The Mystery of RISP: An Open Discussion

I put a good deal of stock into the RISP stats. I hear and respect the other opinions on this issue. However, I’m pretty big on a high average with RISP. Not saying it “defines clutch”, it sure as hell does not hurt it tho!

so it doesn’t get lost. Amazingly, not nearly as many people read fanposts as you’d expect. no clue why, there’s good quality all the time.

and that is the psychological aspect plus the mechanical. There is a reason for the phrase “rise to the occasion.” Often unsuccessful people find success in the most stressful of situations. Baseball can’t be assumed to be any different. I believe that this occurs through a matter of focus, the things more important to success become more obvious than the stupid little things.

In baseball I attribute this more to mechanical changes. Shortening a swing, better rotation of the hips, creating better timing with the kick. With runners in scoring position a single is almost as good as a home run, because the important thing is scoring the run. Alot of the time clutch is doing just enough versus doing too much.

How this equates to the numbers of a whole team is hard to place value in because there are others things that need to be added in that are hard to measure just like psychological aspects or mechanical changes. Baserunning is a huge factor, fielding is another. And in all reality you can have perfect mechanics, make beautiful contact, and still hit it right to a fielder. A poor stat with RISP can be associated with bad luck just as much as it can be associated with any other aspect of the game.

So really while I like to think one thing in this argument, I truly doubt the existence of an answer.

Here is my take on RISP, and why I think, as it is most often used, is overrated as a statistic. I wrote this piece earlier this season. Sorry for the length.

RISP= Runners in Scoring Position. Or, if you’re a Tiger fan, Runners In Squandering Position. This term, or acronym, has come to be a generic reference for many to how well a team hits "in the clutch". I dispute that premise. RISP, in it’s full definition, means "batting average with runner(s) on second and/ or third base".

PROBLEM No. 1: It is, in the first place, batting average. Not OPS, not SLG, not OBP, and there’s no credit for walks, sac flies, moving the runners with a "good out", or any of that. A batter could draw a BB with the bases loaded, and he gets an RBI, but that has no impact on RISP. Sac fly scores a run with a man on third- no credit. Grounds into a triple play as opposed to that same sac fly? No difference. Nice slow grounder to the right side scores a run? Nada

Then, there’s the fundamental difference between a single, double, or home run, which does not register any differently on the RISP scale. An infield single that moves a runner to third is the same as a grand slam. A hit is a hit, is a hit. Any number of additions to the statistic could help to improve it as a measure of "clutchness", if that is what it is intended to do. How about OPS with RISP?

PROBLEM NO 2. "Scoring position" is meant to say that there is a runner on second, or a runner on third, or runners on second and third. Lots of problems here. First of all, Tiger fans know better than anyone that having a runner on second doesn’t mean he’s in "scoring position". But we also know that Cabrera is in scoring position just standing at the plate, whether there’s anyone on base or not, and it’s very questionable whether Magglio is in “scoring position” standing on second base.

PROBLEM NO. 3: Sample size. When measuring RISP for individuals, reducing the number of AB’s to the number of times that there happened to be a runner "in scoring position" will dramatically reduce the sample size. Jhonny Peralta led the league in 2009 with just 185 AB’s with RISP (he hit .265- and this may help to explain his RBI total). Less than 100 players in the league had even 100 AB’s with RISP. An every day player normally logs about 100 AB’s in just about a month. Any player can look very good or very bad, depending on their luck in a month’s worth of At Bats.

PROBLEM NO. 4: Impact. A single scores the runner from second base 60 per cent of the time, statistically. With two outs, that percentage should increase because runners are running on the pitch. With one or no outs, that percentage drops. RISP does not distinguish the number of outs, nor does it measure the number of times that a run actually scores. The ultimate impact on the score, or on the outcome of the game, is not measured by RISP. Too many variables are unaccounted for with this number.

The bottom line with RISP is that it does not nearly measure the clutchness of a team or a player. My belief is that players who hit with nobody on base will also tend to hit with runners on base. Some may be better at finding the gap on the right side when the first baseman is holding a runner, but that doesn’t factor in to RISP at all. RISP, then, is an unnecessary reduction in the sample size, limited to batting average only (vs OPS, wOBA or a more accurate measure of a player’s offensive productivity), and further limited to circumstances beyond a player’s control, over which he has no more or less control of his fate at in the batter’s box. Any difference between a player’s RISP and his batting average is more likely to be attributable to luck or chance than to anything else.

If one is to argue that certain teams or players hit better or worse with RISP than they do in all situations, then there must be some attributable cause for such a change in performance. Is there something about putting a runner on second or third base that changes the behavior of a batter, or a pitcher, or the fielders?
  
- Maybe with a runner on first base, the first baseman holds with the runner, opening a wider gap on the right side of this infield, increasing the chances of a base hit. But RISP does not account for runners on first base.

- Maybe with the infield in double play depth, the chances of getting a ball through the infield are increased, but this situation also applies when there is a runner on first, setting up a force.
     
- Maybe with the tying or go ahead run on third base (not second) late in the game, the infield will be pulled in, creating a better chance for the batter to get the ball through the infield. If so, this small percentage of a percentage of the time that there are runners on third, with less than two outs, may lead to an increase in RISP above regular batting average. But there doesn’t seem to be that impact with RISP over batting average, and the number of times during a season that a batter would find himself in such a situation has to be statistically insignificant to impact his RISP average.
  
What then, is it about a hitter that gets more hits when there is a runner on second and/ or third base than he does in a random situation? Are there hitters that consistently hit better with RISP than in other situations? I don’t think so, and if they do, I think that, once again, it’s as much chance as anything else.

Are there hitters that have an ability to adjust to a given situation? I’m sure there are. With a man on third, in a tie game, less than two outs, I’m sure some hitters are better at dialing down the power stroke and just putting the ball in play to try and get the run home. But they’re as likely to do that with a sac fly or a ground out as they are by getting a base hit. So, RISP may or may not give these "clutch" hitters extra credit for their game winning efforts, and an increase in RISP does not necessarily mean that there is an increase in run production.

Or how about hitters that are able to put the ball on the ground with a runner on second and no outs, moving the runner to third? Sure, there are. They tend to be contact hitters, some with power and some not so much. But once again, RISP isn’t interested in moving the runner, just in base hits.

Avg, HR, RBI and Avg w/risp and thats it. All those other new stats dont mean as much to me. These are the most important.

For three years 2007- 09, he’s batting .277 overall and .297 with RISP
And it means nothing to me about “clutchness” for the reasons I stated above

Percentage of runs scored, team rankings
I guess it’s kinda like the RISP without the SP interpretation?

It will be interesting to see at the end of the season whether the Tigers improve or decline from their 10th place standing.