(Not Such) Shocking News: The Rays Offense is Good Again; Is Pat Burrell?
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 11:00 AM EDT
Email
PrintRemember this post? And all the overreaction to one bad month? Well...
| Month | OBP | SLG | BABIP | BB% | SO% | ISO |
| Aprill | 0.342 | 0.448 | 0.314 | 9.9 | 22.6 | 0.179 |
| May | 0.362 | 0.455 | 0.323 | 10.9 | 22.2 | 0.177 |
| June | 0.366 | 0.498 | 0.317 | 10.7 | 21.8 | 0.214 |
| July | 0.317 | 0.384 | 0.281 | 10.4 | 24.3 | 0.150 |
| August | 0.351 | 0.470 | 0.303 | 11.1 | 24.7 | 0.205 |
The Rays' offense responds with its second best offensive month of the season.
---
Somewhat related: Pat Burrell.
Small sample size of 78 plate appearances, but in August he looked like Pat Burrell. I mean the Pat Burrell: .296/.359/.535. Well, okay, I lied, Pat Burrell has never looked like a .296 BA, but his other aspects like about right. His OPS since returning from the DL in mid-June is still sub-.800. That's not impressive, it's not pretty, it's not expected, and it is disappointing. Still these last 100 plate appearances with a .500 slugging percentage have encouraged me that his power is still there.
62% of his first pitches seen have been strikes. That's a career high as far as I can tell. Over the last three years Burrell was seeing strikes on the first pitch about 55% of the time. It's hard to take a passive approach at the plate when the league as a whole decides to throw you first pitch strikes. Obviously swinging at the first pitch isn't Pat's game, but in order to change the pitchers approach he may need to play some game theory and swing more often on the first pitch.
Oh, one more thing. 6% of Pat's plate appearances in August ended in a homer. His seasonal percentage entering the month was 2.5% and 5% over the last there years. The chances for a true talent 2.5% HR/PA hitter to pop 5 in 78 PA is 1.4%. So, it seems unlikely he's that bad already. I know that seems obvious, but probably not to everyone.
174 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So Burrell is hitting like Ibanez was early on and Ibanez is hitting like Burrell early on.
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on Aug 28, 2009 11:08 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Rays offense is a model of unconsistency
I wonder how many 6+ RS games we have v 3 or less
The last 4 games imo, is how the season has gone
2, 7, 12, 0= 21=5.1= 2-2
I would guess the Rays have more games where they have scored 3 or less, than the Yankees or Red Sox
And you're also going to assume your assumption is true without any
actual evidence. Fact is you have no idea. Now it may be true, I really don’t care enough to look it up. The thing is, neither do you. You just want to whine about something though, with no real concern if it’s true or not.
Tools Whore
by Tyler on Aug 28, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 8 recs
You're dead wrong--i've felt this about our offense all season
and i’d gladly look it up if i knew where. I tried baseball reference but maybe i’m not looking in the right area
help?
You'd probably have to do the work yourself
Through the runs for each game into a spreadsheet and run a histogram on it
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
I was hoping to click and post
maybe RJ can help
Wouldn't that take far longer?
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
so basically you're saying we need a captain
Who is clutch
www.draysbay.com
by Tommy Rancel on Aug 28, 2009 12:10 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
FYI I manually counted 42 for Boston
(all games with 3 or fewer runs scored)
by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 28, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Going backwards by month
TB August – 7
TB Jul – 11
TB Jun – 10
TB May – 6
TB APR – 13
BR Aug – 8
BR Jul – 10
BR Jun – 6
BR May – 12
BR Apr- 7
Total – TB (47)
Bos -42
The only thing I concluded from this was that the Rays had a bad April.
by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 28, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
But yes all runs are not created equal
100 runs 1 game and 0 runs the next is far less valuable than putting up 6 in both games.
This is a result of having a high strike out team.
Although even still most teams can say this to a degree. We just have to focus on playing consistent baseball both offensively and defensively…
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
geez, you're actually making sense, but still being a fan
Ttyler thinks being critical is bashing
I already looked at consistency.
