Euqal or Fewer Hits than Runs - stat lookup?

[TheDude]

Yesterday's game was yet another game ths year where the Cubs gave up more runs than hits out of the pitching staff.

 

Maybe my perception exagerrates the rate this occurs, but it seems to happen far more than should.

 

Does anybody know of a stat source that could tell me without browsing 140 boxscores, how many games the Cubs pitching staff has given-up fewer hits than runs? Or equal numbers of hits and runs?

 

Is there any value in evualting the ratio of hits-to-runs for the pitching staff, and comparing that to the league average? The idea would be to figure if the Cubs simply get snake-bitten often with some bad luck, or figure out if there is some deeper reason for opponent's ability to conistently put together all their hits in one or two innings against the Cubs.

[WrigleyField 22]

Well without looking at the stats of hits to runs, I can tell you it has nothing to do with bad luck. Our pitching staff just walks too many guys.

[TheDude]

Well without looking at the stats of hits to runs, I can tell you it has nothing to do with bad luck. Our pitching staff just walks too many guys.

 

That much is clear and nobody will dispute that. But if you continue to examine last night's game, Miller gave up one hit and 2 runs. It has to be a combination of excessive walks and lots of HR given-up.

 

I know I have seen both Zambrano and Marhsall this year, and Wood for several years, leave the game having given up more runs than hits, sometimes with only 2 walks in 6 innings.

 

It's probably just perception, but it sure seems like that one hit only ever comes after a walk, and not with the bases empty.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Wade walked 3, 1 of them was on base when the HR was hit. The other 2 walks came in (I believe) the 4th, and no further damage was done. Marmol came in and gave up a couple of hits before Drew went deep. The rest of the bullpen only allowed 2 walks (no hits) over the next 3 2/3. Ignoring Marmol's performance, it was actually a very well-pitched game yesterday.

 

Edit: It was Marmol, not Mateo.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Ding Dong Johnson

[goonys evil twin]

Well without looking at the stats of hits to runs, I can tell you it has nothing to do with bad luck. Our pitching staff just walks too many guys.

 

That much is clear and nobody will dispute that. But if you continue to examine last night's game, Miller gave up one hit and 2 runs. It has to be a combination of excessive walks and lots of HR given-up.

 

I know I have seen both Zambrano and Marhsall this year, and Wood for several years, leave the game having given up more runs than hits, sometimes with only 2 walks in 6 innings.

 

It's probably just perception, but it sure seems like that one hit only ever comes after a walk, and not with the bases empty.

 

The Cubs have given up:

the most walks in baseball

the 4th most HR in baseball (2nd most in NL)

the 5th most runs in baseball (2nd most in NL)

the 25th most hits in baseball.

 

That's how you end up giving up more runs than hits in a game.

[TheDude]

The Cubs have given up:

the most walks in baseball

the 4th most HR in baseball (2nd most in NL)

the 5th most runs in baseball (2nd most in NL)

the 25th most hits in baseball.

 

That's how you end up giving up more runs than hits in a game.

 

Right, exactly. So the most frequent occurance of basehits, especially HR, are when men are on base. In some cases, like last night, all the opponent's runs are scored on the HR, despite only 4 hits in the game.

 

That's why I throw out the notion of snake-bitten - everyone always says around here that RISP average is a meaningless stat. If it is meaningless, or of low value, can we chalk up this year's performance in the Runs given-up category as partially due to bad luck (because of an opponent's inflated RISP average)?

 

See what I'm getting at? I want to know if the Cubs pitching staff is truly that bad, or if they have actually been bad with bad luck as well.

[goonys evil twin]

That's why I throw out the notion of snake-bitten - everyone always says around here that RISP average is a meaningless stat. If it is meaningless, or of low value, can we chalk up this year's performance in the Runs given-up category as partially due to bad luck (because of an opponent's inflated RISP average)?

