The speedy and available...

[StrangeSox]

If by out-produce, you mean score more runs on average over the course of a season.... yes.

 

But consistency of production is just as important in producing wins as raw numbers of runs scored.

 

For example: Look at the Tigers this year. They were one of the top teams in baseball in runs scored. But they also lead MLB in the number of times they were shut out. Score 19 runs in one game... zero in the next. Boom or bust doesn't get it done when it comes to wins, no matter how impressive the total number of runs put up at year end.

 

I agree there. Consistency is very important. Still, a small ball lineup that consistently puts up 3 runs a game isn't very good. I don't know how the statistics break down here, and I would be curious to know. Does Baseball Prospectus or anyone else do a "consistency" analysis?

 

As for Detroit, they would have had a much better record, even with that inconsistent-but-powerful team, if their team ERA (4.90) wasn't 3rd to last in the AL. Same with Texas (5.37).

 

Because with a runner on second with no out in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game, you want to get that run home. Putting him on third with allows him to score on a wild pitch, pass ball, sac fly, grounder ball to the right side, etc. Everybody that regularly has a bat in their hands and is on a major league roster should have the ability to lay down a sac bunt.

 

I've already said there are some exceptions, 9th/ extra innings in particular.

 

On the other hand, in the bottom of the ninth with no outs and the heart of your order coming up, you have three chances to score that run on a single. If you sac bunt, you only have two chances. If the next guy after the bunt K's or pops up, you're in the same situation as a runner on second basically - you need a base hit to score him. Again, it would come down to individual situations, not just broad "never bunt!" or "always bunt!" decisions.

Edited October 9, 2008 by StrangeSox

[southsideirish71]

Statistical data would show that power hitting lineups tend to out-produce small ball lineups, no?

 

Explain the Twins to me then. They scored more runs, they lead the league in hitting on the road.

 

 

[scenario]

I agree there. Consistency is very important. Still, a small ball lineup that consistently puts up 3 runs a game isn't very good. I don't know how the statistics break down here, and I would be curious to know. Does Baseball Prospectus or anyone else do a "consistency" analysis?

 

As for Detroit, they would have had a much better record, even with that inconsistent-but-powerful team, if their team ERA (4.90) wasn't 3rd to last in the AL. Same with Texas (5.37).

 

 

Yes. I agree. Good pitching is required.

 

Great pitching + above average consistent offense = Gets it done.

 

That's pretty much been the formula for Tampa Bay this year.

Edited October 9, 2008 by scenario

[Texsox]

I agree there. Consistency is very important. Still, a small ball lineup that consistently puts up 3 runs a game isn't very good. I don't know how the statistics break down here, and I would be curious to know. Does Baseball Prospectus or anyone else do a "consistency" analysis?

 

As for Detroit, they would have had a much better record, even with that inconsistent-but-powerful team, if their team ERA (4.90) wasn't 3rd to last in the AL. Same with Texas (5.37).

 

There are a few tools that would allow you to check that. One of the researchers around here would have a better handle on the stats. A couple things you might want to compute is the standard deviation around each teams average runs per game. That would give you a number that shows how consistent a team scored around their average but not tell you much about their scoring compared to the league average.

 

It might also be useful to compare teams consistency with runs allowed as well.

[StrangeSox]

Explain the Twins to me then. They scored more runs, they lead the league in hitting on the road.

 

Statistical anomaly. I did say tends to, not always is.

[StrangeSox]

There are a few tools that would allow you to check that. One of the researchers around here would have a better handle on the stats. A couple things you might want to compute is the standard deviation around each teams average runs per game. That would give you a number that shows how consistent a team scored around their average but not tell you much about their scoring compared to the league average.

 

It might also be useful to compare teams consistency with runs allowed as well.

 

I'm not a statistician, but I would think you could normalize the std. dev. based on the average, and use that to compare across the league.

[Texsox]

I'm not a statistician, but I would think you could normalize the std. dev. based on the average, and use that to compare across the league.

 

Average for the team or against the league? How would you account for a team that doesn't score enough runs?

 

Or another way, the question is how important is consistency. How would you compare a team who is inconsistent and scores say 5 runs per game against a team that is very consistent but only scores 2 runs per game? The lack of scoring would confound the study.

