I’m sure someone who actually cared about Gretzky could, but that’s beside the point. That no one you happen to know can cite a single example of a stat from years ago off the top of their head doesn’t mean the stat as a whole is useless or overrated.
Tracking shots has been found to be the most reliable method of sorting through the noise of luck in hockey and is the basis of determining Corsi/Fenwick; scoring chances; and quality of competition and teammates, to name a few–which are all used together to sort out an individual’s performance.
Knowing the shots taken per goal is also important as it enables one to calculate a player or team’s shooting percentages and ultimately PDO, which is perhaps the single best predictive stat hockey has.
Gehrig hit 493 home runs in a not-very-long career and was the cleanup hitter on one of the most on-base teams in the history of the sport. So yes, it’s obviously part of it that he simply had a lot of men on base.
If your evidence for Lou Gehrig’s clutch hitting ability is 24 at bats, you’re not dealing from a position of strength. How you hit with the bases loaded is a small part of a player’s “clutch” performance. Were all those grand slams in clutch situations? Is a grand slam in the eighth with your team already up 9-1 a clutch hit? How’d he do in all game-changing situations, as opposed to how he did all the time (he was an amazing hitter all the time, remember.)
Of course it SEEMS that way, because we have funny memories and because someone always has to drive in the game winning run. In short samples someone’s gonna bat .400. Pat Borders hit .450 in the 1992 World Series and won the MVP Award. Was Pat Borders a great clutch hitter? If so why didn’t be tear it up in the playoffs the following year?
You cite Derek Jeter as a great clutch hitter, and yet Jeter in his career hits pretty much the same in the playoffs as he does all the time. Why is that? He sure hit a big home run in the 2001 World Series, but it’s rather unfortunate for his team that in the rest of that same Series he went 3-for-26, struck out six times without drawing a walk, and didn’t drive in a single run while the Yankees lost in seven.
Of course some players have really good playoff records (Bob Gibson, Kirby Puckett, Eddie Collins) and they deserve credit for what they did, and some don’t (Willie Mays) but we’re often talking about 20, 30 games. It’s not a permanent ability. If a guy had a bad June you wouldn’t say he was inherently lousy in June.
You sure do like to appeal to authority in sports threads, don’t you? Of course, there are plenty of people who have played baseball who “disrespect” the RBI - leading off with that statement does you a disservice.
It does nothing of the sort. If you want to find out how well someone hits the ball with RISP, why not just look at AVG or contact rate with RISP? Then you can compare that directly to their regular AVG or contact rate. Here’s Jeter:
Only dip there is AVG going into the postseason, but he gets on-base at exactly the same rate, where Jeter dips down a bit. Sorry, but I’m not seeing it.
(Just for shits and giggles, here’s David Eckstein, a guy the Clutch Clutchers love: )
Hogwash. Plenty of players who getting lauded by the Eckstein crowd don’t get paid jack, and plenty of players who get lambasted by the Grittier Than Thou Fanclub are gazillionaires.
I…think this argues our point.
Agreed - it’s another good example of why Wins are worthless as an individual statistic.
You know what else tells you quite a bit about a batter’s ability to hit a ball when he has an opportunity to drive in a run? His ability to hit a ball, period.
In fact, his ability to hit the ball in all circumstances tells you more about his likelihood of hitting the ball with men on base because it’s been measured over a larger sample size.
Also a function of coaching.
Personal anecdote: I was coaching baseball and there were two outs. A player got a hit that would have been a close play at the plate but probably he would have been out by a step or two. I held the player up to third. Why? My next batter was a really good contact hitter. The batter did exactly what I thought he would do and pulled a 1-1 pitch. Beautiful ground ball but just happened to be right at the shortstop. A couple feet either way and he has a standup double with an RBI.
Had that hit gotten out of the infield, you would definately say he was a clutch hitter, but the reality was I as coach put him in that “clutch” situation since I knew he was a dependable batter. If he weren’t I would have sent the runner home and then he would be batting with the bases empty whether the runner made it or not.
I agree. It pads some players stats too much. While there may be great plays from a second assist player, the same could be said about any player who had touched the puck in any given shift.
