42 Responses to “The 400 Career HR & [RBI > 3*HR] Club”

1. Johnny Twisto Says:
   July 7th, 2010 at 10:45 am

   The more HR you hit, the fewer RBI you'll get per HR. It's not unusual for a fulltime player to hit 3 HR and 60 RBI. Obviously you'll never see a player hit 30 HR with 600 RBI in a season.

   60% of the first list is under 500 HR. Only 1 of 13 on the bottom list is.

2. Tim Murphy Says:
   July 7th, 2010 at 10:57 am

   I think it also speaks to the fact that the players on the 2nd list were pitched to very carefully with men on base in their respective priimes.

3. Howard Says:
   July 7th, 2010 at 11:06 am

   Exactly, Johnny. Only 1 of the 13 players on the second list is not a member of the 500-HR Club.

4. JP Says:
   July 7th, 2010 at 11:17 am

   The second group as a whole has a far greater percentage of hits coming from home runs (25% to 19% in the first group). In other words, the second group is more likely to be your "all or nothing" hitters. The biggest exceptions are Ruth and Canseco, who make the first group despite having a very high percentage of hits coming from home runs, and, on the other end, Mays, who's in the second group, despite only having 20% of his hits coming from home runs.

5. Mike Says:
   July 7th, 2010 at 11:22 am

   Group I are the high average 500 HR guys and lower HR guys who had more non-HRs as a percentage of career hits, thus getting more RBI because of more hits with runners on. Seems like lower ISO guys.

   Group II are the low average 500 HR guys who had HRs as a high % of their hits, thus fewer other hits leading to fewer RBIs. Seems to be higher ISO guys.

   It would be interesting to see the ISOs as well for both.

   Just in general however, there appear to be some outliers like Mays and Bonds who had a ton of RBI but also a ton of HR, or Ruth and Aaron who had a ton of HR but also a ton of Total Bases.

6. JDV Says:
   July 7th, 2010 at 11:22 am

   A correlation is that for the latter group, a much higher percentage (AV: 25%) of their career hits were home runs, led by McGwire's astonishing 36%. None were under 20% (Mays). For the former group, the average was 19%, led by Yaz & Musial (13%), with none more than 25% (Ruth / Canseco).

7. rmlumley Says:
   July 7th, 2010 at 11:23 am

   Good point JP. The first group has 7 members of the 3000 hit club (out of 32). The second group only has 1 member (out of 13). Willie Mays seems like the guy who doesn't belong in that 2nd group.

8. Thomas Says:
   July 7th, 2010 at 11:23 am

   I don't see how 1 & 3 can be correct if Aaron & Ruth are on the first list.

   It would be like saying that everyone whose career ended pre-1968 is on the first list, so therefore it must be by the time-period of their careers.

   Another thing, that kinda goes with point #4 is that the top group has 7 3000 hit members, which is a little under 1 in 4. The bottom group only has 1 of 13.

9. Thomas Says:
   July 7th, 2010 at 11:24 am

   Sorry for stealing your answer Rmlumley.... we seem to have posted at the same time....

10. Steve Lombardi Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 11:24 am

    ~~The more HR you hit, the fewer RBI you'll get per HR.~~

    Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron disagree. 😉

11. Steve Lombardi Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Darn, I cross with others too. Sorry.

12. Steve Lombardi Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Great comments all!
    For sure, there most be a component of HR/H and BB/PA at work here...impacting the groupings.

