Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, May 10, 2019

Albert Pujols Reaches 2,000 RBIs With Third-Inning Homer in Angels’ 13-0 Rout of Tigers

DETROIT — Albert Pujols turned on a fastball over the middle of the plate, sent the no-doubt shot deep into the left-field seats, flipped his bat toward celebrating teammates in the dugout and trotted around the bases.

By the time he stepped on home plate, the three-time MVP was in an elite group of three players in baseball history.

Pujols became the third player with 2,000 career RBIs when he hit a solo homer in the third inning Thursday to help the Los Angeles Angels rout the Detroit Tigers 13-0.

Mind you, we’ve discussed before that he isn’t….

 

QLE Posted: May 10, 2019 at 08:35 AM | 49 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: albert pujols, milestones, rbi

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. eric Posted: May 10, 2019 at 09:25 AM (#5840547)
Yeah I count him as the fifth. "Name all players with 2000 career RBIs" used to be one of my favorite low/med difficulty trivia questions back when it was only Aaron, Ruth, and (the reason it was a great question) Cap Anson.

Re: Pujols. He has his 3000th hit, his 600th HR, now his 2000th RBI. Heck, he's at exactly 100.0 bWAR. Isn't it about time for him to get the Fisk treatment? Cut his worthless ass and move on.
   2. Swoboda is freedom Posted: May 10, 2019 at 09:32 AM (#5840549)
What are the chances he passes Mays on HR list? He has 639 now. 21 more to go. The only reason I think he might have a shot is the contract. Otherwise he would be cut.
   3. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 10, 2019 at 09:45 AM (#5840553)
He will probably catch Mays. Due to contract.
   4. caspian88 Posted: May 10, 2019 at 09:45 AM (#5840554)
Amazingly, Pujols is still probably the Angels best current option at 1B:

Pujols - .208/.285/.408
Bour - .178/.282/.344

Maybe they have one or two guys in Salt Lake or Mobile who could be expected to outhit either.
   5. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 10, 2019 at 09:54 AM (#5840559)
Mind you, we’ve discussed before that he isn’t….



MLB needs to get over the Elias fetish. Every article about this has to spend a paragraph or 2 stating that Pujols isn't really the 3rd, but the 5th, and why he's listed as the 3rd.

edit: baseball broadcasters and TV reporters too.
   6. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: May 10, 2019 at 10:23 AM (#5840570)
The other day I was surprised to learn that Pujols has over a thousand hits as an Angel. He also has close to 200 home runs and over 650 RBIs for them. Retired players with career hit/HR/RBI totals similar to Pujols in his Angels career, sorted by RBI:

Player             H   HR  RBI
Al Rosen        1063  192  717
Cliff Johnson   1016  196  699
Gene Tenace     1060  201  674
Albert Pujols   1034  194  671
Preston Wilson  1055  189  668
Don Mincher     1003  200  643
Josh Willingham  988  195  632 


Ignoring context, Pujols' time with the Angels is basically Preston Wilson's career minus some doubles and triples, or Cliff Johnson's career minus 250 walks:

Player    PA    AB     H   2B 3B   HR  RBI   BB   BA  OBP  SLG
Pujols  4390  4004  1034  190  1  194  671  316  258  314  452
Wilson  4436  4003  1055  221 16  189  668  350  264  329  468
Johnson 4603  3945  1016  188 10  196  699  568  258  355  459 


When people remember Pujols they'll remember him as a Cardinal, but his Angels career has a lot of bulk to it.
   7. Booey Posted: May 10, 2019 at 11:15 AM (#5840610)
Re: Pujols. He has his 3000th hit, his 600th HR, now his 2000th RBI. Heck, he's at exactly 100.0 bWAR. Isn't it about time for him to get the Fisk treatment? Cut his worthless ass and move on.


Exactly. I'm afraid he's going to lose his .300 avg (he's at .301 now). He's already lost his 150 OPS+ (he's at 149).

Geeks like me care about this stuff, dammit!
   8. bunyon Posted: May 10, 2019 at 11:23 AM (#5840615)
Is there any evidence at all that the Angels care that he’s not that great?
   9. Nasty Nate Posted: May 10, 2019 at 11:24 AM (#5840616)
You wept in 2005 when Maddux' career ERA reached 3.00 on the way up...
   10. Booey Posted: May 10, 2019 at 12:16 PM (#5840650)
You wept in 2005 when Maddux' career ERA reached 3.00 on the way up...


