Why is Murton so bad with men on base?
It's becoming clearer and clearer that Murton is not the same hitter with men on base as when the bases are empty. Does anybody have ideas as to why? I thought of sample size, but I think he has had enough at bats with men on base for the numbers to be meaningful.
I used to be a fan of Murton but as time has gone by I have become more and more bugged by his lack of production. I call him the Un-Manny. Manny Ramirez is probably the best hitter of our generation (not counting Bonds and his steroid relations) and he has a knack of driving runners home. Murton, on the other hand, has a knack of not getting runners in. His OPS with runners on as well as the % of runners he drives in are pretty bad indeed. I find it very puzzling but the numbers are there.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation, Bleed Cubbie Blue, or Al Yellon, editor-in-chief. FanPost opinions are, however, valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
42
comments
Comments
1 game and he has two RBI as well
2008 Cubs: Why Beat A Team in Regulation, when you can beat them in extras?
by Chanman25 on Apr 20, 2008 4:49 PM CDT 0 recs
Errrr
He left 8 on base. Didn’t get a hit with men on base. Hell, if you come in with the bases loaded everytime and hit grounders you’ll get RBI’s. That’s why one has to look at stuff like his OPS with runners on and % of runners driven in. Today, for me, was more of the same from him.
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 4:53 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Murton is NOT bad with runners on base.
He had two good AB today, advanced runners, and got two RBI. You can’t complain about that, even though he made outs while doing so.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on
Apr 20, 2008 5:26 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I'll say this
You can argue that Murton is good with men on base and that his numbers so far are an anomaly based on limited sample size. However, it’s impossible to argue that so far he hasn’t been awful (.692 OPS for his career not counting today).
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 5:44 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I agree with Al here.
Yes he did just ground out but they were also solid shots unfortunately right at people. Yeah a gapper would have been better but he did his job and got the runs in. If he were to hit the ball 385 feet to the track both time would eveyone be saying all this? It would have been the same result with him getting an RBI.
Give him some time and see what happens.
by dus22 on
Apr 20, 2008 8:12 PM CDT
up
0 recs
so...
can you please give us the statistics that back up you statement. If you’re gonna make claims, you might as well provide the evidence.
by ecbc on Apr 20, 2008 4:53 PM CDT 0 recs
AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS from 2005-2007
With bases empty: .330/.385/.527/.912 (488 AB).
Runners on: .249/.338/.354/.692 (342 AB).
% of runners driven I saw somebody post in a discussion a while back. Compared to other people with similar overall OPS is definitely lower.
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 4:59 PM CDT
up
0 recs
His BA is about 80 points lower...
...his OBP about 50 points lower, and his SLG about 160 points lower. Most of this variance can be explained by the difference in batting average – his ISO OBP actually increases, which is what you’d expect in RBI situations.
I go over a lot of these issues involving Soriano’s similar splits here and here.
by cwyers on
Apr 20, 2008 5:49 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Doh!
Here and here, really. Look over that, and tell me what you think afterwards. I’d look up Murton’s batted ball splits myself (they’re available at the second link) but I don’t have Excel on this computer.
by cwyers on
Apr 20, 2008 5:50 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Comments on the Soriano study
I pretty much agree with your analysis for Soriano. Much of the difference in his numbers can be attributed to the difference in BABIP. There is one thing though. His line drive rates go from 16.0% (men on) to 17.2% (none on). Of course a higher % of line drives is going to drive his BABIP. The question to ask is if this difference is real or due to sampling issues.
Btw, great stuff in these analysis! Very interesting read.
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 6:28 PM CDT
up
0 recs
More numbers
BABIP with bases empty: .348
BABIP with runners on: .275
Diference is around .75. Considering that AVG is computed twice when calculating OPS it means that there is a .150 difference in OPS accounted for in BABIP. For the sake of argument let’s consider that this difference is “luck factor”. Now, Murton/s OPS are .914 and .678, a difference of .236. So that means there is a difference of about .86 OPS that is not accounted for by BABIP. Considering Murton walks more with runners on then it means that his ISO slugging is considerably lower with men on base. Murton’s ISO slugging with bases empty is .528-.331 = .197 and with runners on .347 – .244 = .103. Big difference right there.
Could this be a result of luck and limited sample size? Maybe. But I think there’s enough evidence here to be concerned about.
by Luis on
Apr 21, 2008 8:23 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Because he's a mediocre ballplayer.
He’s not a Derrek Lee or an Aramis Ramirez. Hell, he’s probably not even a Mark Derosa. He’s a fourth OF and we should expect him to play as such. He’ll get his AB’s while Sori’s out and he’ll have some good games, where he’ll drive in the runs, and some bad games, like today, when he can’t get it out of the infield. He’s not horrid, he’s not good, he’s mediocre and he’ll do things that mediocre players do, like hit poorly with runners in scoring position.