Read the original post.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
The Rays have been wildly inconsistent
The overall offense has been good though. But you are right in the sense that inconsistency is important. Runs lose value as they are piled up. We’ve had too many games where we just didn’t score enough and games where we essentially scored too much. However most teams could say the same thing, but I do think we are probably on the more extreme end of it this year.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
reply fail
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
Although I think a lot of it has to do with perception due to our inconsistent pitching staff
If we won a 2-1 game every once in awhile then we wouldn’t really be thinking about it.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
If all your intuitions came true, the Rays would be on their way to 0-162
I guess you are more wrong than right
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Aug 28, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Also I'm glad PtB has picked it up. Same with Pena
Now if only BJ can stop hitting like a blindfolded girl….
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
Sigh.
Do you really want me to find the hundreds of examples of successful baseball players who k’d every 4 at bats or so?
League average hitter Ks about 1/5 times.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
The Rays strike out about as much as A-Rod.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
bums...
Kaz/Shields/Garza/Sonny/Price/Davis/Hellickson-necessitate a drool cup or a 7 man rotation
by CubFanRaysaddict on Aug 28, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
A week ago the strikeouts didn't concern you. whats changed?
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Aug 28, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
The Mets put the ball into play the most.
I wish our offense were more like theirs!
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Yankees are the model offense
Low K’s, high BB high HR
Oh, the best offense in the league is the model offense?
Shocker.
We’re the second best. We suck.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
We walk more and hit almost as much power as them.
That’s not park adjusted either, the Rays play in a pitchers park, the Yankees don’t.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
The Yanks hit 2% more infield flies.
They suck.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions
The Yankees offense is more consistent
as noted by Suttree above
If that were a skill then you would have a point.
Otherwise you’re jerking them off for having random variance fall their way more than ours.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
SO?
What do you propose is done? Or are you just complaining about something that has no solution? The latter seems to be your MO.
i don't have an answer, but i know our inconsistent offense is a huge area of concern
look i’m commenting on the thread, that really doesn’t tell the whole story
But it's not a skill.
You can’t set out to “improve your offensive consistency” unless you mean “add better offensive players”. We have the second best offense. There’s nothing we can do to make it more consistent shy of adding nine Pujolses and hoping they don’t have slumps that intertwine.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
did i say we could? NO
I’m telling you it is a problem
Yeah, sure sucks to have the second best offense in the league.
Take your bitching up with the bullpen, not the offense.
Do we really need the same arguments about Howell/Balfour?
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, you have to settle for something mind numbing.
I’d be cool if he bitched about only having two-three reliable relievers, but of course it’d be about Howell and Balfour.
HR Howell.
/ignores that Howell has the fifth lowest contact rate in the majors
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not on the leader or team pages yet.
Go to the player page, look under “Batted Ball” it’s the last column on the right.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Who says it is random variation?
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
Who says it isn't a "skill"?
I’d think it is very much a skill. Perhaps not on an individual level, but an organizational. This board routinely talks about how some players are streaky…such as Burrell. Some players are not nearly as streaky. Logically the more “burrells” that you have the more streaky your team will be. That isn’t always a bad thing, but it is a consequence of the construction of the team.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
How are you going to measure streakiness from player to player?
What’s the sample size you need to identify whether that standard deviation is anything but random?
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
A couple season probably
You would need to run a sliding window analysis. I started doing one on Pena last year then quit. I might try something out this weekend.
It seems like a lot of work for (probably) minimal gain.
If you find something significant, fine, obviously it matters more than I thought, but I don’t see it being overly drastic.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Well exactly
That would be step 1. Determine how streaky a player is.
My hypothesis is at that point we can say that a team with more streaky players will in fact be more streaky as a team.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
This is a discussion I had when I analyzed the Rays pitching
Basically for pitching a pitcher with a high ERA (lets just use that) would be more beneficial to be streaky as that means once in awhile they will product a low ERA game. Once your ERA is high enough then going even higher doesn’t mean squat…the team will still lose. A pitcher with say a super low ERA doesn’t want to be streaky, as a consistently low ERA will results in almost all wins. A streaky guy will have more shutouts, but more higher ERA games…resulting in more losses.
