Why did our offense suck?

[TJseven7]

Been a burning question for me for while. Reason being:

 

Brewers scored 4.51 runs per game.

Az texas boston mia averaged 4.9 runs per game.

 

Pertinent numbers:

254/329/774....220....2457

244/320/750....237....2334

258/329/736....168....2305

267/331/761....194....2412

 

Multiple ways to skin a cat... from boston mias average obp to texas hrs.

 

Average:

255/327/755....205.....2377

Mke

249/322/751....224.....2346

 

That doesn't seem to be a big enough difference to impact scoring by .39 runs per game.

 

So why? More importantly, have we fixed it?

[reillymcshane]

2B and CF.

 

Cain will be a huge upgrade. 2B is another story. Team is hoping for Villar to rebound.

[TJseven7]

2B and CF.

 

Cain will be a huge upgrade. 2B is another story. Team is hoping for Villar to rebound.

 

Lol well of course but statistically we underperformed our expected run production as well. That's the question I'm asking.

 

Its not just that Cains an upgrade... its that numbers would point to our team being similar to teams that outscored us by .39 runs per game... as is.

[FVBrewerFan]

Two things come to mind.

 

1) Brewers were 26th in RISP

 

2) Players on the bases a lot were, well, slow. Shaw, Santana, Pina, Thames, Aguilar, even Braun.

 

What do you do? The RISP often changes year to year on its own. But Yelich and Cain will help with both.

[brewer1]

I know some people say strike outs don't matter but take a look at those statistics too. Average team strikeouts for those teams was 1364. AZ 1456, Tex 1493, Box 1224, Mia 1282. Milwaukee had 1571 strikeouts...that is an average of 200+ more than those other teams. No opportunity to move runners along. No driving in runners from 3rd with less than two outs. Some strikeouts are okay but that many more takes its toll.

And yes I think with Yelish and Cain in the lineup that it has been addressed somewhat.

[TJseven7]

I know some people say strike outs don't matter but take a look at those statistics too. Average team strikeouts for those teams was 1364. AZ 1456, Tex 1493, Box 1224, Mia 1282. Milwaukee had 1571 strikeouts...that is an average of 200+ more than those other teams. No opportunity to move runners along. No driving in runners from 3rd with less than two outs. Some strikeouts are okay but that many more takes its toll.

And yes I think with Yelish and Cain in the lineup that it has been addressed somewhat.

 

Probably part of it... broxton out for cain in effects that dramatically. Roughly 100 less ks.

 

Ks arent the sole answer though because texas was 13 hr better and 78 ks less and performed much better.

[reillymcshane]

2B and CF.

 

Cain will be a huge upgrade. 2B is another story. Team is hoping for Villar to rebound.

 

Lol well of course but statistically we underperformed our expected run production as well. That's the question I'm asking.

 

Its not just that Cains an upgrade... its that numbers would point to our team being similar to teams that outscored us by .39 runs per game... as is.

Yeah, that was pretty simple. So here you go with something more thoughtful (I hope).

 

1. Our base running and defense are about league average according to Fangraphs. So I'm not going to focus on those too much.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2017&month=0&season1=2017&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=&age=&filter=&players=0

 

2. The DH. Even a bad DH is massively better than a pitcher. I'm just guessing, but maybe by having the DH you end up not having that automatic out in the lineup - which causes a drag on scoring.

 

3. Strikeouts. They aren't a huge deal - but yes, they do matter - even a little. Sometimes, an out is simply an out. But a strikeout with a runner at 3B vs a ball put into play (even if just a grounder or fly ball) leads to an out and no run - while the latter has a chance to score a run.

 

4. Below average performance with runners in scoring position (as noted by an earlier poster).

 

5. More consistent performances throughout the lineup. 2B, CF, LF and SS produced less than 2.0 fWAR last year.

 

So, in this case, my guess is that the issue stems from multiple sources. It's a little bit of this, a little bit of that. Like so many things - it's not just one thing - it's many things (and I no doubt have missed some things).

 

So, we need to cut back on the strikeouts, hit better with RISP, and get more consistent performances from half the lineup. Can't do much about the DH.

 

Have we done enough to address those things? I'll say we've done something - is it enough is another question.

