Chicks Dig The Long Ball (Even If Bill Doesn't)

[rluzinski]

The Brewers have hit 13 HRs and averaged of 6.7 runs per game over their 6 game winning streak. I just took a quick look at how the Brewers have fared in games where they hit a certain amount of HRs. First, we'll just look at runs:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/rluzinski/hrsvsruns.jpg

Nothing surprising there. Now wins:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/rluzinski/hrsvswins.jpg

I forgot about that 4 HR loss to Boston. Ouch.

OK, so the Brewers are reliant on the HR. Is that a bad thing? Should other teams that aren't reliant on the HR be expected to win more games? How do I even prove Bill right or wrong? Does anyone even agree with Bill?

[bcf5575]

who is bill?

[SeriesFinale]

Schroeder, Brewers' color-man

 

Seems he never misses an opportunity to trash the long-ball as a valid form of scoring

[1992casey]

Bill sure makes it sound that way. The only problem with being "reliant" on homers is when a team lacks another way to score, i.e. getting on base.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

My problem with this is that probably every team has a much better record when they hit bombs versus when they don't ... I'm not sure what this proves.

[Glennron]

Bill sure makes it sound that way. The only problem with being "reliant" on homers is when a team lacks another way to score, i.e. getting on base.

Another thing that annoys me about both Brian and Bill is that they seemed to love the fact that, at least as of a couple weeks ago, Prince was near the top of the N.L. in sacrafice flies. It's obviously better than a strikeout but don't you want him to get hits in that situation?

[lukevan]

Some commentators seem to think that baseball (maybe just casual) fans believe HRs are the only way a run can be scored and compensate for that belief, trying to tell us all that, indeed, runs can be scored via single, two sacrifice bunts and another single.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Oh, I'd also like to add that, I don't think the Brewers problem last year or this year was relying on the HR ... their problem is hitting so many solo home runs. Too often, the bases were empty when the big boppers were at the plate. You CAN live by the home run, you just have to have high OBP.

[brewcrewman17]

How about looking at a team's % of runs scored via HR vs. team's winning percentage?

[TooLiveBrew]

Another thing that annoys me about both Brian and Bill is that they seemed to love the fact that, at least as of a couple weeks ago, Prince was near the top of the N.L. in sacrafice flies. It's obviously better than a strikeout but don't you want him to get hits in that situation?

 

Because with a runner on 3rd with less than 2 outs, you've gotta get the job done! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[rluzinski]

My problem with this is that probably every team has a much better record when they hit bombs versus when they don't ... I'm not sure what this proves.

 

It doesn't prove anything. It's common sense. I just used it as a jump off point to try and figure out what the hell Bill has been talking about all these years.

 

A team reliant on the long ball might have a slightly more extreme run distribution (1 run one day, 6 runs the next) which would lose more games in theory In a practical sense, though, I don't think it really effects the distribution enough to have any kind of effect. The Brewers haven't had any noticable trouble in close games either. Last year they were 22-21 in 1 run games and are 12-6 this year.

 

We need to get Bill Schroeder to either explain what the heck he's talking about or just shut up about it already.

 

How about looking at a team's % of runs scored via HR vs. team's winning percentage?

 

I guess that's the answer. I could look at HR/RS vs. win% but I don't know where to find %RS via HR. Any ideas? I'm not parsing retrosheet data http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[sbrylski]

How about looking at a team's % of runs scored via HR vs. team's winning percentage?

 

This won't tell us anything either. Total RS and RA will have the overwhelming control over win%, obviously.

 

You'd need to find two clubs that are close to the same RS and RA, and then compare their HR rates over a large sample to see if a difference has any effect.

[jeffy]

Maybe ask Bill S http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif, since he has reported the percent of runs scored via HR from time to time.

 

Last year, I was annoyed by his constant harping on the evil of "relying too much on the HR" and the bliss of "manufacturing runs". What I did when comparing was just add up the runs from HR based team splits for HR in each situation...bases empty, one on, two on, bases loaded.

 

I'm not sure about using percentages, as what if team A has scored a total of 300 runs and 150 were via HR, while team B has scored 200 runs and 50 were via the HR. Both teams scored 150 runs without the benefit of a HR, but team A scored 50% via the HR and team B only 25%. I think (hope) even Bill S, would expect team A to have the better record.

 

I think you would somehow need to normalize things based on total runs scored, if the question is does a team win less often when they rely on the HR (even though they score just as many runs as another team that does not rely on the HR).

 

Or is the question really: Do teams that rely "too much" on the HR tend to score fewer total runs?

