You might think it is hard to complain when your team has just reeled off the longest active win streak in the major leagues (6), and has an 8-3 record, good enough to hold the top spot in their division and tied for second in all of baseball. Seems like a pretty good start right? Especially considering how well the pitching staff is performing, because they were the big question mark before the season, and now they are holding it down, that is great right? NO, things are not as good as they seem, the Dodgers are living on credit, sub prime, interest only loans right now and it is all going to catch up with them when their rates come back to a sustainable level... I mean, when their pitchers regress to the mean. (I write for the Wall Street Journal on the side and forgot this was not their article.)
Allow me to explain, currently the Dodgers pitching staff is greatly over performing, which is great for the time being, but mark my words this will not remain. Please view some of these ERA+ numbers and tell me I am wrong, Clayton Kershaw, 303 Eric Stults, 174 Ramon Troncoso, 185 Ronald Belisario 387!!! John Broxton, 337 Will Ohman, 202 Chad Billingsley, 219 Randy Wolf, 116 and Hiroki Kuroda's one start 286. Let me briefly explain ERA+ if you are unfamiliar, it is based off of 100 being league average so for instance, Eric Stults right now is 74% better than the average pitcher in the league right now... this should all be sinking in right about now, why we are in trouble that is. These numbers are all obviously inflated considering we played seven of the eleven games against the Padres and Giants unsurmountably inept offenses, this will not hold up against even decent teams, I promise. We know some of our staff really are premier pitchers (Billingsley, Broxton, possibly Kershaw and Kuroda) but not that much better than the rest of the league, there is no way. Now we get into the meat of our problems and the real cause for concern. The pitching staff may be able to hold up some what and continue to deliver serviceable starts and relief innings. Obviously not as good as it has been, but it can remain better than league average as a whole, no problem, not unrealistic at all.
Now let's all forget about the 8-3 record for a moment and the runs that the other teams have scored as compared to the runs the Dodgers have scored in those respective games, as was previously mentioned, the teams the Dodgers have played are ummm... how do I say this, CANINE FECES, and let us look at the Dodgers offensive output. Seems pretty good right, 5.36 runs per game to be exact, OK, fine. but now take a look at the some of these numbers and tell me you are OK with this output.
April 6th: 9 hits, 3 walks, one error, this equals 13 baserunners. 2 for 8 WISP (with runners in scoring position) Runs scored, 4.
April 7th: 5 hits, 5 walks, 2 for 9 WISP. Runs scored, 2. LOSS
April 8th: 10 hits, 8 walks, 2 for 12 WISP. Runs scored, 5.
April 9th: 8 hits, 7 walks, 1 for 9 WISP. Runs scored, 3. LOSS
April 10th: 8 hits, 3 walks, one error, 3 for 8 WISP. Runs scored, 4. LOSS
April 12th: 6 hits, 4 walks, one error, 2 for 7 WISP. Runs scored, 3.
April 15th: 13 hits, 6 walks, 1 for 7 WISP. Runs scored, 5.
April 17th: 11 hits, 5 walks, 2 for 15 WISP. Runs scored, 4.
The Dodgers are hitting .200 in these games WISP.... Andruw Jones-esque... completely unacceptable. These are the lines from 7 of the 11 games the Dodgers have played so far and all three of their losses occurred during games where they had ample oppurtunity to score runs but did not, go figure. The only acceptable loss and underperformance here is the April 10th game, in which James McDonald was touched up real naughty like, real early. Even with better performance from the offense this game is probably still a loss. Oddly enough that was the one game they were 3 for 8 WISP and it did not even matter. Fact is, with 7 more hits WISP that would make their BA with runners in scoring position .293 in these 7 games, which would extrapolate into at least one run and possibly two in some situations. That one or two runs would have been good enough to tie 2 of the 3 games that were lost. Batting Average WISP aside, looks at all the baserunners, to score so few runs with that many baserunners... the execution here... it is lacking, can we fix this, please? It is driving me nuts.
So what do we know? We know that the pitching will not continue on this most torrid of streaks as much as we would love for that to happen, but it should not have to if the hitters can perform at even a respectable clip with runners in scoring position. Despite what the W-L columns and BA and OBP and OPS+ is telling us right now, this team has kind of sucked, this team should be hitting the blackjack tables at the Mirage hard right now, because this kind of under performance with runners in scoring position will not continue to sustain a .727 winning percentage and it can only be attributed to luck, let it ride and pay the LADY. And you can take that to the bank.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
By "Andruw Jones-esque", I assume you mean the fat lop that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn last year, not the trim Ranger who is hitting .545 with an OPS of 1.779 in 2009. I hate that man.
Andruw is off to a hot start...
However, since the three of you seem to constantly discuss "regression to the mean" in your podcasts and now your articles, make sure that you're looking at the positive aspect of a regression to the mean as well as the negative. In your selective sample of games, you said that the Dodgers are hitting .200 RISP (not WISP, btw). The league batting average over the last 20 years or so is around .265. With a large enough sample size, it would stand to reason that BA/RISP would be the same, or very near, regular BA. Whether or not you believe in the "clutch" players, I think you can agree that the League BA/RISP would be close to .265. Therefore, while we can dread a regression toward the mean in our pitching staff, we can happily look forward to a "progression" toward the mean in our batting with RISP.
Also, I think it's important to remember that the Dodgers lineup is widely considered to be among the best in the NL, and, therefore, we can probably expect them to outperform the League, even if our pitching staff does not. If we can believe the hype, then we can expect better performances with RISP from, mostly, above average hitters.
I thought WISP was a wierd acronym myself but for some reason this morning on baseball-reference when I was doing my research that is what they were calling it... so I just went with it... and what's funny is now when I rechecked it to make sure I wasn't crazy it said With RISP in the box score... which also seems wierd... should just say RISP... but that's beside the point.
You are right in the fact that our teams BA/RISP should indeed progress to the mean ... but if you look at the teams OPS+ we are well above league average, but not when it counts. My cause for concern and this subsequent article is the fear that we have a team of J.D. Drews. Get hits and extra base hits and the occasional jack, enough to inflate the OPS, but then when it counts you could always count on a J.D. Drew backwards K or ground out. This is one of my deepest fears... I cannot stress enough my hate for Nancy Drew. I want players who come to the plate hungry but also under control, can work a count and pitcher and produce a worthwhile at bat when there is a scoring oppurtunity. I dont want a team of guys who hit 300 and then hit 200 or worse when WRISP (there we go I made a new one).
Post a Comment