2010 Cubs and clutch

[CubColtPacer]

There have been a lot of people who have stated that the Cubs main problem is that they simply cannot get the clutch hit this year. Others have pointed out that their clutch numbers are very close to their overall numbers and saying that a lack of clutchness has had no impact. Is either side right? Let's take a look at the numbers:

 

2010 Cubs overall: .261/.328/.410

2010 NL overall: .258/.329/.402

 

Notice these numbers. The Cubs are virtually identical to an average NL offense so far this year. They walk a little less and have a little better of an average which also inflates their slugging slightly.

 

Now let's look at RISP:

 

2010 Cubs RISP: .252/.331/.409

2010 NL overall: .263/.357/.417

 

The Cubs OPS is 2 points better with RISP than without. However, that is coming from an increased walk rate which is easily the least important thing to measure when looking at RISP. The batting average is down 9 points which even though the Cubs have a slightly higher ISOP with RISP still drags the slugging down a point.

 

But look at the NL in general. The walk rate moves up at a slightly higher rate than the Cubs. The BA is 5 points higher and the ISOP is up as well. The NL ends up having a 43 point edge in OPS change compared to the Cubs and a 14 point edge in BA change compared to the Cubs.

 

Those numbers are not quite as strong when you refine it to RISP/2 outs:

 

Cubs: .235/.337/.393

NL: .236/.353/.379

 

In this one the Cubs walk rate is down compared to the NL, which is the least important part of this particular statistic. The change in their batting average ends up being 4 points worse compared to their total than the NL is. Their slugging change is actually still better than the NL's even with that BA drop.

 

Bases Loaded

Cubs: .231/.300/.404

NL: .283/.322/.446

 

This one only has a minimal impact on the season but as you can see the Cubs have been getting clocked in this category. The walk rate has been much better than the NL which is good as that does directly score a run and the ISOP is good but the BA is so much worse.

 

The Cubs pitching tells much of the same story:

 

Total

Cubs: .246/.314/.390

NL: .258/.330/.402

 

RISP

Cubs: .279/.357/.460

NL: .262/.357/.412

 

RISP/2 outs

Cubs: .244/.331/.391

NL: .234/.352/.372

 

Bases Loaded

Cubs: .293/.321/.488

NL: .275/.314/.417

 

The Cubs do a better job than the NL in the change in their walk rates in the specialty situations. But the NL has done so much better of a job in both the BA and SLG changes in those specialty situations. Notice that the Cubs are 12 points better than the NL in average in total, but are 17, 10, and 18 points worse than the NL in these three types of situations.

Ideally you'd love to improve both your BA/SLG and your walk rate, but if you have to choose you'd much rather take the NL side and be much better in BA/SLG than walk rate in these situations.

 

So there isn't much doubt that the Cubs have been bit by the clutch bug this year. And it isn't necessarily that the Cubs have been unclutch. The argument that the Cubs have melted away in clutch situations really isn't true.

 

They just have been a much more extreme version of the NL as a whole. The batters have been winning clutch situations more often than normal this year. The Cubs just haven't won nearly as many of them as the NL, and have let more batters beat them than the rest of the NL. People tend to dismiss clutch factors because they are random variation which is true. In analyzing what has already happened though they can be important and it looks like the random variation has really hurt this club.

 

I wonder if anyone could calculate any approximate number for how many extra runs would be generated and how many would have been saved if the Cubs difference from their total numbers to their RISP numbers were the same as the rest of the league. My guess is that it would mean that their RS/RA number would be safely on the positive side of the ledger. It certainly starts to explain why their pitching ERA is worse than any of their peripherals and the offense has had a lesser but similar effect on their numbers.

[third eye]

I wonder how those numbers look without Aramis. Since he has continually been slotted in the 4th spot, he's likely he's had a disproportionate number of those specialty situation plate appearances. Normally I wouldn't think that the difference between the 4th and, say, the 7th spot would be too impacted by the clutch performance of a single player, but his exteme suckiness may be enough to account for most of that gap between the Cubs and the rest of the NL. Add in DLee's performance in the slot above his, and these returns shouldn't be much of a surprise.

[CubColtPacer]

I wonder how those numbers look without Aramis. Since he has continually been slotted in the 4th spot, he's likely he's had a disproportionate number of those specialty situation plate appearances. Normally I wouldn't think that the difference between the 4th and, say, the 7th spot would be too impacted by the clutch performance of a single player, but his exteme suckiness may be enough to account for most of that gap between the Cubs and the rest of the NL. Add in DLee's performance in the slot above his, and these returns shouldn't be much of a surprise.

 

Lee has had 10.7% of normal at-bats and Ramirez has 8.8%.

 

Lee has had 10.3% of at-bats with RISP and Ramirez has had 10.9%.

 

If I get a change, I'll calculate what the numbers would be without each of them. I definitely would agree that bad lineup construction might have caused some of these issues. Lou's bad lineup and playing time decisions have cost the Cubs in that one and other areas.

 

Of course it should be said that the numbers I used also dowplayed the problems. If you remove the Cubs from the NL numbers and removed the RISP numbers when using the Cubs total as you should, it gets a little worse.