Feast or Famine?

[Chocolate Milk]

I hear it mentioned a lot around here that we have a "feast or famine" type offense. I admit that it seems like we do, to me at least. The thing is, this is all based on my perception from watching the games. But, as we know, perception is not always reality, especially when it comes to baseball.

 

Do we actually have more of a "feast or famine" type offense, when compared to the rest of the league? If so, how much different it is from the other teams? Is that enough to make a difference? What effect does this sort of thing have on winning baseball games?

 

I have some guesses as to the answers to these questions, but they are all based on my speculation. Does anyone know if any sort of data or information on this topic is out there? Thanks for any help.

[cheapseats]

It's pretty easy to calculate the standard deviation of runs scored.

 

Last time I checked, the Mets had a higher standard deviation than the Cubs, and they're doing just fine.

[jjgman21]

I posted this in a different thread. numbers are before games on Wednesday.

 

 

there's been alot of this 'feast or famine' talk and reasons given. turns out, every team is feast or famine, except possibly the Brewers and Mets to an extent.

 

this isn't a perfect way to look at this phenomena, but most teams win the vast majority of the games they score 5 or more runs. the top run scoring teams in the league break out like this

 

0 run games/1 run games/2 run games/3 run games/4 run games

 

ChC 1/4/4/4/7

NYM 0/3/4/4/3

MwB 0/2/2/10/7

PhP 0/3/5/4/7

FlM 2/4/4/5/3

AtB 2/3/3/6/5

 

the breakdown for 0-2 run games/3-4 run games

 

ChC 9/11

NYM 7/7

MwB 4/17

PhP 8/11

FlM 10/8

AtB 8/11

 

looks like this 'feast or famine' thing the Cubs are oft said to be suffering from appears to be something all teams suffer from, the Cubs only marginally more than the top offenses in the league, if at all.

 

not a sabr/statistician look at it, but I think it gets at answering what you are asking.

[Productive Outs]

It's pretty easy to calculate the standard deviation of runs scored.

 

Last time I checked, the Mets had a higher standard deviation than the Cubs, and they're doing just fine.

 

mets' s = 2.868

cubs' s = 2.855

[badger1679666666]

So basically everyone who is whining about feast or famine need to realize that EVERY team has similar stats? This evidence will mess with peoples' need to complain about everything.

[CubinNY]

It's pretty easy to calculate the standard deviation of runs scored.

 

Last time I checked, the Mets had a higher standard deviation than the Cubs, and they're doing just fine.

 

That's not even close to the hole story.

 

Team A could have a high SD but also have a high M.

 

Team B could have a hight SD but have a lower M.

 

Team A is the Mets M= 5.3

 

Team B is the Cubs M = 4.7

 

Then you have to factor in runs allowed.

Edited May 19, 2007 by CubinNY

[CubinNY]

So basically everyone who is whining about feast or famine need to realize that EVERY team has similar stats? This evidence will mess with peoples' need to complain about everything.

Wrong

[Amazing_Grace]

I don't think this year qualifies as a feast or famine type team. We're not seeing the Cubs get shutout and scoring only 1 run that often like we have in some seasons. There are a lot of games the Cubs score 4, 5, 6 runs here. It's hard to point to a specific weakness on this year's team other than lack of plate discipline/patience from much of the team and the inability to hit LHP. The bullpen has been inconsistent, but to a large extent, all bullpens are. The White Sox pen has been very good this year but they've gotten clobbered the last two days. The starting pitching has been great outside of Zambrano and Miller. It's hard to complain too much about the numbers the team has put up overall, but the results haven't really matched what you expect the numbers to produce. A lot of that is luck.

[NewUserName]

The Cubs have only scored less than 4 runs 4 times this month. They are 1-3 in those games. They have scored 4 runs 4 times and are 2 and 2 in those games. They scored 5 or more 9 times this month and are 7-2 in those games. I didnt check any other team in the league but for May so far I think you would have to be happy with this. We are averaging a little over 5 runs a game for the month. If we get this kind of offensive output for the rest of the year I think we will be fine

[C.C.]

Baseball Tonight said the Cubs lead the NL in hitting with RISP? Did I hear that right?

[Drew Doughty]

yep, the Cubs .287 avg w/ risp leads the NL. The .370 OBP is 5th in the NL. The .437 SLG is 3rd in the NL. The .808 OPS is 3rd.

[Omar]

Baseball Tonight said the Cubs lead the NL in hitting with RISP? Did I hear that right?

 

Yup. Blowout games probably boost that way up.

[rocket]

Baseball Tonight said the Cubs lead the NL in hitting with RISP? Did I hear that right?

