THE CRANE POOL FORUM thecranepool.net (.com)


Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Average NL Offense By Position

Rotblatt
Sep 15 2005 04:12 PM

This is mostly a placeholder for future discussion, although if anyone has any comments, go nuts!

NL Averages at Position as of 9/14/05
C: .252 AVG/.315 OBP/.391 SLG/.706 OPS
1B: .281 AVG/ .360 OBP/.481 SLG/.841 OPS
2B: .278 AVG/.340 OBP/.414 SLG/.754 OPS
3B: .273 AVG/.344 OBP/.441 SLG/ .785 OPS
SS: .265 AVG/.313 OBP/.372 SLG/.686 OPS
LF: .273 AVG/.347 OBP/.459 SLG/.806 OPS
CF: .274 AVG/.340 OBP/.437 SLG/.777 OPS
RF: .269 AVG/.346 OBP/.456 SLG/.802 OPS

For us, here's how we break down in terms of net OPS by position:

C: +.057
1B: -.188
2B: -.106
3B: +.118
SS: -.007
LF: +.036
CF: +.008
RF: +.030

Net: -.052 OPS. Our biggest holes are 1B & 2B (duh!). Reyes & Beltran are around league average, while Castro/Piazza, Diaz/Cameron & Floyd are solidly above average. Wright is among the best in the league.

Since these OPS's aren't weighted by AB, PA, etc., the net effect looks bigger than it is--we're actually only .007 points off the average OPS. That being said, I thought this was a quick & dirty way of comparing relative production by position.

What I'm planning on doing is looking at other NL teams to see how they stack up and to see if anyone actually is getting above league average at every position (something I wondered in a related thread).

SwitchHitter
Sep 15 2005 07:26 PM

You can skip the Astros. Among other things, they have the lowest team BA in the NL. My guess would be that at 3B they're above average, thanks to Morgan Ensberg (who is currently out with a soft tissue injury to his hand), but I'd be surprised to see anyone else above average.

Nymr83
Sep 15 2005 07:43 PM

in other words: 1st and 2nd are black holes, david wright is the man, and jose reyes still has some work to do to live up to the hype.

i'm suprised that LF and CF have such comparable numbers league-wide.

i doubt anyone is above league average across the board but if i had to pick one i'd look at the st louis cardinals. last year they were probably above at 6 or 7 of the 8 spots

Rotblatt
Sep 15 2005 07:54 PM

Fucking HTML. I'm having a hard time converting it. Here's the raw data and I'll post my screwy HTML in a bit.

If anyone wants to fix this, I'd be eternally grateful.

Team C 1B 2B 3B SS LF CF RF +/- AVG
Reds 0.858 0.806 0.725 0.807 0.743 0.949 0.947 0.767 0.445
Cubs 0.810 1.079 0.805 0.892 0.683 0.731 0.654 0.759 0.256
Phillies 0.757 0.796 0.860 0.685 0.703 0.874 0.807 0.884 0.209
Braves 0.657 0.746 0.818 0.872 0.779 0.723 0.961 0.766 0.165
Cards 0.622 1.040 0.712 0.724 0.752 0.819 0.856 0.785 0.153
D'backs 0.657 0.922 0.741 0.894 0.649 0.778 0.788 0.827 0.099
Brewers 0.687 0.800 0.742 0.870 0.706 0.843 0.764 0.820 0.075
Marlins 0.687 0.929 0.757 0.657 0.698 0.958 0.664 0.798 -0.009
Rockies 0.698 0.944 0.704 0.770 0.674 0.784 0.736 0.828 -0.019
Mets 0.763 0.653 0.648 0.903 0.679 0.842 0.785 0.832 -0.052
Dodgers 0.669 0.863 0.901 0.709 0.653 0.615 0.852 0.803 -0.092
Padres 0.746 0.753 0.673 0.688 0.661 0.779 0.823 0.904 -0.130
Pirates 0.681 0.759 0.725 0.756 0.654 0.970 0.683 0.759 -0.170
Astros 0.626 0.798 0.790 0.950 0.655 0.695 0.688 0.771 -0.184
Nats 0.695 0.820 0.718 0.710 0.547 0.736 0.796 0.836 -0.299
Giants 0.694 0.731 0.798 0.711 0.694 0.805 0.710 0.704 -0.310

Rotblatt
Sep 15 2005 08:10 PM
Edited 4 time(s), most recently on Sep 16 2005 07:31 AM

Okay, red=more than .015 OPS above the average. Blue = more than .015 OPS below the average. Black = within .015 OPS of the average.

Top and bottom OPS in each position in bold.

No team is at or above average OPS in each position. The Reds, Cubs & Phillies all play in home parks favorable to hitters, which undoubtedly helps them a bit.

The Marlins are closest to average overall.

We are, in fact, the only team with 2 positions dead last in OPS. However, we are one of only 6 teams to have above average OPS's at 4 or more positions. We are also one of only two teams to have only 2 positions in the blue. These factors help mitigate the wretched production from 2B & 1B.

