(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)
0 recs | 33 comments
wtf we're doing BETTEr with RISP?!
Zonis - April 19, 2008
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…
skutch - April 19, 2008
Wow ... this team is seriously clutch!
But Sal seems to have lost his passion for the job … sad … so, so sad …
devo - April 19, 2008
Sal's passion is directly tied to the A's performance with no one on base
grover - April 19, 2008
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.
Tyler Bleszinski - April 19, 2008
now taking the field, your 2008 Bizarro A's
skutch - April 19, 2008
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)
Nick - April 19, 2008
at least we could punt!
mrrickyg - April 19, 2008
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.”
MrIncognito - April 19, 2008
An .892 OPS with RISP doesn't sound too bad for an entire team.
WaddellCanseco - April 19, 2008
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 …
devo - April 19, 2008
BTW why does BB-Ref think the RISP OPS is .326/.407/.485?
Are those outdated numbers or something?
WaddellCanseco - April 19, 2008
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 …
devo - April 19, 2008
What are high leverage situations?
RISP and two outs?
rubin sierra - April 19, 2008
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.
mikeA - April 19, 2008
in other words: it's complicated
kthxmike
rubin sierra - April 22, 2008
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.
Brian in 317 - April 19, 2008
He is trusting us...
mikeA - April 19, 2008
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.
thejd44 - April 19, 2008
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.
devo - April 19, 2008
"Clutchiness" -- it's what makes Jeter Jeter
Nick - April 19, 2008
and here I thought it was ESPN ...
devo - April 19, 2008
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.
Jjjsixsix - April 19, 2008
OPS+
Check out the OPS+ on those, a lot of those ugly ones get adjusted to above league average. Crazy.
mrrickyg - April 19, 2008
2008 OPS+ is adjusted to 2008 league average,
which is way below normal league averages, as it always is in April.
mikeA - April 19, 2008
I knew it was adjusted to league average...
I didn’t know April averages were that much lower though.
mrrickyg - April 20, 2008
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??
bdemartin - April 19, 2008
That's a heck of an accomplishment ...
devo - April 19, 2008
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.
mrrickyg - April 19, 2008
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.
bdemartin - April 19, 2008
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.
mrrickyg - April 20, 2008
So Brown is our new clutch guy?
IM4Oakgal - April 19, 2008
What can Brown do for you?
grover - April 19, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.