Why no love for BA w/RISP

[kaldaniels]

There may be an easy answer to this...but why is that stat ridiculed so much.

Looking at it from a football perspective, there are some QB's who I want on my team with less than 2 minutes and my team trailing...doesn't it stand to reason there are some players who step up more than others in critical situations in baseball as well?

It seems as this stat is assumed to be bogus by many, but I haven't seen the explanation why. Sorry if this is a repetitive issue.

[edabbs44]

[_Sir_Charles_]

I'm on your side on this one Kal. I'm no sabermetric stat freak, so I'll leave the debate to others. But I do feel that ba/risp and simple ba both get overlooked by saber statheads.

[Tony Cloninger]

It has something to do with some guy named Dunn...and then the rest becomes a real love fest between the people who think it's rabbit season and those who think it's duck season.

[wolfboy]

There's been plenty of bait planted in this thread, so I'll do my best to side step that and give the original poster my take on this topic. I'll preface this by saying that I favor statistical analysis when it comes to baseball, but I'm barely a novice. To be sure, your very question has been debated on here many times in the past. There are better arguments out there than I can offer.

For me, BA RISP is defective in the same manner that BA is defective. BA gives an incomplete and often misleading indication of the value of a hitter. At any point in the game, I want a hitter who is not making outs. That's even more important when runners are on. BA or BA RISP does not accurately show you which hitters are able to avoid outs.

A player like Adam Dunn is a prime example why BA RISP is flawed. Ideally you'd like to have a guy that has a high BA, OBP and SLG in any situation. Those guys are rare. A guy like Dunn is pretty good in the second and third category, but not necessarily good in the 1st. People point out a low BA RISP and use that as the sole measure of his worth in the lineup. However, that only paints a partial picture of what is going on. The BA might be low, but the OBP and SLG are high. What this tells you is that the player is not getting the number of hits (BA) you might want with RISP, but he's avoiding outs (high OBP) and when he does hit, it's for power (high SLG).

Under just one measure (BA), it looks like the guy is worthless. When you factor in the other measures (OBP and SLG), the picture of performance doesn't look so bleak.

So, to answer your question, I think BA RISP gets a lot of negative reaction around here because it's often used as a critically important measure of a player. A lot of posters on the board strongly disagree. When a debate occurs about Dunn's value to the team, it begins with BA RISP and goes from there. Some view it as the be all end all, and others take it with a grain of salt.

I think the great misunderstanding in all of this is that the alleged "stat freaks" would dismiss BA RISP if it were used to discredit Dunn or any other player in baseball. Yet, some people tend to think that the only reason we don't like BA RISP is because of Dunn. It's curious.

[kaldaniels]

There's been plenty of bait planted in this thread, so I'll do my best to side step that and give the original poster my take on this topic. I'll preface this by saying that I favor statistical analysis when it comes to baseball, but I'm barely a novice. To be sure, your very question has been debated on here many times in the past. There are better arguments out there than I can offer.

For me, BA RISP is defective in the same manner that BA is defective. BA gives an incomplete and often misleading indication of the value of a hitter. At any point in the game, I want a hitter who is not making outs. That's even more important when runners are on. BA or BA RISP does not accurately show you which hitters are able to avoid outs.

A player like Adam Dunn is a prime example why BA RISP is flawed. Ideally you'd like to have a guy that has a high BA, OBP and SLG in any situation. Those guys are rare. A guy like Dunn is pretty good in the second and third category, but not necessarily good in the 1st. People point out a low BA RISP and use that as the sole measure of his worth in the lineup. However, that only paints a partial picture of what is going on. The BA might be low, but the OBP and SLG are high. What this tells you is that the player is not getting the number of hits (BA) you might want with RISP, but he's avoiding outs (high OBP) and when he does hit, it's for power (high SLG).

Under just one measure (BA), it looks like the guy is worthless. When you factor in the other measures (OBP and SLG), the picture of performance doesn't look so bleak.

So, to answer your question, I think BA RISP gets a lot of negative reaction around here because it's often used as a critically important measure of a player. A lot of posters on the board strongly disagree. When a debate occurs about Dunn's value to the team, it begins with BA RISP and goes from there. Some view it as the be all end all, and others take it with a grain of salt.

I think the great misunderstanding in all of this is that the alleged "stat freaks" would dismiss BA RISP if it were used to discredit Dunn or any other player in baseball. Yet, some people tend to think that the only reason we don't like BA RISP is because of Dunn. It's curious.

Thats a fair enough start...and please don't think my question was baited at all...I realize Dunn's name was brought up but I don't want this thread to concern him at all. I'm truly looking for some understanding on this. I for one do realize that BA is flawed and overused to evalute hitters, so along with that it stands to reason BA w/ RISP does the same...because it doesn't account for "not making outs"

What about then, a stat that is "OBP with RISP or OPS with RISP". Couldn't there be something that analyzes whether a player is better or worse with RISP.