Overall, we rank 10th in +/- Positional OPS Relative to Average (PORA?) adjusted overall. Not good, but not terrible, either.

If we had gotten Delgado, we would be roughly second on this chart with a +.328.

This chart seems to correlate pretty well to runs scored. The D'Backs, Brewers, Marlins, Mets & Rockies are pretty close to RS average (648) and the teams at the top of PORA are all solidly in the upper tier of RS.
TeamC1B2B3BSSLFCFRF+/- AVGRS
Reds0.8580.8060.7250.8070.7430.9490.9470.7670.445 733
Cubs0.8101.0790.8050.8920.6830.7310.6540.7590.256 649
Phillies0.7570.7960.8600.6850.7030.8740.8070.8840.209 696
Braves0.6570.7460.8180.8720.7790.7230.9610.7660.165 696
Cards0.6221.0400.7120.7240.7520.8190.8560.7850.153 725
D'backs0.6570.9220.7410.8940.6490.7780.7880.8270.099 634
Brewers0.6870.8000.7420.8700.7060.8430.7640.8200.075 649
Marlins0.6870.9290.7570.6570.6980.9580.6640.798-0.009 656
Rockies0.6980.9440.7040.7700.6740.7840.7360.828-0.019 642
Mets0.7630.6530.6480.9030.6790.8420.7850.832-0.052 650
Dodgers0.6690.8630.9010.7090.6530.6150.8520.803-0.092 629
Padres0.7460.7530.6730.6880.6610.7790.8230.904-0.130 616
Pirates0.6810.7590.7250.7560.6540.9700.6830.759-0.170 602
Astros0.6260.7980.7900.9500.6550.6950.6880.771-0.184 615
Nats0.6950.8200.7180.7100.5470.7360.7960.836-0.299 577
Giants0.6940.7310.7980.7110.6940.8050.7100.704-0.310 597

edited to add RS. And three times to try and fix this damn table. Was it really just the paragraph breaks?

Valadius
Sep 15 2005 08:14 PM

Heheh. Cameron Diaz. Heheheh.

Nymr83
Sep 15 2005 08:25 PM

so we are the only team with horrendous production at 2 positions?

Valadius
Sep 15 2005 08:28 PM

AHHHHH!!!!! What the hell happened to these bottom posts?

Rotblatt
Sep 15 2005 08:44 PM

My bad, Valadius. Forgot to close the table. Should be fixed now.

And Nymr, we're the only team with the absolute worst production in the league at two separate positions. Plenty teams got horrendous production from 2 or more spots--the Giants come close with the worst in RF & second worst in 1B, the Cubs also with the lowest in CF & 2nd lowest in RF(Tie), and the Astros come pretty close with the second-to-worst in both C & LF.

As you'd expect, the bold blue is mostly in the bottom half of this chart, with only 3 in the teams that landed around average or above and the other 5 in the bottom. I

Nymr83
Sep 15 2005 09:05 PM

didnt read the chart :)
thought you were highlighting differences greater than a certain amount (say over .100) from the league avg rather than the wortst. whoops.

Johnny Dickshot
Sep 15 2005 10:07 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 16 2005 07:12 AM

Excellent job. Obviously what sticks out is how far below average we are relative to lg avg at 1B, and not that anyone is, but that we shouldn't underestimate the difference between our giving 25% of our plate appearances to the worst everydayers in the lg while every other team we face gives away 12.5% at most.

WWSB gives these ABs away in the 2nd and most often 6th slots in the batting order. Let's see how they compare to other league worsties:

C: Molina (bats 8th)
3B: Lowell (7th -- currently, benched)
SS: Cintron (7th); Robles (2nd!/3rd!)
LF: Werth (combo 1st/2nd/8th)
CF: Hairston/Patterson (1st !)
EDIT: RF: Tucker/Linden(7th)

Eh. In most of these cases, injuries have played a part and that goes for the Mets too. That shouldn't let WWSB off the hook for not optimizing the order when he could.

Edgy DC
Sep 15 2005 11:50 PM

The table with all the breaks taken out.

TeamC1B2B3BSSLFCFRF+/-AVGRS
Reds0.8580.8060.7250.8070.7430.9490.9470.7670.445733
Cubs0.8101.0790.8050.8920.6830.7310.6540.7590.256649
Phillies0.7570.7960.8600.6850.7030.8740.8070.8840.209696
Braves0.6570.7460.8180.8720.7790.7230.9610.7660.165696
Cards0.6221.0400.7120.7240.7520.8190.8560.7850.153725
D'backs0.6570.9220.7410.8940.6490.7780.7880.8270.099634
Brewers0.6870.8000.7420.8700.7060.8430.7640.8200.075649
Marlins0.6870.9290.7570.6570.6980.9580.6640.798-0.009656
Rockies0.6980.9440.7040.7700.6740.7840.7360.828-0.019642
Mets0.7630.6530.6480.9030.6790.8420.7850.832-0.052650
Dodgers0.6690.8630.9010.7090.6530.6150.8520.803-0.092629
Padres0.7460.7530.6730.6880.6610.7790.8230.904-0.130616
Pirates0.6810.7590.7250.7560.6540.9700.6830.759-0.170602
Astros0.6260.7980.7900.9500.6550.6950.6880.771-0.184615
Nats0.6950.8200.7180.7100.5470.7360.7960.836-0.299577
Giants0.6940.7310.7980.7110.6940.8050.7100.704-0.310597

Johnny Dickshot
Sep 16 2005 12:09 AM

Check out Ray Durham looking pretty good in red.

