Tipping Pitches: May 2010

Pages

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Influence of Lineup Spot on RBI -- Guest Blog

0 comments

email to friend edit
Special thanks to Jeff Parker of RoyallySpeaking.com, who allowed me to invade his blog about the Kansas City Royals with an off-topic dive into XRBI and the impact of lineup spot on production.

[This is a follow-up to my post about the Death and Resurrection of the RBI.]

Today, I'm going to dive deeper into the RBI disparities in lineup spot. There are natural differences in lineup spot that will give one spot more opportunities than another with runners in scoring position. The obvious example is leadoff. If a batter is to come to the plate four times per game, one of four for the leadoff man is guaranteed to be with the bases empty. As a result, such a player is at a built-in disadvantage to drive in runs.

Read More...

Friday, May 7, 2010

The Death and Resurrection of the RBI

0 comments

email to friend edit
Historically, mainstream sports media has dumbed down baseball statistics. Whether it's displaying a player's stats on the TV screen or providing support for why a hitter should be considered for the Most Valuable Player (or any other offensive) award, we've been spoon fed three main statistics:

Batting Average
Home Runs
Runs Batted In

There are other statistics, but this is what we are supposed to care about most. In fact, we've been told that if you are a truly dominant hitter and lead the league in all three, you should be awarded the Triple Crown. It's the epitome of offensive performance in baseball. Or so we're told.

Lately, the Sabermetrics community has continued to chip away at these long held assumptions. It seems that chicks will forever dig the long ball, but more and more fans are questioning the value of batting average and RBI, in particular.

While batting average may not be completely discarded (instead, seen as a statistic of merit, but inferior to on base percentage), the Run Batted In is viewed by many stat heads as having little or no value at all.

Why the RBI is a Flawed Statistic

It was his work as an RBI machine that netted him a spot in the Hall of Fame... Because he played in the shadow of Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, and Pete Rose, Perez was underappreciated during his career... -- on Tony Perez, from Cooperstown: Hall of Fame Players

Each night, I read a page or two from this wonderful book to my eight-year-old son, giving him a nice history of the players who are in the Hall of Fame. I couldn't help but cringe when I read this passage.

It's not that I don't think that Tony Perez was a great hitter. He had a long and distinguished career. He may even be deserving of Hall of Fame status. But insinuating that his inclusion as a baseball great falls entirely on this flawed statistic makes a very bad argument.

The problem is that the act of driving in runs is not an individual statistic. It is reliant not only on Perez getting hits (and timely hits), but having teammates who are on base. It is additionally helpful if those teammates are average to above average base runners to maximize runs scored (and therefore maximize runs batted in).

Perez played on some terrific teams. Beyond the Hall of Famers listed above, he also played with Lee May, George Foster, Ken Griffey and Dave Concepcion. Was he overshadowed? Or did Perez benefit as a result?

Part of the reason Perez drove in so many runs was that the Reds were regularly on base. His team scored the most runs in the National League four times from 1968 through 1976 and was second or third three other times during that span.

An example of a potential disparity of riches is represented in the 1975 season, one of the years the Reds scored the most runs in the National League. In nearly 43% of his plate appearances that year, Tony Perez came up with runners in scoring position. He batted fourth or fifth 87% of the time. By comparison, Dick Allen of the Philadelphia Phillies (a distant second in runs scored), batted fourth or fifth 91% of the time. Yet, he came up with runners in scoring position 32% of the time (which was actually the second highest rate of his career).

Perez needed to come through in clutch situations, and he did so frequently. He had a .512 slugging percentage with runners on base that year compared to .403 with the bases empty. But make no mistake, he was granted more opportunities to drive in runs than the typical player. Even had he fared poorly in clutch situations, the vast opportunities assured him of a nice RBI total (he finished with 109 in only 137 games, which was good for third in the NL and short of Greg Luzinski's mark of 120 despite playing in 24 fewer games).

And of course, part of the reason Perez was often up with runners in scoring position was that he hit either clean-up or fifth in the lineup 61% of the time during his career. This may seem obvious, but batters hitting third, fourth or fifth will have the most opportunities to drive in runs.

