Brewers 6th in runs scored????

[RoseBowlMtg]

I know that has been out for awhile so I wanted to look at how those runs scored broke down to wins:

 

Here was the Brewers record per their runs scored:

 

0: 0-12

1: 0-14

2: 5-19

 

5-45 when scoring 2 runs or less:

 

3: 7-19

4: 13-9

5: 11-7

 

31-36 when scoring btwn 3-5 runs:

 

6: 15-5

7: 6-1

8: 8-1

9: 4-0

10: 2-1

11: 3-0

12: 4-0

13: 1-0

14: 2-0

 

45-8 when scoring 6 or more runs:

 

Let's compare that to the benchmark Cardinals:

 

2 or fewer runs: 6-28

 

6 or more runs: 58-10

 

The Cards scored 805 runs, .270 BA, 2343 TB, .423 slug

The Crew scored 726 runs, .259 BA, 2303 TB, .423 slug

 

So offensively the Brewers had the same slugging as the Cards and only 40 fewer total bases but scored 79 fewer runs. How come?

 

It seems you need to score 6 runs to have a great chance to win and the Cards did that 68 times to the Brewers 53. The Brewers winning % was .849 to the Cards .853 when scoring 6 runs or more. Thus: Score more runs and you win more. That's easy.

 

It's the 2 runs or less games:

 

Milwaukee: 5-45: .100% 50

St Louis: 6-28: .176% 34

 

There in lies 16 games you are only going to win one or two.

 

So coming in 6th in runs scored might be inflated a bit with all the 8 runs and more games. For the Brewers to get to the next level they need to get their 0-2 run games up to 3-4 runs. A far fewer leadoff doubles stranded. If they can drop their 0-2 run games by 15 next year they will be right in it imo.

 

Any thoughts?

[rluzinski]

The distribution of runs scored/game is largely a function of average runs scored per game. The Cardinals averaged 5 runs/game to the Brewers 4.5. As a result, the Brewers were destined to have more games where they would score 2 runs or less.

 

I looked at this a little more in depth a couple months ago. I found that the Brewer's offense actually scored closer to their average runs/game than many teams. The link to that thread is below:

 

Offensive Consistency Thread

[1992casey]

I'd definitely want to include pitching in this discussion. The Cards had a 3.48 ERA and .715 OPS against them. The Brewers had a 3.98 ERA and .732 OPS against them.

 

OBP should also be factored in somewhere. The difference isn't huge, but should be considered (.338 for St. Louis; .331 for Milwaukee).

[RoseBowlMtg]

The problem I have with runs scored on and average basis is that if:

 

The Brewers scored:

 

2, 2, 9, 5 = 18 runs or 4.5 runs per game.

 

That is two games most likely a loss, a game most likely a win and a game with a 50/50 chance of winning.

 

If the Brewers scored 3,3,8,4 = 4.5 runs per game.

 

Now The Brewers have a 50/50 chance of winning 3 games along with a great chance of winning one.

 

Thus with the same average runs scored you have a better chance if you can get some of those games up to 3 runs a game. That can be easily done imo with better fundamentals ala the Cards and Philly. Advancing the runner and not just risp. Score an extra run a game with better fundamentals is not too far of a stretch. If it can happen in a third of the games a 7-10 game improvement is possible imo. Oh yeah with similar pitching!

[rluzinski]

RoseBowlMtg,

 

Like I said, the Brewers were MORE consistant (closer to 4,4,5,5 than 2,2,7,7) than the average team. Check out that thread.

 

Score an extra run a game with better fundamentals is not too far of a stretch.

 

Scoring an extra run per game would jump their average run/game to 5.5. They would have the highest scoring offense by simply learning how to sacrifice better?

 

Here's Philli's and the Cards's rankings in the NL:

 RUNS BA OBP SLG Phili 2 3 1 4 Cards 3 4 4 7 

Don't think it's their bunting that's scoring the runs.

[brettac1]

It probably prevents them from reaching their offensive potential, in reality. Look at the White Sox, even though they are lousy as is, if they would have drawn more walks (something I would consider a "fundamental") and sacrificed less, not to mention get caught stealing less, they would have been less lousy offensively. They hit 200 HR as a team this year, they should have scored more than 741 runs.