Valadius
Sep 16 2005 02:24 AM

Wait... JD, Chad Tracy in RF for the D-Backs is in red, not blue.

Johnny Dickshot
Sep 16 2005 07:10 AM

D'oh. That's Replacement Barry Bonds I mean. Will edit

Rotblatt
Sep 16 2005 07:24 AM

Edgy DC wrote:
The table with all the breaks taken out.


Edge, you're my hero. Where were the breaks?

Rotblatt
Sep 16 2005 08:06 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
Excellent job. Obviously what sticks out is how far below average we are relative to lg avg at 1B, and not that anyone is, but that we shouldn't underestimate the difference between our giving 25% of our plate appearances to the worst everydayers in the lg while every other team we face gives away 12.5% at most.


Yup. If we had league average offense at 2B & 1B, we'd be near the top of my chart. We'd ALSO be the only team with league average output at every position, which would be pretty sweet--but also a little unrealistic. However, for 2006, all of our average or above-average performers are coming back, so we have a real shot to built an incredibly solid offense.

]WWSB gives these ABs away in the 2nd and most often 6th slots in the batting order.


Yeah, he's really hurt us. I did a little "Ranking by Lineup Position" the other day, and we were near the bottom of the NL in #1-3, in 1st at 7th & 8th, and near the middle for 4-6 (I think--6 might very well have been toward the bottom).

I've lost the chart, but here's our OPS by position. The players listed are in order of their plate appearances--where there's only one, it means they've amassed ~400 AB at that slot.

#1 Reyes (.674)
#2 Cairo/Cameron /Matsui (.651)
#3 Beltran (.789)
#4 Floyd/Piazza (.832)
#5 Wright/Piazza (.826)
#6 Wright/Mientkiewicz/Anderson (.769)
#7 Wright/Castro/Mientkiewicz/Woody (.832)
$8 Diaz/Castro/Cairo/Matsui (.786)

It's interesting how Wright has elevated every slot he's played in. Cam really helped us out in the 2 spot--he only posted a .733 OPS in 194 AB, but compared to Cairo's .544 in 196 AB, he was a huge upgrade. Matsui was right around the average between them with a .666 OPS in 167 AB.

Beltran just wasn't a #3 hitter. His numbers would've looked quite good in the 2 hole, though--towards the top in the NL, IIRC.

Piazza wasn't a #4 or #5 hitter, but he & Castro would be a decent #6 tandem. Diaz/Cameron would have been a below-average #5, but better than our other options.

Arranging it after the fact, I'd do this:
Reyes (his speed offsets his crappy OBP & OPS, to a certain extent)
Beltran
Wright
Floyd
Diaz/Cameron
Piazza/Castro
Mientkiewicz
Matsui/Cairo

Nymr83
Sep 16 2005 08:32 AM

]Reyes (his speed offsets his crappy OBP & OPS, to a certain extent)


i disagree, but there isn't really any other option to lead off.

Johnny Dickshot
Sep 16 2005 09:54 AM

Iím probably a little more sympathetic than the average WWSB critic regarding the batting order and have to admit some of the criticism is at its solidest only in retrospect. Obviously Beltran stayed where he did all year long because WWSB wished to show CAHN-fidence in him and clean up whenever he got hot. WWSB was not the only one who thought he would at some point, and in retrospect, we can say that gamble didnít work and hopefully a lesson was learned.

Yíknow Valentine frequently did all kinds of whacky and risky things early in a year but we could usually count on him to make a decision at some point based on the results of those early experiments, and heíd he could be cruel and decisive at do-or-die time. Thatís where I think WWSB screwed up.

Edgy DC
Sep 16 2005 10:16 AM

I'll say a painful you to all those points.

]Where were the breaks?


You can't have line breaks in your code at the end of every cell. You can in a typical HTML page, but this forum software (and ezboard as well) interprets every return as a paragraph break and runs them all before the table, and so buries your table under 55 blank lines in your post.

So (using parens instead of the greater than/less than brackets), every cell must go right into the next cell like:

(tr)(td)Washington(/td)(td).732(/td)(/tr)


instead of the cleaner

(tr)
(td)Washington(/td)
(td).732(/td)

(/tr)


which you'll find in HTML pages.

Rotblatt
Sep 16 2005 03:12 PM

Coolio! Thanks, Edge!