"Get The Man In": Catchy Slogan, Successful Strategy, or Both?
I've been sitting on this topic for a week or so now, hoping I'd get the inspiration to go even more in-depth with the research, but that hasn't happened yet so here goes. By now, you've probably heard about how the Rays have a new catch-phrase: "Get The Man In" or GTMI. In short, the Rays have emphasized situational hitting, focusing on cutting down on strikeouts and making more contact with runners in scoring position. Derek Shelton has been getting lots of praise for the idea and implementation:
Shelton has not necessarily changed mechanics. His emphasis has been on the strategic approach. With runners in scoring position, a pitcher is more likely to stick with his best stuff, so a hitter has to adjust accordingly. The idea is not to find a pitch that you can hit a mile but to look for a pitch that you can handle well enough to get the runner in from third base.
If you look purely at results, it seems like this approach is working; outside of last night's game, the Rays have been spectacular with runners in scoring position this season, hitting .297/.375/.470 in those situations (.845 OPS). That's all fine and dandy, but I'm skeptical; one of the principles of sabermetrics is that in the long run, players should perform the same regardless of if there are men on base or not. In small samples you may have have a player drastically over- or under-performing with runners on base - heck, whole teams can over- or under-perform in these situations for the course of an entire season - but that doesn't mean we should expect that performance to continue into the future. It's called regression - in clutch situations, players and teams should perform close to their career averages, so that's what we should expect going forward.
That said, maybe the Rays really are doing something different at the plate with runners in scoring position this season. If they're collectively changing their approaches to at-bats, then it's possible that they could be doing something that would influence their success rate. Let's take a look, shall we?
Recently, Andy Hellicksonstine shared a spreadsheet in the comments section of a post, detailing the Rays' numbers with runners in scoring position. I added a little bit to it, but for the most part it's the same; check it out here, or just read on for a summary. As of a few days ago, here is a breakdown of the 2010 Rays' plate appearances with runners in scoring position:
|
Hit% |
BB% |
K% |
ISO |
HR% |
HBP% |
|
|
RISP |
25.28% |
10.74% |
17.23% |
0.180 |
2.24% |
1.34% |
|
Other PAs |
20.14% |
10.13% |
22.24% |
0.131 |
1.98% |
0.35% |
Woh, okay. So the Rays are actually striking out less - significantly less - with runners in scoring position and as a result, they're putting more balls in play and getting more hits. They're walking at a similar rate, too, which shows that their plate discipline is relatively unchanged. What's odd, though, is that the Rays are actually hitting for more power with runners in scoring position, hitting more home runs and having a higher Isolated Power (ISO). If the Rays are focusing on just making contact and putting the ball in play, one would assume that their power numbers would suffer, right? I don't have a great explanation for this; it's not like the Rays are simply hitting more doubles, since they're actually hitting more home runs with runners on. Oh, and we're getting hit with the ball more with runners on, which doesn't have any bearing on anything but I found interesting.
Looking at those numbers, GTMI does appear to be having an effect on the Rays' approach, at least in that the Rays have cut down on strikeouts. Is this approach any different than last year, though?
|
Hit% |
BB% |
K% |
ISO |
HR% |
HBP% |
|
|
RISP |
22.03% |
13.55% |
20.15% |
0.156 |
2.28% |
1.14% |
|
Other PAs |
23.07% |
9.21% |
19.44% |
0.186 |
3.69% |
0.58% |
That's a definite "Yes." Last year it seems like the Rays were more concerned with working the count and taking walks with runners on base. Is one approach better than the other? At least so far, it seems so. Cutting down on strikeouts will help you increase your batting average since you're putting more balls in play (and by the law of Batting Average on Balls In Play, about 30% of those will fall for hits), and the Rays don't seem to be sacrificing any power yet by using that approach. It's an interesting approach and one that could work out for the Rays if they manage to keep it up.
Of course, I'd love to dig even deeper with the numbers is possible. If anyone out there has mad database skills and would like to run some numbers, I think it would be interesting to look at the Rays' plate discipline (O-Swing%, Z-Swing%, etc.) and batted ball (LD%, GB%, FB%) numbers with runners in scoring position, so we can see how they're achieving their results. In other words, why are they striking out less with runners on? Are the Rays being more selective, are they swinging at less pitches outside of the zone, or are they simply making more contact? Are they hitting more line drives and ground balls, and less fly balls? And how do these numbers compare with how they performed in 2009? Anyway, I'll throw that out there for you to think about - if you come up with anything, feel free to let us know in the comments or throw up a FanPost.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If they are making more contact could that possibly lead to an increase in GIDP?