13. Steve Lombardi Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 11:28 am

    * meant "must be"

14. Steve Lombardi Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Mike - here's the ISO list:

    Rk              Player  ISO  HR From   To
    1            Babe Ruth .348 714 1914 1935
    2         Mark McGwire .325 583 1986 2001
    3          Barry Bonds .309 762 1986 2007
    4           Lou Gehrig .292 493 1923 1939
    5         Ted Williams .290 521 1939 1960
    6          Jimmie Foxx .284 534 1925 1945
    7            Jim Thome .280 574 1991 2010
    8        Manny Ramirez .276 554 1993 2010
    9       Alex Rodriguez .269 597 1994 2010
    10      Carlos Delgado .266 473 1993 2009
    11       Juan Gonzalez .266 434 1989 2005
    12          Sammy Sosa .261 609 1989 2007
    13        Mike Schmidt .260 548 1972 1989
    14       Mickey Mantle .259 536 1951 1968
    15         Willie Mays .255 660 1951 1973
    16         Ken Griffey .254 630 1989 2010
    17        Frank Thomas .254 521 1990 2008
    18    Harmon Killebrew .253 573 1954 1975
    19          Hank Aaron .250 755 1954 1976
    20        Jose Canseco .249 462 1985 2001
    21     Willie Stargell .247 475 1962 1982
    22   Vladimir Guerrero .246 426 1996 2010
    23      Willie McCovey .245 521 1959 1980
    24         Duke Snider .245 407 1947 1964
    25        Jason Giambi .243 412 1995 2010
    26        Jeff Bagwell .243 449 1991 2005
    27      Frank Robinson .243 586 1956 1976
    28        Dave Kingman .242 442 1971 1986
    29       Eddie Mathews .238 512 1952 1968
    30         Mike Piazza .237 427 1992 2007
    31       Chipper Jones .231 432 1993 2010
    32             Mel Ott .229 511 1926 1947
    33      Reggie Jackson .228 563 1967 1987
    34         Stan Musial .228 475 1941 1963
    35     Rafael Palmeiro .227 569 1986 2005
    36         Ernie Banks .226 512 1953 1971
    37        Fred McGriff .225 493 1986 2004
    38      Gary Sheffield .222 509 1988 2009
    39        Andre Dawson .203 438 1976 1996
    40      Billy Williams .202 426 1959 1976
    41       Dave Winfield .192 465 1973 1995
    42        Eddie Murray .189 504 1977 1997
    43       Darrell Evans .183 414 1969 1989
    44    Carl Yastrzemski .177 452 1961 1983
    45          Cal Ripken .171 431 1981 2001

15. Johnny Twisto Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 11:39 am

    And Ruth and Aaron have barely more than 3 RBI per HR. If your cutoff was 3.2, they'd be on the second list. Almost everyone on the first list has more RBI per HR than them.

16. Mike Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Group I players by ISO:

    Rk Player ISO HR From To
    1 Babe Ruth .348 714 1914 1935

    4 Lou Gehrig .292 493 1923 1939
    5 Ted Williams .290 521 1939 1960
    6 Jimmie Foxx .284 534 1925 1945

    8 Manny Ramirez .276 554 1993 2010

    10 Carlos Delgado .266 473 1993 2009
    11 Juan Gonzalez .266 434 1989 2005

    17 Frank Thomas .254 521 1990 2008

    19 Hank Aaron .250 755 1954 1976
    20 Jose Canseco .249 462 1985 2001
    21 Willie Stargell .247 475 1962 1982
    22 Vladimir Guerrero .246 426 1996 2010

    24 Duke Snider .245 407 1947 1964
    25 Jason Giambi .243 412 1995 2010
    26 Jeff Bagwell .243 449 1991 2005
    27 Frank Robinson .243 586 1956 1976

    30 Mike Piazza .237 427 1992 2007
    31 Chipper Jones .231 432 1993 2010
    32 Mel Ott .229 511 1926 1947
    33 Reggie Jackson .228 563 1967 1987
    34 Stan Musial .228 475 1941 1963
    35 Rafael Palmeiro .227 569 1986 2005
    36 Ernie Banks .226 512 1953 1971
    37 Fred McGriff .225 493 1986 2004
    38 Gary Sheffield .222 509 1988 2009
    39 Andre Dawson .203 438 1976 1996
    40 Billy Williams .202 426 1959 1976
    41 Dave Winfield .192 465 1973 1995
    42 Eddie Murray .189 504 1977 1997
    43 Darrell Evans .183 414 1969 1989
    44 Carl Yastrzemski .177 452 1961 1983
    45 Cal Ripken .171 431 1981 2001

