Brewers 14-21 since June 1st

[monty57]

Topper, I look at it this way: in defined situations, situational statistics are better than aggregate statistics. Most SABR studies are based on aggregates. Since every situation is different, statisticians will say that there is not enough of a sample to determine whether it's true or simply "statistical noise," so therefore they will revert back to the aggregate.

 

I believe everything has a value and a price. The value of one run in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth is far, far greater than the value of one run in the top of the first inning. The price of moving the run over is one out, which also has value. Again, aggregate stats are thrown out, showing that a runner at second could be worth more than one run, which, in this situation, is a statistical impossibility, but that doesn't matter, because we're only using aggregates. Therefore, since a runner at second could score 1.1 run, when only one run is needed, the SABR-minded will state that it is always wrong if the chance to score from third is less than one run.

 

I'm simple, I'd just like to know in this situation, "what is the chance of one run scoring, considering who is on base and who is up/due up?" However, since that particular runner being on base with those particular batters in this particular situation, will only occur a few times in history, it will be dubbed a statistical insignificance, and everyone will revert to aggregates. In my opinion, what should be looked at in this situation is "what will help me win this game." The situation will undoubtedly change tomorrow, and if a runner hits a single in the first inning, all things will be different.

 

I don't follow this nearly as much as most of you, but I'd like to see SABR studies venture in corralatory statistics, which I believe would do for SABR studies what econometrics did for economics.

[topper09er]

I guess against a teams best relief ace some of you think its more likely that at least 1 of 2 players will get a hit and I think its more likely (and easier) that one player can groundout to the 2nd baseman and the next player can flyout. Obviously they will both fail some of the time but I think in general if you need a run and can get it whithout requiring a hit, and usually when you need a run you are facing a good pitcher, it is the better option than relying on hit or walks.

 

Also, topper, it seems to me you're overrating how easy it is to "hit a grounder to the right side" or "just hit a flyball". You're forgetting that the pitcher also knows when the hitter would like to hit the ball to the right side to move a runner up and can pound the inside corner to a righty. Or when a player can hit a sac fly to win the game, you know the pitcher is going to throw low in the zone with some sink.

 

It seems to me you're overrating how easy it is to "get a hit". You're forgetting that the pitcher also knows when the hitter would like to get a hit and can throw his best pitches to get you out.

[TooLiveBrew]

The lineup has 2 stars and a collection of some of the streakiest hitters in the game.

 

Instead of making a vague claim, can you actually provide proof that the remaining Brewers you mean here actually are among the streakiest players in MLB? Fans tend to claim that just about every player that isn't hitting at the moment is 'as streaky as it gets'. The boring reality is that basically every player is streaky.

[topper09er]

The lineup has 2 stars and a collection of some of the streakiest hitters in the game.

 

Instead of making a vague claim, can you actually provide proof that the remaining Brewers you mean here actually are among the streakiest players in MLB? Fans tend to claim that just about every player that isn't hitting at the moment is 'as streaky as it gets'. The boring reality is that basically every player is streaky.

Yeah, maybe after just watching the dodgers you are mad that we arent that deep 1-8, but most teams rely on a few sluggers and take what they can get from the rest of the lineup.

[Marc Newfield of Dreams]

If you're gonna rely on two sluggers, you darn well better have some guys who can get on base in front of them. So far the Brewers haven't had that very often.

[BuckyBrewer61]

Runner on 3B, 1 out: 0.969 runs

 

Runner on 2B, 0 out: 1.150 runs

When I see stats like this I wonder if they might be misleading. I'm generally a fan of the notion that giving up outs is not a good idea, but in certain situations it can be called for. So when a stat like this is raised, you have to remember what it means. These are the averages for these given situations. It may well be the case (and I'd be interested for a stat guy to tell me what the case actually is, because I don't know), that with a runner on 2B and 0 outs that a team is more likely to score 2 or more runs, while with a man on 3B and 1 out, a team may be more likely to score at least one run though probably less likely to score more. In that case, I'd hate bunting in the first inning, but would be all for it in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

[Eddiehitsthefoulpole]

Who knew that Bill Virdon would be such a trend-setter? Moneyball baseball strategy is essentially what Bill Virdon did in his multitude of managerial stops.

