How not to score runs
Posted: April 22nd, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 21 Comments »
The improved Kansas City Royals — and they really are improved — have scored 63 runs in 19 games. That’s barely more than three runs per game, which is horrible. It’s 11% fewer runs than the Minnesota Twins, who have scored the SECOND fewest runs in the American League. It is 19 fewer runs than the disappointing Detroit Tigers. it’s is 35 fewer runs than the division-leading Chicago White Sox. It puts the Royals on pace to score the fewest runs in the American League in, well, in a lot of years. Decades, in fact.
No, they probably won’t actually SCORE fewer runs than any team in decades. It’s just early. The Royals, I suspect, will have trouble scoring runs much of the year, but they’ll have their breakouts too. They won’t score 537 runs like their current pace. They won’t score fewer than 600 runs, I would bet, heck they will probably score 700. They did last year, and there’s no reason to believe they’re WORSE offensively than last year.
Still, this does seem a good opportunity to break down WHY a team cannot score runs. I would do this with the San Francisco Giants, who have scored 63 runs in one more game, but frankly, that Giants team just depresses me to no end.* Randy Winn hits third? Bengie Molina hits FOURTH? I don’t think there are too many mysteries there.
*The only thing that I find fun at all about that team is Tim Lincecum, who has a chance to have a Steve Carlton ‘72 type year with the club. And, I have to say that I just like Fred Lewis.
This is not to say the Royals are loaded at the third spot (more on Mark Teahen in a bit) or four (Billy Butler is already a really good hitter but home run power might come later), or five (Jose Guillen is hitting .173 with one homer — I’m fairly confident he will not hit .173 for the season, but … you know we are 75 at-bats into the season already. He can start picking it up any day now, really).
Still, the question is: How does a team with a blend of youth and veteran talent, a team playing hard and reasonably well overall, a team two of the better young hitters in the league, go about scoring only three runs per game? To find out, it might be best to compare the Royals with Oakland. On the surface there doesn’t seem to pick much between them. Oakland is the only team in the league with fewer home runs than the Royals (KC has 9, Oakland 7), and the Royals have a slightly better batting average, almost three times as many stolen bases, way fewer strikeouts …
Yet, somehow the A’s have scored 28 more runs than the Royals — more than a run per game difference. How?
1. The A’s get on base. The Royals don’t.
We all know here the virtual irrelevance of batting average as a standalone statistic. If you are stuck wandering in the desert, and you come upon a genie who says you have to pick the higher scoring baseball team to save your life*, and he only gives you their team batting averages, yes, it would be wise to take the team with the higher average. But you should know that you would have a pretty decent chance of dying a horrible, burning death.
*It could happen.
The Royals are hitting .259 and the A’s are hitting .257. And this is inconsequential. Why? Two reasons. One, the A’s get on base a LOT more. On average, the Royals have been getting 11.32 runners on base via hit and walk, which is 12th in the league, barely ahead of Cleveland and Minnesota. The A’s have been getting 12.9 runners on base per game via hit and walk, which is third in the league. That’s a very big difference — more than 1.5 extra base runners per games.
Sometimes, we make run scoring too complicated. It seems to me that when you take the larger view there are only two ways to score runs.
1. Hit a home run.
2. Get on base somehow, and work your way around the bases on a combination of teammate hits and other stuff (walks, wild pitches, errors, sacrifices, stolen bases, balks, catcher interferences, taking extra bases on throws, etc).
So, you could score runs by hitting a lot of home runs — this is what the White Sox are doing. If you don’t have that capability or that kind of ballpark — like Kansas City and Oakland — then you have to get on base. The Royals are not.
And the truth is, the Royals could have a hard time with this all year. When they’re not hitting — like over the weekend in Oakland — they have no shot. They don’t have many players with a history of getting on base. Their relatively high average veterans — Jose Guillen, Mark Grudzielanek, Ross Gload — do not walk. Alex Gordon is showing a lot of the talent people expected, but he’s not a patient hitter at this stage of his career. And the lower part of the lineup — John Buck, Tony Pena, Miguel Olivo — all have dreadful, below .300 lifetime on-base percentages.