 

See what I'm getting at? I want to know if the Cubs pitching staff is truly that bad, or if they have actually been bad with bad luck as well.

 

Luck might play some small part, but it's doubtful.

 

The stats I referenced describe why the staff is so bad. It would be a mistake to think luck plays a major role. They give up far too many baserunners, and baserunners are the biggest part of runs scored. On top of that, they give up far too many HRs. The one thing the Cubs staff does well is strike people out, and that's probably the only reason why they are just 5th in runs allowed, with BB and HR allowed 1st and 4th, respectively.

 

This isn't a snake-bitten thing. This isn't a luck thing. The Cubs are a bad pitching staff because they are really bad at the two things you can't afford to be bad at as a pitching staff, walks and HR. It's the same reason why the offense is so bad. It has nothing to do with the timing. It has to do with the frequency of BB and HR. The Cubs are really bad at drawings walks and hitting homeruns, and because of this, they are really bad at scoring runs.

[oldstyle81]

Well without looking at the stats of hits to runs, I can tell you it has nothing to do with bad luck. Our pitching staff just walks too many guys.

 

wouldnt want to clog the basepaths

[BigbadB]

It's tremendously ironic. The pitching staff gives up walks at will and runs score at will. The offense doesn't draw walks and the runs scored suffers because of it.

 

How do the execs not figure this out?

 

A few years ago, the execs cried that the team "strikes out too much". And this was when there was decent power throughout the line up.

 

Uh, no. They don't get on base enough. Same problem, different day.

 

This year, the Cubs are right at the top of the stats in least K's on offense, and their run production is even worse.

 

How do the execs not figure this out?

 

Sure, guys need to hit with RISP. But, it's easier to do when they have MORE opportunities to hit with RISP.

[oldstyle81]

It's tremendously ironic. The pitching staff gives up walks at will and runs score at will. The offense doesn't draw walks and the runs scored suffers because of it.

 

How do the execs not figure this out?

 

A few years ago, the execs cried that the team "strikes out too much". And this was when there was decent power throughout the line up.

 

Uh, no. They don't get on base enough. Same problem, different day.

 

This year, the Cubs are right at the top of the stats in least K's on offense, and their run production is even worse.

 

How do the execs not figure this out?

 

Sure, guys need to hit with RISP. But, it's easier to do when they have MORE opportunities to hit with RISP.

 

 

whats truly scary is that its common sense and no one from dust for brains up has it

[swordsman]

If I understand the argument against looking for guys who hit well with RISP is that there is little statistical evidence that there are hitters who consistently hit better in that situation than they do otherwise. That seems reasonable to me. If a hitter is mediocre when pressure is less, it is not likely that they will improve their hitting when the pressure is on.

 

The Dude seems to be trying to look at that same scenario (the result of an at bat with RISP) from the pitchers mound rather than the batters box.

[BigbadB]

If I understand the argument against looking for guys who hit well with RISP is that there is little statistical evidence that there are hitters who consistently hit better in that situation than they do otherwise. That seems reasonable to me. If a hitter is mediocre when pressure is less, it is not likely that they will improve their hitting when the pressure is on.

 

The Dude seems to be trying to look at that same scenario (the result of an at bat with RISP) from the pitchers mound rather than the batters box.

 

Yeah, I sort of hijacked the thread. However, I don't think you'll find factual evidence that AVG with RISP is the reason teams score more runs than other teams. While some players on a team may do better in those situations, there will likely be guys who do worse in those situations on that same team.

 

The way to truly improve runs scored is to increase your OBP, which gives guys (good or bad at AVG with RISP) more opportunities to drive in runs.

 

The same can be said for the info TheDude is requesting. Just in reverse. A team that has the better WHIP will likely give up less runs than teams that have a much higher WHIP.

 

It's tough to gather the information he requests. The Cubs have been very good as a team in not giving up hits. But, walks can be just as damaging and they are horrible when it comes to allowing baserunners.

