Howie Kendrick

[zenmaster]

Media “Former Dodger Howie Kendrick...”

[eligrba4ever]

NLCS MVP!!! Great show, Howie!!! 

Take down the Evil Empire or the Astros, whoever makes it to the WS.

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, zenmaster said:

Media “Former Dodger Howie Kendrick...”

As long as it makes Dodgers fans wince.... 

[Chuck]

Howie hated his time as Dodger too. 

[Inside Pitch]

I hope Howie breaks up a Verlander no hitter in the World Series with a bunt just for the shits and giggles....  

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

I hope Howie breaks up a Verlander no hitter in the World Series with a bunt just for the shits and giggles....  

I hope he hits a walk off homerun in the bottom of the 9th to break up a perfect game in a 1-0 game 7 victory.

[Mark68]

15 hours ago, Kevinb said:

I don’t understand how rbi can be a worthless stat. I get it’s all about hitting when people are on base but eventually a team does need to score runs to win the game. When do rbi matter? When a guy has 150? 200? Would people then think well that’s impressive? The name of the game is scoring more runs than the opposition at the end of the day right?

It's very simple. RBIs, like runs, are a team-dependent stat. The stat is entirely dependent on coming to bat with runners on. Nobody will have 100 RBIs without the help of teammates. Not without hitting 100 homers, and nobody has done that yet. 

[Pancake Bear]

RBI percentage is slightly meaningful. RBI total is almost entirely meaningless. It’s meaning is actually more negative than meaningless because many still believe it shows something. 

[Taylor]

4 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

I hope Howie breaks up a Verlander no hitter in the World Series with a bunt just for the shits and giggles....  

I'd pay to see that.

[JoJo26]

A couple of thoughts from this thread.

Howie was called "Future Batting Champ" by Bill Stoneman.

Howie was always great from Inning 1-5...after that...he was M.I.A.

Howie has been constantly mentioned as a "former Dodger"...from Idiot Vic the Brick to Jamie Maggio...

His NLCS hitting tear reminded me of Jeff Mathis in the playoffs vs. Yankees....a truly "Where the HELL did that come from?" - It was Deja Vu...

Too bad knucklehead Fernando Rodney is in the Series...he's always bugged me (maybe it's his cap...or arrow into the sky BS)

[kevinb]

2 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

RBI percentage is slightly meaningful. RBI total is almost entirely meaningless. It’s meaning is actually more negative than meaningless because many still believe it shows something. 

Haha so driving in runs is a negative? I’m sorry. What sport are we playing? It would be like saying throwing a touchdown means nothing because someone has to be there to catch it. I get it rbi doesn’t mean what it once did. But you can’t be serious that it means negative. Hyperbole much?

[kevinb]

21 minutes ago, Sean-Regan said:

Dude, you can't read. Seriously, go back and read it again. If you still don't understand the point, go take a reading comprehension class. I'm legit serious. That isn't even close to what I said, and if you can't understand it, my only conclusion is that you have a learning disability.

No ya I got it. It’s negative because people think it means something. Sure ok. No reason to be mean. Just having a conversation. Be nice to one another. I promise it will feel good. 

[Dtwncbad]

2 hours ago, Sean-Regan said:

RBI percentage is slightly meaningful. RBI total is almost entirely meaningless. It’s meaning is actually more negative than meaningless because many still believe it shows something. 

For what it’s worth (and I am too lazy to look it up to link it) there was a chapter in a stats book about rbi that basically said that. . .

Baseball has historically recognized 100 rbi as a milestone for having a great offensive season, but other than 100 being triple digits versus 99 being double digits, there is nothing about the number 100 in rbi that is even remotely close to being a reliable indicator of having a great offensive season.

They then did all kinds of math and said that 115ish is the threshold where it becomes reliable that the hitter had a great season.

It is statistically possible to be just decent and accumulate 100 rbi but getting over 115 rbi is near impossible unless you are mashing.

[Pancake Bear]

2 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

No ya I got it. It’s negative because people think it means something. Sure ok. No reason to be mean. Just having a conversation. Be nice to one another. I promise it will feel good. 

My bad. I'll try to be less rude this time.

Driving in runs matters.

Whether it is a skill or not is debatable. Historically, it seems like it generally lines up with whether people hit well in general. Sometimes guys hit better with runners in scoring position, sometimes worse. Over the course of a year, you would assume the percentage would normalize, but it doesn't always. However, over multiple years, it doesn't seem like people have a special skill to drive in runs. They either hit well or they do not, and driving in runs typically lines up to that. 

RBI totals are a problem because they tend to assume the players with the highest totals are the best players. But that ignores the reality that some guys have a lot less opportunities to hit with runners in scoring position. Basically, it tends to favor cleanup hitters on teams with good offenses or guys who hit with high obp players in front of them in the lineup.

RBI percentage is better because it gives an idea of efficiency and matches up better with whether or not it is a skill. I've seen no research (and a lot has been done) that shows evidence of genuine skill there apart from general hitting ability. But I think there may be some. 

For instance, I think guys who used to hit well and now don't (Pujols, for example, or Miggy) are less likely to let the pressure of the situation get to them. If they're a smart player, they may be able to alter their approach to the situation even if they do not necessarily hit to a high average. 

But straight RBI totals tell you little other than that the player hitting in front of the guy with all the RBI's got on base a lot. They need a lot of context to have any real positive value in what they tell us.

[Pancake Bear]

9 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

For what it’s worth (and I am too lazy to look it up to link it) there was a chapter in a stats book about rbi that basically said that. . .

Baseball has historically recognized 100 rbi as a milestone for having a great offensive season, but other than 100 being triple digits versus 99 being double digits, there is nothing about the number 100 in rbi that is even remotely close to being a reliable indicator of having a great offensive season.

They then did all kinds of math and said that 115ish is the threshold where it becomes reliable that the hitter had a great season.

It is statistically possible to be just decent and accumulate 100 rbi but getting over 115 rbi is near impossible unless you are mashing.

If you can get past his insufferably obnoxious attitude (I identify with him, clearly), Keith Law's book Smart Baseball has a lot of good insight and information on how stats are measured and why certain ones are good and others suck (because of how they correlate with measuring skill, how they relate to runs scored and, thus, wins).

[Lou]

9 hours ago, Taylor said:

I'd pay to see that.

I'd watch it for free on television.

[Glen]

Howie hitting a GS to sink the Dodgers is my highlight for this season.

It's a sad lot being an Angels fan.