Follow the Prospects: Derek Norris, C

[blue911]

If you want to see how many wins Dunn "directly" contributed to, there's a stat for that--WPA.  If you want to see how much he was really worth as an individual, free of the contextual fluctuations that occur naturally in any season, there's a stat for that too--WAR.  WAR is what people actually use to determine future value, while WPA is a mathematically rigorous way to measure past value.  It's mostly considered a toy, but it's still vastly superior to any method of calculation involving RBIs.

I don't give a crap about how many "theoretical wins" somebody has. None of that horsecrap tells me whether he can hit a freaking curve or not. When you can come up with a stat that tells me that, then I won't think it's all a bunch of crap.

[PatsNats28]

I don't give a crap about how many "theoretical wins" somebody has. None of that horsecrap tells me whether he can hit a freaking curve or not. When you can come up with a stat that tells me that, then I won't think it's all a bunch of crap.

What the freak does that have to do with RBIs? Way to change the subject.

[blue911]

What the freak does that have to do with RBIs? Way to change the subject.

Shouldn't you be asking Sharp what WPA or War have to do with RBI? I responded to his blathering about pseudo science.

[Tyler Durden]

Shouldn't you be asking Sharp what WPA or War have to do with RBI? I responded to his blathering about pseudo science.

Ha.  I don't know that it's totally pseudo science, but I also get a kick out of all the new acronyms.  It's just the condescension the statheads have that really gets to me.  Baseball has gotten by just fine for 100+ years with batting averages and ERA's.  The new stuff is useful, but the dismissiveness of stats like RBI's is a little silly to me, too.

[Potomac Cannons]

Shouldn't you be asking Sharp what WPA or War have to do with RBI? I responded to his blathering about pseudo science.

Considering his initial post pretty well spells it out, no, no one should bother questioning him about that while you do nothing but live 30 years in the past with the RBI stat.

[tomterp]

 Baseball has gotten by just fine for 100+ years with batting averages and ERA's.  

Not really.  More insight is being gleaned from stats now than ever before.  The shortcomings in average and ERA are stunningly obvious, but yet it took decades to move on.   Clearly now is a time of transition, you still have the old school types focusing on the old legacy stats, while the movement to more progressive and insightful measurements is now unstoppable.

RBI's is a horrible stat, one of the worst.  It says nothing about how many opportunities a player had, which means it totally lacks context.  Comparing one player to another is futile.

[blue911]

Not really.  More insight is being gleaned from stats now than ever before.  The shortcomings in average and ERA are stunningly obvious, but yet it took decades to move on.   Clearly now is a time of transition, you still have the old school types focusing on the old legacy stats, while the movement to more progressive and insightful measurements is now unstoppable.

RBI's is a horrible stat, one of the worst.  It says nothing about how many opportunities a player had, which means it totally lacks context.  Comparing one player to another is futile.

Why because you have look up the game logs in baseball reference? They tell you how many runners were on base and which bases they occupied. I find that a whole lot better than some "progressive" stat telling me that Adam Dunn "should" score from first as easily as Danny Espinosa.

[Tyler Durden]

Not really.  More insight is being gleaned from stats now than ever before.  The shortcomings in average and ERA are stunningly obvious, but yet it took decades to move on.   Clearly now is a time of transition, you still have the old school types focusing on the old legacy stats, while the movement to more progressive and insightful measurements is now unstoppable.

RBI's is a horrible stat, one of the worst.  It says nothing about how many opportunities a player had, which means it totally lacks context.  Comparing one player to another is futile.

I don't know that that's true about the RBI stat.  Teams generally put their best players in positions where they have opportunities to drive in runs.  When Alberto Gonzalez finishes the year with 5 rbi's or whatever, that tells me he's not a very good hitter.  I don't need VORPWARKLAW to tell me that.  When the best hitters in the league always end up with the highest RBI totals, that tells me there is some correlation there. 