[brewers4eric]

It's disturbing that we were shutout 12 times. Also, we scored 2 runs or less during more than 1/4 of our schedule.

 

Without checking historical stats, and avoiding the AL versus NL comparison, it seems like some of our better teams (circa 1978 - 1982) wouldn't get shutout more than a handful of times each year.

[RoseBowlMtg]

It's disturbing that we were shutout 12 times. Also, we scored 2 runs or less during more than 1/4 of our schedule.

 

 

brewers4eric what is even more disturbing to me is our 0-26 record when scoring less than 2 runs. 0-26 now you have to have win 81 out of 136 a 60.15% clip to reach .500 ball.

 

I bring up Philly and St.Louis just from watching them this year they had so many players doing the right thing on the bases and moving their teammates along. It is simple but not done by very many teams. It must be frustrating coaching that and not getting through to the players. Maybe it will improve.

[rluzinski]

It's disturbing that we were shutout 12 times. Also, we scored 2 runs or less during more than 1/4 of our schedule.

 

A team that averages 4.5 runs/game, like the Brewers did, should have a fairly redictable run distribution. Over the course of a 162 game season, here's what an average 4.5 runs/game team did vs. the Crew:

 Runs Average Brewers 0 10 12 1 18 15 2 21 23 3 23 20 4 22 20 5 19 18 

Like I KEEP saying, the Brewers scored about the way you would expect a 4.5 run/game team to score. They were more consistant than many other teams.

 

Look at all the teams. They all have a significant amount of games where they score 2 runs or less.

 

LINK

 

That's why it's hogwash when an announcer says, "team A is 56-21 when scoring 4 or more runs." Well no duh! If an average team scores 2 or less runs 30% of the time, and they have an aweful record doing it, of COURSE they have a good record when they score 4 or more.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Thanks for the link rlu! It may seem like the Brewer production was typical but as I see it here are the playoff teams and how many times the scored 2 or fewer runs:

 

Milw: 45

 

Ana: 30

Atl: 27

Bos: 22

Chi: 34

Hou: 44

NY: 27

SD: 46

StL: 28

 

Getting that leadoff double in was a huge problem this year and a ground ball to second and a fly ball or ground ball up the middle scores. A one run increase in 8 of the 24 2 run games would give the Brewers a much better chance to improve by 5-8 games.

 

Thanks for the great link!

[rluzinski]

It may seem like the Brewer production was typical but as I see it here are the playoff teams and how many times the scored 2 or fewer runs

 

Your numbers don't prove what you are trying to make them prove because:

 

Less "2 runs or less" = higher runs/game average

= winning more games = playoffs!

 

Of COURSE teams that score more runs went to the playoffs. As I was explaining before, run distribution is HIGHLT coorelated to average runs/game. It's that simple. I even showed you that the Brewers' run distribution almost perfectly matched up with what you would expect a 4.5 run/game team to do.

 

To use your list of playoff teams and how many games they had with 2 runs or less, let me add another column:

 RS GM Bos 910 22 NY 886 27 StL 805 28 Ana 761 30 Atl 769 27 Chi 741 34 Milw 726 45 Hou 693 44 SD 684 46 

RS = runs scored. Boston only scored 2 runs or less 22 times because they scored ALOT of runs by bashing the ball all over the park, not because they sacrificed. COMPLETELY the opposite!

 

Please, read that thread I linked to in my first post.

 

So offensively the Brewers had the same slugging as the Cards and only 40 fewer total bases but scored 79 fewer runs.

 AB OBP SLG SRC RUN MIL 5416 .331 .423 728 725 StL 5499 .338 .422 784 798 

 

SRC = simple runs created = AB*OBP*SLG

 

The Cardinals scored more runs because of a higher OBP (which gave them more AB). While there are obviously other factors which control how many runs a team scores, OBP and SLG does a great job of esimating it.

[DHonks]

1992casey is right about pitching. Think about how the Cards had Mulder and Carpenter both perform better than any of our starters (Sheets doesn't count, since he played only about 2/3rds of a season). Then they had Morris (coming off of surgery), Marquis, and Suppan perform about as well as our top pitchers, and you can see how they did better.

