I started writing this post about a week after the start of free agency. It ended up on the back burner as the Mets off season took on a life and a news cycle of its own. This morning, I came across an excellent blog post by Mike Silva of NYBD on this very subject which inspired me to go through all of my unfinished drafts.
What originally motivated me to research and write a piece like this was the Mets’ futility in the longball department, coupled with the incessant chants in defense of the Mets, that you don’t need homeruns to score runs and win ballgames. A concept that I could never quite understand or agree with.
The following chart will show a decade’s worth of data that I compiled on team homeruns. It illustrates each years best and worst homerun totals by team and compares them to their rank in runs scored.
As you can see, the team with the lowest homerun total each season consistently ranks among the bottom five teams in runs scored and ranked last 40% of the time. None of the teams listed made the post season. Although I have yet to finish compiling the data for each year, early indications are that the power outage seems to directly correlate with their rank in home park attendance as well.
When you take a look at the annual homerun “leaders” by team, the results are staggering. Every team on our list ranked in the top ten in runs scored and 70% of those teams ranked in the top five. Three of these teams went onto the post season.
The teams with the lowest homerun totals finished in last place or second to last place in 9 of the 10 seasons. The teams with the most homeruns, never had a last place finish and finished first in their division three times with the Brewers finishing in second in 2007.
The Mets 95 homeruns had the second lowest homerun total of the decade, edged out by the Giants who hit 94 in 2008. A big MMO shout-out to Daniel Murphy and Jeff Francoeur for both hitting two-run homers in the last series of the season against the Houston Astros to keep the Mets from owning that dubious honor.
So what does all of this data prove? I don’t really have an answer to that question, but it certainly deflates the argument that you don’t need homeruns to win ballgames and go to the post season.
Very hard to argue with these numbers. Pitching and lock down D can keep a game close but a 3 run HR can break it open. Of course you have to have men on base to hit a 3 run HR. Few things in baseball stand completely on their own.
I dont understand why it’s so difficult for so many baseball fans to understand the importance of having 3-4 power hitters on the team. This whole speed and defense thing makes no sense, and I think all these new stats that focus on walks and OBP have turned the game on its heels. Give me two good OBP guys at the top of the order, but give me power hitters in the 3-6 spots.
I agree somewhat Alex. A good point you’ve made in one part. High OBP for the first 2-3 guys, then get the big sticks swinging. It’s fairly obvious that power helps teams win. This based just from Joe D’s sample of the previous 10 years.
I do differ about speed and defense making no sense. I believe you definitely need good solid defense, especially, “up the middle”. If you have good defenders at Catcher, 2nd, SS, and Centerfield, sometimes you can have a good hit, poor field guy slotted into another position. Speed helps with the defense and keeps the bases clear as usually power guys when they don’t hit HR’s, become station to station runners. They are all important. (Speed, defense and power).
Thank you so much for posting this! This is as obvious as it gets. Of course your entire team need not be made up of the prototypical slugger types (30+HR, 150+K), but a well balanced team NEEDS power in the middle of the lineup. It’s always been a winning forumla and always will be. I don’t care how many stats agents and aging players can come up with. The bootom line is that guys with power who drive in 110 or more runs are paid the most because they provide their teams the best chance to win.
The only teams and managers who claim that HR aren’t everything, are the same teams/managers who don’t provide enough and therefore have to justify their baseball existence. HRs = more runs. Please let’s all stop with OBP being the new baseball deity. It has its place and it is not in the middle of the order!
Teams need a combination of all the different aspects of the game. They need a balanced approach. The OBP thing is overblown. The ideal lineup should look like this:
1. .375+ OBP, speed
2. .375+ OBP, above avwerage speed, good contact rate
3. .900 OPS (on-base plus slugging)
4. .500 SLG
5. .475 SLG
6. .450 SLG
7 and 8. Whatever you can get.
You can still win a World Series without great speed or defense, but you won’t win anything without power.
A lineup like that is exactly what the Mets should aspire to. Unfortunately, after their top 4 it all goes down hill for the Mets. And that’s assuming that Wright bats second when Beltran returns. Reyes, Wright, Beltran, Bay.
This is way too small of a sample size to make any meaningful observations. Typically the teams with the lowest number of HR’s suffer in just about every aspect of the game.
I took data for every team from fangraphs from the years 2006-2009 (4 years) and looked at the correlation between various stats and runs scored. The stats I looked at were AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, ISO, Spd, and HR. As you can see from the spreadsheet linked to below, Spd, ISO, and HR show the smallest correlation (.80). OPS’s correlation is an astounding .947.
Here’s the spreadsheet: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Am6CDhtI09zldF9MWEdOeFhmblBZenNBRGRzcVI4WlE&hl=en
That link shows a chart with stats but no teams, years, etc. What was it supposed to illustrate? Also, Joe used ten years of stats and you say that’s a small samples size? He seemed to dispel the notion that you can win without homeruns.
What does it matter what year and team it is? We’re only looking at runs vs HR’s, or Runs vs AVG etc.
Yes, Joe used ten years of stats, but it was only the best and worst teams HR-wise. There is a lot of data in between those two extremes. He “seemed” to dispel the notion that you can win without HR’s, but as you can tell with the larger sample size on my spreadsheet (120 teams vs 20 teams), the correlation between HR’s and runs was only .62, which is not particularly strong.
However, I did notice I made a mistake in my earlier post. I meant to say, “As you can see from the spreadsheet linked to below Spd, ISO, and HR show the smallest correlation (.84). and OPS’s correlation is an astounding .947.
I’ll continue to work on the spreadsheet, adding years, and possibly team names and win data.
Thanks, I think it would be easier to understand with the reference points filled in.
Ok, it’s updated… The same link should still work. I added years and teams, ERA, and UZR.
I think it’s a very well done spreadsheet. You really can’t derive too much from looking at only the best and worst of anything and ignoring everything else. Wonder what the spreadsheet would reveal from the pitching side (run prevention) What would have the highest correlation to actual runs scored? Probably the same thing right? Therefore it is Power plus OB%. One way OB% clearly helps in the HR totals is it gets your HR hitters more at bats as the lineup turns over more frequently ie your 3-4-5 hitters get 5 ab’s as opposed to 4 per game. Having HR hitters in your lineup who in addition to hitting HR’s also get on base at a higher than league avg is also important as your 5 and 6 hitters will have someone on when they deliver. As I said very few things stand alone in baseball.
I agree JoeD and this year (2009) was a perfect example. Mets could not even hit and run or use speed cause they did not have the right combination of players. Some extra power would of made the difference in winning more games instead of waiting for Castillo to drive in a run from 2nd or 3rd with an infield single or a pop up to OF. Small sample size but you need some power. What was Nats diff bet 2000 and 2009 with Dunn?
A very good article. It certainly questions the strategy of adopting a small ball approach in a pitcher’s park.