[topper09er]

If you're gonna rely on two sluggers, you darn well better have some guys who can get on base in front of them. So far the Brewers haven't had that very often.

Again, as said before dont just make claims based on your gut reaction, look at the numbers. This year, listed below are the 3 hitters for the NL and the number of baserunners on when they came to bat:

 

PHIL: Utley, 219

NYM: Wright, 263

ATL: Jones, 177

FLA: Ramirez, 210

WASH: ZImmerman, 276 (wow)

 

MIL: Braun, 255

STL: Pujols, 253

CHC: Lee, 224 (he has 4th a lot too, the Cubs have not had a very regular 3rd hitter)

HOU: Berkmann, 230

CIN: Votto was hurt too much to use his numbers

PIT: McClouth hit 3rd until he was traded

 

LAD: Not fair due to Rameriz being suspended

SF: No consistane #3 hitter

SD: Gonzalez, 238 (has hit 4 a lot as well)

COL: Helton, 207

ARZ: Upton, 222 (spent the first month hitting lower in the order, 7 or 8 a lot)

 

So, out of the regular 3 hitters in the NL Ryan Braun has come to bat with more runners on than anyone else in the entire league except for Ryan Zimmerman and David Wright.

[logan82]

DocBucky wrote:

When I see stats like this I wonder if they might be misleading. I'm generally a fan of the notion that giving up outs is not a good idea, but in certain situations it can be called for. So when a stat like this is raised, you have to remember what it means. These are the averages for these given situations. It may well be the case (and I'd be interested for a stat guy to tell me what the case actually is, because I don't know), that with a runner on 2B and 0 outs that a team is more likely to score 2 or more runs, while with a man on 3B and 1 out, a team may be more likely to score at least one run though probably less likely to score more. In that case, I'd hate bunting in the first inning, but would be all for it in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game.

Do you mean something like this? Link

The following table presents the rate of the number of runs that scored, from that base/out state, to the end of that inning. All data is from 1999-2002.

Note: All partial innings are excluded. All home innings in the 9th or later are excluded.

Base	Outs	Runs
		0	1	2	3	4	5+
Empty	0	0.707	0.154	0.074	0.035	0.016	0.013
Empty	1	0.827	0.101	0.042	0.017	0.007	0.005
Empty	2	0.923	0.051	0.017	0.005	0.002	0.001
1st	0	0.563	0.176	0.132	0.067	0.034	0.028
1st	1	0.717	0.123	0.091	0.04	0.017	0.013
1st	2	0.864	0.062	0.049	0.016	0.006	0.003
2nd	0	0.368	0.348	0.142	0.076	0.035	0.03
2nd	1	0.594	0.23	0.098	0.045	0.018	0.014
2nd	2	0.777	0.147	0.049	0.017	0.006	0.003
3rd	0	0.136	0.542	0.164	0.09	0.035	0.033
3rd	1	0.338	0.478	0.106	0.045	0.018	0.014
3rd	2	0.737	0.187	0.05	0.017	0.006	0.004
1st_2nd	0	0.359	0.219	0.165	0.127	0.07	0.059
1st_2nd	1	0.574	0.161	0.11	0.088	0.038	0.028
1st_2nd	2	0.769	0.106	0.058	0.044	0.015	0.008
1st_3rd	0	0.124	0.417	0.174	0.142	0.076	0.067
1st_3rd	1	0.345	0.37	0.119	0.092	0.042	0.031
1st_3rd	2	0.715	0.151	0.061	0.049	0.016	0.008
2nd_3rd	0	0.144	0.249	0.307	0.147	0.079	0.074
2nd_3rd	1	0.305	0.285	0.218	0.101	0.053	0.038
2nd_3rd	2	0.724	0.054	0.141	0.049	0.021	0.011
Loaded	0	0.128	0.255	0.211	0.143	0.134	0.13
Loaded	1	0.33	0.252	0.151	0.106	0.093	0.068
Loaded	2	0.675	0.092	0.105	0.055	0.048	0.025

[monty57]

That's pretty much how I see it as well, DocBucky. In some cases, you want to do what is most likely to get you one run, which would seem to be "runner on 3B, 1 out." If someone has access to all of the pertinent data, it should be easy to determine in what percentage of cases with a runner on 2nd, 0 out does at least one run score vs. in what percentage of cases with a runner on third with 1 out does at least one run score.