I don't look at batting stats with runners on as the end all to evaluate hitters by any measure. But shouldn't it make up a piece of the puzzle???

[AtomicDumpling]

The reason BA w/RISP is not considered a meaningful stat is because it is not a predictive statistic.

You are much better off using the player's overall batting average to predict his performance w/RISP than just using his actual batting average w/RISP.

It has been shown in many studies that over their careers players will hit the same batting average with and without runners on base once a meaningful sample size has been reached. When you start evaluating batting averages in various situational scenarios you are reducing the sample size to the point where the results of your evaluation are meaningless.

Only about 25% or less of a players plate appearances come with runners in scoring position. That percentage varies widely based on a hitter's spot in the lineup and the ability of his teammates to get on base in front of him. For example, when Brandon Phillips comes to the plate he has RISP about 30% of the time, while Jerry Hairston has RISP only 18% of the time.

Of course, we know that batting average is not a good barometer of a player's offensive performance in the first place, but that is another story.

[wolfboy]

I was never saying that you use BA with RISP as a be all end all. Some have over the years, and I think that's why it gets such negative treatment on this board. To answer your question, there is a measure of OPS with RISP. It's often pointed to as a response to Dunn's poor showing in the BA with RISP column. I'm going to re-post something AtomicDumpling made in another thread that involved a debate over Dunn.
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=32

Even when Dunn is in one of his slumps in terms of batting average, he is still making fewer outs than just about anybody else on the team. His slumps don't look so bad when you look beyond batting average towards OBP, SLG, RBIs and Runs.

Regarding Dunn's "clutchiness" maybe these career numbers will shed some light:

Overall - .898 OPS
2 outs, RISP - .854 OPS
Late & Close - .875 OPS
Tie Game - .908 OPS
Within 1 R - .895 OPS
Within 2 R - .914 OPS
Within 3 R - .914 OPS
Within 4 R - .910 OPS
Margin > 4 R - .833 OPS

Compare those numbers to the Reds' overal team OPS of .726 this year (which includes Dunn's OPS score remember).

You can see that Dunn is fantastic no matter what the score is. He does not choke in clutch situations as some would have you believe. The only time his OPS goes down noticeably from his normal rate is when the game is already out of hand. Even then though his OPS is still excellent.

One thing I noticed when viewing his situational stats is that his OPS goes up considerably when there is a man on first base. Presumably that runner on first discourages the opponent from pitching around him, so he gets better pitches to hit.

When there are runners on base, but not on 1st base, his OBP goes through the roof because the other team just walks him intentionally or semi-intentionally to take the bat out of his hands. Dunn's OBP with runners on just 2nd and 3rd is an ungodly .520! With a runner on 3rd only his OBP is .466 and with a runner on 2nd only it is .423, while with nobody on base at all it is "only" .358 for his career. Why would you pitch to Dunn in the clutch if you could pitch to a much inferior hitter instead?

I strongly believe Dunn's production would increase dramatically if he had an excellent hitter batting after him. He has never had much protection in the lineup, which just makes it too easy for the opponent to pitch around him. He just doesn't get that many true hitter's pitches. Most of the strikes he sees are on the corners. The pitchers are content to nibble on the corners and are not upset if he walks. He needs somebody behind him to make the pitcher pay for those walks. His career OBP of .381 would score a lot more runs if there were good hitters after Dunn in the lineup.

[wolfboy]

The reason BA w/RISP is not considered a meaningful stat is because it is not a predictive statistic.

You are much better off using the player's overall batting average to predict his performance w/RISP than just using his actual batting average w/RISP.

It has been shown in many studies that over their careers players will hit the same batting average with and without runners on base once a meaningful sample size has been reached. When you start evaluating batting averages in various situational scenarios you are reducing the sample size to the point where the results of your evaluation are meaningless.

Only about 25% or less of a players plate appearances come with runners in scoring position. That percentage varies widely based on a hitter's spot in the lineup and the ability of his teammates to get on base in front of him. For example, when Brandon Phillips comes to the plate he has RISP about 30% of the time, while Jerry Hairston has RISP only 18% of the time.

Of course, we know that batting average is not a good barometer of a player's offensive performance in the first place, but that is another story.

As I stated before, there are those who are much more knowledgeable and can articulate the argument much better than I.

[sonny]

I just want the Reds to score more than their opponents in each game. How it's done really doesn't bother me. Lets keep it simple!

[wolfboy]

I just want the Reds to score more than their opponents in each game. How it's done really doesn't bother me. Lets keep it simple!

I think we can all agree with that one.

[kaldaniels]

The reason BA w/RISP is not considered a meaningful stat is because it is not a predictive statistic.