The same will apply for hitters/offenses but just in the opposite manner. Really high wOBA players and teams do not want to be streaky. Going higher doesn’t help, but going lower does. They want to be consistent. A real low wOBA team/player wants to be streaky as going lower doesn’t hurt, but going higher does..while staying the same results in Ls.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
Going lower for a high wOBA offense hurts
sorry
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
Not necessarily
A very high wOBA player being streaky could be good. They could carry the offense. The difference b/w pitcher/batter is that he’s one-ninth of the offensive output on a per-game basis.
That could be true
Although I don’t think so. For individual hitters that type of cumulative angle may hold some water.
and of course we can’t just look at an offense and pitching in a vacuum.
For example say team A scores 6 runs all 162 games
Team B scores 3 runs 81 games and 9 runs 81 games
Which is better (or better yet, preferred?)? Well it depends on the pitching of the team.
However I think in general you want your better players to be more consistent and your crappy players to be more streaky. The guys in the middle could go either way.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
I think over the long haul...
it makes very, very little difference. It depends on the rest of the lineup, the pitching, etc.
Well that was kind of my point
A team full of streaky hitters will result in a streaky team. On an individual basis does streakiness matter for a hitter? Probably not much. However for a team it probably makes a huge difference.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
Maybe.
You are assuming, though, that for some reason a team of streaky hitters will streak together. What if you have say half streaky hitters and exactly 2 streak at a time. Wouldn’t that be practically the same as a team of non-streaky hitters?
It would be a lot of work
I just think saying that streakiness on the player or team level doesn’t exist is just as absurd as saying it does exist. We just don’t know yet.
However there was a lot of talking about Burrell being a streaky player. So you are saying that he isn’t?
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
You are saying it is totally random
If it is a random occurance then how can you classify one player as streaky and another as consistent? It would all be random?
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
How do we know one player is more streaky than the other?
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not aware of any such method
I mentioned using a trailing 30 day wOBA
I’m just referencing the numerous Burrell posts over the last few months mentioning that he is streaky. Quite a few times people have shown his hot/cold months and that he is that sort of player. Of course I know we all can agree monthly data is close to worthless, but its still been presented that way for Burrell quite a bit.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
This is a bit off topic.
But is it just me or are home run hitters always classified as streaky?
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps like a 30 day trailing wOBA
Then check the deviations of it.
Of course in this context we are talking about a player. A team would be even more comprehensive. However logically if you have a lot of streaky guys then the team is going to be streaky (I’m assuming there is no correlation among streaks of players).
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
Yeah, why would we put value in the stat that correlates best to runs scored.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
You won't have to worry about me in that area
Bucs blow—always have always will, albeit for a couple years
They made it to two NFC championship games and won a SB.
Maybe 99-03 then.
This is strictly off the top of my head.
Maybe, it's just weird thinking the Bucs were the best franchise for that long.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmm... 97-2002 (I meant 2003 playoffs)
Bucs: 5/6 playoffs, 1 SB, 2 NFC championship appearances, 60 reg. season wins.
NE: 3/6 playoffs, 1 SB, 2 AFC CGA 52 wins.
STL: 3/6 playoffs, 1 SB, 2 SBA, 53 wins.
Depends on how you define success.
Is it making the playoffs? Being over .500? or winning titles? New England cleaned up in the SB department, but consistency, under Dungy to Gruden’s first year was outstanding imo
www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer
No doubt from 99-06 or whatever the Pats were number 1.
There was a 5 year period where the Bucs were a model franchise.
So the below quote is patently false:
Bucs blow—always have always will, albeit for a couple years
But since when does stern let facts get in the way of his assessments?
I don't understand this attitude
Just because we do a lot of things right doesn’t mean we don’t have areas to improve. We strike out way too much. We’d be a better team if we solved that. What is really wrong with saying that? Eternal optimism is just as annoying as eternal pessimism. We should just look at the reality. Overall we have a very good offense with quite a few great traits. We also have a few areas where we can improve upon.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
Thanks
My personality is that I look at things in two different ways:
1. Against my peers
2. Against myself
It really seems that we only compare the Rays to their competitors, but never to themselves.
