Batting Average with Runners in Scoring Position
I have heard some comments from the media and blogs about the Cubs inability to get clutch hits with runners in scoring position. I decided to pull some #s to see how bad things have gotten.
The numbers don't lie. The Cubs are the worst in the NL in batting average with runners in scoring positions and there is one active Cub with a batting average over .300 with runners in scoring position. This is bad.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
27 comments
Comments
I'm shocked
Everyone is throwing out all sorts of facts the last couple days about how much our team is struggling.
You all have time to do this research while being on the ledge of your office building?
by ak123 on Jun 25, 2009 10:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
How is this ledge jumping?
These are stats to prove the Cubs are struggling with RISP. He never said the season was over. The worst that was said was “This is bad.”
"Live and be happy, beloved children of my heart, and never forget that until the day comes when God will deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is contained in these words: wait and hope!" - The Count of Monte Cristo
by Bricks and Ivy on Jun 25, 2009 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In general your right
But lately, I feel people have been going back to the “season is over” model on here.
by ak123 on Jun 25, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ledge-Jumping?
Look, if you suck, you suck. And we apparently aren’t getting the job done. There’s a difference between ledge-jumping and looking at facts. The numbers are there.
Am I ledge-jumping? Absolutely not. Do I think something needs to change? I think I, along with many others, feel that yes, something does need to change. Because it’s like watching a metronome with this team. You can predict what’s going to happen, but just hope that something changes eventually.
Even if we lose 70 more games, I’ll watch those games. Which I think prevents me from being a ledge-jumper along with many others here. But I think everyone can agree that something needs to be done, and looking at the facts the team has provided for us in these first two and a half months is mere curiosity, and furthers my point about necessary change.
by ZachenFoot on Jun 25, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Goodness
numbers speak for themselves. This team is not that good PERIOD.
When Theriot and Blanco hit better with RISP than Soto, Soriano and Bradley, ouch.
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on Jun 25, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen
Summed up very well in a nutshell.
by ZachenFoot on Jun 25, 2009 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The numbers don't tell you that
This team is not that good PERIOD.
Should read:
This teamis nothas not been that good PERIOD.
It may seem like an arbitrary distinction but it’s an important one.
by Wreckard on Jun 25, 2009 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was hoping that there was some bad luck involved
…but I just calculated the BABIP for the Cubs with RISP and it’s .275.
Yuck.
by Wreckard on Jun 25, 2009 10:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
More proof of how much Aramis is missed.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Jun 25, 2009 10:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What's even more demoralizing
is that most of their outs don’t even produce runs with a runner on third and less than two out. Which I think is a lot in preparation. For example, Fontenot’s AB when he grounded into a FC RBI. He took a defensive 2-0 swing that fortunately hopped foul. That’s not a good 2-0 approach.
Its funny, you spend most of your life gripping a baseball. And in the end, its almost always the other way around.
by TCobb1911 on Jun 25, 2009 11:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Bad Plate Discipline Also
Geovany Soto is a great example. How many times has he struck out looking on a fastball right down the pipe the last few days. He is overthinking. You need to have defensive swings when it’s on 0-2 count and you can’t simply look for a ball to drive because most of the time you’re not going to get a ball to drive in that situation. On the season, Geo has 29 BB and 42 SO
*Theriot normally has more walks than strikeouts in past years, but this year this does not hold true (19 BB, 42 SO).
*Fontenot has been pretty awful with 26 BB and 45 SO.
*Soriano has been garbage (24 BB, 70 SO), but what can you expect from a terribly disciplined hitter.
*Bradley is currently sitting on 27 BB with 37 SO
*Lee had a rough start, but he’s getting better obviously. Season totals are 29 BB, 43 SO
*Fukudome has been our best with 41 BB, 48 SO.
At times, this team will swing freely at first pitches, but that kills us because the opposing team starter always gets a low pitch count. The team always adjusts later in the ballgame, but then the starter always thrown a first pitch strike, putting the batter in an immediate hole. It’s just been like a teeter totter for the Cubs batters in ball games. I feel like this has been a huge problem for the Cubs.
by cufban2522 on Jun 25, 2009 12:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Soriano...
