It’s not a requirement, it’s an ideal. No stat is possible without other players. But some stats rely on other players’ performances more than others. RBI relies on others far more than most any other offensive statistic. The more it relies on others, the less useful it is.
And that’s why FIP and BABIP are more useful than ERA.
So far, you’re leading the thread in both GPY (Goal Post Yardage) and SKO (Strawman Knock Outs).
I’m in agreement concerning hits and +/-, but SOG are the stat we disagree on. It’s required to calculate player and team shooting percentages (which have value and fair predictive ability) and, when combined with Save%, PDO (perhaps the single most useful and predictive stat in hockey).
The other stats you mention as indicative are new to the conversation and it seems we disagree on most of these as well.
PP and PK stats are pretty useless in indicating anything as the samples are far too small. That’s not to say they have no value, but they’re not especially indicative of anything.
Not sure exactly what you mean by a legitimate scoring chance, as it suggests there are more than one kind, but regardless, it doesn’t have any particular extra value in assessing a player. Counting scoring chances is just counting selective shots (or attempts at shots) and counting shots has greater value.
Players shouldn’t, it’s not their job. Coaches, however, should as when used properly they can help a team immensely.
I don’t think so. Ny-Quil might be hampering my cognitive abilities, but I still like the RBI as a stat.
One day we should meet at a dopefest. I think you’d find me more reasonable (and coherent).
but maybe not.
What strawman are you referring to?
You know what? never mind. It doesn’t really matter. I just know clutch when I see it. Roberto Clemente, 1971 WS? Clutch. Willie Stargell, 1979 WS? Clutch. Barry Bonds his entire life except the last one (giants lost it, but he played well), not so clutch in post season.
Pitchers? Mariano Rivera, clutch. Mitch Williams, not clutch.
(I know you are going to pull all their stats and “prove” me wrong. And you will show that Tim Foli was a better clutch hitter in the 1979 WS.)
Cheers
At least we’re not talking about stats now. Clutchness is about a fan’s memory, not a ballplayer’s stats.
Rivera is one of the all-time greats and Williams isn’t. In fact Rivera’s worst season as a closer is about as good as Williams’ best, at least in terms of ERA+. So Rivera is going to be better in any situation and there’s no need to bring concepts like clutchness into it. If you could prove that Williams was really better in some situations that could be defined as clutch, that would be interesting because it’d be unexpected. If not, all you’re saying is that Rivera is better than Williams, and everybody already knows that.
Oh, I’m sure I come off far more insufferable online than in person. If you’re in Indy during baseball season, we can catch an Indians game, so that you can have a chance to see all the Pirates’ good young talent actually play for the organization before being traded away for draft picks and more prospects.
As Marley mentioned, that’s not how it works. But if you want to set the bar for “clutch” at “Mariano Rivera”, I’m inclined to just agree with you and move on, as no one else will ever be able to be called clutch (thank god).
If you really think that being able to hit the ball out of the infield with men on base is a very specific ability, why do you like RBI, instead of either RBI% or AVG/OBP/SLG with RISP? I think we agreed that the counting aspect of the RBI stat proves its worthlessness, but I could be wrong.
I agree with the RBI being a worthless stat. It would make more sense to look at the percentage of hits with runner(s) in scoring position. I think we could fairly compare someone hitting .500 with runners in scoring position vs. .300.
Wins, for quarterbacks. Rather have Tim Tebow than Cam Newton, would you? Didn’t think so.
Or an offense that turns the ball over a lot in the Red Zone.
LOL.
Wait, you were joking, right?
Nothing like hyperbole to drive home a point.