The +/- is only indicative for some players, it doesn’t take into account enough variables, especially, ice time, power play, penalty kills, etc..
The most overrated stats for hockey (other than player height, weight, and slapshot LOL) are hit counts and shots on goal because thare are frequently exaggerated and do not reflect quality, etc..
Scoring chances are a much better indicator.
Yep, any curler will tell you it doesn’t take into account the BS factor. Frequently, during the shot selection process there is a long discussion of “what if” scenarios, usually taking into account what happens after the intitial shot.
It does, to a degree, but as mentioned earlier there are at least as many deserved secondary assists as those picked up by guys who just happened to touch the puck 3rd from last. Goalies tend to pick up assists this way.
To me having some guys pick up undeserved assists to their career totals isn’t a big enough reason to abolish the stat and deny all the guys who deserve it from getting one. It probably about balances out in the end through situations in which a guy who provides a key screen on the goalie or a great individual effort on a cycle along the boards that allowed the eventual goal to happen doesn’t get an assist.
Agreed–it’s a highly generic, non-contextual stat–however special teams are not taken into consideration in +/- with the exception of shorthanded goals.
I’m with you on hit counts. They’re a completely useless stat as hits have no demonstrable effect on the outcome of games, and, additionally, they’re notoriously over-counted by some team’s scorekeepers.
Disagree on shots on goal, however, for the reasons indicated above. They’re the foundation of advanced stats in hockey as the only reliable way to judge a player’s individual performance in perhaps the most difficult sport to isolate the individual’s contribution from the team’s results.
Scoring chances is a good stat, but not necessarily better than shots on goal. It depends really on what you’re trying to track. One can have a scoring chance without being credited with a shot, or a shot without being credited with a scoring chance. It seems counter-intuitive, but that’s just how they work.
Taking more shots than your opponents, regardless of whether they’re scoring chances or not, means your team is carrying play more often and that is (or at least should be) the goal of every team.
A scoring chance does not indicate a shot with a better chance of going in, necessarily. There’s a lot of debate about the subject of shot quality in the hockey community and in fact one website has offered a modest monetary reward for anyone that can produce compelling evidence that shows it to have a significant role in the game.
That’s the problem, because it is they are not differentiated, they dilute the significance of the first assist and the goal, skewing the statistics.
It looks great on a players individual stats sheet, in contract negotiations or in a hockey pool, but as a lifetime player and current coach, we do not track second assists when evaluating our players.
Yes, exactly my point, yet worded much better, thank you.
You are confusing shots with shots on goal.
Secondly, the problem with the shots on goal is there can be only two results, a goal or save by the goaltender, everything else, shots that miss, hit the post/crossbar, are deflected or blocked by other players do not count as a SOG as a result they are merely the sum of saves plus goals allowed.
As with hits, it is also notoriously over-counted.
Yes it does, by definition, it may be subjective, but it differentiates between plays that have a more or less likelyhood of producing a goal. It takes into account all the other scoring attempts that SOG doesn’t.
Damn hamsters ate my post, so I’ll see if I can replicate it.
Sure sometimes people get secondary assists they didn’t really do anything to earn, but one could make the same argument about some primary assists and even goals. The line has to be drawn somewhere and I personally think it’s fine at secondary assists.
None of the alternatives–to just not count any secondary assists at all; to allow someone somewhere to arbitrarily assign them as they see fit; or to assign different point values to each to more properly weight them–aren’t particularly palatable.
No one is pulling a fast one over on GMs by touting their assist totals.
It comes back to context. Some players rack up SOG from manning the point on PPs or from benefiting from 60+% offensive zone starts, or massive ice time, etc., but generally, those getting the shots on goal are getting them because they’ve put themselves into a position to take them and that’s an important ability.
Also, it allows for the calculation of PDO, which as stated above is perhaps the single most useful statistic in hockey.
As an aside, I’ve always thought hitting the pipe should count as a SOG and never understood why it didn’t.
Rink bias is definitely a concern, but it’s not just in over-counting. Some arenas under-count. In any event, it’s a known concern but shown to have little to no impact.