 

I don't really think it correlates to AVG with RISP as much as it correlates to OBP in relation to runs scored.

[CubinNY]

If I understand the argument against looking for guys who hit well with RISP is that there is little statistical evidence that there are hitters who consistently hit better in that situation than they do otherwise. That seems reasonable to me. If a hitter is mediocre when pressure is less, it is not likely that they will improve their hitting when the pressure is on.

 

The Dude seems to be trying to look at that same scenario (the result of an at bat with RISP) from the pitchers mound rather than the batters box.

 

Yeah, I sort of hijacked the thread. However, I don't think you'll find factual evidence that AVG with RISP is the reason teams score more runs than other teams. While some players on a team may do better in those situations, there will likely be guys who do worse in those situations on that same team.

 

The way to truly improve runs scored is to increase your OBP, which gives guys (good or bad at AVG with RISP) more opportunities to drive in runs.

 

The same can be said for the info TheDude is requesting. Just in reverse. A team that has the better WHIP will likely give up less runs than teams that have a much higher WHIP.

 

It's tough to gather the information he requests. The Cubs have been very good as a team in not giving up hits. But, walks can be just as damaging and they are horrible when it comes to allowing baserunners.

 

I don't really think it correlates to AVG with RISP as much as it correlates to OBP in relation to runs scored.

 

WHIP ia a hugely important stat for a pitcher.

[baseball7897]

If I understand the argument against looking for guys who hit well with RISP is that there is little statistical evidence that there are hitters who consistently hit better in that situation than they do otherwise. That seems reasonable to me. If a hitter is mediocre when pressure is less, it is not likely that they will improve their hitting when the pressure is on.

 

The Dude seems to be trying to look at that same scenario (the result of an at bat with RISP) from the pitchers mound rather than the batters box.

 

Yeah, I sort of hijacked the thread. However, I don't think you'll find factual evidence that AVG with RISP is the reason teams score more runs than other teams. While some players on a team may do better in those situations, there will likely be guys who do worse in those situations on that same team.

 

The way to truly improve runs scored is to increase your OBP, which gives guys (good or bad at AVG with RISP) more opportunities to drive in runs.

 

The same can be said for the info TheDude is requesting. Just in reverse. A team that has the better WHIP will likely give up less runs than teams that have a much higher WHIP.

 

It's tough to gather the information he requests. The Cubs have been very good as a team in not giving up hits. But, walks can be just as damaging and they are horrible when it comes to allowing baserunners.

 

I don't really think it correlates to AVG with RISP as much as it correlates to OBP in relation to runs scored.

 

WHIP ia a hugely important stat for a pitcher.

 

So is wins, and BAA

[Guest]

everyone always says around here that RISP average is a meaningless stat

 

I think you are misunderstanding. BAA, OBP, and SLG with RISP is an extremely important statistic in scoring runs. The problem with using the statistic to evaluate players is that its not repeatable. That is, most players who hit great with RISP one year, won't repeat that performance the next year. Thus, there is no sense trying to find players who do well with RISP. When you get your hits is very important in how many runs you score. Because this element involves so much luck, the importance of having more runners on base is even more exaggerated. Teams with fewer baserunners have few opportunities to get lucky - score on errors, etc.

[CubinNY]

If I understand the argument against looking for guys who hit well with RISP is that there is little statistical evidence that there are hitters who consistently hit better in that situation than they do otherwise. That seems reasonable to me. If a hitter is mediocre when pressure is less, it is not likely that they will improve their hitting when the pressure is on.

 

The Dude seems to be trying to look at that same scenario (the result of an at bat with RISP) from the pitchers mound rather than the batters box.

 

Yeah, I sort of hijacked the thread. However, I don't think you'll find factual evidence that AVG with RISP is the reason teams score more runs than other teams. While some players on a team may do better in those situations, there will likely be guys who do worse in those situations on that same team.