A little, yeah! And when Pedro got his 100th loss. I breathed a sigh of relief when Frank Thomas held on to his .300 avg (.301).
   11. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 10, 2019 at 12:22 PM (#5840653)

I was glad Rickey retired while his OBP was .401.
   12. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 10, 2019 at 12:25 PM (#5840655)

I was surprised that Barry Bonds wasn't on the 2,000 RBI list - turns out he has 1,996.
   13. Spahn Insane Posted: May 10, 2019 at 12:33 PM (#5840660)
Hell, if it weren't for his contract, Pujols would've been cut three years ago.
   14. Spahn Insane Posted: May 10, 2019 at 12:34 PM (#5840663)
Off the top of my head, both Maddux and Pedro made it to 3,000 Ks and less than a thousand walks, right?

I remember when Fergie Jenkins did it; I think he was the first.

Edit: confirmed, though Jenkins and Maddux cut it close with 997 and 999 walks respectively. Pedro laps the field with just 760 walks. He was pretty good.
   15. SandyRiver Posted: May 10, 2019 at 12:34 PM (#5840664)
You wept in 2005 when Maddux' career ERA reached 3.00 on the way up...

For me it was July 1968, when Mantle's career average dipped under .300 to stay. Of course, BA was a lot bigger thing back then.
   16. Sweatpants Posted: May 10, 2019 at 12:40 PM (#5840668)
Edit: confirmed, though Jenkins and Maddux cut it close with 997 and 999 walks respectively.
Maddux hit 999 with a couple of weeks to go before the season ended. He had to make it through a few starts without walking anybody to keep under 1,000.
   17. TomH Posted: May 10, 2019 at 12:54 PM (#5840677)
Yes, virtually every book or other source since Big Mac in 1969 showed Ruth with >2000 RBI. It is really dumb to pretend otherwise.
   18. eric Posted: May 10, 2019 at 01:07 PM (#5840684)
Clemens had < 1000 walks when he achieved his 3000th K. (He then pitched for a little while longer.)
   19. Rally Posted: May 10, 2019 at 04:00 PM (#5840785)
Hell, if it weren't for his contract, Pujols would've been cut three years ago.


Nah, 3 years ago he had 31 homers, 119 EBI, and a 113 OPS+.

So at what point would he have been cut if he was going year to year?

He was awful in 2017, but you aren't going to cut a guy with a good track record just because he gets off to a bad start. He might get cut mid season 2017, or maybe allowed to finish the year but not invited back for 2018.
   20. SoSH U at work Posted: May 10, 2019 at 04:08 PM (#5840789)
For me it was July 1968, when Mantle's career average dipped under .300 to stay. Of course, BA was a lot bigger thing back then.


That was a great day in the Unacceptable house. It allowed my Sox-loving dad to taunt his New York Yankee loving friends that Mantle was just a two-hundred hitter (Sox fans living in New York during my childhood had to take their victories where they could get them).



   21. ajnrules Posted: May 10, 2019 at 05:28 PM (#5840833)
Edit: confirmed, though Jenkins and Maddux cut it close with 997 and 999 walks respectively. Pedro laps the field with just 760 walks. He was pretty good.

No mention of Curt Schilling and his 711 walks to go with 3,116 strikeouts?

Clemens had < 1000 walks when he achieved his 3000th K. (He then pitched for a little while longer.)

That's true. He had 976 when he struck out Randy Winn for his 3,000th K, and then walked four in the game to finish at 980. He had 1,345 walks by his 4,000th strikeout. The record for fewest walks by their 4,000th K was...Randy Johnson, who had only 1,283. Bet nobody thought that was possible when he was leading the league in walks three years running in the early 1990s.

Extra fun fact: Roger Clemens's 3,999th strikeout victim was...none other than Albert Pujols.
   22. caspian88 Posted: May 10, 2019 at 05:42 PM (#5840836)
Apparently an official baseball records committee, established by Bowie Kuhn, "corrected" Babe Ruth's career RBI total to 2204 in 1976 (I found the article in
the New York Times).

So it's not even that MLB has never recognized RBI earned prior to 1920.

Unfortunately I couldn't find any articles that mentioned Hank Aaron's 2000th RBI, or his record-breaking RBI (however much that would have been considered in 1975, when he would have done it). Maybe someone with access to a Milwaukee newspaper's archives could tell us.

The NYT did say in 2015 that Alex Rodriguez was the "second" to reach 2000 RBI "since 1920."
   23. Itchy Row Posted: May 10, 2019 at 05:56 PM (#5840842)
Unfortunately I couldn't find any articles that mentioned Hank Aaron's 2000th RBI, or his record-breaking RBI (however much that would have been considered in 1975, when he would have done it). Maybe someone with access to a Milwaukee newspaper's archives could tell us.
The 2000th RBI is mentioned in the NYT's game story but almost in passing. Three other games were summarized in the article before the Braves game.
   24. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 10, 2019 at 05:57 PM (#5840843)
Apparently an official baseball records committee, established by Bowie Kuhn, "corrected" Babe Ruth's career RBI total to 2204 in 1976


Apparently he drove in 0 runners, not even himself, in his 49 pre-1920 HRs.
   25. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 10, 2019 at 06:01 PM (#5840844)

The ESPN wording on this is terrible:

RBIs became an official statistic in 1920. Prior to that, it is likely that Babe Ruth and Cap Anson also had 2,000 RBIs, but their exact totals are disputed.


It's not "likely" that Ruth and Anson had 2,000 RBIs -- it's a binary question. If you recognize RBIs that happened before 1920, then they did. If you don't, they didn't. I mean, Ruth has 1,990 "official" RBI (starting in 1920) so maybe one could argue that they might be off by 10 and he really does have 2,000 "official" RBI (1920-1930 the RBI definition gave some latitude to official scorers). But that would be a huge stretch, and there's no such argument for Anson.
   26. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 10, 2019 at 06:09 PM (#5840847)
It's not "likely" that Ruth and Anson had 2,000 RBIs -- it's a binary question. If you recognize RBIs that happened before 1920, then they did. If you don't, they didn't. I mean, Ruth has 1,990 "official" RBI (starting in 1920) so maybe one could argue that they might be off by 10 and he really does have 2,000 "official" RBI (1920-1930 the RBI definition gave some latitude to official scorers). But that would be a huge stretch, and there's no such argument for Anson.


Ruth officially drove in 1990 from 1920 on. He hit 49 HR from 1914-1919. Those 49 HR are undisputed. Even if you can't prove there was anyone on base for any of them, and that he ever drove in anyone else on non-HR events, those 49 HR mean he absolutely, undisputedly, had over 2000 RBI. Don't rank his unofficial total if you like, and say Pujols is officially in 3rd place, but saying Pujols is only the 3rd to break 2000 is utter horseshit.

edit: And BTW, by modern standards, Ruth hit at least 50 HR prior to 1920. Prior to 1930 or so, walk off HR were treated like any other walk off hits, the batter credited only for the number of bases required for the winning run to score. Ruth hit a walk off HR in 1918, which was counted as only a single.
   27. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 10, 2019 at 06:18 PM (#5840849)
Are there other stats that weren't official from the beginning of time, yet we now recognize them for all of history?

How is the RBI stat different from other stats?
   28. cardsfanboy Posted: May 10, 2019 at 06:25 PM (#5840850)
How is the RBI stat different from other stats?


Because Henry Chadwick, the guy who basically created baseball scorekeeping, thought the RBI was an idiotic stat, and even though others wanted it to happen, it wasn't going to happen while he was alive. Even after his death, it still took another decade before it became official.

edit: mind you, he also thought that walks should be charged as an "error" to the pitcher, so he wasn't perfect.
   29. cardsfanboy Posted: May 10, 2019 at 06:28 PM (#5840851)
Are there other stats that weren't official from the beginning of time, yet we now recognize them for all of history?


Other stats would have required some book keeping... and that is the issue. Caught Stealing is the big example of a stat that wasn't really well book kept, so it wasn't official until 1930 or so and before then, even going back through the game logs, it's a bit tough to suss out what really happened... Rbi on the other hand is pretty easy with a few exceptions. We can even pretty safely retroactively do saves, quality starts and other stats... but caught stealing and to a lesser extent, rbi is a bit tougher, but not at all impossible to at least create a "minimum" level of acceptance as pointed out in this thread.
   30. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 10, 2019 at 06:33 PM (#5840855)
Are there other stats that weren't official from the beginning of time, yet we now recognize them for all of history?

How is the RBI stat different from other stats?