 

Yelich and Cain are huge upgrades. They address lower strikeouts, better base running, etc. Arcia is entering his second full season - so there is hope he'll get better. 2B is probably the biggest question mark. I just don't know what to expect from someone like Villar.

 

So, in the end, I think we've taken steps towards a better offense - but how big of steps we have taken will remain to be seen.

[TJseven7]

Isn't batting average with risp considered a false stat... as in clutch is not statistically viable? I get that high Ks could prevent the movement of runners though.

 

Odd part of it... maybe a sample size anomoly...but I saw the numbers and immediately thought it was villar in the lead off spot. Then checked that he slashed 247/301/696 in that spot. Was sure it was him. Then saw sogard hit 263/367/707 in the leadoff hole so I checked.

 

71 leadoff starts villar 50 for sogard

Team scoring by leadoff hitter

Villar 71...5.2 runs

Sogard 50...4.3 runs

Thames 16...3 runs

Perez 8... 4.6 runs

Broxton 7... 4.6 runs

Santana 7....2.4 runs

Brinson 2... 4.5 runs

Franklin 1.... 4 runs

 

So as much as I want to say Villar leading off was the issue that didn't hold up.

[FVBrewerFan]

Isn't batting average with risp considered a false stat... as in clutch is not statistically viable? I get that high Ks could prevent the movement of runners though.

 

No stat is false, it's how they're used. You asked why they didn't score more runs, and avg with RISP was a huge reason why.

[TJseven7]

Isn't batting average with risp considered a false stat... as in clutch is not statistically viable? I get that high Ks could prevent the movement of runners though.

 

No stat is false, it's how they're used. You asked why they didn't score more runs, and avg with RISP was a huge reason why.

 

But its deemed an anomoly.

[Fear The Chorizo]

It's not an anomoly when you look at it from the perspective of an entire team and are looking for reasons why the Brewers didn't score as many runs as other teams.

 

Also, Milwaukee was dead last across MLB in both sac flies and batted fly balls in general - couple that with leading the majors in K's while two of the best MLB offenses (Houston and Cleveland) had the lowest K #'s, and it's not too difficult to see why the Brewers struggled to score runs - IIRC, they were ok during the 1st half of 2017 offensively, but then fell off a cliff and ranked among the bottom of the league in many offensive categories the final 3 months of the season. Go back through the game threads to see how many times the Brewers had opportunities to either add tack on runs or blow a game wide open, only to repeatedly squander those chances. Their situational hitting as a team was dreadful, but during the 2nd half of the season the game situation didn't matter - it was dreadful across the board.

[FVBrewerFan]

Isn't batting average with risp considered a false stat... as in clutch is not statistically viable? I get that high Ks could prevent the movement of runners though.

 

No stat is false, it's how they're used. You asked why they didn't score more runs, and avg with RISP was a huge reason why.

 

But its deemed an anomoly.

 

You are late for work on April 3rd due to snow storm. You tell your boss it's an anomaly. That doesn't change two things: 1) You were late 2) It was due to the snow.

[coolhandluke121]

I usually would dismiss exceptionally poor hitting with RISP as a random statistical aberration, but the Brewers had many characteristics of a team that systematically under-performs in those situations.

 

1. I don't believe in "clutch" hitting but I do believe in "anti-clutch" hitting because there's an observable explanation - nervousness. There were a whole lot of guys on the team who desperately wanted/needed to prove themselves, and that can lead them to press in those situations.

2. Statistically, most batters get more aggressive with runners in scoring position. That's not a bad thing. Ground balls and fly balls can score runs in those situations. But if you have holes in your swing, as many Brewers did, you're going to get an awful lot of k's by being more aggressive.

3. This is a bit of a reach, but opposing teams were probably aware of the Brewers' tendencies and willingly gave them more pitches to hit (especially guys like Thames, who had a ton of solo homers) without RISP, knowing that if guys got on base, they could dance around batters more and get the strikeouts you so desperately need when opponents have RISP.

4. Base-running/steals - #1 in the NL. They got a lot of RISP without really having the plate skills to support their "expected" run totals.

 

Bottom line: they were 10th in the NL in runs, OBP, and OPS. They were #1 in steals (but worst in caught stealing) and #1 in strikeouts. I don't think they really "under-achieved" just because they didn't score more. I am looking forward to dramatic improvements on offense this year, even though I think the pitching will regress.