 

The way to truly improve runs scored is to increase your OBP, which gives guys (good or bad at AVG with RISP) more opportunities to drive in runs.

 

The same can be said for the info TheDude is requesting. Just in reverse. A team that has the better WHIP will likely give up less runs than teams that have a much higher WHIP.

 

It's tough to gather the information he requests. The Cubs have been very good as a team in not giving up hits. But, walks can be just as damaging and they are horrible when it comes to allowing baserunners.

 

I don't really think it correlates to AVG with RISP as much as it correlates to OBP in relation to runs scored.

 

WHIP ia a hugely important stat for a pitcher.

 

So is wins, and BAA

 

Wins are almost meaningless unless a pitcher completes the vast majority of his starts. BAA will show up in WHIP, although if a pitcher doesn't walk very many batters he could have a high BAA and respectable WHIP.

[CubinNY]

everyone always says around here that RISP average is a meaningless stat

 

I think you are misunderstanding. BAA, OBP, and SLG with RISP is an extremely important statistic in scoring runs. The problem with using the statistic to evaluate players is that its not repeatable. That is, most players who hit great with RISP one year, won't repeat that performance the next year. Thus, there is no sense trying to find players who do well with RISP. When you get your hits is very important in how many runs you score. Because this element involves so much luck, the importance of having more runners on base is even more exaggerated. Teams with fewer baserunners have few opportunities to get lucky - score on errors, etc.

 

Right on. It's not that BA/RISP is unimportant it is that it has little predictive value when judging future performance. The value of any stat is how stable the stat is over time.

[Guest]

obp against and strikeouts are more indicative. wins are arbitrary and pointless.

[TheDude]

everyone always says around here that RISP average is a meaningless stat

 

I think you are misunderstanding. BAA, OBP, and SLG with RISP is an extremely important statistic in scoring runs. The problem with using the statistic to evaluate players is that its not repeatable. That is, most players who hit great with RISP one year, won't repeat that performance the next year. Thus, there is no sense trying to find players who do well with RISP. When you get your hits is very important in how many runs you score. Because this element involves so much luck, the importance of having more runners on base is even more exaggerated. Teams with fewer baserunners have few opportunities to get lucky - score on errors, etc.

 

Right on. It's not that BA/RISP is unimportant it is that it has little predictive value when judging future performance. The value of any stat is how stable the stat is over time.

 

I wasn't misunderstanding anything. In fact, CubinNY just really hit on my main as-of-yet undeclared point - I started this point with the eventual goal of trying to predict 2007 staff performance.

 

Next year's Cub pitching staff figures to consist of at least 75% of the same guys: Zambrano, Prior, Hill, Marshall, Rusch, Eyre, Howry, and Dempster are likely remaining (feel free to substitute a different rookie for either Hill or Marhsall). That's at least 8 returning guys for an 11 or 12 man staff (based on contract status).

 

So when evaluating this year's results, can we expect the same dramatic difference between hits allowed and runs allowed? Or will other teams consistent "clutch" hitting from this season continue into next season?

 

If you look deeper at the stats, the Cubs pitching numbers against are not good, but don't seem to lead to the runs scored correlation. They're 8th in the NL in total bases allowed, 9th in SLG and OPS against, and 13th in OBP against...

 

How does that add up 15th in Runs allowed? Seems to me that teams have scored about 30 more runs this year than the cumulative spread of numbers would suggest.

[jmajew]

If I understand the argument against looking for guys who hit well with RISP is that there is little statistical evidence that there are hitters who consistently hit better in that situation than they do otherwise. That seems reasonable to me. If a hitter is mediocre when pressure is less, it is not likely that they will improve their hitting when the pressure is on.

 

The Dude seems to be trying to look at that same scenario (the result of an at bat with RISP) from the pitchers mound rather than the batters box.

 

Yeah, I sort of hijacked the thread. However, I don't think you'll find factual evidence that AVG with RISP is the reason teams score more runs than other teams. While some players on a team may do better in those situations, there will likely be guys who do worse in those situations on that same team.