Because, at least in Ruth's case, we have unambiguous, incontrovertible evidence that he passed 2000 RBI, given his 49 pre 1920 HRs. HRs were an official stat before 1920, were they not? I mean, Ruth isn't listed as having 665 is he? By their very nature, HRs must produce at least one RBI per event. Thus, Ruth has at the absolute lowest, 2039 RBI. He passed 2000 beyond any possible doubt. Say Pujols is the 3rd to pass 2000 since 1920, even say he's the third to pass 2000 official RBI. But it is misleading, and confusing to say he is the 3rd to pass 2000 RBI period, and the latter statement always has to be accompanied by a lengthy explanation.
   31. michaelplank has knowledgeable eyes Posted: May 10, 2019 at 08:08 PM (#5840877)
Unfortunately I couldn't find any articles that mentioned Hank Aaron's 2000th RBI, or his record-breaking RBI (however much that would have been considered in 1975, when he would have done it). Maybe someone with access to a Milwaukee newspaper's archives could tell us.


I have a vague memory of Topps doing an Aaron card commemorating it as part of a "record breakers" thing they did.
   32. Howie Menckel Posted: May 10, 2019 at 09:13 PM (#5840888)
Rank Player (yrs, age) Runs Batted In
1. Hank Aaron+ (23) 2297
2. Babe Ruth+ (22) 2214
3. Alex Rodriguez (22) 2086
4. Cap Anson+ (27) 2075
5. Albert Pujols (19, 39) 2000
6. Barry Bonds (22) 1996
7. Lou Gehrig+ (17) 1995
8. Stan Musial+ (22) 1951
9. Ty Cobb+ (24) 1944
10. Jimmie Foxx+ (20) 1922

(Miguel Cabrera, 32nd at 1649, also is in the top 100)
   33. The Honorable Ardo Posted: May 10, 2019 at 10:52 PM (#5840918)
I went to Tuesday's Angels-Tigers game. Cabrera hit an RBI single in the 6th, and I took a picture of him and Pujols yukking it up at the first-base bag.

Pujols was the only person - including umpires, ball boys, camera crew - wearing short sleeves on the field (game time weather was 45 degrees, overcast, and windy). Nick Castellanos was so heavily bundled up, we mocked him for looking like Buzz Lightyear.
   34. John Northey Posted: May 11, 2019 at 12:24 AM (#5840950)
Heck, he isn't even the 3rd since 1900 - Aaron, Ruth, A-Rod, Pujols. Anson was all pre-1900. I'd put a big * beside it too as Barry Bonds finished 4 shy thanks to ML teams shutting him out at the end - pretty stupid for teams like the Jays who had nothing at DH at the time and Bonds was willing to play for the ML minimum.

Maybe they mean since integration. Then it is Aaron, A-Rod, Pujols. Oy, just read the article and it is even dumber - it is since 1920, how absolutely stupid is that? I guess they are using 'live ball' as their divider. I don't see why.
   35. Howie Menckel Posted: May 11, 2019 at 01:06 AM (#5840954)
it doesn't matter

BBRef > than anything
   36. bunyon Posted: May 11, 2019 at 09:26 AM (#5840969)
Because Henry Chadwick, the guy who basically created baseball scorekeeping, thought the RBI was an idiotic stat, and even though others wanted it to happen, it wasn't going to happen while he was alive. Even after his death, it still took another decade before it became official.

That matches something I was thinking about watching a game the other day. We charge pitchers a run if a batter they allow on base comes around to score. That is, from the pitching side, we rate the most important part of a run scored as the getting on base part. However, on the batting side, we (historically) tend to rate the guy who "batted the run in" as the more important part, rather than the guy who scores the run.

That seems contradictory to me. Either the run should be charged to the pitcher who is out there when the run scores or R should be more important than RBI.

This story above about Chadwick (which I didn't know) might explain that as, I'd guess, he was instrumental in setting up the criteria for charging runs to pitcher.
   37. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 11, 2019 at 11:07 AM (#5840975)
Runs, like walks, are generally viewed by the public as passive events. They are something that happened to the player, not necessarily something the player did. Driving in a run is an active event. Thus walks and runs are going to be valued less than hits and RBI. And in many cases, maybe most, runs are passive events. Scoring from 3rd on a single. scoring from second on a triple, scoring from anywhere on a HR. But that of course overlooks how the player got to 3B in the first place. Except in the case of a player scoring on his own home run, runs are multi phase events. A batter walks, advances to 3B on a single, scores on another single. Yeah, trotting home from 3B on an OF single looks pretty passive, but that guy did 2 very good active things before that to make it possible. It's easier to grasp the singular event of hitting a single with a runner on 3B than the multiple events of that guy being on 3B in the first place.
   38. cardsfanboy Posted: May 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM (#5840981)
That matches something I was thinking about watching a game the other day. We charge pitchers a run if a batter they allow on base comes around to score. That is, from the pitching side, we rate the most important part of a run scored as the getting on base part. However, on the batting side, we (historically) tend to rate the guy who "batted the run in" as the more important part, rather than the guy who scores the run.

