Should RISP Be Included In Black/Grey Ink Scores?

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Most people are familiar with the Black Ink Score as a gauge of HOF standards, which is a numerical score given measuring how often a player led the league in a variety of "important" stats. Points for leading the league as batters in a given year are given as follows:

* Batting Statistics Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average
* Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage
* Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases
* One Point for games, at bats or triples

The average HOF'er has a black ink of 27.

The Gray Ink Score Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the Top Ten of the league. Points are awarded in the exact same manner as Black Ink.

The average HOF Gray Ink Score is 144

Since baseball is about scoring runs, it would seem that the ability to knock them in would be of the utmost importance. Seeing that the maximum of 4 points are given for leading the league in batting average, do you think that at least some points should be given if one leads the league (or Top 10 for Gray Ink) in batting with RISP? Does it make sense that this highly important statistic is left out of the equation, even though its the ultimate indicator of one's ability to put runs on the board?

So again the question is: Do you think leading the league in batting with RISP (or top 10 for Gray Ink) should be included in these calculations going forward. If so, how many points would you assign to this?

[jjpm74]

Why should a batter be rewarded for having teammates that have the ability to get on base ahead of them? By the same token, should leadoff hitters get some sort of extra RISP credit if they get themselves on base with no one on base and less than 2 outs since they tend to hit with no one on base?

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Why should a batter be rewarded for having teammates that have the ability to get on base ahead of them? By the same token, should leadoff hitters get some sort of extra RISP credit if they get themselves on base with no one on base and less than 2 outs since they tend to hit with no one on base?

A batter is only rewarded by hitting well with a runner on base, regardless of how many times he gets there. This type of situational hitting is important is it not? I don't understand the second part of your question. The RISP credit is given simply based on hitting with men in scoring position irrespective of outs.

[PVNICK]

I think it would be great. Its a neat piece of data/trivia. It migh tbe interesting to see how it statcks up vs. RBI leaders and probably would deflate a lot of baloons. The big issue might be how many AB/PA to qualify should it just be 502 like BA or something related to AB/PA w/ RISP.

[dgarza]

I hope this thread does not turn into a general "for" and "against" Ink Scores.

Back to RISP:
Ink Scores aren't really meant to measure "value" exactly, they are, for better or worse," general HOF indicators. Avg w/RISP is too obscure a statistic to be included in Ink Scores.

And Avg w/RISP is too situational as well. Since the number of PA w/RISP of each player very circumstantial, how do you determine a qualifing minimum PAs/ABs?

And with RISP, often the batter is trying to get out. Often that's scored as a sacrifice, but sometimes it isn't a sacrifice, expecially if the runner does not take advantage of that.

[dgarza]

But I would like to see those RISP Avg more easily available, without all the digging.l

[TwoOutHit]

There are only two offensive stats that matter. RBI and Runs scored.

Batting average not so much, unless you're driving in runs. So, RBI is directly linked to batting avg with RISP.

and while we're on the subject, what about stats for players who are consistent when it comes to moving runners into scoring position?

[brett]

I would prefer the following black ink categories:

Slugging percentage
On-base percentage
Batting average
Total bases
Total times on base
Home runs
Hits
Steals
Runs
RBI

BTW Cobb is the only guy to lead all 10. By including the percentages we don't penalize sluggers who walk a lot and basically split their numbers between getting on base, and driving in runs.

[Captain Cold Nose]

There are only two offensive stats that matter. RBI and Runs scored.

Batting average not so much, unless you're driving in runs. So, RBI is directly linked to batting avg with RISP.

and while we're on the subject, what about stats for players who are consistent when it comes to moving runners into scoring position?

Welcome to Baseball Fever.

Just an FYI, as you're new. Quite a few members here do not think too much of RBI as a way to accurately judge an individual player's performance.

[Buntforahit]

Welcome to Baseball Fever.

Just an FYI, as you're new. Quite a few members here do not think too much of RBI as a way to accurately judge an individual player's performance.

No welcome for me? LOL! I like what TOH said - the name of the game is to drive in and score runs! 100 runs scored and 100 RBI? The players that do that must be doing something right.

[Captain Cold Nose]

No welcome for me? LOL! I like what TOH said - the name of the game is to drive in and score runs! 100 runs scored and 100 RBI? The players that do that must be doing something right.

Sorry. Welcome, Bfah.