 

However, it also matters who is up at the plate, Albert Pujols or Jason Kendall. It also matters who is pitching, Derrick Turnbow or Mariano Rivera. That's where I'm saying that in many situations, situational statistics are more valueable than aggregate stats. Managers (or arm chair managers) who simply "play the odds" aren't really playing the odds if all factors haven't been considered. It's funny, because SABR studies came about to de-bunk myths about the game, and a lot of really good strides have been made. However, followers of SABR studies seem to have created some myths of their own. Those myths are seen as absolute truths until someone else comes around and proves it wrong.

 

I'm all for doing what it takes to make the likelihood of success as great as possible. If I'm building a team, I look for aggregate stats. I don't really care what Player X did in the three times he was in a certain situation last year. However, if I'm in a certain situation, aggregate stats can become less meaningful. Very few things are absolute. When dealing with evaluating people (as opposed to machines or cards) there really become no absolutes, only probabilities with more or less variance. All of these probabilities need to interact (or correlate) to achieve an end result. It's not likely a set of numbers like:

 

Runner on 3B, 1 out: 0.969 runs

 

Runner on 2B, 0 out: 1.150 runs

 

is going to take in all of the variables in the particular situation a particular manager is going to be in on any given day. Can they help when forming a decision? Yes. Should they be the one deciding factor used to determine all decisions? Probably not.

[benji]

That table is great logan. Just to make sure I understand it, to score 1 run, a runner on third with one out scores 47.8% while a runner on second no out scores 34.8% of the time. Or is that you have to add the situations where a runner on second with no outs will score 71.8% of the time and a runner on third with one out will score 66.5% of the time? (For one run.)

[topper09er]

I can't understand how a runner at 2nd with no outs is less likely to score than a runner at 3rd with one out.

What is so hard to understand, it is more difficult to get a hit than flyout or groundout. With a runner on 2nd 0 out, you try 3 times to get a hit and fail more often than with a runner on 3rd 1out and you have one chance for a non-hit run plus still 1 more chacne for a run scoring hit. The 1 chance for a non-hit run is more likely to score than 2 chance to score using a hit.

 

Base Outs % of times scoring 1 Run

2 0 .348

3 1 .478

[monty57]

Logan, if I look at that table properly, the chance of scoring 0 runs with a runner on 2nd with 0 outs is 36.8%, while the chance of scoring 0 runs with a runner on 3rd with 1 out is 33.8%. Therefore, if you are trying to score more than 0 runs, you have a 66.2% chance with a runner on 3rd with 1 out, and only a 63.2% chance with a runner on 2nd with no outs. Now, I'm sure this second number includes all of the times a runner successfully moved from 2nd to 3rd on a sacrifice bunt/grounder to right side/fly out to RF, so the numbers are actually skewed in favor of "runner on 2nd with no outs," and still it is more likely to score a run with "runner on 3rd with 1 out."

 

Using only aggregate stats, that seems like it's really dumb not to bunt someone over to third with no outs and a runner on 2nd when you are in a situation that it is important to score one run. Again, this is not every situation. I'm only looking at "bottom of the ninth in a tie ballgame" type situations, and it looks like in that case the correct move is to move the runner to third.

 

Of course, as I've said several times, situations change. The chance to score with a good hitter at the plate should be greater than the chance to score with a poor hitter at the plate. Personally, I would never sacrifice bunt with Albert Pujols, Ryan Braun, etc., but for those who want to stick absolutely to the numbers, it looks like the move should be to bunt.

[BuckyBrewer61]

That table is great logan. Just to make sure I understand it, to score 1 run, a runner on third with one out scores 47.8% while a runner on second no out scores 34.8% of the time. Or is that you have to add the situations where a runner on second with no outs will score 71.8% of the time and a runner on third with one out will score 66.5% of the time? (For one run.)

Your 2nd assumption is closer. The table is giving stats for exact situation and number of runs scored. So with exactly 1 out and a man on 3B only, exactly one run will score 47.8% of the time, while 1 or more runs will score 66.2% of the time. That said, the runs doesn't have to necessarily scored by the original runner on base. For instance, the man could be picked off 2nd, then the batter hit a home run before the end of the inning, thus scoring 1 run, but not scoring that particular baserunner.