… is actually on pace to have his second-highest season walk total.
It’s the hitting that seems to have escaped him.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
by Al on Jun 25, 2009 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soriano...
is also on pace to have his highest strikeout total.
by cufban2522 on Jun 25, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
RISP -23
League BA .262. Cubs BA .109.
If you like Selig's handling of the steroid issue, you'll love his choice for next Cub owner.
by tharr on Jun 25, 2009 2:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Todd Hollandsworth made a good point after Wednesday night's debacle
when he pointed out that one of the problems the Cubs are having is that even when they get a man in scoring position with no one out (something they often did on Wednesday) the next batter is not changing their approach and thinking about making a productive out and advancing the runner(s).
Think back to when Jake Fox came up with no outs and runners were on first and second and he almost hits into a triple play. When Fox is facing a low ball pitcher is it not better for Lou to force Fox to bunt and get men to second and third? Then we can force Leyland to either bring his infield in, or at least put pressure on them with second and third and one out—-where a grounder to a middle infielder will score a run. Instead Kosuke comes up with two out and Fox on first. Advantage Tigers. I know we would be taking a bat out of an important hitter’s hands, but we have to get our guys in the habit of “keeping these innings going in a positive direction.” Instead we are often getting the first one or two hitters on and the next guy strikes out and we lose all momentum. Sound familiar?
Productive outs after lead off hits are just as important as hits with RISP—the two go hand in hand. If we start doing the first, the second will follow. I just feel like Lou is not harping on the first one hard enough.
"If it's obvious, it's obviously wrong." - a well known stock market guru
by LAcarl519 on Jun 25, 2009 3:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Middle of the order power guys don't bunt, they are supposed to drive in
runs. DLee, Milton or Aramis are not going to bunt with runners in scoring position and neither is Jake Fox.
"Hats for bats.....keep bats warm." - Pedro Cerrano
"Hey bartender, Jobu needs a refill !!!!!!!" - Eddie Harris
by willie mays hayes' gloves on Jun 25, 2009 9:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fox should've bunted?
LAcar posted: “Think back to when Jake Fox came up with no outs and runners were on first and second and he almost hits into a triple play. When Fox is facing a low ball pitcher is it not better for Lou to force Fox to bunt and get men to second and third?”
If there is a runner on second, the Cubs already have a man in scoring position, so to have a guy (Fox) who is supposed to be an RBI man, bunt is foolish. Guys like Fox are paid to drive in runs. If he is so bad at driving in runs that Lou would rather have him bunt, he should not even be in the lineup.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
by lookingdeadred on Jun 26, 2009 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it would be one thing if Fox is a veteran,
but even LaRussa is known to make anyone in his order lay down a bunt if it keeps an inning moving (I am sure he would do it in a tight game if his team was in a major scoring funk like we are). think about it, if we had the reputation for moving up runners at any time, it would force the third and first baseman to cheat in at any time and give our middle of the order guys better chances to get the ball through the infield.
You guys are acting like Fox is a stud who has great bat control. He is hardly a veteran and his near triple play pretty much proved that. Lou needs these guys to think about situational hitting—obviously something many BCB posters don’t care about. Like Lou, all you guys care about is the bottom line.
You have to sometimes think about making the LEAST BAD MISTAKE in an at bat to keep an inning going. Strike outs and double plays are not the outcomes we want when we have two men on and no one out—-why are we so unproductive in these situations as compared to other teams? We have to start playing for better outcomes ONE OUT AT A TIME.
"If it's obvious, it's obviously wrong." - a well known stock market guru
by LAcarl519 on Jun 26, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a big fan of bunting
But sometimes it’s the right play for reasons that you cite.
That particular at bat, at least in hindsight, is one of them.
I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson
by Shanghai Badger on Jun 26, 2009 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
everything in hindsight seems clear
When you have runners in scoring position with an RBI guy at the plate, you don’t bunt.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
by lookingdeadred on Jun 27, 2009 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Point LA!!
