Staturday: Clutch
by salb918 on Apr 19, 2008 9:23 AM PDT
Email
Print(Abbreviated edition)
All stats via Baseball-Reference, through Thursday night's games.
Oakland offense: .235/.318/.339
Bases empty: .218/.304/.308 (Daric Barton: .417 OBP, Travis Buck: .195 OBP)
Men on: .257/.336/.380 (Jack Cust: .227 SLG)
RISP: .292/.372/.425 (Emil Brown: .455/.500/.727)
High leverage situations: .248/.345/.386 (Emil Brown: 6 RBI in 14 PA)
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
if the Royals announcers (Splittorff and Lefebvre)
are any indication, the Royals passed on Emil Brown because of occasional errant throws and baserunning gaffes, not because he couldn’t drive in runs. the Eric Byrnes of KC…
Wow ... this team is seriously clutch!
But Sal seems to have lost his passion for the job … sad … so, so sad …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Sal's passion is directly tied to the A's performance with no one on base
The monster at the end of this blog.
Wow
I never would have guessed with this team that they’d actually be better with men in sp. Would be nice if it continues. And would be even nicer if these guys got men in scoring position more frequently.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Apr 19, 2008 10:01 AM PDT reply actions
Those overall numbers look like a fast-pitch softball team's
Or, put another way, it’s kinda like having an entire team of this guy in 2007 (.248/.310/.335)
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
You know what would be nice?
If we slugged more than .425 in ANY situation.
The headline here is “A’s offense slightly less terrible when runners are on base.”
An .892 OPS with RISP doesn't sound too bad for an entire team.
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 19, 2008 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
It's .797 ...
which, granted, isn’t terrible … really the team is slightly better than average on the very rare occasion that anyone is on base …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
BTW why does BB-Ref think the RISP OPS is .326/.407/.485?
Are those outdated numbers or something?
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 19, 2008 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
huh ... weird ... dunno ...
B-Ref’s numbers are more updated—I suppose a 13 run outburst can do big things for your RISP numbers this early in the season …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
high leverage
means plays the game turns on based on the win probability swing of the outcomes. (Very) High leverage situations will almost always come late in the game, not necessarily with 2 outs. Your intuition about which ABs are the most important will generally match the leverage ratings.
The A's colors are green and gold.
in other words: it's complicated
kthxmike
Brainless Automaton #439
by rubin sierra on Apr 22, 2008 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Hard to believe the words
“small sample size” didn’t turn up anywhere in Sal’s rather shortwinded explanation of these stats.
One thing’s for certain: if this trend continues, Ty Van Burkleo’s job is secure.
Exactly what is a "high leverage situation"
I still have yet to see any analysis of clutch that can even properly define the phenomenon. Until I do, I’m not buying that it’s anything more than a very marginal amount of skill and a whole lot of luck.
And, for what it’s worth, I’m not saying I can define clutch appropriately. I just know that nobody else has.
A solo home run in the 3rd inning of a scoreless game is pretty clutch (even if the game ends up not being 1-0), but I don’t think that’s ever considered as such.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Apr 19, 2008 11:23 AM PDT reply actions
The problem is most people who look at "clutch" do so based on a binary state. Either a situation is clutch or it isn't.
This is a thoroughly unideal way of looking at it. A much better way of looking at it is on a weighted scale, based on the leverage of a situation, compared to that player’s non-clutch or overall numbers. As best I can tell (I haven’t been able to find a full definition of it), the Clutch rating at Fangraphs.com does this.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
"Clutchiness" -- it's what makes Jeter Jeter
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
and here I thought it was ESPN ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
It has to do with...
win expectancy and the difference between the worst and best case scenario for a particular at bat. I think. At least that’s what the leverage index is (or is scaled upon or something. Why can LI get to 6?)
But here’s a Leverage Index chart to see what’s defined as high-leverage.
"The hard... is what makes it great."
OPS+
Check out the OPS+ on those, a lot of those ugly ones get adjusted to above league average. Crazy.
2008 OPS+ is adjusted to 2008 league average,
which is way below normal league averages, as it always is in April.
The A's colors are green and gold.
I knew it was adjusted to league average...
I didn’t know April averages were that much lower though.
Look at Brown's Numbers
There were a lot of people on here against signing Emil, but he seems to be biggest run producer…where are the haters now??
That's a heck of an accomplishment ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
right here
his OBP is .310. you are on his jock because he’s one of the better producers on a bad team, and he has a few timely hits in the A’s 10 games. The money they spent on him could have gone a long way towards bonds, or towards a boras-type player in the draft.
Bridging a gap between 2008 and 2009
I thought from the beginning that Brown would be a good signing. He’s been a good run producer for years in KC. Never an all star or any where near an all star, but we didn’t have to pay all star money for a player that is bridging a gap. Taking that money to sign Bonds??? Where does that come from?? What BB is paying Brown would translate to about 20 games on a Bonds contract, and Bonds would be serving the same purpose (waiting a year for CarGon), but would have been 8 x more expensive and detrimental in the locker room. I know that Oakland isn’t a contender this, I’ve said that in a previous post, but as you said, he is “one of the better run producers” Money well spend in my opinion, better than other options anyway.
OK well
I’m pretty sure you are saying that Oakland is not a contender. If Oakland is not a contender, they shouldn’t be wasting even $1m on Brown (His contract is $1.4M). Emil Brown is not a good run producer; He is a guy that doesn’t hit for a terrible average forced into batting in the middle of bad lineups (KC/Oakland). I don’t personally judge run production on RBI totals. Emil Brown is an out producer; Out producers lower the number of runs baseball teams score.
If the A’s are a contender, then spending 8x the amount of money (while trying to negotiate for a bargain) to get a guy that makes outs 50% of the time instead of 70% of the time makes perfect sense, even on the A’s budget.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
