Baseballer02 wrote:dleoboyd wrote:Here's my take on the top OF:
To me I see a break after the top 4, so I've got Cabrera in the 2nd tier.
Dunn in the top 10? His HRs are great, but there's more OFs who get just as many runs and RBIs as him without having a dismal average. I've got Dunn 17th in the OF.
I put no emphasis on runs in my rankings (I think they are a pretty worthless stat and don't play in leagues where they are a category). So my rankings are reflective of one of the more comprehensive stats: OPS, SLG%, and OBP.
You have to figure in that Dunn is only 25 years old, he hit 46 HRs last year and MLB players don't typically peak, on average, until age 27. Dunn is 6'6" 240 LBS, you have to think that with in the next few years, as he develops more plate discipline, this guy is going to be hitting .280/.420/.600 with 50+ HRs. So yeah, I rank him pretty high.
RBI's also aren't really a very good stat for evaluating a player's performance. You Could Look It Up: Backlash
There are so many points on this under: "4: LIES, DAMNED LIES, WITHOUT STATISTICS" Here is one of them:
RBI are opportunistic; RBI are a team stat and are not indicative of a player's ability.
In 1985 Don Mattingly had a great year. The Yankees often batted Rickey Henderson first and Mattingly second. Henderson was having an even better year than Mattingly, reaching base 42% of the time and putting himself in scoring position constantly thanks to his 28 doubles, five triples, and 80 stolen bases--the last of which cost the Yankees only 10 caught stealing. At his peak, Henderson was the rare player where the rewards of stealing handily outweighed the risks. Hitting .324/.371/.567 behind this on-base dynamo, Mattingly drove in 145 runs and won the MVP award.
The next year, Mattingly was even better, improving his numbers to .352/.394/.573. Oddly, he drove in 32 fewer runs. The problem was Henderson, who saw his OBP drop to .358 in 1986, meaning he was on base less often. Better Mattingly + Worse Henderson = fewer RBI opportunities for Mattingly. If RBI were an expression of a player's ability, we should hold the shortfall against Mattingly despite his being better than the year before. That doesn't make much sense
RBI's aren't an expression of a player's ability (See also Baseball Prospectus Basics: Measuring Offense). Holding Mattingly responsible for the drop in RBI is silly when it was because Ricky Henderson didn't get on base as much. Likewise claiming Mattingly's greatness came from his RBI's is silly.
Just because a player has had high RBI's historically, doesn't mean that he will continue to do so.
There is a lot of other stuff in BP's Basics series
*Edit* Added one sentance