Brewers with the bases loaded

[TheRealMattKain]

Prince's bases loaded single last night made me wonder if the Brewers really have been struggling with the bases loaded or if it's just a matter of fan bias. It also seems that there have been a surprising number of grandslams this year throughout MLB. With the help of baseball-reference, I found the splits comparing the Brewers to all of MLB:

Brewers with bases loaded in 2009:
BA: .222
OBP: .190
SLG: .278
OPS: .468
OPS+ 10
21 Plate Appearances, 0 HR, 0BB

All of MLB with bases loaded in 2009 (these numbers would be even higher if we took the Brewer stats out):
BA: .299
OBP: .342
SLG: .512
OPS: .853
691 Plate Appearances, 26 HR, 57 BB

Yeah, it's early, the sample is small, and things will surely balance out as the year progresses, but for now it's pretty comical how futile the Crew has been with the bases loaded in the first month of the season.

 

[phxMILWfan]

I hate to post on here with out the stats to back up what I'm saying but I don't have the time to find it. On the Pirates broadcast last night they showed that Milwaukee is 2nd behind the Braves in the NL for hitting with runners in scoring position. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I swear I saw that.

[sgtcluels]

Pujols 3.750 and 1.000 BA with bases loaded sure isn't going to help that sample look any better. I think a more relevant study would be to compare years past, to current years to see if all of baseball is lucky, or if Brewers are just batting below average when the bases are clogged.

[Ennder]

We also have an .939 OPS with 2 outs and RISP and an .845 OPS in high leverage situations. So while the bases loaded thing is kind of neat I don't put too much stock into it.

 

For what it is worth we were miserable with bases loaded last year too with an .563 OPS but in 07 we had an .895 so I guess we used up all our luck that year.

[trwi7]

I hate to post on here with out the stats to back up what I'm saying but I don't have the time to find it. On the Pirates broadcast last night they showed that Milwaukee is 2nd behind the Braves in the NL for hitting with runners in scoring position. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I swear I saw that.

We have a .781 OPS with RISP this year. Tied for 13th in the majors.

 

Other sortable stats here.

[Ennder]

2 more outs with bases loaded tonight!

[SeriesFinale]

To be fair, our batters didn't get to face our pitching staff early in the year when they were walking in some of those runs left and right

[rluzinski]

The Brewers have been terrible with the base loaded so far this year. That's descriptive but not predictive.

[phxMILWfan]

Thanks for the link trwi7. The Brewers are currently 4th in the league with an OPS of .921 with runners in scoring position and 2 outs. Strangely though, 29th in the league with an OPS .424 with the bases loaded. It will be interesting to see how the stats look further into the season when the sample size is larger.

[rluzinski]

Brewers with the Bases Loaded: .333/.333/.545/.879

 

Scoring Position w/2 Out: .271/.390/.489/.879

 

All these kind of small sample splits tell you is where the hits randomly fell for a particular criteria over a particular time. They'll fluctuate widely, month by month. It's the same for monthly splits for a batter. White noise.

[Dragonbait]

Doing a month by month line would definately be interesting.

[Diskono]

It makes sense that most teams should do well with runners in scoring position and the bases loaded. Bases generally don't become loaded against quality pitching.

[bjkrautk]

I think we're all overlooking the obvious:

 

Craig Counsell only has 1 AB with the bases loaded this year.

[TheRealMattKain]

Brewers with the Bases Loaded: .333/.333/.545/.879

 

Scoring Position w/2 Out: .271/.390/.489/.879

 

All these kind of small sample splits tell you is where the hits randomly fell for a particular criteria over a particular time. They'll fluctuate widely, month by month. It's the same for monthly splits for a batter. White noise.

Absolutely. I was by no means implying that this is something that we should be worried about, but rather, as you mentioned earlier, a very descriptive (not predictive) set of numbers detailing how we performed with the bases loaded in April - terrible.

 

It makes sense that most teams should do well with runners in scoring position and the bases loaded. Bases generally don't become loaded against quality pitching.