A scoring chance is just an attempt to score from within a predetermined area. One doesn’t even have to get a shot off to get credited with a scoring chance.
There is no data that I’m aware of that shows that shot quality has anything to do with scoring.
Believe me, I know how ridiculous that sounds–when I first heard the argument I was extremely skeptical as it just runs completely contrary to common sense–but the truth is that scoring in hockey is largely a result of luck.
Sure I do… just like everyone else out here. I base my opinions on a number of things, just as you and everyone else does. Just because we may not always agree doesn’t make much difference to me. However, in the example you linked to, you were spouting off as an expert yourself… Saying something is “total bullshit” is not usually the way to make your point, even if you do disagree with another. I think you do a disservice to yourself with that statement.
Honestly, my statements about playing the game are not out of left field, nor are they out of line. If you’ve never played baseball at a high level (or any other sport for that matter), you probably don’t have the best perspective on things. If I tried to tell someone about driving race cars, and they had driven and I hadn’t, how could I possibly know the pressures someone behind a wheel of a car is feeling? By the same logic, if you played little league baseball, it’s not exactly the same thing as college ball. And batting with the bases loaded in one league is definitely not the same as the other.
I’ve played a number of sports at a high enough competitive level to have some knowledge of what I’m saying… at least to offer an opinion… I can relate my answer to the experiences I’ve had, either personally or witnessed. That doesn’t make me an expert, it just gives me a better perspective than one who has never played at a competitive level, or cared about the sport in general.
As to the RBI question, I’m fascinated by the disdain the stat has with most folks in this thread. I don’t get it. If RBI’s don’t matter, what does?
I will agree that RBI’s aren’t a perfect stat. but what is? Each game has a different flow, a different rhythm… and different points of pressure. Hitting a home run to lead off the game (if you have the ability) does not impress me as much as the guy who can hit one in the late innings (7,8,9) that either ties or moves his team ahead. That’s because it’s a different situation. Because of that situation, a pitcher may throw differently… will bear down harder… or be relieved by a fresh armed pitcher because the situation dictates it. The batter on the other hand has to focus differently, because so much more is riding on the at bat.
To me, the RBI tells me a lot about the batter’s ability to hit under pressure. Maybe I am the only one, but so be it.
how do you suggest we judge a pitcher then? Strikeouts are worthless. So is pitch count. WHIP? if the pitcher’s era is low, why would WHIP be important?
Shots on goal I think is a useful stat in the context of a game and a team, if one team had 45 SOG and another 19 it certainly seems like a pretty good indicator of how the game went.
That gives you an interesting take on the sports you’ve allegedly played at a high level but it doesn’t really tell us anything about whether or not “clutch hitters” exist in the major leagues. Again, if you have evidence, it should be very easy to provide it. “I am right because I’ve played baseball at a vaguely high level” is not evidence.
And NOBODY talking about this doesn’t “care about the sport in general.”
It may tell you that, but it is not based on evidence.
A batter’s RBI total, over time, is a function of how good a hitter he is (and what type of hitter he is; someone who swings at everything and never walks will drive in more runs, but score fewer, than a very selective hitter) and how many batters are on base in front of him. That’s it.
Certainly an RBI is NEVER a bad thing. Nobody would ever suggest it is. And as RickJay noted earlier, you can’t drive in 140 runs in a season without being very good.
But RBI’s are a problematic stat, in large measure because they’ve long been the favorite stat of MVP voters. If you drive in 125 runs for a division winning team, your chances of winning the MVP award have, historically, been very, very high.
But to use an example I’ve often harped on… look at the 1985 stats for Don Mattingly (one of my favorite players ever) and for George Brett.
Mattingly won the MVP award that year. But I think you’ll find that, in most respects, George Brett’s offensive numbers were every bit as good… maybe even a little BETTER. Brett had a higher batting average AND a higher slugging percentage.
Mattingly won the MVP award rather than Brett almost SOLELY because Mattingly had 42 more RBIs than Brett (145 to 103).