[RoseBowlMtg]

rlu I am not debating or debunking your knowledge. When you say Boston scored more runs because they smashed the ball around you are correct. They also have a payroll 4 times more and for a small market team to score more with lesser talent they need to move the lead off double to third which does not go down as a sacrifice but is important. Hit it to the right side of the infield and if it goes thru great but if it doesn't you had a productive out. Do they have stats for productive outs. I really only noticed Overbay doing it consistently and he won't be around next year. Can teams learn this? I believe lesser talented players like the B squad for the Cardinals that beat us at the end of the year proved that it can be a great way to produce if you have 4 guys playing that way.

 

Now that was an observation and I don't know if stats debunk me but you would think when a player gets congratulated for doing a little thing that would catch on. If that would help us go from 2 runs to 3 runs and 3 to 4 runs that would be a simple way imo to improve.

[pogokat]

Espn tracked productive outs for one year, but since they lacked correlation to the good teams, they dropped the stat..

 

essentially, they were random...some teams give up a lot of outs (davey lopester) and some don't (theo's sox) but there wasn't really a direct correlation between which teams were good and which weren't...

 

It's always seemed stupid to give away an out when you only have 27 of them...

 

and, of course...if you bunted someone to third every time you got a leadoff double, you'd take away any chance of the second batter continuing the rally...

[rluzinski]

All you need to know is the total runs a team scores and gvies up and you can closely calculate how many wins they should have over the course of a year.

 

Pythagorean Theorem

 

Productive Outs was discussed here:

 

Productive Outs

 

There was actually a slight NEGATIVE coorelation between productive outs and runs.

[DHonks]

Espn tracked productive outs for one year, but since they lacked correlation to the good teams, they dropped the stat

 

you mean like how Anaheim led the league in productive outs when the won the Series? And so these bunk stats being dropped be espn...is that why they don't follow QS anymore, even though it's at least an adequate indicator of "keeping the team in the game?"

 

It's always seemed stupid to give away an out when you only have 27 of them

 

Some teams don't view an out as something that's given away, but rather as a tool to be used. The Cardinals use their outs to maximize runs based on game situations. They bunt, they steal, they sacrifice, they squeeze. But they view each strategy as a tool. While teams want to score a runner from second and none out without making an out, they realize that moving the runner to third will increase the chance of accomplishing the ultimate goal--scoring runs. maybe on 0-0 they try to swing away. But when it's 0-2 or 1-2, the batter suddenly has a mission...get the runner to third. If they can also reach, then that's a plus, but that runner needs to be on third.

[rluzinski]

The only year that I ever saw productive outs be compiled, it had a negative coorelation to runs scored. The teams with high "productive outs" are usually the teams with alot of outs. I find the bigball brand of baseball boring to watch, but I'm not going to kid myself that playing for 1 run in the 3rd inning is a sound strategy.

 

None of the numbers I have EVER seem points to "small ball" as a way to maximize runs scored. People always point to the Angels as the poster child of small ball, but I just don't see it. They were 4th in runs scored and 6th in OPS. Where is it that they scored all these extra runs that other teams don't?

 

As I always say, I'm not saying that there aren't situations where small ball can and does win a team games, but it's not NEARLY as important as some would have you believe. If you can estimate runs scored to within 95% with OBP and SLG, how imporant is produtive outs, stealing, team chemistry, grittiness, etc, in terms of scoring runs? I'd be tempted to say around 5%.

[DHonks]

rluzinski, I don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate a total small ball approach. I think strategies that incorporate small ball and station-to-station mashing are very effective. One area that failed w/the brewers in the early going was the hit-and-run. That's where nearly all of Clark's CS came from. But later in the season with Hardy doing better, we were a much better hit-and-run team. In spring training they broke open a bunch of games with successful hit-and-runs, where the hole created allowed for a groundball single and gave us runners at the corners. Without a runner moving, they would have been gidp.

[brewers4eric]

"That's why it's hogwash when an announcer says, "team A is 56-21 when scoring 4 or more runs." Well no duh! If an average team scores 2 or less runs 30% of the time, and they have an aweful record doing it, of COURSE they have a good record when they score 4 or more."

 

I was thinking this discussion would come up when I made my earlier post. I remember a similar thread from earlier in the year.