That's an interesting thought. Here's what the numbers look like for each possible bases occupied scenario over the past 5 years. Each row represents a bases occupied scenario (--3 is runner on third, 12- is runnners on first and second, --- is no one on base, etc) followed by the league average OPS for that scenario. "All" is the league average OPS for that season.:

 

2008

All .749

--- .733

1-- .770

-2- .766

--3 .787

12- .736

1-3 .772

-23 .862

123 .763 (OPS is .014 above average with bases loaded)

2007

All .758

--- .741

1-- .778

-2- .784

--3 .807

12- .724

1-3 .800

-23 .886

123 .786 (OPS is .028 above average with bases loaded)

 

2006

All .768

--- .753

1-- .796

-2- .790

--3 .786

12- .736

1-3 .809

-23 .837

123 .796 (OPS is .028 above average with bases loaded)

2005

All .749

--- .730

1-- .778

-2- .764

--3 .828

12- .731

1-3 .795

-23 .845

123 .751 (OPS is .002 above average with bases loaded)

2004

All .763

--- .751

1-- .778

-2- .761

--3 .834

12- .742

1-3 .796

-23 .865

123 .757 (OPS is .006 below average with bases loaded)

 

Hmmm... in 2008, 2007, and 2006 the OPS with the bases loaded sits comfortably above average. In 2005 it's just about average. In 2004 it's a little below average. There might be a correlation between bases loaded and OPS, but I'm not sure that we can attribute it to bad pitchers loading the bases more often. And, in fact, the correlation seems to get thrown off in 2005 and 2004. In general, pitchers across the board do worse with runners on base (often attributed to pitching from the stretch among other things). If you look at the numbers, pitchers appear to do a little better with the bases loaded than with other bases occupied. It could be argued that managers are more likely to bring in a relief specialist or bullpen stud with the bases loaded, hence complicating your argument (a bad pitcher might load the bases, but a good pitcher might do the actual pitching with the bases loaded). Another interesting point is that in 4 of the 5 seasons hitters do better with a runner on first than with the bases loaded. Even the best pitchers average this scenario (runner on first) several times a game. If your theory was correct, wouldn't the many cases where good or great pitchers have a runner on first bring this OPS average down? Anyway, we would need to run some more years to make any real conclusions (maybe a 30 year window?), but I'm too lazy to do so.

 

[logan82]

2008, 2007, and 2006 the OPS with the bases loaded sits comfortably above average. In 2005 it's just about average. In 2004 it's a little below average.

 

Maybe something to do with our team as a whole improving on offense maybe?

[endaround]

A huge issue is that having 1B occupied helps the hitter a lot because the firstbaseman has to hold the runner which is why you see a dropoff from 1B only to 1 and 2B or just 2B

[areacodes]

2008, 2007, and 2006 the OPS with the bases loaded sits comfortably above average. In 2005 it's just about average. In 2004 it's a little below average.

 

Maybe something to do with our team as a whole improving on offense maybe?

Aren't those numbers the league OPS with the bases loaded?

[logan82]

Yup it is. I misremembered his post.

[TheRealMattKain]

2008, 2007, and 2006 the OPS with the bases loaded sits comfortably above average. In 2005 it's just about average. In 2004 it's a little below average.

 

Maybe something to do with our team as a whole improving on offense maybe?

Oops. Sorry, I should have made it more clear. Those numbers are for the entire of baseball (both NL and AL).

[TheRealMattKain]

A huge issue is that having 1B occupied helps the hitter a lot because the firstbaseman has to hold the runner which is why you see a dropoff from 1B only to 1 and 2B or just 2B

Aha. I thought it was odd that the numbers show that hitters do better with only a runner on 1st than with only a runner on 2nd. I would have thought that having a runner on 1st would create more force out opportunities for the defense than having a runner on 2nd, hence lowering the batter's OPS (more inning ending force outs, more cases where a fielder's choice rather than a hit is awarded). Your thought, however, is more in tune with the numbers.

[logan82]

Oops. Sorry, I should have made it more clear. Those numbers are for the entire of baseball (both NL and AL).

 

No, the mistake was mine. I didn't read your post as thoroughly as I should have. I thought we were still on comparing our OPS with bases loaded to the rest of MLB.

[rluzinski]

"The Book" looked at the advantage a batter enjoys when a runner is at first. Batters have a pretty big advantage with less than 2 out (defenders playing at dp depth or playing for the bunt?) and lefties have a much larger advantage than righties.

 

And if we had a retrosheet/ database master among us, he could easily tell us the average skill level of a pitcher with the bases loaded is higher or lower than average. I'd guess it's., average but perhaps not.