    Group II players by ISO:

    2 Mark McGwire .325 583 1986 2001
    3 Barry Bonds .309 762 1986 2007
    7 Jim Thome .280 574 1991 2010
    9 Alex Rodriguez .269 597 1994 2010
    12 Sammy Sosa .261 609 1989 2007
    13 Mike Schmidt .260 548 1972 1989
    14 Mickey Mantle .259 536 1951 1968
    15 Willie Mays .255 660 1951 1973
    16 Ken Griffey .254 630 1989 2010
    18 Harmon Killebrew .253 573 1954 1975
    23 Willie McCovey .245 521 1959 1980
    28 Dave Kingman .242 442 1971 1986
    29 Eddie Mathews .238 512 1952 1968

    Groups II guys are mostly in the top half of the ISO leaders but there are still more top 10 ISO players in group I. It seems like this isnt the best way to separate them unless you realize that Ruth, Gehrig, Williams etc probably should be taken out completely and just put into their own group of "Immortal players who did everything better than everyone else."

17. Thomas Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 11:57 am

    So what you're saying is that they actually are over 3?

    Also, what about Kingman and Matthews.... shouldn't they be in the above list by your logic?

18. Jerry Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 11:57 am

    It's surprising to see Ted Williams on the first list. Other than that, in general the second group tends to consist of the McGwire and Kingman types whose value was dominated by their homers, and the Bonds/Mantle types that would be intentionally walked any time there were men on base.

19. Frank Clingenpeel Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    It's understandable why the one member of the second list {Dave Kingman} who didn't make the cut didn't drive in more runs. RBIs come from singles, doubles and triples, too; and with Kong, it was either over the fence or in the catcher's mitt {that .236 batting average tells the tale better than I could}.

20. John Autin Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Re: "Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron disagree" (with the premise that "The more HR you hit, the fewer RBI you'll get per HR").

    Actually, they concur wholeheartedly. First off, both of them barely made the list. Had you set the bar at 3.1 RBI per HR, you would have had 27 players instead of 32, and no Babe or Hank.

    Secondly, as to why both players did make the "3:1" list:

    Aaron did it mainly because his career HR total was built more on consistency than on mammoth seasons; he had 8 seasons of 40+ HRs, but never more than 47. Of his eight 40-HR years, only once did Hank top 3 RBI per HR, in 1960; he also had exactly 3:1 in 1957.

    Also note the effect of offensive context on Hank's ratios: From 1954-61, Aaron averaged 3.41 RBI per HR. But batting averages declined through the '60s and stayed low into the early '70s, meaning fewer baserunners to drive in. From 1962-73, he averaged 2.76 RBI per HR, averaging 38 HRs and 106 RBI per season. Had Aaron began his career just a few years later, he likely would not have averaged 3 RBI per HR. In 1968, when Aaron had a mere 86 RBI, just 116 of his 606 AB came with RISP -- 19%. Compare that to, say, Manny Ramirez's 165-RBI season (1999), when 36% of his AB came with RISP (188 of 522).

    As for the Babe, two words sum up his appearance on the list: sui generis. Ruth was the greatest combination of power and average ever seen; his .342 BA ranks 7th in the modern era, and his .348 ISO is 23 points above any other player (McGwire is 2nd) and 58 points above any other .300 hitter (Pujols, Greenberg). What's more, Ruth played in the perfect environment -- league and team -- for amassing huge RBI numbers. And still, none of his four 50-HR seasons featured 3:1 RBI per HR.

