Worst avg with RISP

by Donner on Apr 27, 2005 9:49 AM PDT Comment 13 comments

So, I keep seeing comments (in regular media and here) that the A's have one of the worst batting averages with RISP this season. It irritated me though because they have one of the worst batting averages period. It seemed like a non-meaningful thing to say. So, I decided to see just how non-meaningful it was. To bring the average with RISP to the same as their regular batting average would require a grand total of 3 more hits. Looking a OBP with RISP is actually slightly higher than the total average. Therefore, I would argue the A's are performing exactly the same with RISP as otherwise, poorly.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Whats the point?

If they suck no matter which side of the coin you look at who cares if someone is looking at a side other than you?

Hitting with RISP will result in more runs than simple BA. If the teams RISP Hitting was high, and their overall BA low who cares as long as they are scoring more runs? It comes down to missed opportunities and that ol' "clutch" hitting argument.

Look on the bright side. If the A's keep hitting like they did last night - or relatively close to it - people will stop saying such things.

Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you. - Jack Handy

by Awesomus on Apr 27, 2005 10:24 AM PDT reply actions

no, any kind of hitting helps

If you do more hitting without RISP, you will create more opportunities to hit with RISP, so even without improving your average w/RISP you get more runs.

Conversely, if you have a lousy averge w/o/RISP and a high average w/RISP, you will score few runs, because there won't be many RISP situations.

It's very simple: if the team hits well it will score a lot of runs. The A's are not hitting well, and so they are not scoring a lot of runs.

The only situation they need to worry about now is batting w/OAIBB: Oakland Athletic in Batter's Box.

by matthias on Apr 27, 2005 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Not necessarily,

There are a lot of ways to get players in scoring position with out getting a hit or multiple hits.

Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you. - Jack Handy

by Awesomus on Apr 27, 2005 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions

true

and there are also ways to score runners from scoring position without getting a hit.

But I think if you could run the stats you'dl find the vast majority of runners in scoring position got there with the aid of at least one hit, and the vast majority who score from scoring position do so with the aid of a hit, so I stand by what I said as true enough for all practical purposes.

by matthias on Apr 27, 2005 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Of course...

I think the main point is we want the hitting to improve, and that when the hitting improve hitting with RISP should improve in lockstep. I guess the point is there is nothing special about the A's not getting hits with RISP vs not getting hits in general, that would suggest that both would not improve at the same time.

by Donner on Apr 27, 2005 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions

team or player

did you evaluate each indivual player and compare his risp/avg, or did you just compare the teams risp/avg as a whole?

Let's Go A's!

by AllThingsOakland on Apr 27, 2005 10:28 AM PDT reply actions

Just the team average

Right now with individuals, 1 hit either way makes too big of a difference.

by Donner on Apr 27, 2005 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

BUT after last night, I think the A's lead ....

.... the league in BRISP !!

Balks Received in Scoring Position !!

thanks Mr. Marte !!

by HerbWashington on Apr 27, 2005 10:44 AM PDT reply actions

AVG w/ RISP is critically important

But remember, the A's set a franchise record in hits last year, and had a team batting average around .270, and yet were only able to score about 650-700 runs, which was good for about 9th or 10th/11th in the AL. So they hit for a great average last year. Why, then, did they score so few runs? Simple. Their BA w/RISP was beyond pathetic (at around .220 or .230). And let's face it: It doesn't matter how many guys you put on base if you cant get hits when they're on.

by specterace on Apr 27, 2005 2:08 PM PDT reply actions

You're making stuff up.

specterace says: Their BA w/RISP was beyond pathetic (at around .220 or .230).

The A's BA w/RISP last year was .260. Their overall BA was .270.

by matthias on Apr 27, 2005 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Making stuff up II

Forgot to mention:

specterace says: yet were only able to score about 650-700 runs

In fact the A's scored 793 runs in 2004.

by matthias on Apr 27, 2005 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Final word on 2004 and RISP

The 2004 A's ranked 8th in the AL in OPS. They ranked 9th in runs scored. The claim that some extraordinary awfulness with runners in scoring position was to blame for an overall poor offensive performance just doesn't hold water.

by matthias on Apr 27, 2005 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions