Talk:Run batted in

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Baseball (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I changed the part about an RBI not being credited when there's an error. A batter certainly can get an RBI on a play where an error is charged; it's just a matter of the scorer's decision as to whether the run would have scored without the error. For example, in a sacrifice fly situation, if the outfielder drops the ball, allowing the batter to reach base, the fielder would get an error, but the play is still ruled a sac fly and RBI for the batter. Jeff Worthington 01:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


I always get annoyed when I listen to ESPN announce "such-and-such has 38 RBI," rather than RBIs. I understand that it is correct from an initialism stanpoint -- Runs Batted In -- but, then, we don't say he flew out, do we? I notice that the article uses both: "the batter would get three RBIs" and "RBI are." I haven't been able to find a definitive and/or historical source while poking the web. Any help and/or opinions? VermillionBird 06:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at a box score / summary, they are never listed as RBIs. Another way to look at it, you don't use "HRs" to denote multiple home runs, do you? What would that be "Home Runs-eses"? ;)

Without discounting the discussion, that's a superficial and failed example. "eses" is only necessary if you're Gollum. "Home Runs" can't decide the debate VermillionBird (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC).

In the strictest grammatical sense, the plural is RunS batted in, and a proper treatment would be "RsBI" and not RBIs except that RBI is an acronym, and the general rule in English is to treat a noun formed as an acronym is treated as if it were a normal noun even if one would never put the plural signal "s" at the end of the phrase if pronounded as the words in question. We say Runs Batted In, and not Run Batted Ins; we also say RBIs and not "RsBI". An analogy is to the phrase "weapon of mass destruction"; the plural for the phrase is is Weapons of Mass Destruction, the acronym is WMD (singular) or WMDs (plural) -- and never WsMD.

Whether one says "Ed Smith has 38 RBIs" or "Ed Smith has 38 RBI" is a quibble, except that the latter may be over-refined. "Ed Smith has 38 RsBI" would be a travesty of English grammar. --Paul from Michigan 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My two cents, the plural of RBI is RBI (runs batted in; e.g. "he got four RBI that game"), and it makes me cringe when I hear RBIs... (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Runs batted in is inherently plural. "Ruth had four runs batted in; Gehrig had one run batted in." But the pluralization of the the abbreviation is RBIs not RBI. "Ruth had four RBIs; Gehrig had one RBI." The URL explains it simply.

RBI is an acronym. The pluralization of acronyms is to add an s. To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Acronyms and initialisms are pluralized by adding -s or -es as with any other nouns (They produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; The laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006). As with other nouns, no apostrophe is used unless the form is a possessive." (i.e. RBIs and not RBI's).

RBI and HR will appear without the s in cases of statistical lists, like the backs of baseball cards and encyclopedia-style charts. RBIs and HRs are when used in sentences.


  • Led AL in RBIs in 1910, 1914, and 1915
  • He was also 3rd in the National League in triples (16), RBIs (104), and slugging percentage (.524).
  • Consecutive seasons, 120+ RBIs: 8 (1927–1934)
  • In four postseason games, he hit .077 (1-for-13) with a run and one RBI.
  • After giving up an RBI single to Pete Rose, Lonborg was inexplicably removed from the game by manager Danny Ozark.
  • National League RBI champion: 1952
  • 3 time RBI leader (1993, 1995–1996)
  • Dropo was the first rookie in the 20th century to top 100 RBIs with more RBIs than games played.
  • Belle is also one of only six players in major league history to have nine consecutive 100-RBI seasons.
  • List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 RBIs
  • On all charts and infoboxes, it should be RBI

Many articles in Wikipedia have RBI in sentences when it should be RBIs. I started going around changing them, but there must be 100s of articles out there that need fixing. We can't set up a BOT to do it because some of the instances that RBI is used are correct. One really has to read the sentence to know if it is RBI or RBIs. What we can do is keep an eye out. Whenever you edit a baseball article, just double check the article and fix any instances of RBI that should be RBIs.

I realize "RBIs" might not look or sound right, but it is consistent with our Manual of Style, and many other Manuals of Style. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a firm enough consensus in one direction or the other, and I'm not sure it's our place to be mandating one "proper" plural form. I changed the intro to say that either may be used. Funnyhat (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can say something in the article about both forms, but Wikipedia should only use the proper plural form. I've never in my life heard an announcer, a reporter or a fan say anything like "He has 45 RBI this season." It's RBIs. Kingturtle (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point ESPN changed from using RBIs to RBI when describing 2 or more runs batted in. If it were only one 'Run Batted In' it would be RBI, meaning Run Batted In. You could not say one Runs Batted In. This has really annoyed me as well. IF someone knows if/ when ESPN deliberately changed, if they did, it might be worth mentioning in the main article.Expo512 (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed that RBI (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to RBI.[edit]

You can find the discussion at Talk:RBI (disambiguation)#Requested move. Ewlyahoocom 22:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And again at Talk:RBI (disambiguation)#Move? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Can RBI go to a disambiguation page instead of "runs batted in". In India this exclusively means Reserve Bank of India. Either that or Wikipedia needs to start having acronym defaults based on geo-IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved NW (Talk) 00:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Run batted inRuns batted in — This is never referred to as Run batted in. It is actually known as Runs batted in. See here, here, and here (see the runs batted in part). I have never seen it noted as Run batted in on any other major website besides Wikipedia. Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 23:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Have you considered, apart from what you have seen, flipping through these 723,000 ghits and these 1,300 gbook hits? Or looking at the reference to "run batted in" in the official rules of baseball?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:SINGULAR says article titles should be singular except those "always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers)". I might argue that "virtually always" is a better standard, but strictly according to this, one would have to oppose this move, no? –CWenger (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only reason runs (plural) batted in is common is it's an item often discussed in multiples. But it's still perfectly appropriate to say "Albert Pujols went 3-4 on Tuesday with a run batted in." Staxringold talkcontribs 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stax. If I get called up to the majors for a cup of coffee and go one for ten and happen to record one RBI before my demotion, would you say I had one runs batted in for my career? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - maybe just a pile-on vote, but I agree that "run batted in" is a commonly used phrase, albeit awkward to type [[Run batted in|Runs batted in]] (RBIs).Neonblak talk - 14:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per wp:singular. It is often plural because there is often more than one, but it isn't always the case. per what Muboshgu has said. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SINGULAR and above commenters, especially Staxringold's note that when one has only one, it's still "one run batted in". -Dewelar (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I might add, that while nom asserts above that it is "never referred to as run batted in", his very first "see here" example does precisely that, in its first sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Stax, Muboshgu and WP:SINGULAR. Rlendog (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stax. Good faith mom, but mistaken in its assertion. oknazevad (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn - with the overwhelming consensus, I have decided to withdraw this requested move request. Guy546(Talk) 21:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - 1 RBI is Run Batted In. 2 or more RBIs are Runs Batted In. The reason why it is usually referred to in the plural is because batters usually get more than one during a season. --Jojhutton (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plural of RBI[edit]

Sources almost always have more information than what goes into the article. If someone wants to read all about abbreviations and plurals, that's what the source is for. And the sources do not definitively say that plural RBI is wrong - there's no English language academy that can say such a thing. Obviously ESPN think it should be RBI, and what makes them any less reliable than other sources? But what's there now has way too much detail, even if it's supported by the sources. All that's needed is to say that while RBIs is generally accepted (pet the sources), some people use RBI as a plural. Anything more is excessive. Also, Epeefleche, your note on my talk page is probably in violation of WP:ASSUME. People can have different opinions on what should be in an article without it being disruption. If the consensus is for it to stay the way it is, fine - but let's see what other editors think. PaulGS (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)