But does that mean Brett underperformed in pressure situations? No- it means Matttigly had a lot more opportunities to drive in runs, because he had two guys ahea dof him in the Yankees lineup who were VERY good at getting on base.
My argument is NOT “Mattingly sucks!” Of COURSE Mattingly had a great year. But I’m pretty sure Brett would have driven in 145 runs if HE’D been the one constantly coming up to bat with Rickey Henderson on 2nd, or with Rickey on 3rd and Willie Randolph on first. As it is, Brett pretty much CARRIED a weak hitting team on his back to a World Championship.
I think in that particular year, the desire among voters to “spread the wealth” may have been key. As I recall, in both the MVP and the Cy Young races in the AL, it was between one New York Yankee and one Kansas City Royal (Mattingly and Brett; Guidry and Saberhagen). In the event, the awards were split between the two teams, in each case in favor of the player who had not won that prize before.
I remember that Roger Angell called Mattingly “an easy choice, to my way of thinking” but he didn’t explain what his way of thinking was.
If your advice is about my batting stance or how to better react to a ball coming off a bat, you’d be absolutely right.
Which doesn’t have anything to do with finding a statistic that best measure a player’s performance and ability. If there’s a player out there who looks at a terrible statistic like RBIs in order to play the sport better, he’s an idiot wasting his time. In fact, if he’s even looking at a GOOD stat like OBP, he’s wasting his time.
Something that measures his actual performance, rather than his team’s?
Those are the same ability - being able to hit a pitched ball hard enough to clear the fence. You will not find evidence to suggest which inning that takes place in has an effect on that ability, because that evidence does not exist.
If that’s so, why aren’t you looking at RBI rate? Two players with 100 RBI each, one of which had 400 RISP and the second of which had 200 RISP, certainly are exhibiting different abilities, don’t you think? THAT is what makes RBI a worthless statistic - it’s entirely dependent upon other circumstances (namely the number of times he’s been to bat with runners on base).
With something that measures his actual performance, rather than his team’s.
Like you said - there is no perfect stat. But can’t we at least eliminate the stats that not only rely strongly on the performance of others, but also claim to measure other things other stats do perfectly well (and certainly better than the Win)?
I think you’ve misread the OP. We’re talking about stats that are over-rated not useless ones. In the hockey world plus/minus, SOG, and hits are viewed as widely over-rated while PP%, PK%, Save%, and legitimate scoring chances are much more indicative.
I can assure you that as a player and coach, almost all stats a are over-rated and we don’t dwell on them.
I think we’ve hijacked this thread enough vis-a-vis RBI. So, I’ll just add a couple of comments and we can discuss other worthless stats!
I agree with this. Which is why I think RBI has some value. To say it’s worthless is missing the mark, IMO.
You mentioned this twice which is why I bolded it. is this your fundamental requirement for a meaningful statistic? Because if so, you’ve put the statistics guy out of business. In team sports, how many stats measure individual performance vs. His team’s?
Take era for ex. This stat is used to determine a pitchers effectiveness over a nine inning stretch. But the only way it would mean anything at all is if the pitcher struck everyone out. Without his defense behind him, he’s giving up a boatload of runs.
A goaltender doesn’t make a save on a shot stopped by a defender who sacrificed his body to block it. But that shot is not reflected in shots on goal (sog). Nor does the final score in a game indicate a goalies total performance in a game. His defense may have been superb in giving up only 15 shots, while the opposing goalie may have faced 45. But your guy won the game 2-1, even though the saves (14 -43) and save percentage both favor the losing goalie.
I could do the same thing for each team sport. Assists in basketball? Worthless. You only get one if the guy scores, not if you made the perfect pass.
I think the only sports with stats you seek are individual sports, like tennis.
I agree that RBIs are an overrated statistic. The point of the game is not to score more RBIs, it’s to score more runs. Which is why runs scored is the best statistic in the history of baseball. A guy who scores a lot of runs is a guy that’s helping your team win. I’d much rather have a guy with 120 runs scored, even if he hits .250 with no power, than a guy mashing a bunch of home runs if he only scores 100 runs.