 

Yup. Blowout games probably boost that way up.

 

the cubs are 4th in the nl in hitting in close and late games.

[CubColtPacer]

Baseball Tonight said the Cubs lead the NL in hitting with RISP? Did I hear that right?

 

Yup. Blowout games probably boost that way up.

 

the cubs are 4th in the nl in hitting in close and late games.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting that-they are 10th in the NL in runs scored in close and late, and 8th in OPS.

 

That number has really improved though the last couple of weeks. It seems like that the Cubs either score an insurance run or two, or the bullpen blows the game. The Cubs offense has become pretty good at coming back in games though (Pitsburgh game, Philly Saturday game, Washington Sunday game, last two games all are examples off the top of my head of comebacks in May in the late innings-of course the bullpen gave the Philly game right back).

[BigSlick]

I hear it mentioned a lot around here that we have a "feast or famine" type offense. I admit that it seems like we do, to me at least. The thing is, this is all based on my perception from watching the games. But, as we know, perception is not always reality, especially when it comes to baseball.

 

Do we actually have more of a "feast or famine" type offense, when compared to the rest of the league? If so, how much different it is from the other teams? Is that enough to make a difference? What effect does this sort of thing have on winning baseball games?

 

I have some guesses as to the answers to these questions, but they are all based on my speculation. Does anyone know if any sort of data or information on this topic is out there? Thanks for any help.

 

Every baseball team, ever, has a feast or famine offense. Thats baseball. Everything else is perception.

 

If we put up 5 runs every game, consistently, no more, no less, it would be the most bizarre thing to ever happen.

 

And we'd also win like 95 games.

[badger1679666666]

So basically everyone who is whining about feast or famine need to realize that EVERY team has similar stats? This evidence will mess with peoples' need to complain about everything.

Wrong

 

I'd love to hear the explanation that proves the stats (facts) wrong.

[C.C.]

Baseball Tonight said the Cubs lead the NL in hitting with RISP? Did I hear that right?

 

Yup. Blowout games probably boost that way up.

 

the cubs are 4th in the nl in hitting in close and late games.

 

Wow!

[jjgman21]

I don't think this year qualifies as a feast or famine type team. We're not seeing the Cubs get shutout and scoring only 1 run that often like we have in some seasons. There are a lot of games the Cubs score 4, 5, 6 runs here. It's hard to point to a specific weakness on this year's team other than lack of plate discipline/patience from much of the team and the inability to hit LHP. The bullpen has been inconsistent, but to a large extent, all bullpens are. The White Sox pen has been very good this year but they've gotten clobbered the last two days. The starting pitching has been great outside of Zambrano and Miller. It's hard to complain too much about the numbers the team has put up overall, but the results haven't really matched what you expect the numbers to produce. A lot of that is luck.

 

it's not hard to figure out at all. after yesterday, the Cubs are something like 2-12 when the pen comes in when the game is tied or the Cubs are up by 1 or 2 runs. you can blame the offense for certain games (particularly the extra inning games) but those couple of games are balanced by games where the offense bailed the pen out (like yesterday). you also can give the pen a break for the Zambrano/Ohman game considering the situation the pen entered.

 

but the bottom line is this. if the pen converts even 50% of the games in which they had a one or two run lead when entering the game (thus not even counting the meltdown in NY) the Cubs are on pace to win over 90 games this year.

 

the problem up until now has been the pen in close games. there's simply no two ways around it. every other stat you break down, there's no discernable difference between the Cubs and the other teams in the league. there's a huge difference between the Cubs and the winning teams in the NL when looking at the pen in close games.

[CubinNY]

So basically everyone who is whining about feast or famine need to realize that EVERY team has similar stats? This evidence will mess with peoples' need to complain about everything.

Wrong

 

I'd love to hear the explanation that proves the stats (facts) wrong.

 

The statistic isn't wrong, your analysis is.

 

Feast = Significantly more runs then during famine

 

Famine = Significantly less runs than during feast

 

A team can score a lot of runs and have a high standard deviation and not have a problem.

 

A second team can not score a lot of runs and still have a high SD and have a problem.

 

In other words, a team could have an SD of 6 and an average of 6 runs scored per game and not have a problem with feast and famine offense, while at the same time a team could have an SD of 6 and an average of 2 and have a problem with feast and famine.

 

I guess the definition of "feast" and "famine" will have to be talked about, but it's all relative anyway.