"I've always felt that starting pitching is the most important part of the rotation." - Joe Morgan, Sunday Night Baseball 8-12-07
by gary varsho on Apr 20, 2008 4:59 PM CDT 0 recs
Still
I think the difference with runners on/ bases empty is a bit unusual. I find it hard to believe that is common for “average” players to drop .200+ points of OPS with runners on.
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 5:01 PM CDT
up
0 recs
It's not common.
But that doesn’t mean it’s meaningful. There’s plenty of room for such coincidences to occur in baseball – you need more than a split stat of such limited sample sizes to come to anything resembling a conclusion.
by cwyers on
Apr 20, 2008 5:07 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Limited Sample Sizes?
How is over 800 at bats a limited sample size?
"My bed is pulling me, gravity, daysleeper. Daaaysleeper."
by markleonette on
Apr 20, 2008 5:12 PM CDT
up
0 recs
it is limited
400 ab per split isn’t OHNOCUBSARE1-3OMGOMGWESUCK-bad, but things still can fluctuate quite a bit year to year. thats people sometimes say that a certain player had a “career year”.
stats hold a lot of assumptions with them, mostly that events will distribute and even themselves out (pitching faced is about equal, etc). Even in 800 abs things can be pretty unstable, so I guess we can worry, but as long as he still hits well overall and he’s not the center of our lineup, I say we give it time and keep watch.
by ecbc on
Apr 20, 2008 5:21 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I understand your point, but
I’m not sure I agree with it. I grant you that the sample size is not huge, but it isn’t really small either. Plus I’ll give you one more thing. If this was random variance you wouldn’t expect to have the same trend for 3 straight years. Yet, here are his OPS with bases empty / runners on from 2005-2007:
2007: .886/.654
2006: .856/.744
2005: 1.129/.570
Each year has the same trend. Like I said, if this was based solely on random variance because of limited sample sizes I wouldn’t expect to have the same trends each year. I think there’s more to it.
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 5:16 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Is there a site that has
Splits for minor league stats? It would be interesting to see what kind of splits he put up in the minors and if they are similar to his ML numbers.
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 5:24 PM CDT
up
0 recs
There is...
...for 2007, at least. Murton’s OPS with runners on at AAA last season was 1.151, compared to .763 with the bags empty.
by cwyers on
Apr 20, 2008 5:26 PM CDT
up
0 recs
from the same site
2005 is the opposite: 1.279 w/ none, .611 with men on. .636 BABIP w/ none on though vs .286 w/ men on.
by ecbc on
Apr 20, 2008 5:31 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Yeah
I think the best would be to take all of his minor league at bats and see what kind of overall (split) numbers he put up.
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 5:34 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Overall 2005:
1.011 OPS none on (222AB)
.779 OPS men on (205AB)
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 5:38 PM CDT
up
0 recs
It's just a statistical fluke
A player isn’t a better hitter whether there are men on base or not. Sure Manny gets more RBIs and hits better-because he’s a better hitter. If you gave Murton 10,000 ABs w/ people on base and with out his stats would be nearly identical.
by cubswinagain on Apr 20, 2008 5:13 PM CDT 0 recs
Excuse me
Manny Ramirez and Matt Murton, come on now, your talking Hall of Fame here, and Matt Murton, WOW.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on
Apr 20, 2008 5:40 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I think he ment to say
Murton’s stats would be same with bases empty and runners on rather than being the same to Manny’s.
by Luis on
Apr 20, 2008 5:41 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Geez I hope so
I guess I just don’t see the love affair some have with this guy, If he was this good, the way people talk about him, Cubs never would of signed Soriano or Dome, because we got Murton.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on
Apr 20, 2008 5:43 PM CDT
up
0 recs
He is an average player
plain and simple. He gets 600 AB’s, he knock in about 75 RBI’s, IMO. He hardly drives the ball, I mean how many times have we seen him rip the ball to left, in gaps, etc… At least when I watch the guy, he gets ground ball base hits the majority of the time.
He is a OK player.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on Apr 20, 2008 5:38 PM CDT 0 recs
Don't you get it?
His stats don’t matter. He is Orange Guy. Some chicks just melt
when they see him. He’s Opie. Other chicks, giv’em DLee or deRo,
or A-Ram. Gotta have something for every demo these days.
by santo4hof on Apr 20, 2008 6:32 PM CDT 0 recs
I know I'm sounding like Dusty now...
but I think his lack of production with runners on is simply a case of him trying to do too much, especially the last year or two with him being kind of on the bubble between making the Major Leagues and staying there. He was getting regular playing time at the big league level on a very bad team in 2006, but did pretty well, and it seems like the fact that he has regressed in his career has him in kind of a state of denial / panic mode.