To again use 1975 as a comparison, the league leader in hits that season was Dave Cash, with 213. He played all 162 games that season as the Phillies lead-off hitter. As a result, he came up with a runner in scoring position only 22% of the time, resulting in a mere 57 RBI.

Of course, part of the reason Perez drove in more runs that year was also that he had more extra base hits than a guy like Cash, who was a singles hitter. Yet, you can't discount the fact that Perez came up in prime position to drive in runs nearly double the time.

Moreover, we are led to believe that singles hitters don't drive in runs because they are rarely in position to post high RBI totals. The reality is that a guy like Cash who piles on singles throughout the season would put up comparable RBI totals to a clean-up hitter with many more home runs and a much lower batting average -- only if, of course, both hitters were to come up to the plate with identical opportunities.

No two players have the same opportunities to drive in runs, and in fact the disparity when comparing different teams and lineup positions is significant. As a result, the RBI statistic is greatly flawed.

The Solution

Now, I'm not the first to propose some sort of solution to this (note: of course, I hoped I was but a Google search brought me back to reality). Tom Ruane of Retrosheet wrote a piece about Joe Carter a while back. Carter was a guy who would regularly hit for a low average but drive in a large number of runs.

Tom Tango, who developed the wOBA statistic, provided some inspiration for this study. Tango's stat is seen by many as being one of the most important measures of offensive worth. Among other things, wOBA assigns a runs created value to each offensive result. Runs created, however, combined both runs scored and runs driven in as a result of that outcome.

Luckily, Tom's a very accessible guy, and he provided a general RBI value for a single, double, triple, home run, strikeout (which is always zero), other out (including sacrifices), walks and hit by pitch, both with and without the DH. How? Lots of work, I'm sure. Taking all identical situations and averaging how many runs are batted in over several years of data.

First, the values (which have been shortened to be more manageable):

Single = .22
Double = .43
Triple = .64
Home Run = 1.6 (including driving one's self in)
Strikeout = 0
Other Out = .0275
Walk/HBP = .02

What does this mean? It means, given the average situation -- runners on base, base running ability of those on base, etc. -- a single will result in .218 runs driven in. It should be remembered that a batter does not need to get a hit to drive in a run, which is why outs, walks and hit by pitch are also included.

Suddenly, we can take the offensive output of any two players and determine which would have been the better run producer given identical circumstances. It's a wonderful stat, though of course it still is not perfect. Such a stat would not consider if a player were more "clutch" in situations where runners are in scoring position.

Yet, the variation (which I call XRBI) is still a vast improvement over the current RBI statistic. Below is a collection of the top 100 players in career XRBI, also including their total RBI and respective ranks. While there aren't a lot of major differences at the top (Hank Aaron is first either way), you'll note that several players you do not normally consider run producers (singles hitters like Pete Rose and Lou Brock) move way up in run production given a level playing field of run producing opportunities. Think that's weird? Look outside the box.

Oh, and Tony Perez, though he did indeed benefit from playing on offensive minded teams, was still a great run producer in terms of XRBI -- still 41st overall.

