RBIs Superior to Runs Scored
False Assumption: Runs Batted In are more valuable than Runs Scored for evaluating baseball players and teams.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
During the 20th century, baseball wisdom valued Runs Batted In over Runs Scored. No theoretical justification supported this preference. Newspaper headline writers favored RBIs for their drama in game recaps.
Teams constructed batting orders by aesthetic tradition. Leadoff hitters were fast base-stealers. Power hitters batted lower, limiting their plate appearances. The 1927 Yankees slotted shortstop Mark Koenig second ahead of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. This cost Ruth and Gehrig extra at-bats despite their elite stats.
Modern baseball treats Runs Scored and RBIs as comparable. Teams now bat top sluggers like Shohei Ohtani leadoff for maximum plate appearances. Ohtani leads MLB in runs scored. Analytics confirm traditional lineups scored fewer runs than optimized ones.
People Involved
- In the 1927 season, managers of the Yankees stuck to tradition.
- They placed Mark Koenig in the second spot, ahead of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. These skippers valued the look of the lineup over raw scoring potential. They saw beauty in the old ways, even as better options stared them in the face. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“the famous 1927 New York Yankees batted light-hitting shortstop Mark Koenig second in the World Series, ahead of #3 Ruth and #4 Lou Gehrig”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
Organizations Involved
Baseball teams across the leagues enforced these rigid lineups for decades. They prized RBIs and a certain aesthetic in their batting orders. This approach held firm until analytics began to chip away at it in recent years. Institutions like the Yankees followed suit, slow to change despite the evidence. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“What really matters is not saving your best hitters to drive in the most runs in the first inning, but getting your best hitters up to the plate the most often times.”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
The Foundation
Baseball long held that RBIs outshone runs scored, though no solid theory backed it. The metric gained favor for its drama; a single at-bat could yield four RBIs, while runs topped out at one. This lumpiness made RBIs seem like the game's turning points. Headlines loved them for the same reason. Experts bought into this glamour, ignoring the lack of justification. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“During the 20th Century, baseball wisdom tended to value Runs Batted In over Runs Scored despite no theoretical justification.”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
“I think the reason RBIs were glamorized more is because … they were of more value to newspaper headline writers: e.g., “Giants Capture Pennant, Beating Dodgers 5-4 in 9th on Thomson’s 3-Run Homer.””— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
How It Spread
Newspapers played a key role in spreading the RBI myth. In the 1951 pennant race, Bobby Thomson's home run earned four RBIs, dominating the headlines. Five Giants scored in that inning, but the focus stayed on Thomson's haul. RBI records, reaching as high as 12 in a game, drew more ink than run-scoring feats, which maxed at six since 1901. This media bias kept the assumption alive for a century. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“For example, in the Shot Heard Around the World Game that decided the 1951 National League pennant in a tiebreaker playoff, Bobby Thomson had 4 RBIs, but all 5 runs scored by the New York Giants were scored by different players.”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
“In contrast, no individual player has scored more than six times in one game since modern baseball began in 1901. (In contrast, the single game record for RBIs is 12.)”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
Resulting Policies
Teams built lineups around tradition, not efficiency. Leadoff spots went to speedy players, second to those good at hit-and-run, and power hitters waited until fourth or later. The 1927 Yankees exemplified this, slotting Mark Koenig second despite Ruth and Gehrig's superior stats. Aesthetics trumped run maximization in these decisions. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“Until recently, teams had aesthetic theories about how to craft batting line-ups to be things of beauty. The leadoff man should be the fastest base-stealer, the #2 hitter a self-sacrificing hit and run artist”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
“for example, the famous 1927 New York Yankees batted light-hitting shortstop Mark Koenig second in the World Series, ahead of #3 Ruth and #4 Lou Gehrig”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
Harm Caused
Such lineups hurt the best hitters by limiting their turns at bat. Koenig's .320 on-base percentage in the second spot meant Ruth lost about 20 extra at-bats a year, and Gehrig missed 40. Overall, these orders scored fewer runs than optimal setups would have. Teams paid the price in games and seasons. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“By batting him second he was precluding about 20 extra plate appearances per year to Ruth (.486/.772) and 40 per year to Gehrig (.474/.765)”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
“Unfortunately, the traditional order, lovely as it was, didn’t actually score as many runs as possible.”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
Downfall
Analytics finally proved the assumption wrong. Data showed runs scored and RBIs held equal value over time. Teams started batting their top hitters leadoff to rack up more plate appearances. Sluggers like Shohei Ohtani and Kyle Schwarber now lead off. The Dodgers, using this tactic, score 77 percent more runs per game than the Rockies. The old ways crumbled under the weight of numbers. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“But over the long haul, it’s hard to argue that one is much more important than the other. (There are slightly more runs scored than RBIs since runs scored on errors don’t count as RBIs, but, on the whole, they are pretty comparable in number.)”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
“only in this decade did it occur to teams to put their best hitter, such as Ohtani, up first in the lineup. That way, he will get the most plate appearances over the course of the season”— Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?
Sources
-
[1]
Tradition! How Did Baseball Get RBIs vs. Runs Wrong for a Century?reputable_journalism