[CubinNY]

I don't think this year qualifies as a feast or famine type team. We're not seeing the Cubs get shutout and scoring only 1 run that often like we have in some seasons. There are a lot of games the Cubs score 4, 5, 6 runs here. It's hard to point to a specific weakness on this year's team other than lack of plate discipline/patience from much of the team and the inability to hit LHP. The bullpen has been inconsistent, but to a large extent, all bullpens are. The White Sox pen has been very good this year but they've gotten clobbered the last two days. The starting pitching has been great outside of Zambrano and Miller. It's hard to complain too much about the numbers the team has put up overall, but the results haven't really matched what you expect the numbers to produce. A lot of that is luck.

 

it's not hard to figure out at all. after yesterday, the Cubs are something like 2-12 when the pen comes in when the game is tied or the Cubs are up by 1 or 2 runs. you can blame the offense for certain games (particularly the extra inning games) but those couple of games are balanced by games where the offense bailed the pen out (like yesterday). you also can give the pen a break for the Zambrano/Ohman game considering the situation the pen entered.

 

but the bottom line is this. if the pen converts even 50% of the games in which they had a one or two run lead when entering the game (thus not even counting the meltdown in NY) the Cubs are on pace to win over 90 games this year.

 

the problem up until now has been the pen in close games. there's simply no two ways around it. every other stat you break down, there's no discernable difference between the Cubs and the other teams in the league. there's a huge difference between the Cubs and the winning teams in the NL when looking at the pen in close games.

That begs the question of the pen's performance in not close games. What are the data on inhereted runs scored? Are the data worse in close games than in not close games? If they are then I would surmize the results are due to chance and that no changes need to be made. If the data are the same for close and not close then the Cubs need to find out who the culprits are and not use them in those situations.

 

Moving Gooz to the bullpen and moving Dempster to starter (potentially) is about the least rational decision they could make.

[jjgman21]

So basically everyone who is whining about feast or famine need to realize that EVERY team has similar stats? This evidence will mess with peoples' need to complain about everything.

Wrong

 

I'd love to hear the explanation that proves the stats (facts) wrong.

 

The statistic isn't wrong, your analysis is.

 

Feast = Significantly more runs then during famine

 

Famine = Significantly less runs than during feast

 

A team can score a lot of runs and have a high standard deviation and not have a problem.

 

A second team can not score a lot of runs and still have a high SD and have a problem.

 

In other words, a team could have an SD of 6 and an average of 6 runs scored per game and not have a problem with feast and famine offense, while at the same time a team could have an SD of 6 and an average of 2 and have a problem with feast and famine.

 

I guess the definition of "feast" and "famine" will have to be talked about, but it's all relative anyway.

 

I don't agree with your definitions. if anything, it should be defined relative to how many runs it takes to win the majority of your ballgames, not the difference between the extremes.

 

what I think we need to dispense of right away is the notion that a feast or famine offense is a problem. nobody has a problem with feast, everybody has a problem with famine. thus, the real problem that many see is the offense's tendancy to go to sleep and not score enough runs to win the average ball game. that is why I broke it down into how many 0-1-2-3-4 run games each team has had, and when looking at it from that perspective, it is clear that the degree to which the Cubs famine is not significantly worse than the better teams in the league, and not the cause of their sub .500 record up until this point of the year.

[rocket]

Baseball Tonight said the Cubs lead the NL in hitting with RISP? Did I hear that right?

 

Yup. Blowout games probably boost that way up.

 

the cubs are 4th in the nl in hitting in close and late games.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting that-they are 10th in the NL in runs scored in close and late, and 8th in OPS.

 

That number has really improved though the last couple of weeks. It seems like that the Cubs either score an insurance run or two, or the bullpen blows the game. The Cubs offense has become pretty good at coming back in games though (Pitsburgh game, Philly Saturday game, Washington Sunday game, last two games all are examples off the top of my head of comebacks in May in the late innings-of course the bullpen gave the Philly game right back).

 

i was looking at batting average

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't believe this team is as feast or famine as it used to be, but still, it carries over some of the many characteristics.

 

Going back to comparisons with the Mets, the Cubs have scored 0 or 1 run 8 times this year, the Mets have been held that low just 4. Likewise, the Cubs have been held to 4 or less 23 times this year, the Mets have done so 18. That's just 27.2% of the way into the season. If trends hold those spreads will widen substantially. Maybe some people think it's unfair to compare the Cubs to the best offense in the league, but personally, I'm only interested in seeing this team be the best. The Cubs are 7th in OBP, 7th in SLG and 7th in runs scored right now (although 5th in R/G).

 

They are scoring and pitching well enough to be a little over .500 overall, but those 0 and 1 run outings, where they are predictably 1-7, really hurts. There are all sorts of weird categories where the team is substantially below .500 though, so it's not like this is the primary issue. It's just symptomatic of the fact that many issues are hovering over this team, and they aren't just a rejiggered bullpen away from running away with the title.