That seems contradictory to me. Either the run should be charged to the pitcher who is out there when the run scores or R should be more important than RBI.

This story above about Chadwick (which I didn't know) might explain that as, I'd guess, he was instrumental in setting up the criteria for charging runs to pitcher.


Very much so, he actually didn't believe that walks were caused by the batter though, which is why batting average really took hold over obp, since he didn't care about the passive event of a walk. And in his mind, the pitcher was fully at fault for the walk.... At the same time, he thought that a batter driving in a run was just a result of a play that happened to have a man on base, and that the other stats that existed already captured the batters contribution to the play(total bases, average) and that the driving in was a side effect of getting a hit.

Others of course thought there was a mystical element to driving in a run and even when Chadwick was around, pushed for the rbi stat, but his influence overshadowed theirs so it wasn't until he could no longer defend his point of view that people were able to add the RBI stat... and because of the probable controversial nature of the stat, I'm guess that elias never retroactively decided to add it to their archives.

Heck, he isn't even the 3rd since 1900 - Aaron, Ruth, A-Rod, Pujols. Anson was all pre-1900. I'd put a big * beside it too as Barry Bonds finished 4 shy thanks to ML teams shutting him out at the end - pretty stupid for teams like the Jays who had nothing at DH at the time and Bonds was willing to play for the ML minimum.

Maybe they mean since integration. Then it is Aaron, A-Rod, Pujols. Oy, just read the article and it is even dumber - it is since 1920, how absolutely stupid is that? I guess they are using 'live ball' as their divider. I don't see why.


Realistically speaking 1920 is probably about the best divider in using in any type of stat research... much better than the arbitrary 1900 or even 1903 that people sometime support... basically the dividing line in how the game was played in the early century is changed when Babe Ruth goes from full time pitcher, to full time hitter. That happened in 1920, that is a pretty good signal the game had changed at least from a statistical analysis, the way the game changed after that was pretty rapid and pretty obviously a different game than what was being played in 1915.
   39. cardsfanboy Posted: May 11, 2019 at 11:52 AM (#5840984)
I'm a dork, and I ordered the Topps 2000th rbi card... I was upset that I missed a few others that they have, for $10 it's not a horrible buy.
   40. bobm Posted: May 11, 2019 at 03:29 PM (#5841017)
Because Henry Chadwick, the guy who basically created baseball scorekeeping, thought the RBI was an idiotic stat, and even though others wanted it to happen, it wasn't going to happen while he was alive. Even after his death, it still took another decade before it became official.

Source?

In "A Game of Inches" Peter Morris wrote:

Henry Chadwick, however, liked the statistic and crusaded for it. In 1891 the National League’s official scorers were instructed to keep track of runs batted in, causing the onetime advocate of hits and batting averages to write exultantly that the change was “one of the most important amendments made to the scoring rules for several years past. . . . Hitherto, the so-called ‘best batting average’ of the season has been that of the batsman who had the best percentage of base hits, entirely irrespective of whether the base hits had either forwarded runners around the bases, or had sent runs in. The new rule does away with the old and unjust method of deciding a batsman’s ability . . . [and] substitutes data which really affords a true criterion of skill” (Sporting Times, April 4, 1891).

Alas for Chadwick, few shared his enthusiasm, and less than two months into the season the statistic that had become known as “Papa Chadwick’s Runs Batted In” was “thrown down and dragged out by the Joint Committee on Rules.” Chadwick took the news very hard, blaming “the clamor of certain scribes of New York and Philadelphia” and adding with uncharacteristic sarcasm, “To be consistent, the Board should at once do away with sacrifice hits, readopt foul bound catches and introduce a livelier ball so as to make record batting the feature of the game and encourage slugging for home runs.” But others saw it differently, with an editorial in Sporting Times describing the RBI as a “useless detail” that served no “practical purpose” because it gave all the credit to the man “who is lucky enough to make a hit when the bases are occupied” and none to the teammates whose hits had started the rally. Sportswriter Hugh MacDougall went further, implying that Chadwick had “sprung” the new statistic “upon an unsuspecting public in the guide books of 1891” without the approval of the league’s committee on rules (Sporting Times, May 16, 1891).