    Finally, a further reason why recent sluggers did not average 3 RBI per HR (e.g., Bonds, Griffey, Sosa, A-Rod, Thome, McGwire): This period in MLB saw an unprecedented rise in the number of HRs as a percentage of hits. In 2000, HRs accounted for 12.6% of all hits -- more than twice the rate of 1930 (6.1%). And the rise in HRs was greater in the batting-order spots that had not traditionally hit many HRs. In 1930, #3 and #4 hitters combined for 2.9 times as many HRs as #1 and #2 hitters. In 2000, that ratio was just 2.1; Toronto got 31 HRs that year from leadoff men, while Atlanta had 32 HRs from the #2 hole. The combination of those two factors would tend to decrease the percentage of RBIs accounted for by the traditional RBI men. Craig Biggio, Johnny Damon, Derek Jeter, Brady Anderson -- all hit over 200 HRs from the #1-#2 spots. Alfonso Soriano has almost 200 HRs as a leadoff man. This is a big reason why the #3-#4 hitters in 2000 averaged 3.62 RBI per HR, while those of 1930 averaged 6.00.

21. StephenH Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Interesting chart and discussion. Is there any way to find out the average value of each HR hit by the players on this list? I think I once read that Aaron's was very high, something like (I am guessing here) 1.75 runs scored on each home run.

    Also, before reading everything, I would have sworn that players in the second deadball era would be on the second list, but I think its even, 5 on each list.

22. WilsonC Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    It's really the arbitrary cutoff that creates an illusion here. As an example, Alex Rodriguez (2.97 RBI/HR) is listed in the second group, and Hank Aaron (3.04 RBI/HR) is in the first group, but they're much more similar to each other than to McGwire (2.42) or Yastrzemski (4.08).

    We're really looking at three main archtypes of hitters here:
    - Good hitters with 20-25 HR/year power and lots of doubles over a long career (Musial, Chipper, etc.)
    - Pure power hitters who hit 40+ HE/year with low batting averages and fewer doubles (McGwire, Kingman)
    - Great all-around hitters who hit 30+ HR/year with good batting averages and a fair number of doubles (Griffey, Aaron)

    If you were to sort the whole list by RBI/HR rather than dividing it, I suspect we'd see a rough grouping of hitters based on these archtypes, with a bit of movement up or down based on era, lineups, or how often each was pitched around.

23. DoubleDiamond Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    It's been a long day, so I can't for the life of me figure out what sabremetrics or other new-fangled statistical phrase ISO is an abbreviation of. In most places on the Internet, it's "In Search Of", but I don't think these guys are in search of anything, except maybe more RBIs. To me, it also means "Insurance Services Organization", but I'm sure that's not what is meant here!

    So, please let me know what ISO means in the above context. Thanks.

24. Djibouti Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    I was wondering that too DD, so I googled it and found this:

    "Isolated Power (ISO) is a measure of a hitter's raw power, in terms of extra bases per AB. Its formula is ISO = (2B + (3B*2) + (HR*3)) / AB"

    Another (I think better) way to look at it is (TB-H)/AB

25. Djibouti Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    A third way to look at is SLG-BA

26. TomT Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    I think the 20th response is the best. What struck me first with some of the names on the list was who hit in front of them. That is, I'm sure these are mostly 3, 4, and 5 hitters, and I'll bet some but not all benefited from a good leadoff hitter. The most obvious example to me would be Winfield: batting fourth with Henderson, Randolph, and Mattingly in front of him, RBIs came easily without homers (even if Mattingly was clearing away RBIs before Winfield stepped to the plate). I can think of a hitter or two that batted ahead of many on the list, but far from all of them, but I think this is an important part of the equation.

27. Evan Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    In 14 HRs Pujols will join the first list, just barely (current ratio 3.04). Seems as though he should have a higher ratio based on a lot of the factors people have thrown out. I think there have been a lot of words written on this site about how RBIs is a situational stat based upon the runners who get on base in front of the hitter. I would think that an analysis of where people fall on this list that doesn't include runners on base is probably missing the largest factor.

