2012 Offense Performance Thread

[Mr Coffee]

Last in % of times plating runners at 3B < 2 outs in the AL regardless of the nice OPS. Which of course is probably infated because of the HR. That only enhances the idea that this team's 1 dimensional offense looks good on paper in the regular season, but doesn't hold up to the tougher postseason pitching.

At the moment we're not beating up on anyone with our 20-19 second half record.

So let me get this straight-- if, in situations with a runner on third and LT 2 outs, they hit more sac flies instead of actually getting a hit or *God forbid* a HR, you'd feel better about the team going into the post-season?

Please tell me you mean something else.

[bomber999]

Read my previous post to Blazer.

That is, if you can understand it (smugness added by request).

That was weak. I expected a higher quality of smugness from you than grade-school playground level.

I really wish you would drop the arrogant, condescending tone in your posts towards anyone who dares express frustration or distress about the lousy (at times) play of the team or concern for its prospects this season. You may have some folks on these threads eating from your hand about how brilliant your condescension is, but IMHO it doesn't take much talent to walk around disrespectfully belittling all of those whom you deem inferior to yourself. You have some well-informed posts, and I enjoy learning from you, but I greatly dislike your attitude.

[Mr Coffee]

Overall numbers:



"Clutch" stats:



Like I said-- about what you'd expect given a large enough sample.

[Blazer]

They lead the AL in "Late & Close" sOPS+ with a 137, scoring more late and close runs than anyone in the league. They lead the AL in "High Leverage" sOPS+, with a 122 and have generated the second most runs in the league in those scenarios.

This is really the most overrated data point I can remember in a long time. All you have to do is look at the standings to know that this in and of itself doesn't have a strong correlation to Ws and Ls. If they were excelling or even pedestrian in these hand-picked situations they'd be that much better, but clearly it's not the be all end all. Teams aren't going to win 75% of their games.

This has been bandied about for years, and I distinctly remember seeing someone in the media bringing some facts to debunk this myth. I'll see if I can find it. Unless of course you can quantify "often" and show the relativity of the Yankees in this scenario to other teams. Believe it or not, young pitchers sometimes beat good teams and lose to bad ones. Pitchers with mediocre stats actually do pitch good games. Galarraga threw a perfect* game for crying out loud.

While that statement can't be disputed, I'm not sure why HR aren't celebrated and are demonized. Sure, I'd love some extra run scoring singles and sac flies, but not at the expense of the ultimate result the game has to offer. They're scoring runs - that is what matters.

Yes, yes indeed you can. They are actually 8% better than league average, 9th out of 14 teams in the AL as measured by sOPS+. You can also argue that is a huge cherry pick, given that it represents a whopping 185 AB's for the entire team this entire season.

I don't realize that. Would love to see this analysis. And even if this were true, how much of that is offset by the fact that they get productive hits? Why don't we talk about that more? Again, yes would love them score even more runs and scratch together a tough run here and there, but I'm really not all that concerned about the perceived (emphasis) lack of productive outs.

LOL. Ok. So anyone who doesn't ignore data is wearing rose colored glasses? What, maybe 75% of what you're complaining about here I just proved false. Maybe you should try on a pair of those glasses.

False,

In fact you haven't proved any of my points false. You just presented another slant to the discussion.

The Yanks have been a horrible club this year in coming from behind. Leverage stats may dispute that, but not winning in those situations which is the ultimate acid test.

The postseason features far better pitching than the slugfest know as the regular season. It's a shame you either A) don't realize that B) won't admit it.

In the said postseason games are typically closer, thus runs are at a premium. In those types of games a manufactured run greatly enhances a team's chances of winning. Unfortunately, the Yanks appear to be incapable of such runs.

[False1]

All that regular season offensive firepower really made the difference in postseasons 2002,2004,2005,2006,2007,2010, and 2011. But don't let me stop your condescension.

Stop. Please.

You have to look no further than your very first example there in 2002 to prove that you're looking at this wrong. The Yankees scored 8 runs in a win in the first game of the ALDS that year. They then scored 6, 6 and 5 runs in the next three games and lost all three.

2004? Really? Game 1 the defense allowed 7 runs... and the Yankees put up 10 to win. Game two they strung together 3 runs against Pedro (in the fashion you seem to prefer, manufacturing 2 of those off a walk and HBP) and won. Game three they scored 19 friggin runs. Game 4 they were one Mariano Rivera error away from a sweep.

Playoffs are generally about who gets hot offensively and defensively. Having a good offense greatly increases the odds of that happening, but it sure doesn't guarantee it. Having singles hitters and "productive out-ers" sure as heck doesn't either.

