Situational hitting is just hitting
Quick pointer to Geoff’s very long post about the M’s situational hitting woes.
There is no one answer here. But one fact seems indisputable: this entire team needs work in some aspects of situational hitting. A team that’s the worst in the league at knocking baserunners in should adopt no less of an attitude.
I dispute that that’s a fact. They need to work at hitting, not “some aspects of situational hitting”. The M’s suck at advancing runners because they suck at hitting. They’re at or near the bottom any way you want to sort the teams. They don’t hit for average, they don’t get on base, they don’t hit for power. It’s Ichiro, Branyan, Gutierrez, and a collection of average-to-sucky guys.
Teams that don’t hit don’t hit with guys on base. There’s no approach, no spring training drills, that teams that can’t hit can use to become way more awesome with runners on. Advancing the runner with a bunt is generally a wash because you’re giving up an out, and you know the rest of this argument. And conversely, teams that hit don’t have to figure out why they’re not scoring enough runners, because they score because they’re hitting… tada! Triumph of the obvious.
There’s some variation, of course, because the sample size for hitting is huge and the sample size with guys on second is small, and leans heavily on hitters who are up when the good hitters are on, and so on and so forth. But you can predict a team’s hitting with men on next year with this year’s hitting better than you can with this year’s hitting with men on.
None of which is to say that this isn’t painful. But the correlation between hitting and hitting with runners on is nearly perfect. There’s no need to overthink this, or for the team to (as they did in past years to disastrous results) go find a guy they think is a good situational hitter.
Comments
22 Responses to “Situational hitting is just hitting”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
But … it’s Situational! In a Situation!
It’s gotta be different!
The Angels starting lineup tonight had the following batting averages when I looked a moment ago:
.294
.300
.301
.304
.306
.307
.308
.309
.310
(a 17 point span, and no repeats – rather unlikely!)
All 9 of the Angels starters had averages higher than the highest among the Mariners starters (Gutierrez, at .284). I think that it’s more than just situational hitting…
To document Derek’s point:
M’s are last in runs scored,but,
last in walks
13th in OBP
12th in slugging
13th in OPS+
6th in sac flies (isn’t that “situational hitting?”)
1st in sac hits
So what, they need to do more sacrifices?
For what I can think of, there is only one special situation where you might consider situational hitting different.
That is with a speedy runner on first, with the first baseman holding him on close. This then opens up a gap on the right hand side, which a very good hitter might be able to utilize.
However, as I recall this has kind of been debunked.
But I still think that a hitter like Ichiro! might have the bat control to push the ball through the right side.
But anyone with any real power really shouldn’t bother. At best, this is going to result in a single, and to try to change your method at the plate to push the ball through a hole that is 6 feet wider than it usually is isn’t really a winning strategy.
What I think Wak sees is a team that doesn’t particularly run the bases well, doesn’t see enough pitches, and would struggle against some of the kids playing in the LLWS. And because of this he’s always thinking “I’m not sure we’re going to score three runs this game, so we’d better find a way to get at least one here.”
What situation is there where you *don’t* want a hit?
Virtually any time the dealer is showing 14-16.
Joe Carter had a .305 career OBP, he drove in well over 1,000 runs in his career. Joe Carter was a better hitter when men were on base, it’s a fact, look it up. Some guys just hit better when there is an RBI opportunity. I don’t know if it is because they are more focused or some other reason but it is the case with some players.
No, it isn’t. Look it up.
Wouldn’t a good “situational” hitter someone who underperforms most of the time? Say a player has an 850 OPS with runners on and a 780 OPS with bases empty. (I’m assuming that’s a larger than average gap.) Wouldn’t you want to brainwash the guy into taking the “runners on base” approach all of the time?
That said, the Mariners seem to be extra sucky about putting the ball in play with a man on third and no one out but that may be selective memory on my part.
But Derek, it’s a FACT.
Fun side note, by the way. Joe Carter’s career line with RISP: .271/.338/.467, no one on: .255/.294/.467
The standard-issue hitter last year hit about +.012 AVG, +.034 OBP and +.045 SLG with RISP compared to empty.
Joe Carter, mega clutch hitter of your dreams, was over his career exactly as valuable in the clutch as every other hitter.
And you could have figured you were absolutely, totally wrong out on your own in about 10s before commenting.
DMZ his argument is actually right technically.
“Some guys just hit better when there is an RBI opportunity. I don’t know if it is because they are more focused or some other reason but it is the case with some players.”
A majority of players hit better with runners in scoring position, and that would qualify as “some”. Including most of the guys classified as clutch hitters. Therefore, clutch hitters must exist…like Santa Claus and the happy ending.
If there are runners on the pitcher is probably struggling, and the infield is probably playing close to the bags…that means it’s easier to hit. End. As henryv noted there might be players whose game is built to exploit such a situation, like Ichiro, but it isn’t going to be nearly as big of a factor as facing a pitcher who just put several guys on.
And actually, I don’t think Ichiro’s career stats even bear him out as being great with runners on. Early on in his career I think he was very positive, and I always thought his style should lend itself to the situation.
But I don’t think the numbers have gone that way. I would have to actually check to be sure though.
Ok, just checked. .130 points of OPS career, haven’t looked at more advanced metrics. Pretty good improvement, but probably not statistically significant over the .79 cited above.
Scratch the last, was off by a line. Ignoring the “2 out” crap it’s only .064 OPS, worse than average.
As I understand the game of baseball, the ONLY “situation” where hitting is important is when you are standing in the batter’s box with a bat in your hand.
We’ve all seen the classic Kirk Gibson homer off Dennis Eckersley in the 1988 World Series. He hit that homer not because he was good under pressure or a clutch hitter or whatever.
If you watch the video, you’ll see Gibson step out of the batter’s box with the count at 3-2. He remembered the scouting report that Eckersley always threw a backdoor slider on that count.
So Gibson stepped back into the box, looked for the backdoor slider and hit it out of the park. That’s what good hitters do.
There’s no voodoo here.
I never understood, if a guy like Joe Carter could focus more or bear down under pressure or whatever the line is, why wasn’t he focusing the rest of the time? Shouldn’t you be able to put in your maximum effort whenever you’re at the plate? Why would we admire a guy who can only focus his concentration when he’s got men on base, but eases up the rest of the time?
What makes a great “clutch hitter” great is that he hits just as well when there are men on base. It’s not about hitting better when you’re under pressure — it’s about not succumbing to the pressure.
Me, on the other hand, I wilt under pressure. That’s one of several (many) reasons why I didn’t play professional baseball.
Gang way! Round two is in the loop!
mw3 wrote:
I did look it up, and to prove Derek’s point (again), here are a couple of links:
Joe Carter’s batting splits with bases occupied.
Basically, although most of these stats come from samples too small to be very telling, the difference in Carter’s performance with runners on compared to his overall stats might show a 4-10% bump (which, as Derek notes, is pretty standard).
Joe Carter’s “Clutch” Stats.
A closer look reveals that, contrary to your suggestion, Carter actually slightly underperformed (relative to his overall performance) in “clutch” situations.
Geoff chimes in on the issue again with a second post. Basically his argument is “but if you slice the season into even smaller samples, the differences get even bigger and more telling!”.
Hey, look! When you make sample sizes smaller, you get more variation! Which of course has nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with the Mariners “altering their approach” in clutch situations.