28. Thomas Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    I find it interesting that no one is complaining about this the same way everyone complained about the W/L record being irrelevant because of outside factors. 26 & 27 summed it up pretty good, minus home runs RBI's are completely about what the other guys on your team do.

    And in regards to Pujols being so low, he hasn't had great luck with teammates. From 06 to middle of 09 he had one player with a big season around him (08 Ludwick).

29. Spartan Bill Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    Andruw Jones is knocking at the door of one of these lists. But which one?

    He is currently sitting at 399 and 1197 RBIs. That works out to exactly 3.0000000000000000000000 RBI/HR

30. sfduke76 Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    Though not directly related to the RBI/HR metric, I notice that the second group is mostly high strikeout guys. If you order both groups on the basis of SO/PA, of the 24 guys with the lowest ratios, 22 of them are in the first group. The only 2 "exceptions" that were relatively low strikeout guys in Group 2 are Mays and Bonds. So rather than era or opportunity (though both seem to be contributing factors) it seems to also be defined by the TYPE of hitter a guy is. A guy that stikes out a lot has to be missing a lot of RBI chances.

    I've long wished to see a metric that accounts for the number of bases generated by a hitter: not just HIS bases (as in the TB stat) but ALL bases advanced as a result of the hitter's action. That to me is the essence of offensive baseball: how effective is a hitter at moving his teammates from base to base, expressed both as a ratio of opportunity and in comparison to outs generated. A hitter that hits a solo home run accounts for 4 bases...but a grand slam actually accounts for 4+3+2+1= 10 bases. Similarly, a walk with the bases empty accounts for one base, but a bases loaded walk counts for 4 bases. This to me would be a much more meaningful measure of a players offensive value.

31. Malcolm Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    As some people who were talking about hits kind of alluded to, the first list seems to favor hitters who could hit for average as well as power; only 3 or 4 players on the first list had a lifetime BA under .270, with more than a few over .300, while on the second list only 2 hitters had lifetime averages over .300 and most had averages well lower than that. These lists seem to support something I've always believed which people on this site often don't seem to agree with me on--that batting average actually IS an important statistic, especially when it comes to hitting in the middle of the order. Naturally, you will knock in more runs if you get more hits in the middle of the order, since walks don't usually knock baserunners in. If you have a cleanup hitter who can hit for average, you'll generally maximize your run production in that spot in the order. And we shouldn't forget, batting average has a clear mathematical relationship to slugging percentage, which is basically a combination of how many hits you get in your total at bats (batting average) and what proportion of those hits were doubles, triples, homers, etc. The original sluggers were great hitters for average as well as home run hitters (Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Hornsby, etc.). Look at some of the slugging percentages and RBI totals for guys like Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, or Nap Lajoie, and you will see that hitting a ton of home runs isn't the only way to knock in a ton of runs and have a high slugging percentage--it's just the preferred method at this point in time, since hitting for average is somewhat harder.

32. Johnny Twisto Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Would have been a neat trick if Cobb, Wagner, and Lajoie were able to hit 30 homers a year with the dead ball.

33. Thomas Says:
    July 7th, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    @sfduke76: you just blew my mind.... that's a fantastic idea!

34. rico petrocelli Says:
    July 8th, 2010 at 12:17 am

    what happens if you push the HR number down to 350?

    Amazing post, one of the best

35. Mike Says:
    July 8th, 2010 at 12:36 am

    If I actually understood what you sorted then I might actually have a comment.