The problem with limiting focus to those is both are extremely opportunity-dependent. An individual player has limited control over his own scoring as well as his own ability at driving in runs. To accurately gage a player's contributions to his team, one must look at what they are able to do on their own abilities. RBI and runs are a part, but not the whole.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Back to RISP:


And Avg w/RISP is too situational as well. Since the number of PA w/RISP of each player very circumstantial, how do you determine a qualifing minimum PAs/ABs?

And with RISP, often the batter is trying to get out. Often that's scored as a sacrifice, but sometimes it isn't a sacrifice, expecially if the runner does not take advantage of that.

PA with RISP is circumstantial in terms of how many attempt one gets depending on his spot in the batting order, but so is regular BA. Throughout the course of a season, a number 2 hitter might get 80 or more AB's than the number 8 hits playing an equal number of games. Is the #2 hitter at a disadvantage as it pertains to regular Black Ink batting average? I don't see why a RISP gauge could have a minimum AB qualification just like BA. Granted, it would be trickier since we're talking about 75% few AB's, but is it not workable?

You're second point I don't quite get. Everybody, whether you're a leadoff guy or 7th hitter makes non-sacrifice outs by hitting the ball to the right side to move a runner from second to third with no outs. Everybody is in the same boat when it comes to moving runners over or whatnot. I don't see how any particular set of players are advantaged/disadvantaged there.

[Buntforahit]

Sorry. Welcome, Bfah.

The problem with limiting focus to those is both are extremely opportunity-dependent. An individual player has limited control over his own scoring as well as his own ability at driving in runs. To accurately gage a player's contributions to his team, one must look at what they are able to do on their own abilities. RBI and runs are a part, but not the whole.

Thanks!
I see your point. Some guys never get to 100 and 100, but their contributions to the team are immeasurable. David Eckstein, for instance.

[dgarza]

PA with RISP is circumstantial in terms of how many attempt one gets depending on his spot in the batting order, but so is regular BA.
...
I don't see why a RISP gauge could have a minimum AB qualification just like BA. Granted, it would be trickier since we're talking about 75% few AB's, but is it not workable?

Yes, regualr AVG attemps fluxuate, but RISP attemp numbers fluxuate even more. It's just something to think about. Would RISP Avg minimum attemps be given more leeway than Regular Avg attempts to qualify? I'm not saying it's not workable, but extra considerations would have to be thought over first.

You're second point I don't quite get. Everybody, whether you're a leadoff guy or 7th hitter makes non-sacrifice outs by hitting the ball to the right side to move a runner from second to third with no outs. Everybody is in the same boat when it comes to moving runners over or whatnot. I don't see how any particular set of players are advantaged/disadvantaged there.No, you must not get it. My point has nothing to with where a batter bats in the lineup. I'm not sure how you pulled that concept out of my post. Perhaps I was not clear.

The set of players at a disadvantge for Avg. are batters w/RISP vs. batters w/o RISP (especially those batters with nobody on).
My point was that batters w/RISP may want to make a "valuable out" more often than a regualr batter (especially those batters with no one on). And during the course of attempting a "sacrifice," batters with RISP often fail at that sacrifice. But if no one was on, that same batter might of had a different approach and get on base more easily. So the risk of making a non-sacrifice out is greater. I think that that lowering of average in the course of attempting the "right" strategy could be held too much against the batter.

The value of regular batting averages in isolation are difficult enough to weight. The value of RISP averages in isolation are even more difficult to weight the value of.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't still look at RISP averages. I just think using RISP averages for Ink Scores is not very helpful.

[538280]

The whole idea behind Ink Scores (at least Black Ink) was to come up with something that could be found very quickly. I believe when explaining them James said something like you can find it by just counting up the boldface in a Baseball Encyclopedia. Including stats with RISP would seem to take this ease of calculation away from Ink Scores, so I don't see why they should be added. But I really think it's a useless endeavor trying to "improve" Ink Scores.

[dgarza]

The whole idea behind Ink Scores (at least Black Ink) was to come up with something that could be found very quickly. I believe when explaining them James said something like you can find it by just counting up the boldface in a Baseball Encyclopedia. Including stats with RISP would seem to take this ease of calculation away from Ink Scores, so I don't see why they should be added. But I really think it's a useless endeavor trying to "improve" Ink Scores.Yes, Ink Scores were meant to only be a "quick & dirty" method. RISP goes too deep and goes against the "spirit" of Ink Scores.

