PDA

View Full Version : Percentage of Runners in scoring position

Hoosier Red
06-06-2007, 12:17 PM
We've also heard the other side that BA/RISP doesn't matter, OPS and SlG% correlate more to the runs scored.

Is there anyway we can track which teams score the highest percentage of runs when runners get on base or get in scoring position?

Johnny Footstool
06-06-2007, 01:04 PM
We've also heard the other side that BA/RISP doesn't matter, OPS and SlG&#37; correlate more to the runs scored.

Is there anyway we can track which teams score the highest percentage of runs when runners get on base or get in scoring position?

I got the numbers from ESPN.com. Unfortunately, you have to calculate the percentages by hand.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=8&seasonType=2&type=reg&sort=atBats&split=39&season=2007

By my calculations (I calculated Plate Appearances with RISP, then used that to find the percentage of runs scored), the Reds are about 1.5% below league average in terms of runs scored with RISP.

Hoosier Red
06-06-2007, 01:37 PM
I guess my question is, wouldn't this be a better way to calculate how effective teams are. Why wouldn't this be used? Is there something I'm missing about this stat that has holes in it?

Highlifeman21
06-07-2007, 11:29 AM
I smell a thread revisiting "win effective" runs again...

Redsland
06-07-2007, 11:36 AM
By my calculations (I calculated Plate Appearances with RISP, then used that to find the percentage of runs scored), the Reds are about 1.5% below league average in terms of runs scored with RISP.
Are you telling me that I've been listening to indignant radio types yammer on about RISP for two years, and that despite all the bluster, the Reds are essentially average at that task?

KronoRed
06-07-2007, 12:44 PM
I smell a thread revisiting "win effective" runs again...

How bout we just break out an Dunn basher? :D

BRM
06-07-2007, 12:58 PM
Runs are like donuts. Didn't I hear that on this board once upon a time? The 12th donut is less important than the 3rd one, or something like that. Now I'm hungry.

Johnny Footstool
06-07-2007, 02:34 PM
Are you telling me that I've been listening to indignant radio types yammer on about RISP for two years, and that despite all the bluster, the Reds are essentially average at that task?

To be fair, they are dead last in BA with RISP. Of course, even with the low BA RISP, they're only a bit below average in terms of runs produced, so that tells you how much (or how little) BA RISP matters.

Or my calculations could be off.

Sea Ray
06-07-2007, 02:47 PM
To be fair, they are dead last in BA with RISP. Of course, even with the low BA RISP, they're only a bit below average in terms of runs produced, so that tells you how much (or how little) BA RISP matters.

Or my calculations could be off.

The runs stat can easily be explained by GABP. A lot of HRs and ones with guys on 1st and solo will score runs w/o increasing the BA with RISP.

Johnny Footstool
06-07-2007, 03:51 PM
The runs stat can easily be explained by GABP. A lot of HRs and ones with guys on 1st and solo will score runs w/o increasing the BA with RISP.

I'm looking at Runs Scored with RISP only.

Johnny Footstool
06-07-2007, 05:21 PM
texasdave PM'ed me this information:

Hi,

I was messing around with some figures while waiting for the Reds' supplemental pick. I don't know if they are of any interest to you. I can't post in ORG so that is why I am sending them in a PM.

Code:

CIN-SIT PA BR RS HR BRS &#37;BRS
OXO 190 190 29 4 25 13.2%
OOX 68 68 30 2 28 41.2%
XXO 150 150 26 4 22 14.7%
XOX 54 54 22 3 19 35.2%
OXX 40 80 21 2 19 23.8%
XXX 62 124 46 0 46 37.1%

RISP 564 666 174 15 159 23.9%

This is the chart I set up for Cincinnati. The numbers are all from baseball-reference.com. The first column is the base-runner situation. X = man on base; O = base empty. We take each base situation and multiply it by the runners in scoring position for that situation to get the total number of base runners. In the first four situations there is one runner in scoring position and in the last two situations there are two runners in scoring position. Once we get the total number of base runners we total up the run scored and subtract out the number of home runs (since these are included in the runs scored but were not actually in scoring position) to get the percentage of base runners scored. This is not perfect. Obviously some of the runners that are on first scored; but since there is no way to get that information without going through all the gamelogs I just decided that it was an even percentage for each team. That is how I came up with the 23.9 % for Cincinnati. I then did that for each team and the NL as a whole. That chart looks like this.

Code:

TEAM %BRS REL-BRS BARISP REL-BARISP
CHC 27.0% 105 0.288 110
SFG 28.4% 110 0.288 110
ATL 26.5% 103 0.272 104
HOU 25.5% 99 0.269 103
STL 26.4% 102 0.266 102
SDP 26.1% 101 0.265 102
PHI 25.7% 100 0.260 100
FLA 25.5% 99 0.255 98
COL 25.0% 97 0.256 98
NYM 25.1% 97 0.253 97
ARI 25.7% 100 0.254 97
PIT 24.8% 96 0.251 96
MIL 25.2% 98 0.245 94
WSN 25.1% 97 0.239 92
CIN 23.9% 93 0.229 88

NL 25.8% 100 0.261 100

The four columns are 1)percentage of base runners in scoring position to score, 2)that percentage was set relative to the league (100 being league average), 3) batting average with runners in scoring position, 4)that batting average set relative to the league.

It can be seen that as the BARISP increases over league average (100+), the percentage of base runners in scoring position that score increases over league average (100+) in almost every case. It decreases likewise.

So what does this all mean? Is it a significant amount? A look at the reds shows that it does. The Reds had 666 base runners in scoring position. If they had driven them in at a 25.8 percent league-average clip instead of 23.9, it would result in about 12.5 extra runs. This is for 2007 so far or roughly 1/3 of the season. For a whole season that would be between 35 and 40 more runs scored. And that is only improving to a league-average rate. If they were among the league leaders it would be an even greater amount. (probably around 55 - 60 more runs).

Maybe there is no such thing as 'clutch'. Maybe a hitter is what he is. But this data seems to reinforce the importance of BARISP. It certainly seems possible.

Great work, texasdave!

As the data shows, there is correlation between BA RISP and Runs Scored RISP. It makes sense -- you drive in runners by hitting the ball. But I'll bet OPS RISP has an even higher correlation.