36. dukeofflatbush Says:
    July 8th, 2010 at 1:59 am

    Something to consider:
    Mark Whiten, for no other reason than to illustrate that 'HUGE' games can affect overall averages- in '93 had 99 RBIs in 152 Gs. (.65 per G). Not bad. But a closer look at Whitens totals, show 20 of those RBIs came in only 3 games. Minus those 3 games, he only had 79 RBIs in 149 Gs (.53 per G.) In fact, Whiten had 41 RBIs in his top 10 games. Meaning he had just 58 RBIs in 142 games (40 RBI per G).
    It just shows you how streaky players can look beefier than advertised. When 3 games can drop your RBI/G average by .10, I think it speaks volumes.
    Fernando Tatis in '99. - had 44 RBI in his 12 best games. 63 over the 137 other games.
    I'm sure there are better examples of this, but I wonder how many players 'pad' stats in meaningless games. Is there a better way to judge consistency?
    I know Mike Piazza owns the record for most HRs (40) without a multi HR game, but I wonder if there is a way to weigh or value a guy's RBIs and HRs?
    I know a 162 RBI season is amazing, but how great is it when 100 games are RBI-less?
    Is there a way of seeing a mean or median?
    I'd rather a guy have 81 RBIs, but have one every other game.
    Ya know what I'm sayin!!!!!!!

37. Malcolm Says:
    July 8th, 2010 at 2:26 am

    You're absolutely right, Duke. There's no easy statistical method of measuring streakiness (eithout scouring over game logs), and uneven run distribution is I think one of the biggest problems that comes along with the way a lot of players approach hitting nowadays. Your typical modern power hitter--one who looks for one pitch in one spot, draws deep counts, and swings the same way (for the fences) every time--is almost inevitably going to be a streaky player, which devalues his overall contributions. For all the fuss people raise about what kind of guys or lineups will score the most runs, we often overlook the fact that if you score 900 runs in a season and score 20 runs in 45 games, your team will still end up 45-117. Having the ability to MANUFACTURE runs is one of the most crucial aspects of an offense. That's becoming pretty clear to me, since I'm a Phillies fan and nobody in our lineup right now (with Utley and Polanco gone) has any idea how to manufacture runs. Last night we were tied 3-3 in the 7th inning with a man on 3rd and no one out. We lost the game in extra innings, in large part because Jayson Werth tried to pull everything over the left field wall from Johnny Venters, and therefore struck out. If you look at the 2008 Rays, their offensive numbers don't jump out at you, and yet they were able to conquer both the Yankees and the Red Sox that year and got all the way to the World Series, mainly because they had A. Good pitching (especially in the bullpen) and B. An amazing ability to manufacture runs out of nothing late in games.

38. Evan Says:
    July 8th, 2010 at 11:29 am

    @36 & @37:

    WPA takes this into account to a certain extent in that it discounts production that occurs in lopsided games and places greater emphasis on at bats that occur later in close games. To some extent it gets to what @30 was saying as well in that it gives greater credit to a batter that delivers a player from 1st or 2nd than from 3rd, however it doesn't give a raw number like Total-Base RBIs (made-up name) that would credit a player 3 for moving a runner from 1st home, 2 for 2nd home and 1 for 3rd home.

39. Mr. Dave Says:
    July 8th, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Something else I noticed is that the people on the latter list seemingly struck out a lot more. Perhaps the biggest thing is the contact rate.

40. DavidRF Says:
    July 8th, 2010 at 11:10 pm

    @39
    Its not strikeouts because Reggie is on the top list. Its not low-hits because Mays is on the bottom list. Its not low-non-HR-XBH because Mays and Bonds are on the bottom list.

    I thought everyone here knew that RBI's were lineup-dependent. bb-ref tabulates baserunners-while-at-bat in one of the tables that pops up when you click "more stats". Willie Mays had 6984 on base during his plate appearances, Reggie Jackson had 7384 which is much of the reason why Reggie shows up on the top list and Mays on the bottom. Actually, a slightly higher percentage baserunners scored during Mays' AB's than Reggie's (17% vs 16%). Should we frown on Mays for hitting too many homers which skewed his ratio?

    Most of the big names above have baserunners-scored percentages of between 16-18% and they don't correlate very well with who is on which list. Bonds is 17%, Ripken is 16%, Killebrew is 17%, A-Rod is 18%, Canseco is 18%, Thome is 16%. I don't see a correlation there. But guys who have fewer on base end up with fewer RBI's. We don't have splits for the 20s/30s guys but we know they're all on the top list because so many people were on base in the 20s/30s.

