[Snapolit1]

I am not an advanced stats guy. It seems to me, as a relative simpleton, that the ultimate judge of how valuable an offensive player is both: RBI and getting on base. The old "keep the line moving" canard. I get that Paul O'Neil got a boatload more RBI's on the Yankees that he would have gotten on the Mets the same year because the Yankees were stacked and the Mets sucked. He was fortunate to frequently come up with guys already on base. I get it. But to somehow denigrate the fact that he came through and knocked them in? That I don't get it. Sounds like arguing that Tom Brady's career TD tally really isn't very impressive because he has had guys working with him who are good at catching the balls he's thrown.

Seems like the advance stat guys knock some guys because all they did was get RBI and have a low OBP and knock other guys because all they did was getting on base and have little to show for it.