[jerichoholicninja]

Overall slash:

.249/.322/.429

 

RISP slash:

.239/.326/.403

 

Men on:

.256/.332/.437

 

Bases empty:

.245/.315/.424

 

Before I looked at the number I assumed the RISP slash would be terrible compared to the overall, but it was pretty similar other than the 20 point slugging drop. They actually hit better with men on than overall and with bases empty they hit pretty much the same as overall.

 

The problem is mostly second half related. They averaged 4.9 r/g in the first half and 3.9 r/g in the second. Team OPS was also 60 points lower in the second half which was mostly slugging related with a 50 point drop. OBP wasn't that much lower. To me, the fact that the OPS drop was almost completely because of a SLUG drop it seems the hitters tired out. Probably because most of them haven't played a 162 game season before. If it was because of pressing I would have expected the AVG and OBP to drop much more than they did.

[coolhandluke121]

 

The problem is mostly second half related. They averaged 4.9 r/g in the first half and 3.9 r/g in the second. Team OPS was also 60 points lower in the second half which was mostly slugging related with a 50 point drop. OBP wasn't that much lower. To me, the fact that the OPS drop was almost completely because of a SLUG drop it seems the hitters tired out. Probably because most of them haven't played a 162 game season before. If it was because of pressing I would have expected the AVG and OBP to drop much more than they did.

 

It was my general impression that the offense started to tank as it became clear they were a contender in the central. That's when the pressure started. I look at a guy like Thames as the poster child for this. You may be right about fatigue. However, we shouldn't have seen these problems steamroll out of control right after the break if it was just that. It's probably impossible to find the right stats to support this notion, but it was my general impression.

 

It's also true that their RISP hitting was not significantly worse for the whole season, but the way the offense bombed just when people started taking them seriously is hard to ignore.

 

ETA: Again, there's no such thing as clutch hitting because the concept lacks sufficient theoretical/logical background to explain it, other than ordinary statistical fluctuation. However, there is such a thing as anti-clutch hitting, because there are observable explanatory variables like nervousness to explain it. The only explanation for clutch hitting is the absence of nervousness, but that doesn't make you any better in the clutch than in any other situation. There is such a thing as choking, and the Brewers offense did it in spectacular fashion after the ASB last year.

[brewmann04]

Eric Thames hit 31 Bombs and only 63 RBI that is very weird stat.

[coolhandluke121]

Eric Thames hit 31 Bombs and only 63 RBI that is very weird stat.

 

He also asked for mental days off and all but admitted that the pressure of his early success had gotten to him and contributed to prolonged slumps. He bounced back when they fell way behind in the playoff chase and the pressure was off. I like the guy, but that's something to watch going forward.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Eric Thames hit 31 Bombs and only 63 RBI that is very weird stat.

 

He also asked for mental days off and all but admitted that the pressure of his early success had gotten to him and contributed to prolonged slumps. He bounced back when they fell way behind in the playoff chase and the pressure was off. I like the guy, but that's something to watch going forward.

 

He was also miscast as a leadoff hitter for a chunk of the year, simply because the team had no better option. Having a couple table-setters like Cain and Yelich at the top of the lineup could make an enormous difference. If Villar bounces back, he and Arcia could be table setters at the bottom of the lineup. There was just too many holes in the lineup last year, which led to a ton of solo homers.

[istanbultaye]

Thames only led off the game in 16 games last year. Not sure that was as big a chunk as it might be made out to be. Granted, he did not do very well in those 16 PA, but that's a really small sample, and his leading off an inning line was pretty good, .257/.310/.543 in 113 PA. (not sure if leading off game is also included in leading off inning, I would imagine it is).

[DougJonesChangeUp]

I usually would dismiss exceptionally poor hitting with RISP as a random statistical aberration, but the Brewers had many characteristics of a team that systematically under-performs in those situations.

 

1. I don't believe in "clutch" hitting but I do believe in "anti-clutch" hitting because there's an observable explanation - nervousness. There were a whole lot of guys on the team who desperately wanted/needed to prove themselves, and that can lead them to press in those situations.

 

There is also adrenaline, levels of confidence, concentration, etc. I think "clutchness" or whatever word you want to use, can exist. "In the zone" is a phenomenon many basketball players claim is real whereby performance is elevated.