41. WilsonC Says:
    July 9th, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Suppose you have four players. The first gets 200 hits, with 40 doubles and 40 HR. The second gets 200 hits with 40 doubles and 20 HR. The third gets 150 hits with 20 doubles and 40 HR. The fourth gets 170 hits with 30 doubles and 30 HR. The players are roughly equal in everything except contact rate and power.

    Now, the first player is clearly the best of the three, whereas the other two each have their advantage over one another. Suppose player 1 gets 120 RBI in a season. Plugging player 2 into the same lineup spot, would lose out on at least 20 RBI, in converting 20 HR to singles, and would likely lose out on a handful more due to runners on first or second during those HR who would fail to score on singles, so he'd likely be around 90 RBI. In the same lineup spot, player 3 would lose out on whatever runners were driven in by 20 of the doubles and 30 of the singles, so let's say he's also at 90 RBI. Player 4 loses 10 HR, 10 doubles, and ten singles, putting him somewhere around 90 RBI as well.

    In this example, player one is right on the cusp, at 3 RBI per HR. Player 2 is clearly in group 1, at 4.5 RBI per HR. Player 3 is clearly in group 2, at 2.25 RBI per HR. Player 4 has a ratio similar to player 1, at 3 RBI per HR. What's happening here is that player 2 is driving in exactly as many as player 1 from all sources other than those driven in by HR (including himself) who would not score on a single, shifting his ratio away from 1, and player 3 is driving in exactly as many runs as player 1 from HR, but is not driving in as many runs from other hits, do his ratio shifts closer to 1. Player 4 has a similar balance of skills as player 1, leaving his ratio unchanged.

    In this example, there's one clearly superior player (player 1) and three who are roughly equal, with a different balance of skills. The ratio of RBI to HR is largely dependent on the percentage of a player's offensive contributions that comes from HR, but it doesn't tell us anything about the overall quality of the player. I didn't bother crunching any real numbers in this example, but in any given lineup, there is always a point where the tradeoff between more HR and more singles/doubles becomes equal, and as that ratio shifts further from maximum HR rates, a higher percentage of the player's RBI's will come from other sources.

42. Brandon Says:
    July 13th, 2010 at 10:12 am

    A bit late to this discussion, but in general the guys on the first list have higher batting averages than those on the latter, although this isn't always the case. In general, the guys on the first list have significantly more doubles hit than the guys on the second list. Honestly, none of that is terribly surprising to me. Again, this is all generalities. Barry Bonds, in the latter portion of his career especially, had ridiculously high batting averages, but had some seasons where his ratio of homers to RBI were pretty low (73 to 137, 45 to 90, 46 to 110, 45 to 101). As we know this is partly because of all the walks he got when there was anyone on base, but it could also be attributed to the guys hitting in front of him.

    I think there's a few things to keep in mind about lists like this. First is that when speaking in generalities, there will be outliers. Just because Willy Mays doesn't seem to fit in with the second group or Darrell Evans doesn't seem to be a match for the 1st group doesn't mean that, in general, the batting average/doubles observation doesn't have any weight. There's also the teams the players played for, and the guys hitting in front of them. I don't really want to go that far into this, but I would suspect some of the guys in the first list had higher OBP guys hitting in front of them, again as a general rule. The 3rd thing is simply that this list is very arbitrary with the 3.0 RBI per HR number. As has been said, there's a lot of guys in the first group who are close to the 2nd group, or the 2nd group who are close to the first (or, in the case of a guy like Alex Rodriguez, possibly a 2nd grouper who will move into the first group before he retires). With the exception of a handful of guys (McGwire and Yaz, mostly) EVERY player in both lists falls fairly close to the 3.0 mark, give or take a little bit. So maybe the most interesting revelation from this, really, is that with relatively big time home run guys, RBI's are likely to be obtained at a nearly 3:1 rate.