With baseball season approaching, I really ramp up my baseball-related internet browsing. On my appointed rounds is baseball-reference.com and their “Stat of the Day”. SOTD is basically a member-submitted blog, where someone thinks up some interesting (or not-so interesting) thing to look up: most games played in the leadoff spot without a stolen base (Pete Rose, 162 in 1975), most GIDP in one game (Joe Torre, 4 on 7/21/75), etc. You get the picture.
Anyway, today’s stat looks at last year’s RBI leaders, and drills down a little further to see who had the most RBIs with 2 outs. Both Ryan Howard and Carlos Lee had 56 of them, but Lee only had 100 RBI all season long! (Howard had 146.) See? It’s fun for the stat-lovers, and fun for the clutch-hitting loving stat-haters!
That’s cool. I’m not a stat hater so much as I’m :rolleyes: at the extent to which people not paid to make baseball decisions geek out on them.
I enjoy baseball. I like to just kick back and watch it (though not so much on TV; it’s too soap-opera-y). Statistics are obviously a big part of baseball, no doubt, but the real thrill to me is a throw, a swing, and who knows what’s next? And yeah, I’m even more thrilled when it’s in a clutch situation.
YMMV, of course. I know guys who are into math or statistics who enjoy that side of it. Whatever sautes your onions…
It’d be interesting to see how many RBI come with 0 out, 1 out, and 2 out. Just guessing, but it seems to me there should be more RBIs with 2 outs - not many more, but a few more, because it’s later in the inning so you’re likelier to have men on base, and baserunners will be more aggressive about scoring from second on a single and such things, as well they should be. But 56 out of 100? That’s a LOT, especially when you compare it to Howard. I mean, holy moly, 56 2-out RBI. Some guys don’t get 56 RBI all year.
I like the Rose bit about 1975 too, in part because that team won the World Series so the heck with stolen bases, I guess. Of course, if you have that lineup coming up after you, you don’t need to scratch out runs.
I remember once trying to figure out what the best offense in baseball history was. Obviously you could just pick the one that scored the most runs but that wouldn’t really mean anything if the team was from 1930 or 1997 or some other year when scoring was ludicrously high.
I think the 1975 and 1976 Reds might actually be it. I never appreciated how awesome they were until I started trying to find a team that was better. I mean, they scored a crazy number of runs for the time. In 1975 they scored more than a hundred runs more than the NEXT best team, and more than a run a game more than average. Then in 1976 they scored 87 runs more than the next best team (the Phillies, who were themselves way, way better than anyone else) and something like TWO HUNDRED RUNS more than average. They were just fricking insane.
So, ya know, if I were Pete Rose I’d have stayed put, too. Those dudes were gonna drive you in.
A while back Allen Barra figured this out for the best hockey offense. Essentially he took a team’s scoring output for the year and divided it by the average scoring output of every other team in the NHL. I believe an old Rangers team from the Original Six days came out on top.
So, it looks like you were on the right track with your analysis.
Absolutely. At the game or on TV, I’m pretty disinterested in stats. It’s about watching the performances and the progress of the game itself. But outside of that, it’s interesting to put together what you saw with what has happened the rest of the season/career.
That’s a defensible logic, but then again, aren’t there two outs because hitters have been failing to get on base? The 2-out scenario rules out several occasions where it’s easier to get RBIs with fewer outs, like Sacrifice Flies and Hit-and-run situations (which generally don’t happen with 2 outs, I believe, so as to avoid double plays to end innings, for example)…
Overall I’d guess that those situations where it’s easier to get RBIs with 2 outs and those situations where it’s easier with fewer than 2 outs balance, and you can take this stat at face value. This is probably as good as other stats to determine clutch hitting (which, depending on your view, could be not at all).
You’ve gone on and on about what you can learn or better understand about the game from statistics. How about telling us what insight this one gives you into Howard and Lee? Note, btw, that the hitter has no control over how many outs there are or how many runners are in scoring position when he comes up. If you really are looking for a way to measure clutch hitting, this is a pretty lame approach.
And that’s before getting into the explanation, which should not be necessary but apparently is, that the ability to keep stats in proper perspective is not “hating” them. :dubious:
It tells us very little about Howard and Lee. It does tell us quite a bit about the 2009 Houston Astros - that they had at least one player who was fantastic at getting on base and scoring (Lance Berkman), and a few who were very not good to terrible at doing that (Michael Bourn and Kaz Matsui). But mostly, it’s just a fun little nugget of numbers that gives very little insight, but makes you scratch your head and go “Huh! That’s certainly unusual.”
And thankfully enough, I never claimed that it was.
The most interesting part of that (truly, interesting) site was that two players struck out on a 4-2 count in 2008. Personally, I would have been mighty pissed if that were me.
Munch’s cite already proves me wrong; they drive in just as many RBI with one out as with two. Fascinating. I’d never have guessed that.
No, having two outs isn’t necessarily because people have been failing to get on base. You have three outs in every inning, no matter how many people reach base (except in walk-off innings.) So I find it weird that there are as many RBI with one out as with two. I suspect it’s because of RBI outs. You can hit a sac fly with one out, or gound into a fielder’s choice with one out that scores a run from third, and stuff like that. But if you hit into an out with two out, it’s usually the end of the inning and no run can score, unless it’s an unusual play.
It makes Lee’s 56 RBI with two outs all the more remarkable. I doubt it’s any sort of repeatable skill, but it’s a fascinating bit of info.
I’m just as surprised as you are that 2 outs doesn’t have a slight edge, even given the RBI outs.
Luckily, I’ve geeked out on stats this winter and dug up this link (scroll down to the numbers) that shows that runners are sort of incrementally aggressive with regard to outs, especially trying to score from second on a single. That plus the RBI outs sorts it out.
And Munch, I don’t think Lee is necessarily a clutch guy on the strength of that number-I’d imagine his 2 out AB with RISP were higher (as a percentage of total AB with RISP) than Howard’s, and I’d wager the guys on base in front of him were particularly risk averse with 0 and 1 outs. I’d say those two numbers would account for the lion’s share of his ‘clutchness’.
The aggression of baserunners is pretty logical; you’re going to be a lot less aggressive with nobody out, where you have multiple hitters who can still drive you in, than with two out, where the likelihood is the next guy will get out and strand you.
Making an out at the plate is hard, even in the majors,
RickJay, you’re absolutely right that it’s logical, but baseball is rife with illogicalities grandfathered into strategy, and I was surprised that in that isolated arena they actually played by the numbers a bit.
Actually, this article comparing break even rates vs. actual success rates suggests that runners should be more aggressive than they are with less than 2 outs.