[Tbadder]

I hate to even chime in here as this is a duck and run kind of question but here it goes. And I don't think it's any easier than this: teams who can score in a variety of ways on a consistent basis are better I suppose. Everyone love the three run homer, especially if it's the inside the park variety. But sometime, I'd even guess most times it's not needed. Certainly it's more desirable but Bill is getting at that small ball versus long ball strategy.

 

In another way I suppose what were talking about is high OBP and little SLG versus low OBP and high SLG. I think.

[BrewCrewForever]

I'd be fine if we continue to hit the long ball to score runs. We have enough guys that can do it often so its cool.

[TheCrew07]

OBP is the big key here to me as other's have mentioned. I don't know how scoring a run with a single hit is ever a bad thing, the key is to maximum value out of that HR and put up a crooked number. If you're "clogging up the basepaths" and hitting home runs, you're going to score alot of runs.

 

I don't think Bill is nieve enough to think that the Brewers should always play small ball to score runs, but they don't often string hits together in a row to score runs. I think what he's referring to is the inning they had the other day where they scored runs on 4 or 5 consecutive runs. If I had to guess he's just talking about stringing hits together... single, double, double... that sort of thing.

 

That being said, I tune out most of what Bill says... if you take away "hitting the other way", "rely too much on the HR", and "spike the pitch in dirt" (which really irritates me I might add, make it look it's a strike and the batter will swing) there would be an awful lot of dead air space during the games.

[CarRamrod01]

Just ask Earl Weaver about what he'd rather have: guys who are fast or guys who hit a lot of home runs.

[JoeHova]

I think Schroeder is just stupid (or, alternatively, thinks the people watching are so stupid that he can just ramble nonsensically without anyone noticing), which makes it a bit of a waste trying to parse the things he says. I hope they move Cirillo or somebody into his spot ASAP, but I don't think it will happen. He seems entrenched.

[jeffy]

TheCrew07 wrote:

if you take away "hitting the other way", "rely too much on the HR", and "spike the pitch in dirt" (which really irritates me I might add, make it look it's a strike and the batter will swing) there would be an awful lot of dead air space during the games.

 

Still and all that would leave various statements regarding getting on top the ball and whether or not the ball is "carrying".

 

(I've never understood how one hits a fly ball after "getting on top" of a pitch)

[trwi7]

That being said, I tune out most of what Bill says... if you take away "hitting the other way", "rely too much on the HR", and "spike the pitch in dirt" (which really irritates me I might add, make it look it's a strike and the batter will swing) there would be an awful lot of dead air space during the games.

 

If that's the case I'd rather listen to dead air because Bill is brutal.

[FVBrewerFan]

I hope they move Cirillo or somebody into his spot ASAP, but I don't think it will happen. He seems entrenched.

I love Cirillo, but he's as cliche as they come. Small sample size though. As far as the HR/Wins charts, I'm not sure it tells us anything. Chances are, if you're able to hit 2-3 HRs or more, chances are you're hitting pretty well in general that game and scoring runs.

[BrewCrewForever]

Just ask Earl Weaver about what he'd rather have: guys who are fast or guys who hit a lot of home runs.

Ah yes, that famous "coaches corner" Weaver segment that can be found on youtube.com. It's very good.

 

[DuWayne Steurer]

If you look at last year, take a few teams that scored a very similar amount of runs to the Brewers (Mets and Braves), and each of those teams had more than 50 fewer homers than the Brewers. The Brewers were right at their expected wins, the Mets were 2 over, and the Braves were 4 under. Small sample, only 3 teams, but as you look through the league, look through the years, you find that the teams that "relied" on the longball still stayed within a small variance of their expected W/L.

 

I actually did a run distribution for the Mets and Brewers, and found that the Mets scored runs to both extremes (0 or 1 runs, 8 or more runs) more often than the Brewers, despite the fact that the Mets were a "small ball" team last year.

[rluzinski]

I actually did a run distribution for the Mets and Brewers, and found that the Mets scored runs to both extremes (0 or 1 runs, 8 or more runs) more often than the Brewers, despite the fact that the Mets were a "small ball" team last year.

 

I've done the same thing in the past and have found little difference myself. It's true that every run after 5 has less and less value. It's not true that a team that relies on the long ball is either feast or famine. The actual effect on runs/game differences from day to day is quite small.

 

When the Brewers are hitting HRs, they are really fun to watch. When they aren't it's ugly. If the Brewers offense was rated on "fun to watch", they would easily be below average. With respect to winning games (runs/game), they are a bit above average.

 

Now, I expected more from the Brewers offense this year, so I would certainly call them disappointing. I wouldn't call them below average, however.

[TeeJayh1980]

so does Bernie

 

http://i2.ebayimg.com/05/i/001/00/e9/2488_1.JPG