June 2019

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Thursday, January 7th, 2010 05:51 (UTC)
Not really, because RBI are a really bad stat to use when evaluating individual player performance. (See below) In any case, the Cubs in 1987, were awful because their pitching (after Rick Sutcliffe) was terrible. (11th out of 12 in almost any stat you'd want to pick) I wouldn't penalize Andre Dawson because the Cubs gave 500 innings to Greg Maddux, Jamie Moyer and Les Lancaster - all of whom stunk that year.

But RBI is a notoriously team-dependent stat, and the 1987 Cubs were actually quite good on offense, particularly at the top of the order. No small amount of the credit for Dawson's RBI totals go to Jerry Mumphrey's .400 On-Base Percentage. (Look back at comparisons between Bonds and Sosa, where Sosa always had more RBI because he had better teammates who were on more often, even though Bonds hit vastly better with Runners on than Sosa did) Players can really rack up RBI when they always come up with runners on base.

In 1987 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1987-batting-leaders.shtml), Andre Dawson was maybe the 7-10th best player in the National League. He made 463! outs. Dale Murphy was better. Jack Clark was better. Tim Raines, Darryl Strawberry, Eric Davis, Pedro Guerrerro and Tony Gwynn. They all had much better years. Dawson won the MVP that year, because he came back from a bad knee and collusion to hit 47 home runs in a Rabbit Ball year.

All things considered, if you're one of the ten best players in the league in multiple seasons, that puts you in the discussion.

Reply

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting