Bruce Miles For Supreme Ruler!

[BigbadB]

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

I've read that a couple times now and I still can't think who it was that led the league. I assume NL. Was it Andruw or Pat Burrell? I assume it wasn't Pujols because he couldn't hit that low in any split that included as many chances as RISP would include.

 

Andruw. Ortiz led the AL, but was over 350 with RISP.

 

And what were the collective OBP's of the guys who hit directly in front of Jones?

[goonys evil twin]

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

I've read that a couple times now and I still can't think who it was that led the league. I assume NL. Was it Andruw or Pat Burrell? I assume it wasn't Pujols because he couldn't hit that low in any split that included as many chances as RISP would include.

 

I don't know who it is. I'm assuming Warpticon wasn't just making that stat up.

 

It was Andruw:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5681&type=batting&year=2005

[Ding Dong Johnson]

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

I've read that a couple times now and I still can't think who it was that led the league. I assume NL. Was it Andruw or Pat Burrell? I assume it wasn't Pujols because he couldn't hit that low in any split that included as many chances as RISP would include.

 

Andruw. Ortiz led the AL, but was over 350 with RISP.

 

And what were the collective OBP's of the guys who hit directly in front of Jones?

 

Jones spent most of his time batting 4th...

 

1 - 356

2 - 354

3 - 383

[BigbadB]

The worst thing in the big picture is that the people in charge are still in charge. If NSBB would have done a poll on what would have been the worst management decision going into the Friday game against Detroit, starting Glendon Rusch probably would have won the poll in a landslide.

 

In all of your wildest imagination, I don't think anyone could come up with a more ludicrous decision.

 

Yet, Cubs management made that decision. Wind blowing out. All righty, powerful attack. Lousy lefty that gives up homers in droves. That decision would have blown away:

 

Batting Pierre and Neifi 1/2 in the order.

Sitting Todd Walker and Phil Nevin.

Playing Bynum in left and Mabry in right.

Etc...

 

I can't think of a decision more worthy of dropping the axe.

[BigbadB]

Jones spent most of his time batting 4th...

 

1 - 356

2 - 354

3 - 383

 

Derrek Lee spent most of his time batting 3rd

 

1 - 299

2 - 314

[cubfan1955]

The worst thing in the big picture is that the people in charge are still in charge. If NSBB would have done a poll on what would have been the worst management decision going into the Friday game against Detroit, starting Glendon Rusch probably would have won the poll in a landslide.

 

In all of your wildest imagination, I don't think anyone could come up with a more ludicrous decision.

 

Yet, Cubs management made that decision. Wind blowing out. All righty, powerful attack. Lousy lefty that gives up homers in droves. That decision would have blown away:

 

Batting Pierre and Neifi 1/2 in the order.

Sitting Todd Walker and Phil Nevin.

Playing Bynum in left and Mabry in right.

Etc...

 

I can't think of a decision more worthy of dropping the axe.

 

Speaking of Glendon...Columnist quote of the week:

 

Look, I'm not buying the organizational spin that Mulder is physically sound. The dude is throwing 86 mph and his pitches have no bite. He's making Glendon Rusch look like Sandy Koufax.

 

A call to young arms: Cardinals' beleaguered starting staff needs assistance

 

:D

Edited June 23, 2006 by cubfan1955

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Jones spent most of his time batting 4th...

 

1 - 356

2 - 354

3 - 383

 

Derrek Lee spent most of his time batting 3rd

 

1 - 299

2 - 314

 

I actually started to post those numbers, but they started to make me angry so I stopped.

[USSoccer]

Jones spent most of his time batting 4th...

 

1 - 356

2 - 354

3 - 383

 

Derrek Lee spent most of his time batting 3rd

 

1 - 299

2 - 314

 

I actually started to post those numbers, but they started to make me angry so I stopped.

 

Who was the .314?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Jones spent most of his time batting 4th...

 

1 - 356

2 - 354

3 - 383

 

Derrek Lee spent most of his time batting 3rd

 

1 - 299

2 - 314

 

I actually started to post those numbers, but they started to make me angry so I stopped.

 

Who was the .314?

 

Team average. Neifi led the charge at 300, Walker was next at 351, Patterson 3rd with an astounding 220...

[Warpticon]

How "clutch" is a fellow who rarely has base runners when he's up, compared to one who often has base runners during his at bats? It’s a function of opportunity, the more opportunities a hitter is afforded with base runners the greater his "clutch-ness". Once again, it boils down to fact that RS is directly proportional to the number of base runners. Why is something so simple apparently beyond the grasp of Hendry, et al?

 

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

Specifically, 60 more at-bats with RISP and 61 more at-bats with runners on than Lee.

[Warpticon]

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

I've read that a couple times now and I still can't think who it was that led the league. I assume NL. Was it Andruw or Pat Burrell? I assume it wasn't Pujols because he couldn't hit that low in any split that included as many chances as RISP would include.

 

Andruw. Ortiz led the AL, but was over 350 with RISP.

 

And what were the collective OBP's of the guys who hit directly in front of Jones?

 

.356, .354, and .383 from the 1, 2, and 3 spots.

[gflore34]

The worst thing in the big picture is that the people in charge are still in charge. If NSBB would have done a poll on what would have been the worst management decision going into the Friday game against Detroit, starting Glendon Rusch probably would have won the poll in a landslide.

 

In all of your wildest imagination, I don't think anyone could come up with a more ludicrous decision.

 

Yet, Cubs management made that decision. Wind blowing out. All righty, powerful attack. Lousy lefty that gives up homers in droves. That decision would have blown away:

 

Batting Pierre and Neifi 1/2 in the order.

Sitting Todd Walker and Phil Nevin.

Playing Bynum in left and Mabry in right.

Etc...

 

I can't think of a decision more worthy of dropping the axe.

 

I believe the applicable Dusty-ism was Guzman' longest start was only four innings.

[SoonerCubFan]

Given that clutch hitting cannot be measured tangibly, the sensible thing to do would be to make sure you had as many scoring opportunities as possible to minimize the effect of having a guy struggle with RISP.

 

That means utilizing OBP.

 

Nobody could argue against the opportunities side of the equation. But, if we can't use OPS w/RISP as a tangible measure of "clutch", how can we use OPS/OBP, etc. to determine who is a "good hitter" overall? They are ALL valuable. There are two parts, getting on and getting in. Putting some value on the latter doesn't lessen the value of the former.

[goonys evil twin]

Jones spent most of his time batting 4th...

 

1 - 356

2 - 354

3 - 383

 

Derrek Lee spent most of his time batting 3rd

 

1 - 299

2 - 314

 

I actually started to post those numbers, but they started to make me angry so I stopped.

 

Who was the .314?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chc&season=2005&split=110&seasonType=2&type=reg

 

Neifi (.300) and Walker (.351) had about the same plate appearances (~270), Corey (.220) was next (~80), Cedeno (.346) and Hairston (.348) had about 25 each. Macias (.286), Hollandsworth (.333), Wilson (.200) and Lawton (.600) picked up the scraps.

[Warpticon]

Given that clutch hitting cannot be measured tangibly, the sensible thing to do would be to make sure you had as many scoring opportunities as possible to minimize the effect of having a guy struggle with RISP.

 

That means utilizing OBP.

 

Nobody could argue against the opportunities side of the equation. But, if we can't use OPS w/RISP as a tangible measure of "clutch", how can we use OPS/OBP, etc. to determine who is a "good hitter" overall? They are ALL valuable. There are two parts, getting on and getting in. Putting some value on the latter doesn't lessen the value of the former.

 

You're neglecting one thing; you can't do the latter without the former. This is a typical case of curing symptoms rather than the disease.

[USSoccer]

Given that clutch hitting cannot be measured tangibly, the sensible thing to do would be to make sure you had as many scoring opportunities as possible to minimize the effect of having a guy struggle with RISP.

 

That means utilizing OBP.

 

Nobody could argue against the opportunities side of the equation. But, if we can't use OPS w/RISP as a tangible measure of "clutch", how can we use OPS/OBP, etc. to determine who is a "good hitter" overall? They are ALL valuable. There are two parts, getting on and getting in. Putting some value on the latter doesn't lessen the value of the former.

 

OPS w/RISP to calculate "clutch" isn't as stable and predictive from year to year as OBP is. If you're building a roster, you want to eliminate as many unknowns and variables in performance as possible, and that means using metrics that are useful and stable year in and year out.

[goonys evil twin]

Given that clutch hitting cannot be measured tangibly, the sensible thing to do would be to make sure you had as many scoring opportunities as possible to minimize the effect of having a guy struggle with RISP.

 

That means utilizing OBP.

 

Nobody could argue against the opportunities side of the equation. But, if we can't use OPS w/RISP as a tangible measure of "clutch", how can we use OPS/OBP, etc. to determine who is a "good hitter" overall? They are ALL valuable. There are two parts, getting on and getting in. Putting some value on the latter doesn't lessen the value of the former.

 

Because there is no predictive value in those splits. You can say who did better in the clutch, but you can't say who is going to do better in the clutch. Overall OPS is much more predictive for future production. A 900 OPS guy could have a year where he hits 1000 with RISP and another at 700 with RISP, and still be about the same hitter.

 

The whole concept of clutch is pointless, and doesn't tell you a darn thing about building your team. It's a complete waste of time when putting together a team or trying to improve a team. You cannot go out and acquire "clutch", you can't work on and improve "clutch". It is a red herring that has no place in the discussion of what is wrong with this team and how can we fix it.

[BigbadB]

Given that clutch hitting cannot be measured tangibly, the sensible thing to do would be to make sure you had as many scoring opportunities as possible to minimize the effect of having a guy struggle with RISP.

 

That means utilizing OBP.

 

Nobody could argue against the opportunities side of the equation. But, if we can't use OPS w/RISP as a tangible measure of "clutch", how can we use OPS/OBP, etc. to determine who is a "good hitter" overall? They are ALL valuable. There are two parts, getting on and getting in. Putting some value on the latter doesn't lessen the value of the former.

 

But, if Andrew Jones was the RBI champ with an AVG with RISP of .207, we should all agree that Jones was not very good in the "clutch". If Derrek Lee hit .400 with RISP, yet still couldn't surpass Jones in RBI, does the "clutch" argument hold water?

 

The fact Andruw Jones had more than 60 more opportunities to drive in runs is the real tell tale stat.

 

Would I rather have Jones than Lee because Jones drives in more runs? Nope. Driving in runs is a team stat. Lee would have won the RBI title handily if he had 60 more opportunities to drive in runs in 2005.

 

If two players are equal and the hitters in front of them get on base equally, sure, take the guy who hits better with runners in scoring position. But, it's really an insignificant stat in the big picture. A guy could be good with RISP one year and bad the next. It's unpredictable. What is much more predictable is plate patience and presence. Valuing the at bat and limiting the amount of outs you make.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

A 900 OPS guy could have a year where he hits 1000 with RISP and another at 700 with RISP, and still be about the same hitter.

 

And to expand a bit, a 650 OPS guy could do the very same.

[Derwood]

If two players each have 100 AB's with RISP, the difference between someone hitting, say, .230 vs. hitting .300 is 7 hits over the course of a year.

[BigbadB]

How "clutch" is a fellow who rarely has base runners when he's up, compared to one who often has base runners during his at bats? It’s a function of opportunity, the more opportunities a hitter is afforded with base runners the greater his "clutch-ness". Once again, it boils down to fact that RS is directly proportional to the number of base runners. Why is something so simple apparently beyond the grasp of Hendry, et al?

 

The answer to this question can be found on page 1 of this thread, a post made by Warpticon. Last year's league leader in RBI had a .207 AVG with RISP. The real reason he was the league leader in RBI is more likely that he had more RBI opportunities than anyone else in the league.

 

Specifically, 60 more at-bats with RISP and 61 more at-bats with runners on than Lee.

 

Lee had 124 at bats with RISP. In those 124 at bats, he had 64 RBI's. So, assuming he keeps up his averages, he'd have another 32 RBI on top of the 107 he had if he had 60 more at bats with RISP. That's 139, and earns him an RBI title. Interestingly enough, that's about how many RBI would be expected (and maybe even still a bit low) from a guy who has 99 XBH's. It would definitely be much more in line with all the other guys who have achieved that total of XBH's.

