Bring back the GW RBI !!!

[Y`s Guy]

I loved the stat back in the day but I admit, it was a flawed one as defined. In a 9-8 game where the Red Sox win Rick Burleson could have had the GW RBI by knocking in run #1 and if the Sox never gave up the lead. Dumb, huh? You would think whoever drove in run #9 would get the GW RBI.

I wish MLB would redefine the stat and bring it back.

[AcidRock23]

I like that stat too, I think we used it in our Statis-Pro baseball league in junior high?

[CadensDad]

Ok, what purpose does it serve?

[Y`s Guy]

It kind of is a symbol of clutch. Sure, the second RBI in a 8-1 win is weak GW RBI but that game winner in the bottom of the 9th is great.

I just long for this old-time stat. I think it would be a great stat for fantasy as there is only one awarded/game.

[cnote23]

It kind of is a symbol of clutch. Sure, the second RBI in a 8-1 win is weak GW RBI but that game winner in the bottom of the 9th is great.

I just long for this old-time stat. I think it would be a great stat for fantasy as there is only one awarded/game.

yeah it was a fun stat I don't understand why they eveg got rid of it.

[Sekrah]

How about a GW RBI can only be rewarded under two conditions:

#1 After the 7th inning
#2 The team was tied/trailing when it was hit.

[Pogotheostrich]

Worst stat ever.

[eftda]

Worst stat ever.

We can use it to re-define clutch

[Bobbleheadrusty]

Worst stat ever.

We can use it to re-define clutch

Thats not that hard considering the current definition is "A special secret skill possessed only by Red Sox, True Yankees and tiny white players that forces the media to ignore all other statistics"

[Houser33]

Its an interesting stat but I doubt I'd use it. If it is anything like the GWG stat in hockey leagues then it is just too random on a year-to-year basis. I wouldnt mind seeing a stat based off of hits with RISP and 2 outs.