[Mr Coffee]

False,

In fact you haven't proved any of my points false. You just presented another slant to the discussion.

The Yanks have been a horrible club this year in coming from behind. Leverage stats may dispute that, but not winning in those situations is the ultimate acid test.

The postseason features far better pitching than the slugfest know as the regular season. It's a shame you either A) don't realize that B) won't admit it.

In the said postseason games are typically closer, thus runs are at a premium. In those types of games a manufactured run greatly enhances a team's chances of winning. Unfortunately, the Yanks appear to be incapable of such runs.

So when I say the Yankees have scored the 2nd most runs and are in first, that doesn't matter because you have stats saying otherwise.

When stats are shown to dispute things you say, they don't matter because winning is what counts.

[Blazer]

So let me get this straight-- if, in situations with a runner on third and LT 2 outs, they hit more sac flies instead of actually getting a hit or *God forbid* a HR, you'd feel better about the team going into the post-season?

Please tell me you mean something else.

According to BR the Yanks plate the lowest % of runners from 3B with < 2 outs of any team in the AL. That's a very telling stat for such a supposedly high powered stat. Coincidentally that's probably the regular season situation that most resembles the postseason.

[Blazer]

So when I say the Yankees have scored the 2nd most runs and are in first, that doesn't matter because you have stats saying otherwise.

When stats are shown to dispute things you say, they don't matter because winning is what counts.

Wins and runs are closely correlated. OPS and wins aren't. It's not hard to understand that once in x number of AB's in those situations a Yank hits a HR and I believe you know OPS is quite biased toward SLG.

[Mr Coffee]

That was weak. I expected a higher quality of smugness from you than grade-school playground level.

I really wish you would drop the arrogant, condescending tone in your posts towards anyone who dares express frustration or distress about the lousy (at times) play of the team or concern for its prospects this season. You may have some folks on these threads eating from your hand about how brilliant your condescension is, but IMHO it doesn't take much talent to walk around disrespectfully belittling all of those whom you deem inferior to yourself. You have some well-informed posts, and I enjoy learning from you, but I greatly dislike your attitude.

Give me a break. Why is it that the people who talk the most crap are also the most thin-skinned?

For every post of mine where I've been condescending, I'll show you two that have been the same or worse toward me.

[False1]

False,

In fact you haven't proved any of my points false. You just presented another slant to the discussion.

The Yanks have been a horrible club this year in coming from behind. Leverage stats may dispute that, but not winning in those situations which is the ultimate acid test.

The postseason features far better pitching than the slugfest know as the regular season. It's a shame you either A) don't realize that B) won't admit it.

In the said postseason games are typically closer, thus runs are at a premium. In those types of games a manufactured run greatly enhances a team's chances of winning. Unfortunately, the Yanks appear to be incapable of such runs.

I don't see how using data "slants" things. You made some blatantly incorrect statements that were proven as such.

"Not winning in those situations" ignores that sometimes they score late to protect and maintain a lead, preventing themselves from falling behind.

Runs are at a premium in the offseason, and I'm really pleased that the offense I cheer for isn't reliant on punch and judy hits to have any hope of generating runs. I would love to see them have better situational results, have a higher BA, etc but I'll take my chances with this squad.

While "come from behind" wins can be exciting for fans, "get and keep an early lead" wins are every bit as valuable. 2009 was an incredible year for walk offs and come from behind wins, but man it has gotten many here somehow believing that it is a skill and the absence of those events is a death knell for the playoffs that haven't even arrived yet.

[Mr Coffee]

According to BR the Yanks plate the lowest % of runners from 3B with < 2 outs of any team in the AL. That's a very telling stat for such a supposedly high powered stat. Coincidentally that's probably the regular season situation that most resembles the postseason.

Let me throw a hypothetical at you. Let's say they average 2 ABs a game in that situation. They plate one guy-- that's .500. Now let's say they average 5 ABs a game in the same situation and plate two-- .400. Which would you rather have?

It's not as telling a stat as you think and, c'mon, the part about it being the situation most like the postseason-- let's just say that's speculative at best.

[False1]

According to BR the Yanks plate the lowest % of runners from 3B with < 2 outs of any team in the AL. That's a very telling stat for such a supposedly high powered stat. Coincidentally that's probably the regular season situation that most resembles the postseason.

That may be true. I'm assuming you're comparing runs to PA? That does of course ignore the number of runners on base, and given that (much to some folks' chagrin) the Yankees aren't scoring their runs via strings of singles, and cleaning the bases more often than any other team, it's quite likely that calculation is flawed in that there are likely less total baserunners per PA for the Yankees than other teams.