Now - you'd be silly to try to determine to an exact degree how good a hitter is based on only on RBI's, but you'd be equally silly to rely on WARVULTIMATEWARRIOR.  All individual stats have their shortcomings.  ERA and OPS are usually enough to tell me if hitters and pitchers are doing well, but even they have to be taken in context and in conjunction with the rest of their stats and, of course, watching them play.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Ha.  I don't know that it's totally pseudo science, but I also get a kick out of all the new acronyms.  It's just the condescension the statheads have that really gets to me.  Baseball has gotten by just fine for 100+ years with batting averages and ERA's.  The new stuff is useful, but the dismissiveness of stats like RBI's is a little silly to me, too.

Branch Rickey was on to a lot of what the sabremetricians  came up with.  When you get all "batting average and rbis are all that matters," you ignore history.

RBIs are a good measure for runs batted in.  It is not without significance.  It is contextual, of course, but when Dunn comes up with 30 fewer guys on base and knocks in just 2 fewer, there might be some value in figuring out whether he was successful in the context of the Nats line up as opposed to just a neutral context view of his plate appearances.

[tomterp]

Why because you have look up the game logs in baseball reference? They tell you how many runners were on base and which bases they occupied. I find that a whole lot better than some "progressive" stat telling me that Adam Dunn "should" score from first as easily as Danny Espinosa.

Most people who rely on RBI's to make an argument are scarcely aware other stats even exist.  Usually, RBI's are quoted and compared among players, as if it should be patently obvious a player with 100 RBI's is superior to a player with 90 RBI's.  That the first player may have had 40% more opportunities with runners in scoring position than player B seems not to occur to many.  I realize you understand the context required, but you are in the distinct minority.

[PANatsFan]

Most people who rely on RBI's to make an argument are scarcely aware other stats even exist.  Usually, RBI's are quoted and compared among players, as if it should be patently obvious a player with 100 RBI's is superior to a player with 90 RBI's.  That the first player may have had 40% more opportunities with runners in scoring position than player B seems not to occur to many.  I realize you understand the context required, but you are in the distinct minority.

Yup, RBI's tell you a lot, but you have to know how to listen.

[tomterp]

I don't know that that's true about the RBI stat.  Teams generally put their best players in positions where they have opportunities to drive in runs.  

Your example points out a weakness in the RBI stat.  If player A drives in 100 because he's batting 4th in the lineup, and player B drives in 50 batting 8th, it should be immediately obvious that player A's going to get a lot more chances, so more work is needed to truly compare the two players' ability to create runs.  That player A drove in the most runs doesn't prove anything, as he had the odds stacked heavily in his favor from the outset.

[KnorrForYourMoney]

Actually, I find that RBI's will tell you freak-all that a combination of other, more useful stats won't tell you.

[tomterp]

Actually, I find that RBI's will tell you freak-all that a combination of other, more useful stats won't tell you.

It may most effectively tell us that the batters ahead of the RBI guy in the lineup are good, or not, at getting on base.

[Lintyfresh85]

Beast!

[hammondsnats]

IN

[epic_phalanx]

Can't wait for the days of Norris and Harper hitting between Zimm and Werth, we will be feared.

[hammondsnats]

yikes ... average down to .129 with 14 k's and 7 walks.

but i'm only posting this to reverse jinx him and help get him going!!!

[sportsfan882]

He's been bad, just like last season

Can't hit in the upper levels

[welch]

My first thought: Derek Norris? I thought he was dead...

[sportsfan882]

Norris really struggling. 0/4 with 4 Ks tonight.

21 Ks in 45 ABs this year. Batting .133. Not good at all

[Lintyfresh85]

SSSSSSSSSS.

[Terpfan76]

What is the percentage of his K's that are swinging strikes vs looking? Is this again a case of Norris having a better idea of the strike zone than the umps or his he beginning to be exposed? What would his numbers look like of Harper were called up to AA?

[hammondsnats]

ramos > norris ... if he weren't hitting so bad i'd say package him in a trade for a MLB ready bat, but scouts know he is capable of being a good ballplayer.

[epic_phalanx]

You can't give up on a young prospect after his first month in the upper minors. Norris crushed Fall League pitching and has great tools. I think it's more likely he's working on some things rather than being overmatched by the Eastern League. He'll come around.