Really, the only three guys in this lineup with a legit shot at putting up .350-plus on-base percentages are Billy Butler, David DeJesus and Mark Teahen*. And none of those guys are sure things. Last year, seven of the nine regular Red Sox and seven of the nine Yankees posted .350+ OBPs.
Last year the Royals had two regulars with .350+ OBP — Dejesus and Teahen — and both were BARELY .350+.
*Teahen is really an interesting case to me. It is apparent to me — and not everyone agrees with me on this — that he will not hit for much power. He had a nice power jolt in late 2006, and he’s a big guy, and he’s only 26. But I just don’t think that’s his game. He strikes out a whole lot, and really always has, and I can’t help but wonder if that isn’t at least in part because people keep trying to make him what he’s not. He always looks more comfortable to me hitting the ball the other way, getting locked into long at bats, fouling off pitches, working walks and so on.
Whatever, he’s not a No. 3 hitter at this point. I’ve mentioned this before … I really think he’s an intriguing leadoff hitter. Nobody would think of him that way because of the strikeouts and because people generally don’t appreciate his athletic ability. But honestly, I would rather seem him uyp top than DeJesus, who I believe looks more and more miscast as a leadoff hitter. Why not flop those two guys and see what happens? Not that DeJesus is a classic No. 3 hitter (and not that lineup adjustments make much difference anyway), but I’d feel better just seeing if it would shake things up.
2. The A’s hit with more power.
Everyone looks at home runs — the Royals have two more than the A’s, who are dead last in the league — but Oakland has nine more doubles and five more triples than the Royals. There’s no need to point out what this does for run production — both for scoring runs and driving in runs. It just takes FOREVER to score a run when you’re not walking, and you’re blooping singles left and right.
3. The Royals have so far run into more outs.
This is a big one. The A’s may only have five stolen bases while the Royals have 14. But the A’s have only been caught stealing twice. The Royals have been caught stealing 10 times, second worst in the league. This team flat CANNOT run into outs. They’re just not good enough to do it, not fast enough to do it, not powerful enough to do it. Those eight outs are huge.
Look at this in context — in Kansas City’s 5-3 loss in Anaheim, the Royals banged out 11 hits. Now, you should definitely score more than three runs in a game when you have 11 hits. The Royals even had three walks in the game — so that’s 14 runners on base. How do you not score more than three runs with 14 on base?
First, 10 of the 11 hits were singles. Jose Guillen hit the only double of the game.
Second, the Royals hit into two double plays. This is going to happen when you’re a ground-ball hitting team — and this Royals team is. Still, those double plays just KILL you when you don’t have extra-base power.
Third, Alex Gordon ran into an out — he was caught stealing for reasons I still have not quite figured. There were runners on first and third, two outs, John Buck at the plate, I don’t get it. You’re STILL counting on Buck getting a hit in order to score a run. Someone suggested it was a busted double steal; if so it was really busted.
Fourth, the Royals do not have much speed — either stolen base speed or base running speed. So:
– When Jose Guillen hit that double, Billy Butler was on first base. Last year, runners scored from first on a double 44% of the time. Butler has many, many good qualities as a hitter. But he might never score from first on a double. In this case, Butler ended up dying at third.
– With runners on first and second, Joey Gathright singled to very short left field. Last year, runners scored from second on a single about 59% of the time — higher, no doubt, when it wasn’t an infield single. Ross Gload did not score from second. He ended up dying at third too.
Fifth, the Royals did not place their hits especially well. Twice, the Royals had runners on 1st and 2nd with one out — you are expected by the run matrix to score a run there. The Royals did not score either time — both times they had the batter hit a foul pop-ups.
It’s just one game, and a bad one at that. But these are the telltale signs of the Royals struggling offense right now. On Sunday, the Royals gave up 11 hits to Oakland. None of those were home runs. But the A’s scored seven runs because:
– They walked seven times. Seven.
– They hit two doubles, both of those figuring in runs.
– They did not hit into a double play.
– They did not give up an out on the bases.
– They went 6 for 16 with runners in scoring position.
I really don’t want to make this about the Royals specifically — I’m really interested in how and why teams go into scoring droughts beyond the obvious “They’re not hitting.” But I do think, as mentioned, that the Royals will, on and off, be in scoring droughts all year. They will certainly have times when the score a lot of runs, when the weather gets better and a few balls fly out of the yard (and to be fair, the Royals HAVE spent a lot of time playing in terrible weather so far), when they string a bunch of hits together, when they run into unconfident pitchers and so on. But the main problems are not likely to go away real soon.