Even so... look at how INSANE the CWS have been in this cherry-picked scenario. A line of .436 / .453 / .641! You realize that has netted them precisely 10 more runs than the Yankees over the course of almost 125 games, right? Why are you so hung up on this?

I have no idea what you mean by the bolded.

[Mr Coffee]

Wins and runs are closely correlated. OPS and wins aren't. It's not hard to understand that once in x number of AB's in those situations a Yank hits a HR and I believe you know OPS is quite biased toward SLG.

Yeah, I know-- and they have the scored the second most runs in the league.

This argument isn't going to be any fun if you suddenly start agreeing with me.

[False1]

Let me throw a hypothetical at you. Let's say they average 2 ABs a game in that situation. They plate one guy-- that's .500. Now let's say they average 5 ABs a game in the same situation and plate two-- .400. Which would you rather have?

It's not as telling a stat as you think and, c'mon, the part about it being the situation most like the postseason-- let's just say that's speculative at best.

Right, or even more broadly let's say they go 0 for 3 in 1 out, guy on third scenarios but hit two HRs with a guy on first base each time. Sure, I'd like them to get the other guys in too but we're completely ignoring the other runs.

[False1]

Wins and runs are closely correlated. OPS and wins aren't. It's not hard to understand that once in x number of AB's in those situations a Yank hits a HR and I believe you know OPS is quite biased toward SLG.

Tell that to the 4.84 RPG Red Sox.

So OPS and runs aren't correlated?

[Blazer]

Stop. Please.

You have to look no further than your very first example there in 2002 to prove that you're looking at this wrong. The Yankees scored 8 runs in a win in the first game of the ALDS that year. They then scored 6, 6 and 5 runs in the next three games and lost all three.

2004? Really? Game 1 the defense allowed 7 runs... and the Yankees put up 10 to win. Game two they strung together 3 runs against Pedro (in the fashion you seem to prefer, manufacturing 2 of those off a walk and HBP) and won. Game three they scored 19 friggin runs. Game 4 they were one Mariano Rivera error away from a sweep.

Playoffs are generally about who gets hot offensively and defensively. Having a good offense greatly increases the odds of that happening, but it sure doesn't guarantee it. Having singles hitters and "productive out-ers" sure as heck doesn't either.

You forgot to mention the 2011 Yanks loss to the Tigers when they scored 3, 4, & 2 runs in the losses.

You also overlooked the 2010 Yanks loss to the Rangers when they scored 2, 0, 3, & 1 runs in the losses.

How about 2007 when the Yanks scored 3, 1, & 4 runs in the losses to the Tribe.

Now back to 2006 when the Yanks accounted for 6 runs in their 3 losses to the Tigers.

Small sample sizes are easily disputed, though you know that as well as I do.

[Blazer]

Tell that to the 4.84 RPG Red Sox.

So OPS and runs aren't correlated?

My bad, I meant to say situational OPS and runs (or better yet productivity).

[Blazer]

I have no idea what you mean by the bolded.

I mean to say those are the situations when pitchers tend to focus more. That's the similarity I see to postseason pitching.

[Mr Coffee]

I mean to say those are the situations when pitchers tend to focus more. That's the similarity I see to postseason pitching.

Dude, c'mon. You're just making stuff up.

[Blazer]

Dude, c'mon. You're just making stuff up.

I think not.

Some of the best pitches in MLB excel at LOB%. Cause and effect maybe, but many of these pitchers are alway in the discussion as the best in baseball.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=12,d

better yet 3 years worth of data:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=12,d

[Mr Coffee]

I think not.

Some of the best pitches in MLB excel at LOB%. Cause and effect maybe, but many of these pitchers are alway in the discussion as the best in baseball.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=12,d

better yet 3 years worth of data:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...rs=0&sort=12,d

I would suspect that the best pitchers in baseball excel in most situations.

I don't buy the 'focus more' argument.

[bomber999]

Give me a break. Why is it that the people who talk the most crap are also the most thin-skinned?

For every post of mine where I've been condescending, I'll show you two that have been the same or worse toward me.

I'm sorry that you feel this way. I've said my peace, and you apparently have said yours. And now I'm done with this.

[Mr Coffee]

I'm sorry that you feel this way. I've said my peace, and you apparently have said yours. And now I'm done with this.

You don't have to be sorry. I'm fine.

Take care.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

False with some hardcore pwnage.

[teknetic]

Someone actually complained about the Yankees not scoring enough runs in the 2004 postseason. How do you function in life?