[nerfan]

Thanks!
I see your point. Some guys never get to 100 and 100, but their contributions to the team are immeasurable. David Eckstein, for instance.

Wait, are you JoeBaiting?

[Buntforahit]

Wait, are you JoeBaiting?

What's that supposed to mean?

[nerfan]

What's that supposed to mean?

Never mind. It's just that David Eckstein is perhaps the most overrated player in the major leagues.

[Buntforahit]

Never mind. It's just that David Eckstein is perhaps the most overrated player in the major leagues.

I know, but somehow he managed to collect two rings as a starting shortstop.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I know, but somehow he managed to collect two rings as a starting shortstop.

Right place, right time.

[Buntforahit]

Right place, right time.

IMO, any starter on a championship team must have contributed in SOME manner of importance. Hell, even the role players are worthy of respect. EVEN Eric Bruntlett! Yikes!
You couldn't comprehend this?

[Captain Cold Nose]

IMO, any starter on a championship team must have contributed in SOME manner of importance. Hell, even the role players are worthy of respect. EVEN Eric Bruntlett! Yikes!

They absolutely are worthy of respect, if they reached the MLB level.

But playing on a championship doesn't make one a star player. Eckstein gets a lot of credit for doing things a lot of other players do, as well. Extra credit, if you will, compared to others who aren't as fortunate to get as much of a spotlight as Eckstein has been given.

[Buntforahit]

They absolutely are worthy of respect, if they reached the MLB level.

But playing on a championship doesn't make one a star player. Eckstein gets a lot of credit for doing things a lot of other players do, as well. Extra credit, if you will, compared to others who aren't as fortunate to get as much of a spotlight as Eckstein has been given.

I don't believe playing on a championship team makes one a star player. But I do believe they should get a star next to their name.

[nerfan]

I don't believe playing on a championship team makes one a star player. But I do believe they should get a star next to their name.

Charlie Silvera's got a lot of gold stars! Way more than those bums Ty Cobb and Ted Williams.

[Buntforahit]

Charlie Silvera's got a lot of gold stars! Way more than those bums Ty Cobb and Ted Williams.

Did I say players without rings are bums? And did I say ALL players with rings are great?

[nerfan]

Did I say players without rings are bums? And did I say ALL players with rings are great?

No, but you implied that players with rings deserve a special sort of respect. Players who hit well in World Series deserve a special sort of respect, but the ring by itself is fairly meaningless.

For example, Charlie Silvera.

[PVNICK]

I voted yes and was gung ho on the RISP as black/grey ink interpreting it as I'd get to see the top ten or twnety in order which woudl be cool. But I see I missed (or forgot) the gist of what black and grey ink are and so I'd say what's the point.

[Buntforahit]

No, but you implied that players with rings deserve a special sort of respect. Players who hit well in World Series deserve a special sort of respect, but the ring by itself is fairly meaningless.

For example, Charlie Silvera.

Yes, I believe players with rings deserve a special sort of respect. But, I never said players WITHOUT rings should be looked down upon. No, I don't think Eric Bruntlett is better than Ernie Banks.

[nerfan]

Yes, I believe players with rings deserve a special sort of respect.

But some players just didn't have other great players on their team. For example, Ted Williams had some good teams. He played injured during his only World Series. Other than that, his teams just weren't as good as the Yankees. Are you going to upgrade, say Lou Gehrig over Ted Williams just because Gehrig had better players around him? Or, for that matter, Joe DiMaggio?

[Buntforahit]

But some players just didn't have other great players on their team. For example, Ted Williams had some good teams. He played injured during his only World Series. Other than that, his teams just weren't as good as the Yankees. Are you going to upgrade, say Lou Gehrig over Ted Williams just because Gehrig had better players around him? Or, for that matter, Joe DiMaggio?

No. I'm not upgrading anybody over anybody else due to rings. This is the last time I'll say it, "players (even mediocre ones) with rings deserve some respect for contributing to a championship." I'm not making comparisons of champions to non-champions. Barry Bonds was great, but he wasn't a winner.

[nerfan]

No. I'm not upgrading anybody over anybody else due to rings. This is the last time I'll say it "players (even mediocre ones) with rings deserve some respect for contributing to a championship." I'm not making comparisons of champions to non-champions. Barry Bonds was great, but he wasn't a winner.

So what you're telling me is that, to take your example, Eric Bruntlett deserves credit for his 55 OPS+ leading the Phils to the World Series, which is worse than a replacement level.