Hmm, if only the Royals could find a player that could get on base a lot, hit with some power, not run into outs … gee, if only a player like that was available on the open market … gee …
Loading ...
Lincecum is more “fun,” but Matt Cain is another reason to watch the Giants. (Along with Bowker, I suppose, although I’d literally never heard of him before April 2008.)
Joe, are suggesting Frank Thomas or Barry Bonds in the last paragraph? Both would fit the bill, but how would you fit Billy Butler and Thomas both into the Royals lineup? From the looks of things I don’t think the Royals have enough faith in Billy to play him at first more than once a week or so.
Similarly, where would you fit Bonds into the lineup? You’ve got Guillen, DeJesus/Gathright, Teahen in the outfield already. I suppose Bonds might be able to play first base adequately.
True, Bonds and Thomas won’t run into outs, but they are still going to die at third. They aren’t scoring from second on a base hit, and CERTAINLY not from first on a double. I’m still trying to think think who else would fit…
Mike Piazza, in LF. I”ll trade his lack of defense for his hitting ability any day.
Butler can’t be a big enough defensive liability to justify DHing all the time. He should play first, Bonds could DH. Gload could be a super sub with German and Pena could be a late innings defensive replacement at SS. Offense fixed!
Dejesus
Grudz
Gordon
Bonds
Butler
Guillen
Teahen
Buck
Callaspo
Teahan’s batting stance seems to have changed since his surgery after 2006. When he was brought back up from Omaha in 2006, I remember tuning into the game in the middle of one of his at-bats, and I didn’t know who was batting. He was slightly stooped over with his knees bent, much like Don Mattingly. I remember him just exploding out of his crouch and crushing the ball to the opposite field.
His stance now seems to me more upright, and he doesn’t look comfortable when he swings the bat. In 2006, for a while it seemed like he was going to get a hit in every at bat, and was drawing walks. He just doesn’t look comfortable at the plate now. Did the Royals tinker with his batting stance (like Buck’s leg kick)? Was it his shoulder surgery?
I also wonder what effect moving from third base to the outfield has on a player. Vision is critical to hitting, and I’ve always wondered if moving 200 feet farther away from the action could affect how a player sees the ball. I know that when I leave the ballpark after sitting in distant seats and squinting for 3 hours, my eyes take a while to re-adjust to the road.
Whatever the cause, it’s just hard to ignore the power drop coinciding with the surgery and the new outfield position.
I’m sorry. I’m not a huge Bonds fan or anything, but it’s RIDICULOUS that he hasn’t signed anywhere yet. Either the A’s OR the Royals could definitely use him.
I’m not sure what kind of fan this makes me but I love the Royals and enjoy my 21+ games that my family and I go to.
I would rather be .500 without Bonds than go to the playoffs with him. Perhaps that is wrong but I would consider giving up my tickets if the Royals sign Bonds.
Is he everything wrong with baseball? No. But he has added to his own situation by showing the kind of human being that he is. The Royals don’t need that circus.
Bonds and Bobby Knight are in the same group. Great contributors to their games but such foul people that no one can admire them for it.
Having just finished Game of Shadows, I don’t think winning a few more games this year is worth selling the teams soul.
No need to overreact. Haven’t we been through enough Juan Gone/Benito Santiago/Kevin McReynolds quick fixes?
Much like what the Royals need at the plate: Patience. Let the kids play (just stop them from running around so much!).
I had to re-check the headline just to make sure that I was reading about the Royals because what you described was the Padres’ offensive woes to a tee.
OK, except for the SB attempts but the running into outs is very familiar. The Padres are slower than a turtle. They had a 31 hit singles streak at some point.
With all due respect, Joe G. , I think you are freaking crazy.
After a 23 year (and counting) playoff drought, you’d rather miss the playoffs again than have Bonds on your team?
No offense, but the Royals don’t need your business. You should attend MLS games, or some other second-rate sport that caters to entertainment over quality competition.
