Again they are cherry picking. They state he came to bat with 437 runners on base 30th in baseball but don't mention what his RBI rank was. The snidely state that he came to bat 97 times with a runner on third but failed to mention 42 of those times there were TWO outs and he had a .400 BA/.500 OBA/.800 SLG in those occasions. But then those nuumbers don't support their predetermined conclusion.
It seems patently obvious that the RBI is an achievement highly correlated to opportunity, similar to the save. To then seek to parse out the effect of opportunity from performance is an excellent example of what SABR analysis ought to be able to do to enhance understanding of the game. Maybe that 85 RBI guy really is better than that 105 RBI guy, but just didn't have as many opportunities.
The point with Carter is that he did less with more than many other all-star class hitters in the same situations, and I think the case they make over his career is strong. He had premier table setters in front of him, and he did a decent though unspectacular job of driving them in. I don't think they are saying he sucked, but they are pointing out the flaws in using RBI's to elevate him.