A team, or a person, can be the absolute best at something when compared to their competitors, but still have the ability to improve.
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
I never said we couldn't improve.
And I never said there was anything wrong with saying we strike out too much. You’re reading things that aren’t there.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
That seems to be the general tone.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting
We're second. We're second to the Yankees.
The Yankees are his model offense — which of course they are, they’re the best offense in the league — I was being snarky when I said we suck because we’re second to them.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough
I didn’t take into account you were replying to sternfan
Can David Ortiz please send Dioner Navarro some of his PED's? K? Thanks
Because everything you comment has a negative connotation based on what you're posted in the past?
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
That's simply not true
in the past i never hesed stats to argue with, but today i almost always use them when i can find them
If you would've said
“We walk once every 10 times.” I’m guessing someone would’ve thought you were criticizing the offense for not walking enough.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
And saying A-Rod K's 1/4 as if a bad thing
is totally taking it out of context, Pena i can handle cause he has a 850+ OPS
But i can’t handle a hitter with a sub 700 OPS who K’s 1/3 times
Is the July BABIP right?
0.381 doesn’t sound right for what is perceived to be the worst offensive month.
Am i a huge Rays fan?? Absolutely
But reading most threads, you’d think this team was 136=0
Well guess what, it isn’t and i’m showing you a reason why
Uh, reading most threads, I think you'd realize most of the people here don't think we're going to make the playoffs.
If you’re picking reasons for that, offense consistency is at the bottom of the list. More important has been the bullpen’s ability to blow winnable games and the starting two out of our five starting pitchers sucking ass the first half of the season.
How would you know?
You’ve already shown yopu’re too lazy too look things up. The only thing you’re basing that on is someone else’s numbers on TWO TEAMS.
by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 28, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
my two cents
Levels of kurtosis are worth discussing. If we expect a distribution to be normal (not saying RS is necessarily) an examination of the peak and tails is noteworthy.
I also feel like there is a bit of a gap in the discussion here of sternfan1 saying the YTD performance has been bad (as it relates to frequency of low scoring games) which he is correct about. RJ is mostly (I would think) correct that consistency isn’t a skill, and that random variation has a lot to play with this, but as he points out, with the 2nd best wOBA in the league, it is reasonable to expect the results to have been better then what they have been.
I just ignore him now
I can't help that I make some things look easier than they really are.
by Sandy Kazmir on Aug 28, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, I thought we were 136-0.
That’s why I wrote a post basically admitting the playoffs weren’t happening last week.
by R.J. Anderson on Aug 28, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
sometimes i wonder if the players themselves are familiar with these metrics and how they work.
like, what would burrell say if you asked him what OPS is? (i wouldn’t even ask anyone if they’d heard of the less mainstream stuff like FIP and wOBA)
In Moneyball, Michael Lewis talks about the biggest difference between Billy Beane's failure and Lenny Dysktra's success:
Lenny didn’t give a shit about his numbers or failure. He was a moron, but that was a plus for him. If he struck out, he had an emotional avenue for dealing with it.
I think most baseball players would find a way to dismiss any failings of their stats, though I’m sure Burrell’s aware of his OPS. It’s on the scoreboard.
Not according to Frenchy
The best hitter player on the Mets can’t be wrong
I can't help that I make some things look easier than they really are.
by Sandy Kazmir on Aug 28, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
What would be the offesive stat that defines game by game offensive value.
Like the offensive side of WAR on a per game basis, and where could I find that?
WHAT THE HELL IS WITH OUR OFFENSE AGAINST ROOKIE PITCHERS
they cant all be that great to shut a slam pack all star squad down! the texas rookie, the toronto rookie, now detroits, is there more i cant remember?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Please read our Community Guidelines.
Related FanPosts on DRaysBay
Related FanShots on DRaysBay
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
DRB Suggestion Box
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