Great point, they have the same approach EVERY TIME. EVERY TIME. Everyone is trying to hit the home run, this team needs to focus more on driving the ball to the opposite field, making contact and “MANUFACTURING” runs. Home Runs are great, this team just can’t hit them.
Todays lineup
Soriano .231 avg/.294 obp
Theriot .284/.342
Lee .288/.370
Fox .353/.359
Hoff .267/.312
Font .223/.309
Fuky .263/.388
Hill .212/.316
Our Bench today
Bradley .241/.360
Soto .227/.336
Miles .203/.240
Freel .152/.280
Blanco .233/.292
Wow, if i’m and opposing pitcher, i get VERY excited to face these guys. This is by NO MEANS a playoff caliber lineup. Pitching and defense wins, but you have to get a hit sometime.
Hey, Hey! Hey, Hey! Hey, Hey!
by TheCubsGuy on Jun 25, 2009 3:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My take on the whole RISP thing.
“It’s [expletive] luck,” – Billy Beane.
Every sabermetric study ever done shows that he concept of clutch hitting is nonexistent. There is no such thing as a consistently “clutch” hitter. The Cubs have been really unlucky this year, and things should turn around.
by Poloplaya14 on Jun 25, 2009 4:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hilarious
I guess there is no such thing as “stress” and “adrenaline” that have actual, physical effects on your body?
We get it. You Beane-clones have unconditional, complete faith in stats, and believe emotion and stress, and the physical effects these have on players, have no part in baseball analysis.
Having experienced these effects personally, and seeing day in and out the effects on major league players, I think you couldn’t be more wrong.
But then, they’re not making a movie about me.
by CalDeano on Jun 25, 2009 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course stress and adrenaline have physical effects on the body.
However, the extent to which they have an effect is impossible to quantify. Therefore it is impossible to say that player X is a good clutch hitter of player Y is a bad one. Numerous studies have shown that stats like RISP simply do not correlate from year to year. The Cubs are a perfect example. They were near the top in RISP last year and near the bottom this year. I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden their physiological reaction to stress has been magically changed from last year to this year.
by Poloplaya14 on Jun 25, 2009 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BARISP is important
Look at the Cubs recent history (last 5 years). The first number is their BARISP rank among NL teams. The second number is where they ranked among NL teams based on the number of wins. Definitely a correlation. I didn’t find the BA with RISP for Cubs pitchers, but I bet it would show a similar relationship.
08 – 1/11
07 – 6/2
06 – 16/11
05 – 10/10
04 – 6/4
A team’s BARISP over time should mirror their overall average. When it doesn’t, I think it’s because the players are putting too much pressure on themselves to produce. I also think this gets contagious. When everyone slumps, like the Cubs have been, individual players lose confidence in the ability orf their teammates to deliver a clutch hit. That increases the pressure on them, because they feel if they don’t get the clutch hit, no one else will. I believe the Cubs will start to hit consistently, based on the history of their players. Once this happens, the confidence will return, the pressure will ease and they’ll start to hit with RISP.
by CubbieFaninOhio on Jun 26, 2009 7:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I have been pointing out
the RISP stats for about a month now in game threads.
In 2006, after the Sux won the World Series, they had a terrible season with RISP – almost to a player. It can last an entire season. That’s baseball.
However, this year’s Cub team was constructed by Jim Hendry as he counted on utility players, and then career minor leaguers to play starters – when they really aren’t:
I.e., Mike Fontenot, Aaron Miles, Jake Fox, Andres Blanco…Now think how his plan of trading Mark DeRosa, who was already “paid for”, could have really changed not only a couple (or 4/5) losses into wins, but all of the sudden the bench becomes deeper, and there is more flexibility for the manager when Aramis gets hurt. Which he does every year.
Jim Hendry gambled in 2009, and so far, he is losing. Dumb shit! You’d think that 2006 would have reminded him WHY he signed DeRosa in the first place.
by The E-Man on Jun 26, 2009 8:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 





