Joes Guillen is on this team, why not Barry Bonds? What did Barry Bonds do that Jose Guillen didn’t? I know – he hit the ball with more power and got on base more often. And last year he did it while almost certainly having to pee in a cup 3 times a day, with blood testing coming in between.
If somebody can convince me that Billy Butler’s defense at first base will create more losses than Barry Bonds at DH will create wins, I’m happy to listen.
I just finished reading “Dutch,” but that doesn’t mean I believe the Congress should immediately blow up that silly Jefferson face and carve Reagan into his place on Mt. Rushmore.
I took that statement to be referring to Thomas, not Bonds.
“I just finished reading “Dutch,†but that doesn’t mean I believe the Congress should immediately blow up that silly Jefferson face and carve Reagan into his place on Mt. Rushmore.”
Um… What?
My point is that Barry Bonds = bad guy, bad in the club house, bad influence (as documented in “Game of Shadows”). Many of the same things could be said for Guillen based on his track record.
Jury is still out on Guillen.
Despite the start, this is a transition year for the Royals, why roll the dice and give at bats to a 43 year old malcontent (or 39 year old malcontent if you’re talking about Thomas)? I’d much rather give the at-bats to Shealy…
I believe he was talking about Kenny Lofton in that last paragraph. I know he’s old, but the guy gets on base and creates runs.
As a Giants fan a small part of me would have loved them to re-sign Bonds for another year, even if it is the wrong decision. I mean when you put signing Bonds to a 1-year deal versus the contracts given to Zito and Rowand it suddenly doesn’t seem so ridiculous.
Still at leats as Joe points out there’s Lincecum (I should mention Cain as well but Lincecum is just so much more fum/exciting to watch) who already looks like he might have an amazing year despite terrible run support.
I’d also just like to say that I would love to see the Giants sign Thomas AND Piazza and have them play 1B and LF. The defense might be terrible but at least we wouldn’t be subjected to the sight of Bengie Molina hitting fourth.
Ok, forget Bonds. That’s a pipe dream. Nobody wants that headache. What I say is…Put it on the boooooard…YES!!! Gimme Big Frank, baby!!
I was a little on the fence about a move like this, but after always hillariously brilliant Junior pointed out today (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/04/big-dead.html) the Hurt led the Blue Jays in the following categories last year:
OBP
OPS
Home Runs
RBI
Walks
OPS+
Adjusted Batting Runs
Batting Wins
I must say that my opinion changed a bit. Hitting on Joe’s point that as a stand-alone stat AVG is a terrible indicator of overall baseball goodness, this year Frank is hitting at a .167 clip…BUT…he has 3 HR’s and 11 walks. Find me any Royal that is as versed at getting on base. I’ll make it easy for you…you can’t.
I love it. I love that this entire post, purportedly about the Royals batters’ inability to score runs, leading into a discussion about run-scoring factors in general, was actually a cleverly disguised pitch to bring in Frank Thomas — and not only that, a pitch to bring in Frank Thomas that casts his utter lack of speed on the basepaths as a positive. And it all comes together.
Really, the wickedly unfortunate thing in all this is that the Blue Jays are coming to K.C. for a 3-game series this weekend, which would be stunningly perfect if it weren’t 6 days too soon. Since no one’s likely to claim Thomas on waivers and have to pay his salary, he won’t be joining another major league team until the first of May (having been released on the 20th) — just after the Jays leave town. The Royals are going to Toronto in just under a month, sure, but that’s just not as poetic.
First of all I’d have Bonds over Thomas any day, he is still the better hitter, has more speed and if push came to shove could play a little left field.
This clearly leaves the question, if Thomas gets signed by another club (which he most likely will) are we looking at collusion against Bonds?
I believe there has been collusion against Bonds, which is a real shame for baseball as it only serves to mar the record books even more. Sure people say Bonds is a cheat and he deserves an asterisk next to his records but surely stopping Bonds from playing and not letting him improve his records further is even worse. Nobody wants the scenario in a few years when A-Rod (probably) beats the home run record only for people to wonder what might have been if Big Barry had got his chance to smash a few more.
2 things Joe:
First, I sent an email back to you about the Negro Leagues project, did you receive that one?
Second- Here’s a GREAT look at one of the Royals’ problems so far this year.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=851