Breaking Down the Twins Run Scoring: "Little Things" and Double Plays
During the offseason, most of us were excited at the moves made by Bill Smith and the Twins front office to improve offensive production. Orlando Hudson, J.J. Hardy, Jim Thome, all were expected not only to close some of the lineup gaps that have frustrated in previous years (remember the days of Harris, Punto, Casilla in the starting infield?), but also improve depth (Thome). Halfway through the season, we now have a pretty good idea of how these moves worked out. Through 82 games played, the Twins have scored a total of 382 runs, an average of 4.66 per game, good for 14th in MLB, 6th in the AL. In other words, smack in the middle of the pack and well below last seasons 4.96 runs per game (5th in MLB), 4.85 pre-All Star Break (where runs are usually down a bit across the league). Injuries to Hudson and Hardy have played a role, as has regression from Joe Mauer and others. But does this explain the full dropoff in run scoring?
I've posted elsewhere on Beyond the Boxscore (here) and Twinkie Town (here and here), as well as written an article for the Maple Street Press 2010 Twins Annual, in which I have shown that the Twins have consistently helped themselves by 20-40 runs compared to the rest of the league each of the last two years by doing the "little things", running the bases and directional hitting to advance base runners, and this was a key reason the Twins have reached Game #163 both years. Are the Twins still doing the "little things" to score runs? Or is a lack of the "little things" are reason for the dropoff in run scoring?
I'll go into more detail after the jump, but preliminary data indicate that the Twins are doing these "little things" at a similar rate to the last two years, and this compensates for some (but not all) of the league leading tendency for Twins hitters to ground into double plays.
The Twins have scored a total of 382 runs on the season. MLB average (over the same 82 games) is 368 runs scored, so when all is said and done the Twins have scored 14 runs above average compared to the rest of the league. As I've discussed in previous articles, I consider three components of run scoring in my analysis:
- "Standard" hitting. This is the largest component of run scoring, calculated based on the actual results for each at bat. For the purposes of this analysis, I will compare my "Total Run Accounting" measure of standard batting to Weighted On Base Average (wOBA) below.
- "Little Things" - base running and directional hitting to advance base runners. These are aspects of offense that don't appear in the box score, but we can quantify them nonetheless.
- Hitting with runners in scoring position. wOBA is a "context neutral" metric that does not take into consideration when a batter gets a hit. For two teams with similar wOBAs, one would expect the team that hits better with RISP to score more runs.
"Standard" Hitting
The Twins have an overall wOBA of .337, good for 7th in MLB, 5th in the AL. According to fangraphs, this equates to 400 "weighted" runs created (wRC), or 32 runs above average (wRAA). So, based solely on wOBA, the Twins should have scored 18 more runs than they have actually scored. What explains the difference? First, double plays are not included in wOBA. Halfway through the season, the Twins have grounded into a MLB-leading 95 double plays, 7 more than the second place San Francisco Giants and an astounding 31 more than MLB average. I (and many others) have gone into more depth looking at the Twins and why they are grounding into so many double plays, so I'll leave that alone for now. But considering that, on average, grounding into a double play results in about (in some cases at least) a one run decrease in expected runs scored for an inning, this more than explains the 18 run gap. In fact, it leaves us about 10 runs short of our actual runs scored.
Running my "Total Run Accounting" software on the first 82 games of the season, my calculation of "standard batting" is in line with the calculation above. Remember, my analysis takes both context (expected runs based on runners on base and number of outs) and double plays into account. I show the Twins producing almost right at league average, +0.16 expected runs due to "standard" batting, 15th in MLB, 7th in AL, well behind the league leading Boston Red Sox (+81.06) but well above the league doormat Houston Astros (-95.81 runs). In other words, just about exactly where one would expect by only taking wRAA and double plays into consideration.
"Little Things"
Now, about those missing runs. In 2008, the Twins by far led the majors in the "little things", producing +42.2 runs above average, or about four extra marginal wins when all was said and done. The next closest team was the Los Angeles Angels, at +15.2 runs. In 2009, the Twins slipped a little, but still produced +23.5 runs, good for third behind the Angels' league leading +44.5.
