(The following is being syndicated from The Captain’s Blog).
Despite ranking atop most offensive categories, something still seems amiss with the Yankees’ lineup. Although several theories have surfaced to explain this disconnect, most do not stand up to scrutiny. In other words, this could very well be a case of perception trumping reality. So, if the Yankees’ offense hasn’t been deficient, what is leading to the pervasive feeling that it has?
There is one area in which the Yankees’ offense has underperformed: high leverage situations. Leverage is a measure that quantifies the importance of an at bat by using win expectancy to classify individual game situations (click here for a leverage index chart). Therefore, a high leverage situation is one in which the game is on the line. Needless to say, although these events are much rarer (fangraphs estimates that 60% of all at bats are low leverage), the outcomes are more likely to be remembered.
Yankees Performance in High Leverage, 2002-2011
Note: MLB ranking listed above each bar.
Source: fangraphs.com
Not only have the Yankees posted their lowest high leverage wOBA since 2002, the current lineup is also on pace to have the most opportunities over that timeframe. Although likely unrelated (there is nearly zero correlation between performance and plate appearances in high leverage situations), these two trends should manifest in a higher percentage of close games.
Yankees Record in “One-Sided” Games
| Games Decided by > 3 runs | Games Decided by > 5 runs | ||||||
| Year | G | W | L | G | W | L | |
| 2011 | 26 | 19 | 7 | 12 | 10 | 2 | |
| 2010 | 78 | 53 | 25 | 36 | 25 | 11 | |
| 2009 | 72 | 42 | 30 | 38 | 23 | 15 | |
| 2008 | 75 | 42 | 33 | 41 | 21 | 20 | |
| 2007 | 84 | 58 | 26 | 49 | 34 | 15 | |
| 2006 | 71 | 44 | 27 | 35 | 25 | 10 | |
| 2005 | 73 | 44 | 29 | 36 | 20 | 16 | |
| 2004 | 70 | 38 | 32 | 45 | 23 | 22 | |
| 2003 | 72 | 45 | 27 | 42 | 28 | 14 | |
| 2002 | 71 | 47 | 24 | 39 | 28 | 11 | |
Source: Baseball-reference.com
Sure enough, the Yankees are on pace to play fewer one-side games than in any season over the last decade. On average since 2002, the Yankees have been involved in 74 games decided by more than three runs and 40 decided by more than five. This season, however, the current targets are 59 and 27, respectively. So, could it be that the Yankees’ inconsistent offense has led to fewer “easy victories”, not to mention the perception that the lineup has been lacking?
Although the Yankees have played in fewer one-sided games, that’s not the fault of the offense. Rather, it’s every bit as much to the credit of the pitching staff. That’s why, in addition to being on pace to win five fewer games decided by three runs or less, the Yankees are also on target to lose 13 fewer. Similarly, in games with a run differential greater than five, the team’s win total is only two off the average, while the number of losses is on pace to be 10 below the norm.
When there are low expectations, we tend to remember the outliers. That’s how players like Mike Lemke and Luis Sojo come to acquire a reputation for being clutch. The countless times they fail to come through are easily forgotten, but the few times they get the big hit really stand out. The same battle between perception and reality seems to be taking place with the 2011 New York Yankees. Because the team isn’t getting blown out often, every loss feels like a game they could have or should have won. As a result, the perception of the offense is being colored by a greater proportion of high profile failures, which, in the grand scheme of things, represent a relatively smaller portion of games.
If the Yankees had performed better in high leverage situations, there’s no telling how many wins they could have, but that’s really an unfair standard upon which to judge the offense. So, the next time the Yankees lose a close game, don’t blame the hitters. It’s really the pitchers’ fault for keeping so many games within reach.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
5 Responses to Close Encounters: Yanks High Leverage Woes Creating False Perception of Offense
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
While it’s good to hear that the pitching staff deserves more credit for keeping games close than the hitters deserve blame, I worry the net effect will be that the bullpen will get worn out from overuse in so many close games. Of course now that we’ve had so many injuries, I guess maybe D-Rob and Mo are the only ones who might see big innings jumps this year?
You don’t have to worry about reliever innings per year in the same way as starters, it’s just best to limit them to 70 or so innings per year, for pure 1 inning relievers anyway.
ZiPS has Mariano Rivera on pace for 3 less innings (57.1) than last year. In general the amount of criticism I have heard this year regarding over working Mo is unfounded in my mind. It also has Robertson making a 7 inning increase. When you consider that Noesi is probably now the 7th inning guy, and Ayala is doing fine as the middle inning reliever, we should be good on innings. We need to find some kind of lefty to pair with Robertson, but that’s a seperate issue really. Maybe Greg Smith will get a shot soon.
Something doesn’t strike me as right about this. Worrying about the Yankees’ hitting compared with their pitching isn’t a fruitful comparison. The question I would ask is “Are they underperforming their wOBA? Given how well they hit, are they scoring fewer runs than they would be expected to?”
The Yankees are not only hitting below expectations in high-leverage situations. They’re also hitting poorly in late innings no matter what the score or situation. Their sOPS+ for innings 1-3 is 140, for innings 4-6 127, and for innings 7-9 105. They’re barely a league-average offensive team when the game hits the 7th.
I don’t know if they are underperforming their wOBA, but they are underperforming their Pythagorean, by 4 games. They’re 9-11 in 1-run games, and 4-4 in extra inning games, which doesn’t seem like a huge amount of bad luck.
The post really wasn’t making a comparison between the hitting and pitching. Rather, pitching was mentioned because it seems to be keeping the Yankees in more games, which is not only leading to more high leverage situations, but also might be fueling the perception that the lineup is less than its aggregate numbers suggest.
For example, let’s say a team goes 20-10, and in those 10 losses, the offense does poorly. Now, if the pitchers also do poorly, those at bats are considered low leverage. However, if the pitching keeps the score close, those at bats become high leverage. As a result, it is the quality of pitching that skews the team’s high leverage performance.
Taken further, when a team fails in high leverage situations, those events tend to linger longer than the successes. Perhaps that’s why an increase in high leverage failures can create the impression that the overall offense is doing poorly.
Even you point about sOPS in late innings can be misleading (although I’d note being above league average isn’t poor at all). Again, returning to my example, if the Yankees were being blown out more, perhaps the offense would get to see the bullpen dregs that usually give up late runs. Because every game is close, however, the Yanks might mostly be seeing the best relievers that a team has to over. If true, that could lead to the trend you noted.
[...] Though offense is down league-wide and has been trending in that direction for the past two seasons, it doesn’t change the fact that, for all the concern about Yankee pitching heading into the 2011 campaign, the staff has actually acquitted itself quite well through the season’s first 71 games. [...]