You are much better off using the player's overall batting average to predict his performance w/RISP than just using his actual batting average w/RISP.

It has been shown in many studies that over their careers players will hit the same batting average with and without runners on base once a meaningful sample size has been reached. When you start evaluating batting averages in various situational scenarios you are reducing the sample size to the point where the results of your evaluation are meaningless.

Only about 25% or less of a players plate appearances come with runners in scoring position. That percentage varies widely based on a hitter's spot in the lineup and the ability of his teammates to get on base in front of him. For example, when Brandon Phillips comes to the plate he has RISP about 30% of the time, while Jerry Hairston has RISP only 18% of the time.

Of course, we know that batting average is not a good barometer of a player's offensive performance in the first place, but that is another story.

For most players I would assume that sounds correct, and I'm sure it is. But are there any players out there who over a large enough sample size do have a significant difference? If so, wouldn't it help to identify those players.

[AtomicDumpling]

I just want the Reds to score more than their opponents in each game. How it's done really doesn't bother me. Lets keep it simple!

Agreed.

Some people have the urge to focus on certain situational scenarios while ignoring the other situational scenarios.

There are dozens of different offensive situations that can occur. For the purposes of an illustration, let's suppose there were only four scenarios: A, B, C and D.

Brutus Sledgehammer is an awful player in scenario A, coming through only 10% of the time. Many people conclude that Brutus is a poor player because he fails so often in that situation. What those people fail to consider is that Brutus is average in scenario B and excellent in scenarios C and D. When you add up his performance in all four scenarios, Brutus' overall production is well above average. So the people that focus on scenario A are developing an inaccurate appraisal of Brutus Sledgehammer's hitting ability.

You can't focus on situational statistics like BA w/RISP because those stats represent a small portion of the offensive scenarios. Some players have low batting averages w/RISP, but because they are so good in other situations they can overcome that one poor scenario to deliver excellent overall offensive production.

[wolfboy]

Agreed.

Some people have the urge to focus on certain situational scenarios while ignoring the other situational scenarios.

There are dozens of different offensive situations that can occur. For the purposes of an illustration, let's suppose there were only four scenarios: A, B, C and D.

Brutus Sledgehammer is an awful player in scenario A, coming through only 10% of the time. Many people conclude that Brutus is a poor player because he fails so often in that situation. What those people fail to consider is that Brutus is average in scenario B and excellent in scenarios C and D. When you add up his performance in all four scenarios, Brutus' overall production is well above average. So the people that focus on scenario A are developing an inaccurate appraisal of Brutus Sledgehammer's hitting ability.

You can't focus on situational statistics like BA w/RISP because those stats represent a small portion of the offensive scenarios. Some players have low batting averages w/RISP, but because they are so good in other situations they can overcome that one poor scenario to deliver excellent overall offensive production.

Well said AD. I might add that I don't see any problem with analyzing, criticizing or praising a player based upon one scenario. However, a common trap I've seen is constructing an overall analysis of a player's worth to the team based upon one scenario combined with some anecdotal evidence.

[cincrazy]

There's been plenty of bait planted in this thread, so I'll do my best to side step that and give the original poster my take on this topic. I'll preface this by saying that I favor statistical analysis when it comes to baseball, but I'm barely a novice. To be sure, your very question has been debated on here many times in the past. There are better arguments out there than I can offer.

For me, BA RISP is defective in the same manner that BA is defective. BA gives an incomplete and often misleading indication of the value of a hitter. At any point in the game, I want a hitter who is not making outs. That's even more important when runners are on. BA or BA RISP does not accurately show you which hitters are able to avoid outs.

A player like Adam Dunn is a prime example why BA RISP is flawed. Ideally you'd like to have a guy that has a high BA, OBP and SLG in any situation. Those guys are rare. A guy like Dunn is pretty good in the second and third category, but not necessarily good in the 1st. People point out a low BA RISP and use that as the sole measure of his worth in the lineup. However, that only paints a partial picture of what is going on. The BA might be low, but the OBP and SLG are high. What this tells you is that the player is not getting the number of hits (BA) you might want with RISP, but he's avoiding outs (high OBP) and when he does hit, it's for power (high SLG).

Under just one measure (BA), it looks like the guy is worthless. When you factor in the other measures (OBP and SLG), the picture of performance doesn't look so bleak.

So, to answer your question, I think BA RISP gets a lot of negative reaction around here because it's often used as a critically important measure of a player. A lot of posters on the board strongly disagree. When a debate occurs about Dunn's value to the team, it begins with BA RISP and goes from there. Some view it as the be all end all, and others take it with a grain of salt.

I think the great misunderstanding in all of this is that the alleged "stat freaks" would dismiss BA RISP if it were used to discredit Dunn or any other player in baseball. Yet, some people tend to think that the only reason we don't like BA RISP is because of Dunn. It's curious.

Awesome post