[SoonerCubFan]

St. Louis: 675 hits + 233 BB + 33 HBP= 941 baserunners

Cincinnati: 649 hits + 301 BB + 27 HBP= 977 baserunners

Houston: 641 hits + 254 BB + 31 HBP= 926 baserunners

Milwaukee: 644 hits + 234 BB + 34 HBP= 912 baserunners

Chicago: 629 hits + 171 BB + 19 HBP= 819 baserunners

Pittsburgh: 661 hits + 221 BB + 39 HBP= 921 baserunners

 

St. Louis: 941 baserunners= 360 runs= 38% of baserunners score

Cincinatti: 977 baserunners= 366 runs= 37% of baserunners score

Houston: 926 baserunners= 337 runs= 36% of baserunners score

Milwaukee: 912 baserunners= 340 runs= 37% of baserunners score

Chicago: 819 baserunners= 290 runs= 35% of baserunners score

Pittsburgh: 921 baserunners= 338 runs= 36% of baserunners score

 

I did this with just the NL Central, but I could sit here and do it with every team in MLB, and the Cubs would be dead last in baserunners. And it's because their dead last in baserunners that coincides with being dead last in runs scored. They actually rank 22nd in hits. But, dead last in walks. That tells me that at least the other lousy hitting teams 23rd-30th in hits know that they suck, and at least value walks much more than the Cubs.

 

Is the real problem timely hitting? While it can't be discounted completely, it is nowhere near the problem Dusty and Hendry make it out to be. The Cubs have the lowest percentage in their division at bringing home baserunners, but not by a huge amount. Significant is that Cincinnati has had 158 more baserunners than the Cubs. Only one team in the NL Central has less than 100 more baserunners than the Cubs, and not by much (Milwaukee).

 

Looking back at the stats, the team that has had the most baserunners in this division has scored the most runs. The team with the 2nd most baserunners in this division has scored the 2nd most runs. Looks like better timely hitting has given Milwaukee a slight edge in runs scored over Houston and Pittsburgh, but the edge is insignificant.

 

What is significant is that the Cubs aren't even in the discussion. They are pathetically horrible at getting runners on base, which explains why they are nearly 40 runs off the pace from the 2nd worst offense in that division. A 2nd worse offense that has next to nothing offensively outside of Jason Bay and a red hot Freddy Sanchez. Yet, Pittsburgh has drawn 50 more walks than the Cubs.

 

Cubs are dead last in the league in baserunners and dead last in runs scored. IT IS NOT JUST A COINCIDENCE, HENDRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

OK, this is the killer post of this thread for me. I must say I am surprised that the %s are that close. I'm 100% in. Although I never argued against the getting on side, I sure thought the getting in side would have more discrepancy. This sure seems to minimize that.

[badgercub]

I really hate this idea of clutch, what are the origins of this as it pertains to sports? Specifically to baseball, a good hitter is a good hitter is a good hitter that is all that should matter. Example would you rather have a batter the caliber of a DLee at the plate with runners on second and third who is batting .320 but is only hitting .220 with RISP or would you rather have Neifi batting who has a .230 ave. but is hitting .350 with RISP? screw clutch, give me the better hitter.

[goonys evil twin]

I really hate this idea of clutch, what are the origins of this as it pertains to sports?

 

I don't know the origins, but I'm guessing it comes out of the overly romanticized writings about the sport back in the day, when most fans couldn't watch the games, or even listen to them, instead they relied on a sportswriter to spin the tale. A guy who got a big hit at a big time would be considered clutch, or whatever similar word they used, while somebody who came up short was a choker. There wasn't much statistical analysis going on, instead they just wrote what sounded better. Explaining that a .300 hitter with a .400 OBP still makes an out 60% of the time, so it's not very reasonable to hate him for coming up short in a big moment wasn't nearly as interesting as saying some guy had all the skills but not the intestinal fortitude to get the hit when it mattered most.

[thedaymen]

For the princely fee of 50 cents, we’ll provide our own five-point plan. Because the Cubs’ troubles are wide, deep and — most important — systemic, we’ll call for no one’s immediate firing because the problems and solutions transcend any one person.

 

Nice, I got it for free...