for George Bell, a guy who had driven in more than 85 RBIs for eight straight seasons. And it worked: Bell drove in 112 RBIs for the White Sox. Trouble is, he had a 99 OPS+. He was a below average hitter. The White Sox scored 20 fewer runs and won one less game.

And, of course, one of the players they included in that deal: Sammy Sosa.

In 2004, the Montreal Expos signed Tony Batista to a contract, and then batted him third or fourth, and why not? He bashed 32 home runs! He drove in 110 RBIs! Great year! Unfortunately, his on-base percentage was .272, and the Expos scored 76 fewer runs than they had the year before.

I’m not doing a full study on this … I’m sure there are some counter-examples of low-on base percentage guys with a lot of RBIs who helped a team. Maybe. But there are probably not many. It’s pretty well documented that scoring runs is a process of getting on base and advancing on the bases. There are more accurate ways to figure it, like Base Runs, but if you simply multiply on-base percentage by total bases — that basic version of runs created — you will come pretty close to the number of runs a team scores. This really isn’t a mystery.

So, no, low average, low-on-base guys simply do not help the offense very much, even if they have a lot of RBIs. They just don’t. In their case, the RBI numbers is a deception. Now, it should be pointed out that the most big RBI men are also good or great hitters. But I would argue that RBIs are a by-product of their greatness, not the root. Willie Mays wasn’t great because he drove in 100 runs 10 times. He drove in 100 runs 10 times because he was great.

All of which (finally) brings us to Houston’s new third baseman Pedro Feliz. You know the Astros signed Feliz during the off-season for $4.5 million — he was the big offensive acquisition for a team that finished 14th in the league last year in runs scored. Now, I should start by saying the Feliz is not without value. He is an excellent defensive third baseman. He has never won a Gold Glove, but I think he should have won in 2007 for sure, and he had a strong case the previous two years. He does not seem quite as mobile now — he used to be the best in baseball at charging the bunt; now, not so much — but he’s still awfully good defensively. And he has a great arm. And, by all accounts, he seems a very good guy.

Also, every now and then, his bat will run into a fastball.

OK, those are the positives. Now, the downside: Feliz is a terrible hitter. No, really, dreadful … historically dreadful. The last five years, Feliz has not had an OPS+ of better than 85 in any season. The last four years, his combined OPS+ is 80. His batting Runs Above Replacement? Minus-70.9 for his career. He isn’t just worse offensively than a replacement level player, he’s A LOT worse. His .293 on-base percentage … worst in baseball for the decade (4,000 or more PAs).

Feliz isn’t a bad big league hitter … he’s an atrocious hitter.

BUT … yep, he has some decent-looking RBI numbers. Feliz is the only player in baseball history to have three 80 RBI seasons with sub-85 OPS+. So he’s got that going for him. Among all players with career OPS+ of less than 85 (min. 2,000 plate appearances), only Craig Paquette has more RBIs per plate appearance. Bob Boone used to say that the ball “exploded” off of Craig Paquette’s bat. He said that a lot.

So Feliz is a poor hitter who got enough at-bats on good teams to drive in runs. Pretty obvious, right? Nobody inside baseball would fall for that illusion. Right?

Here’s what it says about Feliz in The Sporting News:

“The Astros moved quickly to sign free-agent third baseman Pedro Feliz who has four 80-RBI seasons on his resume …”

Um. Oh oh. And in The Houston Chronicle:

“Astros general manager Ed Wade is direct with his expectations of Feliz, saying the team projects third base to produce 85 to 90 runs.” This is followed by the writer adding: “A career .254 hitter with a below average on-base percentage of .293, Feliz nonetheless has forged a reputation as a consistent run producer.”

Oh no. And in USA Today, quote after quote about how Feliz’s championship experience in Philadelphia will bring happy intangibles to Houston. And then there’s something in there about how Feliz’s .301 batting average in Houston is the highest he has in any park with at-least 25 at-bats. Not to even get into the silliness of small sample size … do you know what Feliz’s numbers are at Minute Maid Park the last three years? Yep, he’s hitting .250/.298/.295. That’s about what you can expect.

Of course, people have to say nice things … but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. I think the Astros realistically expect Feliz to help them offensively this year. And I think that is as good sign a sign as any that the Astros are going to have a rough year. It never fails to amaze me how baseball people trying to turn around bad teams have this amazing knack for seeing what they want to see and drawing unlikely conclusions and creating unrealistic happily ever afters. Pedro Feliz cannot hit. At all. He hasn’t been able to hit the last five years, and now he’s getting old which could mean he will hit even less.

But if the Astros hit him 5th or 6th all year, which seems to be the plan, he might drive in 80-plus RBIs. Some people will point to the RBI number and maybe feel good about things. Maybe there will be pressure to bring Feliz back — you can’t let go of a third baseman with 80-plus RBIs! And it will remain a mystery why the Astros don’t actually get any better.

But if the Astros hit him 5th or 6th all year, which seems to be the plan, he might drive in 80-plus RBIs. Some people will point to the RBI number and maybe feel good about things. Maybe there will be pressure to bring Feliz back — you can’t let go of a third baseman with 80-plus RBIs! And it will remain a mystery why the Astros don’t actually get any better.

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/03/13...-feliz-houston/

Um... most RBI guys have a high SLG and OPS?! Where did you get that from in the article (or elsewhere)? He was talking about your "big" RBI guys, not the far broader category of "RBI men" in which guys like Pedro Feliz are included. Nearly ever team in existence has a guy with 75-80 RBIs on the team. Not all of them are great, or even good.

I guess you didn't read it - the point was, when trying to fix a bad team, you can't just add a "productive" low average, good RBI man and expect to get better.

Usually the opposite happens. And - RBIs are a natural by-product of being a good/great player, combined with the opportunities the players around you provide.

And there's also the issue of over-rated good/great players. Ryan Howard is not as great as his 140+ RBIs a year suggests.

Who thinks Pedro Feliz is an RBI guy? Do you not read the papers? The whole point of Poz's article is that guys like Feliz are signed every year for one reason only - they produce runs. They are "RBI guys." It runs from your average fan all the way up to the front office of MLB teams.

No one thinks of Pedro Feliz when they hear "RBI guy" except for nerds trying to create something out of nothing. Sorry. He's been over 85 RBI once in his career and never cracked 100.

No one would confuse Ed Wade with being a stat nerd. Once again, you're wrong. Of course, the idea that 100 RBIs is some sort of magical number separating bums and "RBI MEN" is plenty proof of that...