[wildcat83]

Thames only led off 16 times, but he also hit second a bunch... and mostly with Villar's mendoza line OBP in front of him. If he would have hit 4/5 in the order I think the RBI totals would have risen a bit. Baserunning also factors in for me. Not just how many outs or where we ranked league wide, but where and when the outs were made.

[FVBrewerFan]

Brewers were 15th in OPS last season, 26th in OPS W/ RISP.

 

That stat is not false, it happened.

[coolhandluke121]

I usually would dismiss exceptionally poor hitting with RISP as a random statistical aberration, but the Brewers had many characteristics of a team that systematically under-performs in those situations.

 

1. I don't believe in "clutch" hitting but I do believe in "anti-clutch" hitting because there's an observable explanation - nervousness. There were a whole lot of guys on the team who desperately wanted/needed to prove themselves, and that can lead them to press in those situations.

 

There is also adrenaline, levels of confidence, concentration, etc. I think "clutchness" or whatever word you want to use, can exist. "In the zone" is a phenomenon many basketball players claim is real whereby performance is elevated.

 

It's possible, but I think the fact that some players simply aren't as nervous as others in critical situations is a much simpler explanation. Being nervous is observable if you watch closely, and there are measurable physiological differences. Being money in the clutch lacks that. As for confidence and concentration, the same thing that makes you great in the clutch should make you great in other situations.

 

Also, the guys who get credit for being clutch aren't the same from year to year. They've studied this quite a bit. There's not really such a thing as a clutch hitter. The guys you want in those situations are just great hitters who stay cool, but there appears to be nothing special about the situation that brings out the best in them. There are other things, like being more aggressive with RISP, but that's not clutch - that's just good strategy, because fly balls and ground balls often advance runners in those situations. Again, you just have to be a good hitter to execute, which "clutch" guys are in the 2nd inning or the 9th.

 

As for being in the zone, I don't think that has anything to do with "clutch" situations. It's just from being really good and putting in tons of practice hours, and it's no more likely in the clutch than in any other situation.

 

It's possible there is such a thing, but at this point there's basically no statistical evidence supporting it, and limited theoretical/logical explanations at best.

[tmwiese55]

Brewers were 15th in OPS last season, 26th in OPS W/ RISP.

 

That stat is not false, it happened.

 

this pretty much sums it up. Specific it down a bit: Thames being blah after April, 2B and CF poor all year, Braun hurt at the beginning and end along with really unlucky the middle part of the year, Shaw tailing off at the end. Put those all together and you have what happened the second half of the year

[FVBrewerFan]

I usually would dismiss exceptionally poor hitting with RISP as a random statistical aberration, but the Brewers had many characteristics of a team that systematically under-performs in those situations.

 

1. I don't believe in "clutch" hitting but I do believe in "anti-clutch" hitting because there's an observable explanation - nervousness. There were a whole lot of guys on the team who desperately wanted/needed to prove themselves, and that can lead them to press in those situations.

 

There is also adrenaline, levels of confidence, concentration, etc. I think "clutchness" or whatever word you want to use, can exist. "In the zone" is a phenomenon many basketball players claim is real whereby performance is elevated.

 

It's possible, but I think the fact that some players simply aren't as nervous as others in critical situations is a much simpler explanation. Being nervous is observable if you watch closely, and there are measurable physiological differences. Being money in the clutch lacks that. As for confidence and concentration, the same thing that makes you great in the clutch should make you great in other situations.

 

Also, the guys who get credit for being clutch aren't the same from year to year. They've studied this quite a bit. There's not really such a thing as a clutch hitter. The guys you want in those situations are just great hitters who stay cool, but there appears to be nothing special about the situation that brings out the best in them. There are other things, like being more aggressive with RISP, but that's not clutch - that's just good strategy, because fly balls and ground balls often advance runners in those situations. Again, you just have to be a good hitter to execute, which "clutch" guys are in the 2nd inning or the 9th.

 

As for being in the zone, I don't think that has anything to do with "clutch" situations. It's just from being really good and putting in tons of practice hours, and it's no more likely in the clutch than in any other situation.

 

It's possible there is such a thing, but at this point there's basically no statistical evidence supporting it, and limited theoretical/logical explanations at best.

 

But there is statistical evidence, I just posted it earlier. Is it due to nerves, changing your approach at the plate, etc.? Or is it just random? I agree THAT part of it can never be proven one way or the other.