This dude just doesn't understand rate stats and in that he is trying to bastardize a counting stat into a rate state.

First, yes, RBIs are very important as they drive in a run.  It is the same thing with scoring the run.

Second, RBIs should not be the measuring stick of a player because as you query; they are situation dependent and therefore using plate appearances (which this dude doesn't use... um, hello, sac fly... idiot) is not a viable denominator.  This is also the same as scoring runs.

Third, I would agree that moving runners over is more important.  I mean, if player A is on 1st, and player B hits a single, then depending on the speed of player A and the location, velocity, etc of said single could produce a run... but maybe not.  This is just one example of why it is unfair to use RBIs to define a player's effectiveness.  I mean, think of all of the poor player's who have had the Big Hurt hitting in front of them... that is if RBIs were one of their bonus stipulations versus say having a player like Rickey Henderson hitting in front of you.

Anyway, the point is, this dude is an idiot and should not be writing for MLB.com because I only idiots look at it this way... well, I guess I will give him credit for wanting to look at a subject in a different light... it is just that he is using a black light and he has been smoking crack, y'know?  Not very effective way to enlighten one's self... actually, maybe it is... I have never tried... so... yeah.

I never, ever, ever look at RBIs. I don't know who had the most last year, or on the A's, or the career RBI totals of my favorite players.

What bugs me is the argument that runs are most important, and RBIs measure how many runs were driven in, so therefore it must be important. For some reason, people can't understand that it's what a player does that (may or may not) cause a run to be driven in (walks, singles, doubles, etc.), and how often those things are done, that really determines run production.

RBIs per lunar month.

Everyone knows that the only thing matters in baseball isn't runs, but wins -- and of course it doesn't matter how many wins a team gets in the regular season, it's only the ultimate success that counts.

My new ultimate stat is WSRBI: multiply the number of World Series titles won in a given season by the number of regular-season runs he drove in. That will tell you how much each player in the majors contributed to his team's ultimate goal.

When I work on my cars I like to have a radio going, with an A's game if the time is right, and with some other sport filler if I have to.  Yesterday that was KNBR's live broadcast of their Fan Fest (score another thing the Giants have that we don't).

Anyway, during one segment the broadcast crew was yukking it up, and Jon Miller went on a long ramble about OPS.  Except he pronounced it "Ops" (rhymes with drops), and he and Kuiper and Krukow proceeded to put on a faux-dopey little skit, as if to suggest without quite saying that some pointy-headed Poindexters on the eastern side of the bay get excited by the intricacies of (gasp) adding two numbers together, while we real-men Giants fans know that what matters is runs.  At which point Miller began to introduce Randy Winn and his awesome accomplishment of having been the only Giant to hit .300 last year.

Almost drove me to KSFO.  Almost.

I was making fun of Bobby Crosby in the game threads for a long streak of plate appearances without an RBI.  I think the streak reached well into the 60s in plate appearances.  But that is really nothing more than a statistical oddity.  I noticed as I was keeping track of the streak how few real RBI opportunities Crosby was getting.

Raw RBI numbers are not too significant.  However, the number of pop-ups with runners on third base and less than 2 out is very significant, because that can result in objects flying across my living room, causing considerable damage.

My opinion is that the RBI is nearly worthless as an individual stat because it depends on what the hitter's teammates did before he had the at-bat that generated the RBI. Two examples:

1. Runner at second, two outs. Hitter smokes a single to LF. If the runner is Ichiro Suzuki, he scores without a play. If the runner is Frank Thomas, maybe he makes it to third. The hitter did the right thing, but whether or not he gets an RBI depends on who was on base.

2. Barry Bonds posted an OPS+ of 170 last season, but a number of writers flamed him for not having enough RBIs (he only had 66). It wasn't his fault that the rest of his team never got on base.

Another thing that drives me nuts is when RBIs are used as a measure of a great season (the standard is 100+ RBI). FJM had a post where Joe Morgan nailed someone for not having a good season because he only had 80-some RBIs. Just for reference, Ruben Sierra had 101 RBI in 1993 for the A's while posting this truly awful line: .233/.288/.390 (OPS+ 86). According to the RBI-heads, he had a great year that season.

RSNB - or Runs Scored by Next Batter.

It measures the 'vibe' created by the hitter, and the luck he brings those that follow.

Which, incidentally, it only marginally less useful than measuring Wins by a pitcher, or RBIs, since both are entirely dependent on other people doing their jobs well, being at the right place at the right time, and the opposition sucking ass.

Picture it:
Rickey draws a walk.
Rickey steals 2nd.
Rickey steals 3rd.
Hitter pops out to left field, Rickey tags up and gets home.

But Rickey didn't score no RBI. Rickey's RBI's per 100 ABs sits at zero!

RICKEY IS WORTHLESS!!

The guy's a Mets fan. Case closed.