If indeed there is a man on 1st in addition to the ones in scoring position. I can’t think of the last time the Rays GIDP’d in a clutch situation though..which is a good thing.
The concern is to move the guy over and in from second
plus if the GDP stat on MLB is really GIDP then the Rays are the best in the AL at 23 this year. This might have more to do with Maddon forcing Navi to bunt with a man on first than anything else. They had 104 last year with Longo leading the AL with 27 of them (Navi had 14).
The obvious statement is that you get more guys over with a ball in play than with a K. If this change in philosophy continues with similar stats across a season than it will blow regression out of the water. As far as the increase in HRs with RISP and the new approach, I would point to just getting the head of the bat on the ball coupled with a pitcher using his best stuff (more velocity) as the reason for more homers. Instead of swinging for the fences and crushing 500 ft homers, the guys get a nice easy swing and still hit the ball out of the yard because of the increase velocity coming at them.
Rays are 3rd in MLB in Fewest GIDP
Hustle and Flow.
by Pewter Pirate on May 24, 2010 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Why don't we just hit like we have risp all the time?
by benderbrodriguez on May 22, 2010 12:42 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I would guess that he is referring to the overall approach at bat, regarding fewer Ks and more contact rather than specifically sacrifice bunting.
They may have a different approach with runners in scoring position, like taking fewer strikes rather than working for a walk. One reason for working the pitcher for walks and taking a different approach to hitting without runners on is that it increases the pitch count, and will work the starter out of the game quicker. If they always swing at a good pitch to hit regardless of the count you may see a lot of innings where the opposing pitcher throws very few pitches. Working for favorable hitting counts is also a good strategy that may not be realized if they take the “hit the first good pitch” mindset.
That is what it really stands for.
Just ask George.
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
Jackie Robinson
Follow me with the Rays grounds crew at-
twitter.com/TripleCrown59
I looked through all the possible channels and no luck
Well Rafael Soriano and Joquain Benoit is very nice also.
No.
The FOX game starts at 7PM tonight. We all know that no other game can start until three hours after the FOX game starts.
Lame.
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
Jackie Robinson
Follow me with the Rays grounds crew at-
twitter.com/TripleCrown59
Re this statement:
“Last year it seems like the Rays were more concerned with working the count and taking walks with runners on base. Is one approach better than the other? At least so far, it seems so.”
Note the BB% in the graph. They are taking more BB with RISP, even though you are positing that they are not “working the count” as much this year as last. The BB% tends to undermine the hypothesis that they aren’t working the count as much.
Which brings me to:
“I think it would be interesting to look at the Rays’ plate discipline”
I don’t have any RISP numbers, but I do know that going into today, the team was seeing 3.91 pitches per PA, versus 3.96 last year. And last year and this year, the same 28%, looking strikes. The InPlay/Strike ratio is 28% this year versus 29% last year. The swung at strikes percentage is also same this year as last. The % pitches swung at is 45% this year versus 44% last year. So there does not appear to be an difference whatsoever overall.
So, lastly, my gut reaction is variation and/or sample size.
by Can'tMissMissed on May 23, 2010 1:07 AM EDT reply actions
Yes, technically we're taking more BBs with RISP this season, but the difference is a miniscule .6%
Last season we were uber patient and took walks at a much higher rate, while this season they’re not walking any more aggressively. That’s the point I was trying to make….they’re not being “aggressively patient” per se.
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on May 24, 2010 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
What % of the Rays plate appearances
come with a RISP? Also, interesting that right now strike outs are down 5% with RISP but hits are up 5% so the babip of the additional 5% of balls in play is 100%.
what about a spray chart of BIP with and without RISP
May or may not show any difference, but might be interesting to look at. If they are hitting for less power it may show up in the chart, even if the hits that do fall are going for doubles and inflating ISO.
by ChiBurbRaysFan on May 23, 2010 12:18 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
This is a great idea
I’ll see what I can do…
I love Casey Fossum. Now try and take me seriously.
by Steve Slowinski on May 24, 2010 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
one reason for walk % increases
could have nothing to do with plate discipline & the Rays’ approach. Pitchers “pitch around” hitters with a base open, and there is also the IBB. It’s probably (though I don’t have the numbers to back it) that walk % w/ RISP is higher for most teams. Or at least for the good teams. I think any further analysis should also include league average so we can see the baseline.
Pitchers Throw More Strikes with RISP
Could it be as simple as: opposing pitchers generally throw more strikes with RISP in an attempt to induce contact and minimize damage? Therefore, being selective is not the most productive approach? Hacking is?