I’ve always been a big Murton fan, and I think with regular playing time, he would be a quality, if not spectacular, everyday outfielder at the Major League level. But with Soriano, Fukudome, Pie, and Johnson on the team, he is never going to get regular playing time here. I hope, for his sake, that we do trade him because that would be the best thing for his career.
"Don't complain to me about the stormy weather, boys. Just bring the ship into port." --Steve Stone, September 2004
by ctcoff99 on Apr 20, 2008 6:58 PM CDT 0 recs
Clearing uup what I said earlier
I was trying to say Manny hits better with men on than Murton because Manny is a better hitter, but Murton is still the same hitter with men on as without, so the stats will come to a mean eventually.
by cubswinagain on Apr 20, 2008 7:37 PM CDT 0 recs
Taking this in a different direction
Managers, Scouts, coaches, etc. are human. and like all of us, we have preconceived notions (sometimes called prejudices) about who is or isn’t good, or who has ‘tools’ and who doesn’t. Corey Patterson, IMHO, is a poor hitter, yet he’s still got a starting job after proving this to be true over and over (Not to pile on but Dusty has him hitting lead-off for Cincy. sheesh! didn’t that experiment already fail?) Why? because he has ‘tools’. Murton, on the other hand, puts up beter offensive numbers in his sleep, but he has few ‘tools’. Corey is overrated and Murton is underrated by Baseball and Murton can’t do anything about his rep because he already hasshown the one talent he has, hitting. Corey won’t change his rep either. People wil always talk about what should have been. Failed promise, instead of “he was just not very good, athletic ability aside”. Neither is great, but if I need a 4th OF for my team in spring training and I have these two guys left to choose from. my vote goes to Murton every time.
One other note. I remember Lou from his playing days with the Yankees, and he was considered a real good hitter, yet Murton’s numbers are quite a bit better, although to this point, about 8 years less playing time. Perception is reality.
Again, I’m not saying Murton should start, or even be on the Cubs, just that there are other OF’ers in MLB that are worse and have jobs, and some of those are due to perception, some due to the intangibles that Al talks about, probably some others have jobs for no discernable reason.
.
by jtiet on Apr 20, 2008 10:41 PM CDT 0 recs
The explanation...
...could be as simple as Murton presses a little bit with men on base. I know there are exceptions, but I think you will generally find that most decent hitters have their highest batting average with men on base, especially in the circumstances where the hitter knows the pitcher needs to throw strikes (man on 1st and 2nd, bases loaded) and they take advantage of that.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on Apr 21, 2008 9:07 AM CDT 0 recs
AVG vs. SLG
Like we discussed a little above the difference in his AVG is mostly accounted for in difference in BABIP which could be simply luck (or not). But it seems he definitely hits for less power when men are on base.
by Luis on
Apr 21, 2008 9:22 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Further
Considering he has had this trend for 3 years in the majors, and also in 2005 where he had a significant number of at bats seems disturbing. The explanation could indeed be he presses (although he draws more walks). Maybe he is more concerned with making contact than with driving the ball when he sees men on base. Who knows.
by Luis on
Apr 21, 2008 9:27 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Just my opinion...
...but I think Murton is the kind of hitter who really needs to focus on driving the ball to right center field to be productive and to hit the ball hard. His swing (inside out by nature) does not lend itself to pull the ball with any consistancy. Guys with his type of swing, tend to hit weak toppers to short and 3rd when they try and do too much with the pitch, and Murton seems to hit a lot of those.
"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel
by MPH73 on
Apr 21, 2008 9:38 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Everybody hits for less power...
...and walks more often when runners are on base ahead of them.
by cwyers on
Apr 21, 2008 11:20 AM CDT
up
0 recs
By how much?
I’m pretty sure Murton’s drop off is quite below the average.
Manny Ramirez?
ISO SLG bases empty: .569 – .297 = .272.
ISO SLG men on: .620 – .330 = .290.
Not everybody of course.
by Luis on
Apr 21, 2008 1:44 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Murton came up with promise but he has a hitch in his swing
He dips down as he swings and loses power instead of releases it. With MOB, pitchers tend to bear down and make mistakes out of the strike zone so when they make that one mistake Murton often fouls off—many times topping the ball.
This is why he doesn’t drive the ball for he seems to hit the bottom half and doesn’t get lift. He is an average player with average speed that can play one corner OF well and one marginally. The league knows it and unless a team is looking for a bargain for an average player he is in that 26th player spot.
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
by Ivy Walls on Apr 21, 2008 9:37 AM CDT 0 recs
You know who else kinda sucks with men on base?

As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on Apr 21, 2008 12:24 PM CDT 0 recs
Which car is that?
The blue Hummer or the orange Hummer?
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al on
Apr 21, 2008 1:14 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Hard to say...I don't really know.
As I've told you before, I never repeat myself.
by santoswoodenlegs on
Apr 21, 2008 1:20 PM CDT
up
0 recs


















