Posted by bad_luck on 8/25/2013 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 8/25/2013 9:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 8/25/2013 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 8/25/2013 2:48:00 PM (view original):
You don't drive in runs when there's nobody on base. It goes both ways.
Exactly. How many of Mattingly's singles were RBI singles because Henderson was always on base? Regardless of what the voters did, it's pretty easy to see that Henderson was more valuable.
I wonder how many times Henderson would have been stranded on base if it weren't for Mattingly driving him in?
Baseball games are won by finishing the job (scoring the runners on base), not by accumulating LOBs.
It's too bad you don't understand that. Maybe someday you'll actually learn something about the game.
Without anyone on base, there's no one to knock in. RBI and RS are context dependent, which is why it's better to use stats like OBP and SLG because they don't rely on the performance of the rest of the lineup.
Quit being dumb.
If nobody knocks you in, a walk and a stolen base is a LOB, which doesn't help the offense much.
Mattingly's OBP/SLG in 1985 was .371/.567. Henderson's was .419/.516. Edge to Mattingly.
Please continue to attempt to explain how Henderson was better "and it wasn't even close".
Quit being dumb.