 

When I wrote, "it's disturbing that we were shut out 12 times..." I should have just said, we had a team that could really mash back in 1982 that almost always put runs on the board. The 2005 version of the team doesn't yet have the depth and consistency of the most successful team assembled in the history of the franchise.

 

I checked the splits at baseball reference.com and learned that we were only shut out once in 1982. That seems pretty remarkable.

[danzig6767]

If you can estimate runs scored to within 95% with OBP and SLG, how imporant is produtive outs, stealing, team chemistry, grittiness, etc, in terms of scoring runs? I'd be tempted to say around 5%.

 

I pretty much agree.The only time i think having skilled bunters or basestealers can be a possible strong advantage is in the playoffs.In a 5-7 game series format,one game can decide who goes home.The ability to manufacture a run or two in close games could dicate who moves on.

 

Obviously this isn't a playoff requirement,Boston last year won't ever be confused with the 1982 Cardinals.They did though turn a stolen base into the winning run vs the Yankees.

 

During a 162 game marathon season,a powerfull offense can simply overwhelm opposing pitching more times than not.In the playoffs when often teams face much better pitching,the ability to have some aspects of "small ball" in your arsenal would seem beneficial if it's a tight game late and an opposing pitcher is really dealing.

 

Of course i'd rather have the Yankees lineup in the playoffs compared to the Angels,but i do understand why the Angels bunt/steal more and the Yankees just wait back and try to mash.They are built differently.

[rluzinski]

I checked the splits at baseball reference.com and learned that we were only shut out once in 1982. That seems pretty remarkable.

 

That's incredible.

 

As for the merits of hit and runs, I can see how it helps and I can see how it hurts. Why should i simply assume it gives a team a net gain at all? Hit and runs cause runners to run when they may not get a good jump. It causes batters to swing when they otherwise may not have. I'm not saying I know whether it can be an effective tool; I just don't like anyone presuming they do if they have nothing to base that on.

[RoseBowlMtg]

With a runner on second with no outs why is it considered sacrificing an out when the batter grounds out to the second baseman? If it goes through then it's not considered small ball but it is smart. I agree with how the Cardinals do it. Go for it early in the count if you get your pitch smash it. When down I would hope every player would try to advance the runner. Plainly spoken it would be better for a ground out to the second baseman in this case than to the left side of the infield. Some players can do it, I believe more need to.

[SmartBall]

While I agree with rluz on most of what he said I can see where RoseBowl is coming from too on the leadoff double. That is just one situation but it is a good example of how I think the game should be played, and where I think we came up short. I am not saying bunt in that situation, in fact I would hardly ever bunt, but I do think you look for a fastball on the outer half and try to drive it to right. You can only look for a few pitches at a time, so why not try to hit it so that if you make an out, the odds are you will still advance a runner. I never tried to hit a sac fly when I played, but when I came up with a guy on third and less than 2 outs, I always looked for a pitch up so that way if I got on it great, but if I missed it a little bit we would still get the run in. That is different than playing small ball, but it seems like the good teams do it more than us, which like rluz says, is why they score more runs and win more games.

[Two Fisted Slobber]

Espn tracked productive outs for one year, but since they lacked correlation to the good teams, they dropped the stat

 

you mean like how Anaheim led the league in productive outs when the won the Series?

 

Boston won the World Series last year despite striking out more than any other team in baseball. Are you going to argue that striking out goes hand-in-hand with winning? Seriously, dude, you need a lot more than one example for correlation.

[rluzinski]

All this "productive outs" talk started when rose suggested that teams like St Louis and Philli scored increased their run production because of fundamentals and the use of prodtive outs. He then went on to speculate that the Brewers could substantially increase their run production with better fundamentals. While I beat up the Brewers for boneheaded plays as much as anywone this year, I recognize that it didn't have much of an effect on runs scored, with respect to other teams. Other teams fail at bunting and make outs on the basepaths as well.

 

What I'm NOT saying is that the Brewers didn't cost themselves runs, that no type of situational hitting is valid, that all batters should swing for the fences on every pitch, etc... It just seems that fans have a tendancy to magnifiy the positive and negative effects of fairly insignificant events in baseball.