Comments for Historically Low RBIs... and Milton Bradley at http://www.wezen-ball.com , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://www.wezen-ball.com Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:48:49 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.wezen-ball.com/2009-articles/september/historically-low-rbis-and-milton-bradley.html#comment-61 Good point, Bill, and good find yourself. I must've missed that. Looking at the spreadsheet I linked above, those 52 RBIs land him in the top 150 of all players since 1954. But that was purely a result of Carew, et all hitting ahead of him because that 9.4% you point out ties him for 9th worst in the last 55 years. It's definitely a sign of the times, but it also shows you just how good Carew, Killebrew, and Oliva were. When your #5 hitter is that bad at getting the runners home but he still knocks in 52 (or, really, knocks in 30, since he had 22 HR), then you know those guys got on base a lot. - lar @ wezen-ball Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:51:39 +0100 http://www.wezen-ball.com/2009-articles/september/historically-low-rbis-and-milton-bradley.html#comment-59 Good stuff. I noted in my post on Monday that Bob Allison's 52 RBI in 1968 seemed really low for a pretty good middle-of-the-order hitter in front of Carew, Oliva and Killebrew (and it IS really low--he had 415 PA in the 4th and 5th slots, 318 ROB, 9.4%), but compared to Mike Epstein that year, Allison was a regular Ryan Howard... - Bill@TDS Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:39:27 +0100