Quickie on RISP, etc.

by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 1, 2008 3:12 PM CDT in Statistical Analysis

It wouldn't be a Brewers broadcast without a mention of the Crew's struggles with RISP, especially with 2 outs and RISP.

(Actually, I don't know if they're still talking about this--it feels like weeks since mlb.tv has given me Brian and Bill.)

Anyway, it is technically true that the Crew is below average in this department. With RISP, the Crew is a bit below league average, with an sOPS+ of 97. (sOPS+ is a handy Baseball-Reference stat meaning OPS relative to league average for that situation. 100 is average, less is worse, more is better.)

Look at RISP with two outs, and it's worse: That's down to 86. The worst offenders are Weeks and Kendall, both of whom are OPS'ing under 500, though Braun is at a mere 590. We should probably bench him, or at least pinch-hit for him in clutch spots.

However, there's an interesting contrast if you keep hunting through the splits. Broadcasters love to talk about 2 outs/RISP because it is a proxy for clutch...but it's only a proxy. Obviously, there are important moments in a game with less than two outs, and key at-bats without runners in scoring position.

One way to measure them is by leverage (details here), which takes into account the base/out situation as well as inning and score. (Bottom of the 9th in a one-run game is pretty important, even with the bases empty.) Despite the numbers above, the Brewers are above average in high leverage situations. Also surprising, Braun is among the best on the team, with an OPS of 881. Prince is dominating in such spots, at 1.203.

Along the same lines, the Crew is above average when a game is "close and late," as well as better than the norm in one-run, two-run, three-run, and four-run games. (Just below average in tie games, though that's kind of meaningless, since a lot of games are ties in the early innings, which is hardly the definition of clutch.)

Of course, many of these numbers come in relatively small samples--Prince has had 45 high-leverage at-bats, and the team as a whole has had fewer than 400 PAs with 2 outs and RISP. Given that important situations (high leverage ones, anyway) don't seem to faze the Crew, it may be that the 2 out/RISP numbers will come around, resulting in a few more runs simply due to luck.

Or, I guess, Doug Melvin has signed, drafted, and traded for a bunch of guys who can't handle the pressure. Your call.

1 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I have heard it said before

And I buy the idea that there is no such thing as clutch… I know people will point to Reggie Jackson or David Ortiz… but I don’t think players are consistently clutch.

I say it is luck…. hard to find players that are consistently year in and out above average in high leverage situations.

I also get sick of hearing of the Brewers struggles, doesn’t really mean the pressure is on with 2 outs w RISP and we are down 18-3 to the Cubs… it would bother me more if they had a tie ball game, no outs and a runner at third and couldn’t get him in…

The designated hitter rule is like letting someone else take Wilt Chamberlain's free throws.

by Kyguy922 on Jul 1, 2008 3:44 PM CDT 0 recs

I find the idea of clutch hitting not existing far-fetched

I would think that a logical extension of the notion that there is no such thing as a variance in ability to hit dependent on the situation that the opposite also doesn’t exist – there is no such thing as a choker.

by ol Pete on Jul 1, 2008 5:42 PM CDT up 0 recs

If it's my call, I definitely go with "Unclutch".....

There’s a lot of different criteria to look at-RISP, 2 outs, close, late, etc. but today I looked at runs scored by inning for this year and I definitely don’t think they are good in the “late” catagory. I started thinking that in the Atlanta series, where they won 2 out of 3 games but they did not score a single run after the 4th inning in any of those games. A few things struck me:

The Brewers have outscored their opponents by 16 runs in innings 1-3 this year. The best inning for Brewer pitching is the 2nd inning, and I would assume the mojority of that is the first time the starter faces the meat of the lineup (Spots 4-6). They’ve only given up 29 runs in the 2nd inning all year, which is by far the lowest total for an inning by the bad guys. If my math is right that gives Brewer pitching a 3.18 ERA in the 2nd inning this year.

The Brewers have outscored their opponents by 20 runs in innings 4-6 this year as well. The 5th inning is where the Brewer offense scores most of its runs, and through 82 games they’ve plated 50 runs in that frame. Through each of the first 6 frames, we’ve scored more than the opposition in 5 of the 6 individual innings. The one we lost (5th), we only lost by 3 runs. Combine the 3rd & 4th alone and we’re +24 runs.

However, we’ve been outscored by 37 runs in the final 3 innings of 2008. I took extra innings seperately, but we’ve been outscored by four after the 9th as well. There were plenty of things that alarmed me when i looked at this. We’ve only scored 19 runs in the 9th inning all year; that’s 1 run every 4.32 games. The best inning for the opposing team is the 7th inning, and we’ve been outscored by 18 runs alone in that frame. So far on this road trip, we’ve scored exactly 1 run in innings 6-9, and that came on Gabe Kapler’s walk with the bases full of Brewers last night. Yikes. How’s this: The Brewers haven’t scored a run in the 8th or 9th inning of a game since Ryan Braun’s 2 out, 2 run HR off of Jason Frasor of Toronto. That was 2 weeks ago to the day on June 17th, and that covers 21 innings of baseball. That means the bad guys have a 0.86 ERA in the final 2 innings VS the Brewers in that time. Double yikes. Joe Nathan is good, but he’s not that good is he?

I guess my point is, I don’t really care when they score. A grand slam is nice in the 1st inning and the 7th inning. I’m just sick of seeing the Brewer bats go to sleep an hour after first pitch, where the the other team doesn’t seem to have a problem. If the Brewers are trailing after the 6th inning in this late start Arizona series, I’m definitely going to do myself a favor and go to bed. I don’t think I’ll miss much…....

It is dangerous for an athlete to believe his own publicity, good or bad - Bob Uecker, 1982.

by Adam P on Jul 1, 2008 3:49 PM CDT 0 recs

Typically closers are good

So the people they have in the bottom of the 9th will have a lower ERA vs middle relievers or a SP in the 6-7th inning.

It is bad they have scored so few runs in late innings recently, but over time I feel that the number will improve.

The designated hitter rule is like letting someone else take Wilt Chamberlain's free throws.

by Kyguy922 on Jul 1, 2008 4:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

Sure, but our closers are good also yes?

The pattern was exactly the same last year as well, and we had an All-Star closer for the entire season. So far this year Torres is 13/13 in save chances. I’d say both of those closers were above average so that should be working in our favor and not against us, right? There’s only a few elite closers in the game.

Last year we were outscored by 57 runs in innings 7-9. We put a closer in the All Star game and we were outscored by 6 runs in the 9th inning. We were outscored by 30 runs in the 8th inning alone, and we lost the 7th & 8th combined by over 50 runs. I’m really just suggesting that anytime we have a runner on in the late innings we’d better be playing for one run and bunting him over because 1 run would be way better than we normally do.

It is dangerous for an athlete to believe his own publicity, good or bad - Bob Uecker, 1982.

by Adam P on Jul 2, 2008 7:35 AM CDT up 0 recs

so...

if they’re down by two runs you’d advocate a one-run strategy just so the overall stats look better?

I don’t think the by-inning totals are terribly useful. If you’d like to break them down by game state (namely, focusing on games that are actually close), the argument might have more merit. Nobody’s going to care in case it turns out that we’re mostly being outscored late in games that are already out of hand, in one direction or the other.

by Zeyes on Jul 2, 2008 9:51 AM CDT up 0 recs

I'm not advocating that strategy if they're down by 2,

please don’t try to twist what i’m saying. I’m saying a game on the road where they lead by 1 in the 9th, or by 12 in the 9th or something like that. Of course not in your example. Last night was another great example of this as well. A bunch of runs early, and then not much for 5 innings while facing a AAA reliever. It happens, I know, I’m just trying to say it happens to this team more often than it should.

Close or not close, I would assume all of that stuff balances out over the course of an entire 162 game season, especially when also considering last year so it’s really 2 seasons worth of examples. I would agree, it’s not like the most super important stat ever, but it definitely reveals a trend. I’d just like to see a Brewer 5 run 8th inning or something and I’ll feel better.

It is dangerous for an athlete to believe his own publicity, good or bad - Bob Uecker, 1982.

by Adam P on Jul 2, 2008 10:34 AM CDT up 0 recs

Assuming that everything balances out

is always dangerous (and usually wrong). I doubt it’s the case here (after all, it’s Ned making the decisions), but one obvious way that a team might end up with a negative run differential in the late innings would be superior bullpen leverage management, namely never using a good reliever in the late innings when the game is all but won or lost already (let’s say, run differential >5 after 6 innings). I’m sure I could come up with other reasons if I gave it some more thought.

So, really, if you want to demonstrate that that the team’s results are actually suffering due to scoring fewer late runs than the opposition, you pretty much have to take the game state into account. Given the numbers Jeff mentioned (especially their above-average hitting in “close & late” situations), I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that your numbers actually show what you think they are showing.

by Zeyes on Jul 2, 2008 1:41 PM CDT up 0 recs

I definitely think it's the last thing you said

None of these guys can handle the pressure! The season is over! Woe!

Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.

by TheJay on Jul 1, 2008 6:58 PM CDT 0 recs

Fun numbers

The Brewers have put 933 runners on the bases (summing hits, walks, HBP, reaching on errors, etc., and subtracting HR) and 558 of them (58.91%) have wound up in scoring position. Unforunately, only 213 of them (38.17%) have come around to score. That’s places the team 13th of 16th in the NL for bringing runners in scoring position around to score.

Sounds bleak, huh? Of course, the powerhouse Pittsburgh Pirates are the best at bringing RISP around to score (44.37%), showing that there’s perhaps more to the story of winning than ability to score runners in scoring position. The Cubs (43.44%) are second, and Dodgers (42.40%) third. Arizona’s fourth at 41.70%, though it hasn’t done much for their record. The Mets, Giants, Phillies, and Cardinals round out the top half.

Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.

by TheJay on Jul 1, 2008 7:59 PM CDT 0 recs

Pirates seem to be having a nice offensive year

They’d be pretty good with some pitching. I guess that’s an old story. Dodgers surprise me, Arizona too.

by ol Pete on Jul 2, 2008 8:45 AM CDT up 0 recs

Pirates

They’re almost at league average for AVG, OBP, and SLG, but they’re third in runs per game.

Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.

by TheJay on Jul 2, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up 0 recs

yep, team OPS+ at an even 100...

They’re also dead-last in the NL in stolen bases, so it’s not like they’re picking up lots of bases that way.

They’re also scoring almost a full run more on the road than at home, the largest differential in the NL. Unfortunately for them, their pitchers are also giving up TWO more runs on the road than at home. (Not that the Crew’s pitching is much better, at 1.3 wins worse on the road.) Anyway, the Pirates’ R/G allowed on the road (6.54) is more than one run higher than any other team’s in the majors. (Next: Twins 5.53, Padres 5.47, Rockies 5.44.) That’s a pretty impressive level of incompetence…it’s like the Pirates’ pitchers are bringing their own personal Mile High to every road stop.

by Zeyes on Jul 2, 2008 1:57 PM CDT up 0 recs

Clutch exists

I cannot believe that there aren’t clutch hitters in baseball. The numbers aren’t going to show who’s clutch because there are so many “clutch moments” and no person can come through every time (or even close). The way I look at it . . .

Michael Jordan was clutch. However there were so many game-winning shots that he missed. He didn’t hit them every time because no one can. Yes it is a totally different sport, my point is that the most clutch athlete in sports didn’t always come through in the clutch. This of course excludes Tiger, but he’s just ridiculous.

Also you should compare the number of runs scored per inning to other teams. I’m sure many other team’s numbers show a similar trend. I’d do it my self but the Crew are killing the D-bags

draftnation.com

by Beardsly on Jul 1, 2008 9:49 PM CDT 0 recs

umm...

The numbers aren’t going to show who’s clutch because there are so many "clutch moments" and no person can come through every time (or even close).

That’s like saying the numbers can’t show who’s a good hitter and who isn’t because nobody can get a hit in even the majority of their plate appearances. Sorry, but that’s definitely not the reason “clutch” fails to show up the numbers.

Anyway, over at BTF a couple of studies were mentioned the other day that showed that some players did show some “clutch” ability across their careers. However, IIRC the numbers were quite small even for the leading players, on the order of 2 additional runs per year. That’s not nothing (marginal 0.2 wins added certainly matters), but it’s also not much. And that’s a career average…year-to-year even those players might be anywhere from super-clutch to unclutch. Not to mention that we’d pretty much expect some players to be above-average in clutch situations…even after a 10 or 20 year career, luck won’t average out to perfectly zero for everybody.

Anyway, the main thing to realize about clutch (as far as I’m concerned) is the same thing needed to realize about hot and cold streaks – you can’t build a team or a lineup around it. Whatever short-term trends you might be able to identify, chances are they’ll have turned around by the time you’ve based a decision on them.

by Zeyes on Jul 1, 2008 11:26 PM CDT up 1 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Ode to C.C.

by roguejim 8 days ago

23 comments | 7 recs

Rockies fan here to support ya

by Silverblood 9 days ago

23 comments | 6 recs

Recent FanPosts

New FanPost All FanPosts

Featured Poll

Poll

Now that it's over, how will you remember the Brewers' season?

90 - 72

Games Back: 7.5

Streak: Lost 1

Games Left: 0

NL Central Standings

	W	L	PCT	GB	STRK
Chicago Bleed Cubbie Blue	97	64	.602	0	Lost 4
Milwaukee Brew Crew Ball	90	72	.555	7.5	Lost 1
Houston The Crawfish Boxes	86	75	.534	11	Won 1
St. Louis Viva El Birdos	86	76	.530	11.5	Won 6
Cincinnati Red Reporter	74	88	.456	23.5	Lost 5
Pittsburgh Bucs Dugout	67	95	.413	30.5	Won 1