 

In the end, my assumption appears correct (thanks for the stats logan), that you are more likely to score more runs by not bunting/"giving away outs" (given our specific scenario of 2B/0 out vs. 3B/1 out), but you increase your probability of scoring at least one run by giving up an out to advance a runner. Of course, this doesn't factor in the success rate of bunting itself, but I stand by my opinion that giving up outs to advance baserunners, while usually not the best strategy, does have an appropriate time and place.

[Ennder]

The situation more people have a problem with is bunting the runner to 2nd with no outs. If you have someone that is capable of bunting I don't have a big issue with bunting them to 3rd unless a complete hack is up to bat next. Generally speaking giving up an out to put a runner on 2nd is a bad move, there obviously are situations where it works like with the pitcher batting or a really good bunter etc.

[topper09er]

Another interesting stat, you were more likely to score 1 run with 1 out runners on 2nd and 3rd than 0 outs runners on 1st and 2nd, and you had the same chacne of scoring 2 runs with 1 out 2nd, 3rd as you were of scoring 1 run with 0 outs 1st, 2nd. To me that would say the proper play is to bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd 0 outs in every situation.

[endaround]

Another interesting stat, you were more likely to score 1 run with 1 out runners on 2nd and 3rd than 0 outs runners on 1st and 2nd, and you had the same chacne of scoring 2 runs with 1 out 2nd, 3rd as you were of scoring 1 run with 0 outs 1st, 2nd. To me that would say the proper play is to bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd 0 outs in every situation.

That is assuming a succesful bunt. Bunting is succesful only about 75% of the time, less when bunting a guy to 3B.

[logan82]

Giving this a bump because I came across a fun toy when looking through my bookmarks today. Link

 

It is probably more useful than the basic chart I posted on the last page because it calculates win probabilities added or lost between situations.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Another interesting stat, you were more likely to score 1 run with 1 out runners on 2nd and 3rd than 0 outs runners on 1st and 2nd, and you had the same chacne of scoring 2 runs with 1 out 2nd, 3rd as you were of scoring 1 run with 0 outs 1st, 2nd. To me that would say the proper play is to bunt with runners on 1st and 2nd 0 outs in every situation.

That is assuming a succesful bunt. Bunting is succesful only about 75% of the time, less when bunting a guy to 3B.

You need to look at how successful the bunter is since all bunters are not created equally. Bunting coach needed?

[jeffy]

So how did "Brewers 14-21 since June 1st" turn into a bunting debate? Surely no one thinks bunting or a lack of it has anything to do with their poor record.

 

By my count, they are now 26-35 since losing Weeks and 12-19 since losing Bush.

[brewmann04]

11 games under 500 w/o weeks but think the problem like most realize goes deeper than that.

[logan82]

Teams are streaky over the course of the season. Picking any arbitrary dates is going to show a winning or losing record and may or may not mean anything. You would probably find a similar W-L record even if Weeks or Bush had not been injured. I am not saying we are better off without them, I think we are worse, just that trying to look at the record and try making any definitive link between the two is probably tells us very little. Link

[RU Rah Rah]

They haven't been very good lately, but I'm optimistic about the schedule: 14 games coming up with the Nationals and Padres (who are a combined 68-129) plus 3 at PNC. That's 17 games against last-place teams. Some more ambitious soul could break down the schedules for the Cards, Astros, and Cubs, but I doubt any of them will have it easier over the next month.

[hawing]

They haven't been very good lately, but I'm optimistic about the schedule: 14 games coming up with the Nationals and Padres (who are a combined 68-129) plus 3 at PNC. That's 17 games against last-place teams. Some more ambitious soul could break down the schedules for the Cards, Astros, and Cubs, but I doubt any of them will have it easier over the next month.

Because I already seem to have destroyed whatever mojo I might have had with the 2009 Brewers, I'll dare to point out that the Nationals have won 10 road games all year. 10.

 

That's the heck of this for me: think of the difference even a modest win streak - say 5 games - could make for the Brewers.

[Ennder]

The RS vs RA hasn't suggest such a bad record so I don't put that much weight into it. However it does suggest a losing record which isn't good for a marginal playoff team, this is not a team that can survive some 'bad luck'.