Historically, mainstream sports media has dumbed down baseball statistics. Whether it's displaying a player's stats on the TV screen or providing support for why a hitter should be considered for the Most Valuable Player (or any other offensive) award, we've been spoon fed three main statistics:

Batting Average

Home Runs

Runs Batted In

There are other statistics, but this is what we are supposed to care about most. In fact, we've been told that if you are a truly dominant hitter and lead the league in all three, you should be awarded the Triple Crown. It's the epitome of offensive performance in baseball. Or so we're told.

Lately, the Sabermetrics community has continued to chip away at these long held assumptions. It seems that chicks will forever dig the long ball, but more and more fans are questioning the value of batting average and RBI, in particular.

While batting average may not be completely discarded (instead, seen as a statistic of merit, but inferior to on base percentage), the Run Batted In is viewed by many stat heads as having little or no value at all.

Why the RBI is a Flawed Statistic

It was his work as an RBI machine that netted him a spot in the Hall of Fame... Because he played in the shadow of Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, and Pete Rose, Perez was underappreciated during his career... -- on Tony Perez, from Cooperstown: Hall of Fame Players

Each night, I read a page or two from this wonderful book to my eight-year-old son, giving him a nice history of the players who are in the Hall of Fame. I couldn't help but cringe when I read this passage.

It's not that I don't think that Tony Perez was a great hitter. He had a long and distinguished career. He may even be deserving of Hall of Fame status. But insinuating that his inclusion as a baseball great falls entirely on this flawed statistic makes a very bad argument.

The problem is that the act of driving in runs is not an individual statistic. It is reliant not only on Perez getting hits (and timely hits), but having teammates who are on base. It is additionally helpful if those teammates are average to above average base runners to maximize runs scored (and therefore maximize runs batted in).

Perez played on some terrific teams. Beyond the Hall of Famers listed above, he also played with Lee May, George Foster, Ken Griffey and Dave Concepcion. Was he overshadowed? Or did Perez benefit as a result?

Part of the reason Perez drove in so many runs was that the Reds were regularly on base. His team scored the most runs in the National League four times from 1968 through 1976 and was second or third three other times during that span.

An example of a potential disparity of riches is represented in the 1975 season, one of the years the Reds scored the most runs in the National League. In nearly 43% of his plate appearances that year, Tony Perez came up with runners in scoring position. He batted fourth or fifth 87% of the time. By comparison, Dick Allen of the Philadelphia Phillies (a distant second in runs scored), batted fourth or fifth 91% of the time. Yet, he came up with runners in scoring position 32% of the time (which was actually the second highest rate of his career).

Perez needed to come through in clutch situations, and he did so frequently. He had a .512 slugging percentage with runners on base that year compared to .403 with the bases empty. But make no mistake, he was granted more opportunities to drive in runs than the typical player. Even had he fared poorly in clutch situations, the vast opportunities assured him of a nice RBI total (he finished with 109 in only 137 games, which was good for third in the NL and short of Greg Luzinski's mark of 120 despite playing in 24 fewer games).

And of course, part of the reason Perez was often up with runners in scoring position was that he hit either clean-up or fifth in the lineup 61% of the time during his career. This may seem obvious, but batters hitting third, fourth or fifth will have the most opportunities to drive in runs.

To again use 1975 as a comparison, the league leader in hits that season was Dave Cash, with 213. He played all 162 games that season as the Phillies lead-off hitter. As a result, he came up with a runner in scoring position only 22% of the time, resulting in a mere 57 RBI.

Of course, part of the reason Perez drove in more runs that year was also that he had more extra base hits than a guy like Cash, who was a singles hitter. Yet, you can't discount the fact that Perez came up in prime position to drive in runs nearly double the time.

Moreover, we are led to believe that singles hitters don't drive in runs because they are rarely in position to post high RBI totals. The reality is that a guy like Cash who piles on singles throughout the season would put up comparable RBI totals to a clean-up hitter with many more home runs and a much lower batting average -- only if, of course, both hitters were to come up to the plate with identical opportunities.

No two players have the same opportunities to drive in runs, and in fact the disparity when comparing different teams and lineup positions is significant. As a result, the RBI statistic is greatly flawed.

The Solution

Now, I'm not the first to propose some sort of solution to this (note: of course, I hoped I was but a Google search brought me back to reality). Tom Ruane of Retrosheet wrote a piece about Joe Carter a while back. Carter was a guy who would regularly hit for a low average but drive in a large number of runs.

Tom Tango, who developed the wOBA statistic, provided some inspiration for this study. Tango's stat is seen by many as being one of the most important measures of offensive worth. Among other things, wOBA assigns a runs created value to each offensive result. Runs created, however, combined both runs scored and runs driven in as a result of that outcome.

Luckily, Tom's a very accessible guy, and he provided a general RBI value for a single, double, triple, home run, strikeout (which is always zero), other out (including sacrifices), walks and hit by pitch, both with and without the DH. How? Lots of work, I'm sure. Taking all identical situations and averaging how many runs are batted in over several years of data.

First, the values (which have been shortened to be more manageable):

Single = .22

Double = .43

Triple = .64

Home Run = 1.6 (including driving one's self in)

Strikeout = 0

Other Out = .0275

Walk/HBP = .02

What does this mean? It means, given the average situation -- runners on base, base running ability of those on base, etc. -- a single will result in .218 runs driven in. It should be remembered that a batter does not need to get a hit to drive in a run, which is why outs, walks and hit by pitch are also included.

Suddenly, we can take the offensive output of any two players and determine which would have been the better run producer given identical circumstances. It's a wonderful stat, though of course it still is not perfect. Such a stat would not consider if a player were more "clutch" in situations where runners are in scoring position.

Yet, the variation (which I call XRBI) is still a vast improvement over the current RBI statistic. Below is a collection of the top 100 players in career XRBI, also including their total RBI and respective ranks. While there aren't a lot of major differences at the top (Hank Aaron is first either way), you'll note that several players you do not normally consider run producers (singles hitters like Pete Rose and Lou Brock) move way up in run production given a level playing field of run producing opportunities. Think that's weird? Look outside the box.

Oh, and Tony Perez, though he did indeed benefit from playing on offensive minded teams, was still a great run producer in terms of XRBI -- still 41st overall.