If you really believe that looking at RBIs will tell you the "same story" then I cannot disagree with you more. The data disagrees with you. Statisticians disagree with you. General Managers disagree with you. Players even disagree with you.

Here is another example for you about a different stat that is just an awful stat. Being a braves fan it hopefully makes more sense for you.

Last season, Andrelton Simmons had more errors than all but 9 starting short stops. His fielding percentage was merely 7th among starting shortstops. So the "story" must tell me that he is a pretty average starting short stop, correct? I mean, there are clearly 6 players that made outs on a more consistent basis, and 8 short stops who made less errors than him.

If I only cared about those awful metrics then there is no way I would have given him the gold glove. So why did he win the gold glove? Because he was first in the majors in TZR and range factor. I am sure you noticed this by watching the games. These advanced metrics do a MUCH better job telling the story of how good of a short stop Simmons is. So why would I even bother talking about total errors and fielding percentage?

This old post of yours must have been prophecy:

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=12277621

I used to think that RBIs were a great metrics as well. Thought it was awesome when my favorite players had 100+ RBIs in a season and would think they had bad years when it was below that mark. Then I did some research and realized how antiquated the RBI metric was. That it in fact doesn't tell the "same story." In fact, the story that RBIs tell are not even close to telling the whole story.

Since you don't care about reading up on the arguments or articles out there about the issue it is clear that you will keep thinking that you are right as the baseball world passes you by.