I always hear people saying that the RBI (Runs Batted In) is the most important statistic as far as determining who the best players are, because it helps your team win.
*I know alot of people disagree with the statement above, however its just something I hear alot*
However, I was thinking and I came up with a hypothetical situation.
(note: this is a pretty extreme situation)
Lets say there is a baseball player, lets call him Ned. Ned has a season with 25 Home Runs, a .350 batting average and only 60 RBI. However, Ned is playing for the worst team in the history of baseball, hardly anybody else on the team gets a hit during the game besides him, and almost all of his home runs are solo shots.
Now, on a completely different team is Bob. Bob plays for the best team in baseball, they win all the time, and they are constantly competing for World Series titles.
Lets say, for the purposes of experiment (this situation will never, ever, happen) that Bob has the exact same amount of at bats. And every single pitch has the same outcome as Neds. Basically, they do the exact same thing during every at bat. The only difference is, that Bob has alot more people on base, because his team consists of better hitters.
Now lets compare statistics, with this assumption(in order stats are AVG, HR, and RBI)
Bob: .350, 25, 125
Ned: .350, 25, 60
Now, looking at the statistics only, who would you say had a better season? You would probably say Bob had a better season, considering he has 65 more RBIs than Ned.
Is this really fair? Ned has done the exact same thing as Bob did in every At-Bat. And somehow he is the worse player? Why? Because I think RBIs are far too team dependant to be considered a key factor in how good a player is.
This is just my opinion, I really dont care if you think otherwise, or if you agree with me.
Well, im a statistics newb, so you can rip on this theory if you may.