Is Most Important MLB Batting Record Unassailable?

--
It's not that all "liberals" are ignorant.
It's just that what they do know is
wrong".---Ronald Reagan
"Rhonda Moffat" <rmoffat RemoveThis @tripledensity.org> wrote in message
news:gmufi.315514$NO1.164869@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> Clint Hunter wrote:
>
>> What is the most important offence contribution to a team's
>> performance a hitter can make.
>
> Is this a question? The most important "offence contribution" a hitter
> can make is to show up at the park relatively sober.
>
>> It is not batting average, on-base percentage, home runs hit, total
>> bases or slugging percentage. It is runs batted in?
>
> The most important contribution, outside of showing up sober, is
> participating in scoring a run. Stat fans don't like this because it is
> hard to count this participation and hard to blame/credit individuals for
> efficiency. Instead, what they try to do is generalize about what it
> takes for the average player to score the average run in the average park
> against the average pitcher and the average defense, while the average
> umpiring crew is looking on. The problem is that none of these average
> entities actually exist and you end up in a situation where the average
> run has never, ever, been scored.
>
>> And who holds the record for the most rbi's in a season? It is Hack
>> Wilson who had 190 rbis in 1930 while playing center field for the
>> Chicago Cubs.
>
> Mark Grace played for the Cubs and he was pretty good.
>
>> I believe Wilson's record will never be broken because in the decades
>> following his career there have been a great many sluggers vaunted for
>> their exploits in hitting who have never come close. Some of these are
>> Ted Williams, Joe Dimaggio, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mark McGuire, Bobby
>> Bonds, Sammy Sosa.
>
> Bobby Bonds? Isn't he dead?

You are right. He was the father of Barry Bonds now with the SF Giants.


>> Lou Gehrig came closest in 1936 with 184. Hank Greenberg in 1937 with
>> 183. Jimmie Foxx in 1938 had 175 and Babe Ruth in 1921 had 171 rbis.
>
> All those guys are dead too. Perhaps that's why they call their time the
> "dead ball era."

No Ruth, Gehrig and Greenberg all played after the dead ball era of the late
19th and
early 20th century.

>
>> Much adulation is paid by sports writers and commentators to holders
>> of endurance records such a Pete Rose in his leading lifetime hits. Or
>> Hank Aaron in his total number of lifetime home runs. Year home run
>> totals capture in interest of fans and medial alike. But rbis are more
>> important. And Hack Wilson is almost never mentioned.
>
> RBI are just as important as runs scored. Those are the two most
> important individual stats. And these stats are celebratory. These stats
> are collected so we know which players are the most celebrated over the
> course of the season. This does not mean that these players are better
> than any other.

Oh yes it does. Some players are better than others. Or do you want to
extend
your egalitarianism to sports?

>
> There is no room in team sport for declarations that one player is better
> or worse than his teammates.


Nor is one horse faster than another. In the ideal socialist horse race all
fifteen or
twenty entries will cross the finish line at the same time.

And you are a nutcase.

Those who don't understand
> this, don't understand sport. Unfortunately, these poor buggers think
> that a degree in statistics entitles them to have a reasonable opinion
> about everything.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
 >> Stay informed about: Is Most Important MLB Batting Record Unassailable? 

Clay Northwood wrote:
>"Rhonda Moffat" <rmoffat.DeleteThis@tripledensity.org> wrote: in

>> Bobby Bonds? Isn't he dead?

>You are right. He was the father of Barry Bonds now with the SF
>Giants.

What a coincidence!

>> All those guys are dead too. Perhaps that's why they call
their >> time the "dead ball era."

>No Ruth, Gehrig and Greenberg all played after the dead ball era
>of the late 19th and early 20th century.

If the ball players are all dead, then their era of ball is dead,
by definition and without qualification.

>> RBI are just as important as runs scored. Those are the two
>> most important individual stats. And these stats are
>> celebratory. These stats are collected so we know which players
>> are the most celebrated over the course of the season. This
>> does not mean that these players are better than any other.

> Oh yes it does. Some players are better than others. Or do you
> want to extend your egalitarianism to sports?

In team sport we only measure the quality of the team, and not the
individual player. This is done for two reasons. First, the
underlying philosophy of all team sport is "all for one and one for
all." All players share credit and blame equally for a team's
performance. If you don't understand this, you don't understand
team sport. If you wish to be educated, walk into the WS losing
series and point at the player you think is the "worst" and blame
him for the loss in front of everyone else. You'll quickly find
out what teamwork is all about.

Second, we don't measure the efficiency of the individual in team
sport simply because it is impossible. The only indicia of success
in team sport is the score. A player can hit 4 home runs in a game
but if his team comes up on the short end of the score, then he had
a bad game. In fact, his game was worse than that of a player on
the winning team who never stepped onto the field.

It's nice that he had 4 home runs and we recognize this feat with
celebratory statistics, but "better" and "worse" only apply to
teams in team sport and not individuals.

>> There is no room in team sport for declarations that one player
>> is better or worse than his teammates.

> Nor is one horse faster than another. In the ideal socialist
> horse race all fifteen or twenty entries will cross the finish
> line at the same time.

Horses run as individuals, not teams. The fastest sprinter is the
best sprinter in the sport of sprinting. The highest jumper is the
best jumper in the sport of high jumping. The highest scoring team
is the best team in the sport of hockey.

You can if you wish argue that Sid the Kid is the "best" player in
the game but this can only be opinion and it means nothing because
at the end of the day, all that counts is the Stanley Cup and if
you don't believe us, just ask Sid the Kid.

cordially, as always,

rm
 >> Stay informed about: Is Most Important MLB Batting Record Unassailable?