 

The way to truly improve runs scored is to increase your OBP, which gives guys (good or bad at AVG with RISP) more opportunities to drive in runs.

 

The same can be said for the info TheDude is requesting. Just in reverse. A team that has the better WHIP will likely give up less runs than teams that have a much higher WHIP.

 

It's tough to gather the information he requests. The Cubs have been very good as a team in not giving up hits. But, walks can be just as damaging and they are horrible when it comes to allowing baserunners.

 

I don't really think it correlates to AVG with RISP as much as it correlates to OBP in relation to runs scored.

 

WHIP ia a hugely important stat for a pitcher.

 

So is wins, and BAA

 

Wins are almost meaningless unless a pitcher completes the vast majority of his starts. BAA will show up in WHIP, although if a pitcher doesn't walk very many batters he could have a high BAA and respectable WHIP.

 

Jon Garland being a prime example.

 

185 IP, 208 H, 1.32 Whip, 36 BB

 

Zambrano

 

193 IP, 148 H, 1.31 Whip, 104 BB.

 

On a Side not Carlos Throw considerably more walks when he has thrown over 90 pitches then when he is under.

 

91-105 Pitches: 259 BAA, 393 OBP, 376 SLG, 759 OPS

106-120 Pitches: 293 BAA, 362 OBP, 479 SLG, 841 OPS

Total: 212 BAA, 314 OBP, 359 SLG, 673 OPS.

 

I think these stats go to prove that he is less effective after 90 pitches and it causes me to question even more what Dusty is thinking by allowing him to average 109 pitches per game.

 

The emphasis this organization has on the strikeout is going to doom our pitchign staff. IMO, Carlos walks a lot of batters because he feels he has to strike them out. If he had more trust in his defense he would throw more strikes and throw less pitches which would allow him to go deeper in games. This organization needs to realize the fact that if you want to build a team around defense like we tried to do this year you can't keep emphasizing the strikeout. Those two go together like oil and water. They need to have one plan and stick with it.

Edited September 15, 2006 by jmajew

[goonys evil twin]

They're 8th in the NL in total bases allowed, 9th in SLG and OPS against, and 13th in OBP against...

 

How does that add up 15th in Runs allowed? Seems to me that teams have scored about 30 more runs this year than the cumulative spread of numbers would suggest.

 

Well, OBP is more important than SLG when determining runs, and while the Cubs haven't given up a ton of SLG or OPS, that is only because of the low BAA. Way too many of the hits they have allowed have been HR, which is the 2nd killer, along with walks allowed, that has caused this staff to perform so poorly. I think it would be a mistake to think luck has played much of a part in this, and/or it will turn next year. The Cubs are allowing a .258 BAA overall, and it's .265 with RISP. I don't think you can look at the relative rankings you listed, and then say they've given up 30 more runs than they should have.

[CubinNY]

 

If you look deeper at the stats, the Cubs pitching numbers against are not good, but don't seem to lead to the runs scored correlation. They're 8th in the NL in total bases allowed, 9th in SLG and OPS against, and 13th in OBP against...

 

How does that add up 15th in Runs allowed? Seems to me that teams have scored about 30 more runs this year than the cumulative spread of numbers would suggest.

 

Bases allowed, SLG, OPS against, and OBP against are more than the sum of their parts. In other words, their probably isn't a direct correlation between the those data and runs allowed. However, if we just look at OBP against I think one could make a case for the runs allowed to be right where it should be.

 

We also have to look a the differences between the bottom 1/3 of the teams. I would be willing to bet that the difference in the numbers between whomever is in 10th and the Cubs is pretty small.

[TheDude]

They're 8th in the NL in total bases allowed, 9th in SLG and OPS against, and 13th in OBP against...

 

How does that add up 15th in Runs allowed? Seems to me that teams have scored about 30 more runs this year than the cumulative spread of numbers would suggest.