[scenario]

Average for the team or against the league? How would you account for a team that doesn't score enough runs?

 

Or another way, the question is how important is consistency. How would you compare a team who is inconsistent and scores say 5 runs per game against a team that is very consistent but only scores 2 runs per game? The lack of scoring would confound the study.

 

Well... I think it goes without saying that inconsistently good is going to be better than consistently bad.

 

 

[whitesoxfan99]

Explain the Twins to me then. They scored more runs, they lead the league in hitting on the road.

 

The Twins ranked high in the AL in both batting average and more importantly OBP. They also hit extremely well with RISP. However, if you look at previous Twins lineups this year is an outlier. The Twins have routinely finished in the bottom half of the AL in runs scored. In 2006 they led the AL in batting average, were 5th in OBP but were 8th in runs. They were 8th in HRs that year.

[SoxFan562004]

Who cares? We're in the American League and this fascination that people have with bunts is disgusting. Bunts are designed to give outs to the other team. The whole point of offense is to not get out. I don't get what's so hard to understand here. Yes, they can be helpful in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth with a runner on second and no outs, but to use them as much as some people here seem to want would be ridiculous and insane when the rest of the team is built on power.

Great post. I don't mind getting a good player with speed, but just to run out an average to below average player just because he has speed is ridiculous. I would rather bring back a similar type team as this year and sticking a "speed" guy as the 25th man than bringing in a regular player who sucks but is fast.

Edited October 9, 2008 by SoxFan562004

[Texsox]

Well... I think it goes without saying that inconsistently good is going to be better than consistently bad.

 

That's were some tie back to league average needs to be made. Does consistent .3 runs below the league average top inconsistent .3 runs above the league average?

[StrangeSox]

That's were some tie back to league average needs to be made. Does consistent .3 runs below the league average top inconsistent .3 runs above the league average?

 

Someone call Nate Silver and tell him to get on this.

[scenario]

That's were some tie back to league average needs to be made. Does consistent .3 runs below the league average top inconsistent .3 runs above the league average?

 

The problem is that you have to assume pitching is a constant to make those comparisons meaningful.

 

Since it's not, that makes the stats interesting but not very useful in the real world.

Edited October 9, 2008 by scenario

[Texsox]

The problem is that you have to assume pitching is a constant to make those comparisons meaningful.

 

Since it's not, that makes the stats interesting but not very useful in the real world.

 

Perhaps

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...istency-is-key/

 

Interesting read.

[caulfield12]

It was the 1985-1989 Cardinals with McGee, Vince Coleman, Pendleton, Ozzie Smith, that stole so many bases.

 

Second, we all agree it's very important to get a lead...and that the first team to score in a game wins more often than not, right?

 

Well, remember how often in 2005 the first two months we scored first or had a lead because of Pods and Iguchi setting the table?

 

That's where bunting and situational (not just hacking away) hitting came into play in an important way...psychologically, the other team always was under pressure and fighting to come back, and bunting (and hitting to the opposite field) and disrupting the opposing pitcher (pitching out of the stretch also) had a big part to play in why that team was so successful in winning 1 run ballgames but also getting out to early leads. It wasn't usually with the HR in April/May that year...although the homer became more important as the weather heated up, as it always does at US Cell.

[scenario]

Perhaps

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...istency-is-key/

 

Interesting read.

 

Interesting article. A good example of what can happen when an engineering graduate student has too much time on their hands.

 

I found it interesting that the 2007 WhiteSox had the most consistent offense in MLB. Only problem was that they were consistently horrible.

 

[greg775]

Bunting may be a bad idea but we need to start bashing line drives the opposite way to go with the long ball.

[Texsox]

Interesting article. A good example of what can happen when an engineering graduate student has too much time on their hands.

 

I found it interesting that the 2007 WhiteSox had the most consistent offense in MLB. Only problem was that they were consistently horrible.

When I got to that part in the article I started laughing. Yep, consistently horrible.

[Hawkfan]

When i see the list of terrible players, along with the probability of us getting the good ones, it makes me think Brian Anderson is speedy enough. and i hate me some brian anderson...

Edited October 9, 2008 by Hawkfan