   41. SoSH U at work Posted: May 11, 2019 at 03:47 PM (#5841021)
Regardless of its origins, I'm glad good sense won out. RBI is a solid descriptive stat. Very straightforward. I don't think there's anything I would do to change it (unlike, say, OBP or BA or the way wins are awarded).

   42. Srul Itza Posted: May 11, 2019 at 05:27 PM (#5841055)
Two home runs today, and three more RBI, for Pujols.

The old dog still has some bite left in him.

ETA: Of course, it is against the Orioles, so I don't know if they count as major league home runs. Is Baltimore still in the league?
   43. cardsfanboy Posted: May 11, 2019 at 05:47 PM (#5841064)
Source?


I'll have to look for book, it was a pretty famous writer of today's era that talked about it. It was a book on the evolution of stats in baseball, but can't really remember who. Good book though... so I'll search my memory and google.
   44. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 11, 2019 at 06:00 PM (#5841076)
Two home runs today, and three more RBI, for Pujols. The old dog still has some bite left in him.

According to the Orioles radio broadcast, Dylan Bundy was throwing 87-89 MPH fastballs, which may have helped a bit, although Bundy isn’t doing that badly overall today.
   45. eric Posted: May 11, 2019 at 11:20 PM (#5841144)
The old dog still has some bite left in him.


Or the dead cat still had a bounce left.
   46. flournoy Posted: May 11, 2019 at 11:58 PM (#5841149)
Edit: confirmed, though Jenkins and Maddux cut it close with 997 and 999 walks respectively. Pedro laps the field with just 760 walks. He was pretty good.


"Laps the field," I don't know about that. Maddux pitched about 2200 more innings than Martinez.
   47. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 12, 2019 at 12:19 AM (#5841151)
"Laps the field," I don't know about that. Maddux pitched about 2200 more innings than Martinez.


You don't need Maddux. You use Schilling:

Pedro: 3154 K, 760 BB

Schilling: 3116 K, 711 BB

Pedro, 38 more K, 49 more BB.
   48. Booey Posted: May 12, 2019 at 11:58 AM (#5841189)
Yeah, but Schilling's not in the HOF. So apparently he sucked.
   49. bobm Posted: May 13, 2019 at 01:03 AM (#5841404)
I'll have to look for book, it was a pretty famous writer of today's era that talked about it. It was a book on the evolution of stats in baseball, but can't really remember who. Good book though... so I'll search my memory and google.

Recent books that indicate Chadwick was a proponent of the RBI statistic include "The Numbers Game" by Alan Schwarz and "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHow players are using uniform numbers to break MLB's unwritten rules
(28 - 3:26am, Aug 24)
Last: Hank Gillette

NewsblogIs Mike Trout really better than Derek Jeter?
(46 - 12:43am, Aug 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-23-19
(98 - 12:20am, Aug 24)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogMLB bans playing in Venezuela amid Trump order
(8 - 11:58pm, Aug 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe reason Reymin Guduan was suspended
(11 - 11:52pm, Aug 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogAlex Rodriguez shares painful details of MLB suspension on Danica Patrick's podcast
(21 - 10:57pm, Aug 23)
Last: majorflaw

NewsblogLEADING OFF: Players get creative, Yanks at Dodger Stadium
(2 - 10:56pm, Aug 23)
Last: Jose is Absurdly Unemployed

NewsblogJudge upholds arbitration ruling that Orioles owed Nationals $296.8 million in MASN TV rights dispute
(7 - 9:16pm, Aug 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogI was a bird-flipping Little League menace -- and it’s time to come clean
(4 - 9:12pm, Aug 23)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - A New Season is Upon Baldrick
(561 - 9:10pm, Aug 23)
Last: Jose is Absurdly Unemployed

NewsblogCarl Yastrzemski knows it'll be 'emotional' to see Mike play at Fenway
(10 - 9:04pm, Aug 23)
Last: Jose is Absurdly Unemployed

NewsblogOMNICHATTER hereby orders you to bring home your chatter!, for August 23, 2019
(2 - 9:03pm, Aug 23)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogMLB warns sexual enhancers may include PEDs
(25 - 9:01pm, Aug 23)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOMNICHATTER is King of the News! for August 22, 2019
(65 - 7:44pm, Aug 23)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogJustin Verlander responds after Astros block Free Press from media session
(41 - 6:21pm, Aug 23)
Last: Jeff Frances the Mute

Page rendered in 0.5199 seconds
46 querie(s) executed