 

As for luck in 1 run games, or blaming the bullpen, of the Cubs 10 1-run losses, in only two of them did they score an above average 5 runs. It's hard to blame pitchers or luck when you are scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 runs and losing by 1. When you score that little (below average) you are supposed to lose.

 

And of course, you can't erase all the early season losses, so the Cubs bad start now means they have to play .591 ball if they hope to get to 90 wins, a real stretch when you see even their pythagorean record doesn't bring them to that type of pace.

[jjgman21]

I don't believe this team is as feast or famine as it used to be, but still, it carries over some of the many characteristics.

 

Going back to comparisons with the Mets, the Cubs have scored 0 or 1 run 8 times this year, the Mets have been held that low just 4. Likewise, the Cubs have been held to 4 or less 23 times this year, the Mets have done so 18. That's just 27.2% of the way into the season. If trends hold those spreads will widen substantially. Maybe some people think it's unfair to compare the Cubs to the best offense in the league, but personally, I'm only interested in seeing this team be the best. The Cubs are 7th in OBP, 7th in SLG and 7th in runs scored right now (although 5th in R/G).

 

They are scoring and pitching well enough to be a little over .500 overall, but those 0 and 1 run outings, where they are predictably 1-7, really hurts. There are all sorts of weird categories where the team is substantially below .500 though, so it's not like this is the primary issue. It's just symptomatic of the fact that many issues are hovering over this team, and they aren't just a rejiggered bullpen away from running away with the title.

 

As for luck in 1 run games, or blaming the bullpen, of the Cubs 10 1-run losses, in only two of them did they score an above average 5 runs. It's hard to blame pitchers or luck when you are scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 runs and losing by 1. When you score that little (below average) you are supposed to lose.

 

And of course, you can't erase all the early season losses, so the Cubs bad start now means they have to play .591 ball if they hope to get to 90 wins, a real stretch when you see even their pythagorean record doesn't bring them to that type of pace.

 

I think what is more unfair is breaking this comparison out after a series in which the Cubs faced both Peavy and Young in Grand Canyon Park, which also happens to coincide with the Cubs best hitter just getting back into the lineup after about 10 days with about 4 plate appearances.

 

as for your statement regarding the pen, what difference does it make if they come into the game and it is 10-8 or 3-1? they only deserve criticism and blame in the latter? they have to close out the damn game with a vicotry. that is their job. that is why the stats of "hold" and "save" were invented. that's why we talk about how meaningless the three run save is compared to the one and two run save.

 

again, if the pen is even 50% when they come into the game with a one or two run lead, the Cubs are maybe one game behind the Brewers. they are at maybe 18% right now, which is a helluva lot more to blame for the Cubs current record than the myth that their offense is siognificantly more feast or famine than other offenses in the league.

[Amazing_Grace]

I don't believe this team is as feast or famine as it used to be, but still, it carries over some of the many characteristics.

 

Going back to comparisons with the Mets, the Cubs have scored 0 or 1 run 8 times this year, the Mets have been held that low just 4. Likewise, the Cubs have been held to 4 or less 23 times this year, the Mets have done so 18. That's just 27.2% of the way into the season. If trends hold those spreads will widen substantially. Maybe some people think it's unfair to compare the Cubs to the best offense in the league, but personally, I'm only interested in seeing this team be the best. The Cubs are 7th in OBP, 7th in SLG and 7th in runs scored right now (although 5th in R/G).

 

They are scoring and pitching well enough to be a little over .500 overall, but those 0 and 1 run outings, where they are predictably 1-7, really hurts. There are all sorts of weird categories where the team is substantially below .500 though, so it's not like this is the primary issue. It's just symptomatic of the fact that many issues are hovering over this team, and they aren't just a rejiggered bullpen away from running away with the title.

 

As for luck in 1 run games, or blaming the bullpen, of the Cubs 10 1-run losses, in only two of them did they score an above average 5 runs. It's hard to blame pitchers or luck when you are scoring 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 runs and losing by 1. When you score that little (below average) you are supposed to lose.

 

And of course, you can't erase all the early season losses, so the Cubs bad start now means they have to play .591 ball if they hope to get to 90 wins, a real stretch when you see even their pythagorean record doesn't bring them to that type of pace.

 

I find it a bit unfair to say that 4 runs is a poor offensive outing. I'd call 4 or 5 runs average (the league average is 4.58 by my calculations), 6-8 runs good, and 8 or more runs a great offensive outing. To me, if your pitching staff is about as good as everyone else's, you ought to win about as many as you lose in games you score 4 or 5 runs.