[dgarza]

This is the last time I'll say it, "players (even mediocre ones) with rings deserve some respect for contributing to a championship." Some players with rings actually hurt their team, they actually made becoming a Championship team more difficult.

[Buntforahit]

So what you're telling me is that, to take your example, Eric Bruntlett deserves credit for his 55 OPS+ leading the Phils to the World Series, which is worse than a replacement level.

Yes, Eric Bruntlett (and I never said he lead them) gets my respect for contributing (albeit minor) to a championship team. Same as a Kiko Garcia. Take it elsewhere, chief, you know exactly what I'm saying. Buzz off.

[Buntforahit]

Some players with rings actually hurt their team, they actually made becoming a Championship team more difficult.

Couldn't have hurt them too bad ...

[nerfan]

Yes, Eric Bruntlett (and I never said he lead them) gets my respect for contributing (albeit minor) to a championship team. Same as a Kiko Garcia. Take it elsewhere, chief, you know exactly what I'm saying. Buzz off.

ooooooooook.

[jalbright]

Yes, Eric Bruntlett (and I never said he lead them) gets my respect for contributing (albeit minor) to a championship team. Same as a Kiko Garcia. Take it elsewhere, chief, you know exactly what I'm saying. Buzz off.

Given that at best you expressed yourself poorly (possibly by failing to use smilies to give some direction to your words), the other user was perfectly within his rights to question what you were saying. Your response, on the other hand, is out of bounds. Don't go there again, or I'll be dealing with your failure to be a civil user in my capacity as a mod in this forum, and I doubt you'll like it.

[Buntforahit]

IMO, any starter on a championship team must have contributed in SOME manner of importance. Hell, even the role players are worthy of respect. EVEN Eric Bruntlett! Yikes!


You couldn't comprehend this?
And nerfan was being a wiseguy and fabricating implications.

[nerfan]

You couldn't comprehend this?

No, because Eric Bruntlett, given his below-replacement-level performance, did NOT contribute in ANY matter of importance to the Phillies.

[Buntforahit]

No, because Eric Bruntlett, given his below-replacement-level performance, did NOT contribute in ANY matter of importance to the Phillies.

I can clearly remember Bruntlett getting a late, clutch hit against the Mets, capping a big comeback and he also scored the winning run in a World Series game as, I believe, a pinch runner. He also filled in admirably when Jimmy Rollins was on the DL. It takes twenty-five men to win a championship.

[nerfan]

I can clearly remember Bruntlett getting a late, clutch hit against the Mets, capping a big comeback and he also scored the winning run in a World Series game as, I believe, a pinch runner. It takes twenty-five men to win a championship.

But he gave some of that back by being an all-around terrible player. His defense wasn't even GG worthy.

I'll give you the RBI against the Mets, but one game wound up not even mattering. Most clutch metrics have Bruntlett being his usual, terrible self. He performs slightly better with RISP, but worse in High Leverage situations, and about equal Late & Close.

Oh, and by the way. Assume the Phillies win the World Series again this year. Would you credit Bruntlett with respect for his OPS+ of 1??? His SLG is below .200.

[Buntforahit]

Oh, and by the way. Assume the Phillies win the World Series again this year. Would you credit Bruntlett with respect for his OPS+ of 1??? His SLG is below .200.

Most certainly! I'm sure his teamamates did and will.

[Buntforahit]

Given that at best you expressed yourself poorly (possibly by failing to use smilies to give some direction to your words), the other user was perfectly within his rights to question what you were saying. Your response, on the other hand, is out of bounds. Don't go there again, or I'll be dealing with your failure to be a civil user in my capacity as a mod in this forum, and I doubt you'll like it.

And what exactly was it you couldn't understand in my posts?

[TwoOutHit]

But he gave some of that back by being an all-around terrible player. His defense wasn't even GG worthy.

I'll give you the RBI against the Mets, but one game wound up not even mattering. Most clutch metrics have Bruntlett being his usual, terrible self. He performs slightly better with RISP, but worse in High Leverage situations, and about equal Late & Close.

Oh, and by the way. Assume the Phillies win the World Series again this year. Would you credit Bruntlett with respect for his OPS+ of 1??? His SLG is below .200.

IMO, there are two great mysteries. How the Universe was formed and how Bruntlett stays in the Majors.

That being said, I guess the WORLD CHAMPIONS have some idea. They don't count OPS and style points in the scoring.

AND...Gehrig was a superior player to Williams. IMO