 

Well, OBP is more important than SLG when determining runs, and while the Cubs haven't given up a ton of SLG or OPS, that is only because of the low BAA. Way too many of the hits they have allowed have been HR, which is the 2nd killer, along with walks allowed, that has caused this staff to perform so poorly. I think it would be a mistake to think luck has played much of a part in this, and/or it will turn next year. The Cubs are allowing a .258 BAA overall, and it's .265 with RISP. I don't think you can look at the relative rankings you listed, and then say they've given up 30 more runs than they should have.

 

Let me be a bit more clear on my angle, because I feel there is a stronger emphasis on OPS than OBP when correlating Runs scored.

 

When you look at offensive numbers, there is nearly a direct correlation between OPS and Runs Scored.

 

For example, all of the teams in the top 9 for runs scored in the NL are in the top 9 for OPS, and the order only shifts slightly, with teams within 2 in ranking across the board. As expected therefore, the teams with the lowest OPS are also worst in Runs Scored

 

As we would expect, the reverse is true when evaluating the stats from the pitching perspective. The 5 teams in the NL with the lowest OPS against are also the 5 teams that have given up the fewest Runs Scored.

 

There are no anamolies on offense. But there are two teams with anamolies on the pitching side - The Cubs and the Brewers. Each has given up more Runs Scored than the OPS against would suggest.

 

Maybe I am just allowing my optomism for the future to shine through, but it really seems to me that more runs are scoring than the mean would suggest.

[goonys evil twin]

They're 8th in the NL in total bases allowed, 9th in SLG and OPS against, and 13th in OBP against...

 

How does that add up 15th in Runs allowed? Seems to me that teams have scored about 30 more runs this year than the cumulative spread of numbers would suggest.

 

Well, OBP is more important than SLG when determining runs, and while the Cubs haven't given up a ton of SLG or OPS, that is only because of the low BAA. Way too many of the hits they have allowed have been HR, which is the 2nd killer, along with walks allowed, that has caused this staff to perform so poorly. I think it would be a mistake to think luck has played much of a part in this, and/or it will turn next year. The Cubs are allowing a .258 BAA overall, and it's .265 with RISP. I don't think you can look at the relative rankings you listed, and then say they've given up 30 more runs than they should have.

 

Let me be a bit more clear on my angle, because I feel there is a stronger emphasis on OPS than OBP when correlating Runs scored.

 

When you look at offensive numbers, there is nearly a direct correlation between OPS and Runs Scored.

 

For example, all of the teams in the top 9 for runs scored in the NL are in the top 9 for OPS, and the order only shifts slightly, with teams within 2 in ranking across the board. As expected therefore, the teams with the lowest OPS are also worst in Runs Scored

 

As we would expect, the reverse is true when evaluating the stats from the pitching perspective. The 5 teams in the NL with the lowest OPS against are also the 5 teams that have given up the fewest Runs Scored.

 

There are no anamolies on offense. But there are two teams with anamolies on the pitching side - The Cubs and the Brewers. Each has given up more Runs Scored than the OPS against would suggest.

 

Maybe I am just allowing my optomism for the future to shine through, but it really seems to me that more runs are scoring than the mean would suggest.

 

It sounds like you are overcomplicating things to make the Cubs look better than they are.

 

They give up the most walks, and almost the most HR. But they also strike out the most. That is why they appear to give up "too many" runs per hit. The hits they do give up are big hits, and the walks mean more of those HR are with runners on base.

[TheDude]

It sounds like you are overcomplicating things to make the Cubs look better than they are.

 

They give up the most walks, and almost the most HR. But they also strike out the most. That is why they appear to give up "too many" runs per hit. The hits they do give up are big hits, and the walks mean more of those HR are with runners on base.

 

You might be right, but then HR and walks allowed are accounted for in OPS against right? You would think it would reflect more consistently.