So far in 2010, the Twins have produced +10.47 runs compared to league average due to these "little things", sixth in MLB behind the Texas Rangers league leading +26.24 runs. The Twins contributions have been about equal from the two components of "little things", base running (+5.03 RAA, 8th in MLB, considers stolen bases, extra bases e.g., first to third, and outs on the base paths) and directional hitting (+5.44 RAA, 9th in MLB, considers hitting to right side is more likely to advance a runner to third than left field, strikeouts don't advance runners). Stealing bases (-1.09 runs) is a losing proposition (from an expected runs perspective) for the Twins, as it is for all but two teams (Philadelphia at +2.10 and the Mets at +0.31), but overall our total is 6th best in MLB. Of course, according to this metric, never attempting a steal would put us third in MLB...but more on that another day.
Runners in Scoring Position
For the season, the Twins overall line with RISP is .288/.375/.408, a little above the MLB average .263/.351/.409 line. So the Twins have likely scored a few more runs than league average in RISP situations, explaining some of the difference discussed above. Exactly how many runs is something I plan to go into more detail sometime over the next month. But I suspect any additional runs with RISP overall may very well be canceled by the Twins well documented struggles in the highest leverage situations, bases loaded, where a .244/.280/.333 line and 11 double plays in 70 at bats really takes its toll on run scoring.
Summary
Bottom line, even though much of the roster has turned over since 2008, yes the Twins are still doing the "little things" offensively, and this has helped the Twins mitigate the effects of a league leading tendency to hit into double plays. Hopefully for the Twins division title hopes, the "little things" will continue and the double plays will at least return to around league average for the second half of the season. If this happens, we could see an extra 30 runs or so, translating to about an extra three marginal wins when all is said and done.
7 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Different team
When the lineup had Harris, Punto, Casilla in the lineup, they were asked to do those little things often. Now the lineup really only has one “nine” hitter. Surely you aren’t going to ask Kubel, Thome, Young, Cudy to bunt. With the M and M boys that makes 6/9 of the lineup that is hitting away almost always. Hudson and Hardy really are not bunters or quick on the basebaths like Casilla and Punto.
Mauer has had a below average start this year. You’d think that would be offset with Delmon’s great start. Thome and Hudson have met expectations, and though Hardy has been terrific with the glove, he hasn’t been healthy or produced with the bat.
Remember last year the Twins were unbelievable with runners in scoring position. That really wasn’t expected to continue this year and I don’t think it has. The Twins haven’t gotten it done with the bases loaded up to now.
I think not hitting with RISP to the same level of last year, can alone explain the differences in last year and this years offensive production.
Hitting with RISP - are we better this season?
2009 Overall: .274/.345/.429
2009 RISP: .278/.363/.435
2010 Overall: .272.,344/.419
2010 RISP: .288/.375/.408
It seems to me we’re hitting about the same, if not better, with RISP than we were last season. Higher AVG/OBP, lower SLG, but that’s lower overall as well.
I’m going to work on breaking this down into total run accounting performance with and without RISP to see how this relates to runs scored.
by Adam Peterson on Jul 6, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
What about...
in clutch situations and runners at 2nd and 3rd vice just 2nd. Driving in those runs.
I don't have the breakout yet
I know our performance with bases loaded is much worse than overall RISP. That leaves only the two situations you note. One or both has to be above the overall RISP…
by Adam Peterson on Jul 6, 2010 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice work and plenty to ponder
Twins average with bases loaded has been abysmal. Will it move toward the mean? The double plays, deadly. Can they really move their numbers by hitting into fewer than league average over the second half of the year?
Some of this depends on total numbers of base runners. If the Twins have more guys drawing walks, they have more chances to hit into DPs. So maybe one needs to look at the Twins DP % rate.
There is definitely something missing in the Twins offense this year. Hard to pinpoint it exactly, but too often, rallies come up short, and crooked numbers are harder and harder to come by.
Whatever the numbers and statistics, they sure don’t seem to be having as much fun. That may partly be due to being in first place and having the pressure of defending their status as opposed to being the underdog and attacking. Either way, they need to knuckle down and enjoy playing the game again….
Fewer than league average double plays
As I showed in early June, the double plays were a result not only of opportunities, but also speed, or more accurately an increased tendency to end up with a DP turned given a ground ball in that situation. One would expect opportunities to be based on OBP, so hopefully they don’t go down. The question becomes whether the double play rate on ground balls is in fact due to lack of speed, or if its due to some bad luck.
In short, I’m not saying GIDP is going to regress to the mean, especially as an overall total (vice rate given opportunities). But if it did, we’d be approximately 30 runs better than we otherwise would. Then again, if we hit five consecutive home runs…
by Adam Peterson on Jul 6, 2010 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions

by 





















