Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2511.19642

A Win-Expectancy Framework for Contextualizing Runs Batted In: Introducing ARBI and CRBI

Wuhuan Deng
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Runs Batted IN (RBI) records the number of runs a hitter directly drives in during their plate appearances and reflects a batter's ability to convert opportunities into scoring. Because producing runs determines game outcomes, RBI has long served as a central statistic in evaluating offensive performance. However, traditional RBI treats all batted-in runs equally and ignores th game context in which they occur, such as leverage, score state, and the actual impact of a run on a team's chance of winning. In this paper, we introduce two new context-aware metrics-Adjusted RBI (ARBI) and Contextual RBI (CRBI)-that address the fundamental limitations of RBI by incorporating Win Expectancy (WE). ARBI rescales each RBI according to the change in WE before and after the scoring event, assigning more value to runs that meaningfully shift the likelihood of winning and less to runs scored in low-leverage situations. We then extend this framework to CRBI, which further differentiates RBIs with the same WE change by accounting for the terminal WE at the end of the event. This refinement captures the idea that an RBI increasing WE from, for example, 0.45 to 0.65 has a larger competitive impact than one increasing WE from 0.05 to 0.25, even though both represent a 20% increase. Together, ARBI and CRBI provide calibrated, context-sensitive measures of offensive contribution that more accurately reflect the true value of run production. These metrics modernize the interpretation of RBI and have broad applications in player evaluation, forecasting, contract evaluation, and decision-making in baseball analytics.

Explore related subjects

stat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Wuhuan Deng. 2025-11-24. A Win-Expectancy Framework for Contextualizing Runs Batted In: Introducing ARBI and CRBI. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.19642

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Auditing Bayesian Graph Alignment: Diagnostic Comparisons and Reference Failure

Bayesian graph alignment estimates correspondence probabilities, but convergence of an alignment-score trace need not imply accurate correspondence marginals. We audit this gap on 240 new exact graph pairs from four source families, 240 larger pairs with 20-100 vertices, and a separate 60-case exact implementation check. Under an explicit edge-flip likelihood, we compare three samplers and score, marginal, indicator, categorical, and classifier-based diagnostics. Marginal disagreement improves error discrimination over score R-hat for the exact informed sampler, but its improvement for vanilla local sampling is uncertain. Assignment-based R* and short indicator panels are competitive; no diagnostic dominates across samplers and endpoints. At larger sizes, diagnostics predict subsequent marginal changes, not posterior error, and classification performance depends on the drift threshold. Disjoint-window and held-out-chain checks attenuate but preserve positive associations. Only 22 of 240 original reference sets pass an agreement screen. On forty failure-selected cases, eightfold SMC particle escalation does not resolve disagreement, whereas additional rejuvenation helps. Longer informed runs remain unstable. An elementary feasible-alignment bound demonstrates severely unrepresentative SMC and informed-chain scores in concentrated 100-vertex cases, independently of approximate reference consensus. We also exhibit common-start chains with near-zero disagreement despite exact marginal error near .967. These results support assignment-sensitive auditing while identifying limits of finite budgets, diagnostic rankings, and reference agreement as evidence of accuracy.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

GeoDose-CP: Graph-Local Conformal Inference for Continuous-Treatment Earth Observation

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Interpreting relative utility for probabilistic predictions

At a fixed threshold, relative utility (RU) measures the net-benefit gain of a prediction model over the better of treat-all and treat-none relative to the corresponding gain under perfect outcome classification. We illustrate that RU equal to 1 therefore represents perfect outcome classification at that fixed threshold, not perfect probabilistic prediction. However, even when every predicted probability equals the true probability, observed RU can equal 0. In a simple constant-risk setting, this occurs with probability approaching 1 as the sample size increases. Consequently, the distance from observed RU to 1 should not in general be interpreted as improvement achievable by a better prediction for binary probabilities.

stat.AP↗