Runs Produced Index (RPI) indicative of a players value to a winning team

[steve B]

Originally Posted by tedzan

I have no idea if this subject has been talked about before....so, here I go.

Back in the 1970's I was the Manager/player of our workplace Softball team. I named our team the "DingBats" (of Archie Bunker fame). It was apropo, for when I joined this team
it was in last place in our Division. Dealing with Bell Labs Engineers, Scientists, and Management types was a big challenge for me out there on the ball field. We loved to play the
game. And, most of all, we wanted to be winners.
So, how did I get this team from the bottom to 1st place in our Division that first year of my leadership ? From the data on my scorecard, I developed a statistic which I refer to as
RUNS PRODUCED INDEX (RPI). I applied this stat to determine who were the starting players each game of our 14-game schedule that season. Sure, I was confronted with...."why
aren't you playing me today ?" Or...."my BA is over .300, but you're benching me"....etc., etc.
I'll tell you I took this stat seriously, so by playing the guys who showed a tendency to produce the most RUNS in a given game worked beautifully. The DingBats won the 1st place
trophy from 1975 to 1980. So, here is my simple formula for the RPI factor......

RPI = actual At Bats / Runs + RBI - HR

If you do the math, both Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig have an RPI factor of 2.8 to 2.9 (obviously, the lower this number is, the more productive the hitter is).

Therefore, they produce a RUN for every 2.85 times At Bat. And, I think they may be the Major League leaders in this stat.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

That's pretty interesting.

I'm puzzled that it actually works, mostly because to score runs someone hitting after you has to hit well.
And to have RBI, the person ahead of you has to hit well.

Maybe it's more of an indicator of how someone bats in a lineup. I know I batted differently if the bases were empty than if there were runners on.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's pretty interesting.

I'm puzzled that it actually works, mostly because to score runs someone hitting after you has to hit well.
And to have RBI, the person ahead of you has to hit well.

Maybe it's more of an indicator of how someone bats in a lineup. I know I batted differently if the bases were empty than if there were runners on.

Hi Steve

First, let me state that this RPI strategy was not the only factor in my team's successive 6-year success. However, it was an important factor. Of the 10 players that I had as regulars
in the line-up, 5 (or 6) of them were amazingly great at scoring or driving in RUNS.

Of course there were a number of other strategies I employed to win games with. I was tough on these guys (they referred to me as "Billy Martin" of our Softball League). Especially,
if the opposing team had a fast-ball pitcher. I would have my guys laying off swinging at first pitches, be deliberate at the plate which would usually affect that pitcher's timing, etc.

Those were really fun days back then.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Ronnie73]

Sounds like the Moneyball movie.

[JackW]

Originally Posted by Ronnie73

Sounds like the Moneyball movie.

This is what I was thinking. Ted was using analytics decades before MLB did. Groundbreaking ideas. To do it without a computer (I assume) is what's really amazing. "Beautiful mind" stuff.

[frankbmd]

Bill James got the Runs Created formula from Ted.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by JackW

This is what I was thinking. Ted was using analytics decades before MLB did. Groundbreaking ideas. To do it without a computer (I assume) is what's really amazing. "Beautiful mind" stuff.

Hi Jack

I'm overwhelmed by your complimentary words. I really appreciate them. We were in a very competitive Softball league composed of a mix of medium-fast & fast pitch.
And, in order to compete, I would utilize whatever game plan I felt would win. Our division was composed of 8 teams. We played each one of them twice every season.

Each team required a different strategy to beat them, but the one constant winning formula was my RPI. And, you are correct, I did it without the benefit of a computer.
Our best season was 1977 when we won 13 games and lost only one.

Oh, and the "icing on the cake" back then was after each game, when we all met at our favorite watering-hole....The Red Roof in Holmdel, NJ.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Rich Falvo]

Cool stuff, Ted. I've seen the Runs Produced stat, which is basically the denominator part of your stat (R+RBI-HR) without the at bats figured in. Factoring in at bats like you did would favor players who produced a lot of R and RBI without a lot of at bats or without a lot of Home Runs. I looked at the top 20 or so in Runs Produced and re-ranked them using your stat and came up with the below top 10:


Ruth
Gehrig
Williams
Anson
Foxx
Cobb
Bonds
Ott
Speaker
A-Rod

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Rich Falvo

Cool stuff, Ted. I've seen the Runs Produced stat, which is basically the denominator part of your stat (R+RBI-HR) without the at bats figured in. Factoring in at bats like you did would favor players who produced a lot of R and RBI without a lot of at bats or without a lot of Home Runs. I looked at the top 20 or so in Runs Produced and re-ranked them using your stat and came up with the below top 10:


Ruth
Gehrig
Williams
Anson
Foxx
Cobb
Bonds
Ott
Speaker
A-Rod

Hi Rich

Thanks for your post, and taking the time in computing the ML leaders of this stat....and posting the top 10.

As I noted in my first post here, I figured Ruth and Gehrig were most likely the top leaders in the RPI factor.



TED Z

T206 Reference
.