Player Name RBI RBI Rk XRBI XRBI Rk DIFF
Hank Aaron 2297 1 2275 1 0
Barry Bonds 1996 4 2059 2 2
Willie Mays 1903 10 2002 3 7
Babe Ruth 2217 2 1941 4 -2
Stan Musial 1951 6 1899 5 1
Rafael Palmeiro 1835 14 1789 6 8
Frank Robinson 1812 18 1785 7 11
Ken Griffey 1829 16 1776 8 8
Carl Yastrzemski 1844 12 1775 9 3
Eddie Murray 1917 9 1755 10 -1
Dave Winfield 1833 15 1675 11 4
Mel Ott 1860 11 1665 12 -1
Cal Ripken 1695 24 1662 13 11
Pete Rose 1314 91 1646 14 77
Reggie Jackson 1702 23 1624 15 8
Lou Gehrig 1995 5 1617 16 -11
Jimmie Foxx 1922 8 1614 17 -9
Ted Williams 1839 13 1604 18 -5
Alex Rodriguez 1706 21 1604 19 2
Sammy Sosa 1667 26 1604 20 6
Gary Sheffield 1676 25 1586 21 4
Ty Cobb 1937 7 1583 22 -15
Ernie Banks 1636 28 1573 23 5
Manny Ramirez 1788 19 1555 24 -5
Al Kaline 1583 37 1546 25 12
Andre Dawson 1591 34 1535 26 8
Frank Thomas 1704 22 1529 27 -5
George Brett 1595 32 1528 28 4
Mickey Mantle 1509 50 1519 29 21
Mike Schmidt 1595 32 1510 30 2
Billy Williams 1475 52 1490 31 21
Eddie Mathews 1453 55 1483 32 23
Fred McGriff 1550 41 1480 33 8
Harmon Killebrew 1584 35 1475 34 1
Jim Thome 1565 39 1470 35 4
Harold Baines 1628 29 1462 36 -7
Willie McCovey 1555 40 1451 37 3
Craig Biggio 1175 150 1439 38 112
Rickey Henderson 1115 183 1436 39 144
Paul Molitor 1307 97 1428 40 57
Tony Perez 1652 27 1428 41 -14
Robin Yount 1406 68 1419 42 26
Tris Speaker 1529 45 1410 43 2
Al Simmons 1827 17 1399 44 -27
Rogers Hornsby 1584 35 1398 45 -10
Luis Gonzalez 1439 59 1388 46 13
Jeff Bagwell 1529 45 1386 47 -2
Willie Stargell 1540 42 1384 48 -6
Chipper Jones 1445 57 1377 49 8
Dwight Evans 1384 71 1367 50 21
Dave Parker 1493 51 1364 51 0
Jeff Kent 1518 48 1345 52 -4
Honus Wagner 1732 20 1343 53 -33
Brooks Robinson 1357 77 1338 54 23
Carlos Delgado 1512 49 1335 55 -6
Mark McGwire 1414 66 1329 56 10
Darrell Evans 1354 78 1328 57 21
Rusty Staub 1466 53 1325 58 -5
Jim Rice 1451 56 1315 59 -3
Roberto Clemente 1305 98 1313 60 38
Carlton Fisk 1330 85 1306 61 24
Ivan Rodriguez 1264 114 1304 62 52
Steve Finley 1167 156 1302 63 93
Goose Goslin 1609 30 1293 64 -34
Andres Galarraga 1425 63 1291 65 -2
Joe Carter 1445 57 1289 66 -9
Vada Pinson 1170 155 1288 67 88
Vladimir Guerrero 1318 90 1287 68 22
Graig Nettles 1314 91 1287 69 22
Orlando Cepeda 1365 76 1276 70 6
Cap Anson 2076 3 1269 71 -68
Gary Gaetti 1341 80 1266 72 8
Duke Snider 1333 83 1265 73 10
Chili Davis 1372 74 1262 74 0
Joe Morgan 1133 172 1258 75 97
Joe DiMaggio 1537 44 1256 76 -32
Mike Piazza 1335 82 1251 77 5
Larry Walker 1311 93 1248 78 15
Paul Waner 1309 95 1247 79 16
Charlie Gehringer 1427 62 1244 80 -18
Jose Canseco 1407 67 1239 81 -14
Dale Murphy 1266 113 1238 82 31
Nap Lajoie 1599 31 1225 83 -52
Ron Santo 1331 84 1224 84 0
Juan Gonzalez 1404 69 1221 85 -16
Johnny Bench 1376 73 1218 86 -13
Al Oliver 1326 87 1217 87 0
Steve Garvey 1308 96 1215 88 8
Sam Crawford 1525 47 1212 89 -42
Garret Anderson 1353 79 1210 90 -11
Yogi Berra 1430 61 1209 91 -30
Lou Brock 900 338 1204 92 246
Tony Gwynn 1138 169 1204 93 76
Roberto Alomar 1134 171 1200 94 77
Don Baylor 1276 107 1187 95 12
Eddie Collins 1300 101 1185 96 5
Ellis Burks 1206 129 1184 97 32
Jason Giambi 1330 85 1182 98 -13

Followers