Mike Greenwell’s all-time record: 9 necessary RBI in a 9-8 win. Enters Sox’ H.O.F.
February 27th, 2008 by Carl Morris · 4 Comments
Mike Greenwell has just been voted into to the Red Sox’ HOF. On Sep. 2, 1996 he had one of the most amazing offensive games ever, batting in all 9 runs in a Red Sox 9-8 win over Seattle. Five other players have had more RBI in a game (the record is 12 for a game), but those happened in landslide wins, while every single one of Mike’s 9 RBIs was necessary to win. Greenwell’s 9 is the “necessary RBI” record. Necessary RBIs only include those RBIs required to win the game. Example: A player with 10 RBI in a 16-9 rout only produced 4 RBI that were necessary for a victory, 10-9, in this case. The other 6 RBI were unneeded for victory. I don’t know what the next highest MLB NecRBI record is, after Greenwell’s 9. Perhaps it is about 6 RBI — that needs research. If it is 6, then Greenwell’s 9 NecRBI in a game may last for a lifetime. Producing nine necessary RBI in a game is no less impressive than hitting 4 homers or getting 12 RBI. It surely deserves to be recognized as an extraordinary achievement at the November Red Sox Hall of Fame induction ceremony.
Tags: Baseball · Boston · Carl Morris · HOF
4 responses so far ↓
1 David Pinto // Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28 pm
In the 16-9 example, don’t you need to know the order of the RBI to know it they are necessary? If the batter drove in the first 10 runs of the game, wouldn’t that mean all his were needed? Four RBI in that case is the minimum necessary.
2 Lee H. Teslik // Feb 27, 2008 at 9:23 pm
First, let me just say that I’m really happy I stumbled upon this website. It is an excellent idea. Thank you all for putting it together.
A qualm with this post, however. Professor Morris, you write:
“Producing nine necessary RBI in a game is no less impressive than hitting 4 homers or getting 12 RBI.”
This seems highly illogical to me. Mike Greenwell’s performance at the plate has no bearing one way or another on how many runs the opposing team scores. To my mind, it wouldn’t diminish his accomplishment if the Red Sox lost the game, or if they won by several runs.
Theoretically, you could argue that Greenwell’s performance demonstrates something about how “clutch” he is as a hitter, but you haven’t provided any evidence to support that point. Perhaps he got all 9 RBIs before Seattle scored a single run, then they staged a comeback. If that’s the case, I see no difference between his accomplishment if Boston wins 9-0 or 9-8. (This is the same argument made by the first commenter.)
A parallel to your argument would hold that a no-hitter or a perfect game should be judged as a superior performance if the pitcher’s team scores very few runs. Again, that wouldn’t make much sense to me. Much like batting in nine runs, pitching a perfect game is an exceptional PERSONAL feat and should be judged as such statistically.
In fact, the only argument I can imagine for judging a personal performance differently based on the game’s final score would argue precisely the opposite — that it is LESS impressive to bat in nine runs in a close game than in a blowout. In a close game, a batter ought to be focused very intently on every at bat. In a blowout, less so. So in fact, by this reasoning, it would require greater focus and concentration to bat in nine runs when your team is winning by a substantial margin.
I don’t subscribe to this reasoning, incidentally. I’m inclined to believe that Mike Greenwell probably focused roughly the same in every at bat — and certainly that a pitcher in the midst of a perfect game would focus quite intensely on every pitch, regardless how many runs the other team had. By the same reasoning, however (that Greenwell focuses roughly the same on every at bat), I think it’s quite absurd to argue that him batting in nine runs is more impressive than somebody else batting in twelve, simply due to the random factor of the other team’s score.
If you have an argument that I’m simply overlooking, I’d be very happy to hear your reply.
3 Bobby Swift // Feb 29, 2008 at 5:54 pm
The number of RBI for a single hitter for a single game is a function of three factors - the skill of the hitter relative to the defense (pitcher and defense, park adjusted), runners on base per at bat multiplied by total number of at bats, and randomness. A 9 RBI performance might be more impressive than a 12 RBI performance, depending on how many RBI opportunities each player had.
The reason 9 RBI in a 9-8 game is probably more impressive than 9 RBI in a 16-8 game has nothing to do with whether the RBI were “necessary” or not. In the blowout, the player probably came to bat more times than in the close game, because his team had more at bats. The player in the blowout likely had many more runners on base, or RBI opportunities. So 9 RBI in a 9-8 game would be more impressive in the sense that the player made the most out of his opportunities.
I believe Professor Morris was referring to the 9 RBI game as “impressive” because of its uniqueness. Lee correctly pointed out that this feat was dependent upon the randomness of the other team’s score - but it is also dependent upon the randomness of the performance of his teammates, as well as the randomness inherent in his own hitting.
4 Daniel Adler // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:59 am
Really high level of discourse here, starting with Carl’s post. I think the value of a stat like NecRBI is that it can discount some inflated stats that come when teams “pile it on” when winning (or losing) big. Also, it’s just an interesting idea to consider. However, I agree with David/Lee’s point that a player should not be penalized for what happens after he gets the RBI.
A cool thing that could come out of NecRBI for the season would be that you could see who has the largest role in each team’s victories. If one player has 100 RBI for the season, but only 10 NecRBI, could you argue that he is less useful to the team than a player with 90 RBI, but 40 NecRBI?
Maybe the most interesting/useful stat to see a player’s “clutch” play would be his hitting based on the game situation at the time of the at-bat (i.e. his OBP when the score is within 2 runs either direction). I’m pretty certain they already keep these stats.
Growing up an Indians fan in the 90’s, it seemed that some of our best players (Thome, Manny, Belle) would add on meaningless HR’s when the game was far out of reach in either direction. I strongly disagree with the idea that a player is concentrating less when a game is out of reach. This may be reflected in stats like walks (less patience at the plate?), but I would imagine RBI/HR may be higher since with little pressure, a player is free to swing for the fences.
Leave a Comment