Timely Hits

[Turbine]

In 2002 the team averaged 9 hits a game.

In 2012 the team is averaging 8 hits a game.

The difference between winning and losing is sometimes a single hit.

OF course in 2000 UL had one player get 101 hits by himself, but I don't know the average hits per game.

I mention 2002 because that team only had 3 more losses than the 2000 team.

[Turner]

Are you going to make me look up average runs.

[Turbine]

Are you going to make me look up average runs.

I haven't had time but I suspect (based on the thread title) that one extra hit, proved valuable.

[CajunRed]

And I would suspect its all connected. Better hitters not only get more hits, but because of their skills can get more hits at crucial times. Guys like Chase Lambin, Tommy Clark, Coles...and others. They were just great hitters who could then be counted on in most cases to get that crucial hit when needed. We have too many guys who struggle under normal circumstances to hit...and are even worse at it under the pressure of a crucial situation.

[snote]

yep, I snooping for questions in here for tomorrow.. (hee-hee)

[Cajun90]

And I would suspect its all connected. Better hitters not only get more hits, but because of their skills can get more hits at crucial times. Guys like Chase Lambin, Tommy Clark, Coles...and others. They were just great hitters who could then be counted on in most cases to get that crucial hit when needed. We have too many guys who struggle under normal circumstances to hit...and are even worse at it under the pressure of a crucial situation.

Would be interesting to see the OPS numbers.

[Turbine]

OK got it..

2002 UL averaged 5.84 runs a game.

2012 UL is averaging 4.43 runs per game.

There is no way only 1 more "hit" per game gets you 1.41 more "runs" unless the hits are real timely.

[BirdofParadise]

The 2002 team had guys who could hit the ball up the gap and over the wall. Rather than check out hits per game, check out the difference in slugging pct and on base pct.

You'll get your answer there.

[Carmon]

The 2002 team had guys who could hit the ball up the gap and over the wall. Rather than check out hits per game, check out the difference in slugging pct and on base pct.

You'll get your answer there.

I saw your other post about team youth, hitting at key moments is what lacks when you are getting eight hits a game. Eight hits a game is nothing to be ashamed of. Batting right at .300 will win you a lot of games if you don't let the pressure get to you.

[BGlass29]

In response to Carmon. 8 hits a game implies 35 players had at bats. .228 batting average versus if only 27 players reached the plate which would be .296 batting average. Even if 1/2 your games end after only taking 8 innings at bat that equates to a .239 batting average. Not enough to get it done.

Turbine, Are those numbers above hits per 9 or hits per game? I prefer to look at stats per 9 personally.

Below gives you an example of the runs per 9 we need to have a successful year per our standards.

2002 H/9 9.24 R/9 6.01
2007 H/9 11.3 R/9 7.36
2012 H/9 8.66 R/9 4.68

I will argue that our pitching is worse now than it was back then. I am biased of course, but the bats have changed and lets see what our pitching numbers look like from 2007 to 2012.

2002 H/9 9.05 R/9 4.81 ERA 3.78
2007 H/9 9.71 R/9 4.74 ERA 3.78
2012 H/9 8.72 R/9 4.65 ERA 3.72

So our pitching hasn't done drastically better because of the bats, but our hitting has SUFFERED because of the bats. Sometimes it isn't the arrow, it's the Indian. Or maybe overall the talent we have is just drastically worse and it's being magnified by our hitters. Either way something isn't right.

[Turbine]

So our pitching hasn't done drastically better because of the bats, but our hitting has SUFFERED because of the bats.

Very interesting.

ps It was per game.

[BGlass29]

Very interesting.

ps It was per game.

Gotcha. I find per game to be misleading somewhat because of games shortened because of rain, only playing 8 innings in a loss away or a win at home etc. Either way like I said before the numbers are very disturbing compared to the years we as fans perceive as great years.

[CajunMarineBBK]

I see what you are saying Buddy but if the bats had not changed our hitting could be better than those years. Hard to say but the numbers are not that far off in hitting which would lead me to believe that the hitting would be about the same as those years with the old bats.

[BGlass29]

I see what you are saying Buddy but if the bats had not changed our hitting could be better than those years. Hard to say but the numbers are not that far off in hitting which would lead me to believe that the hitting would be about the same as those years with the old bats.

I know this is hard to read, but the just of it is that the drop from 2010-2011 could be associated with the bats mostly and talent some, but the drop from 2010 to 2012 ultimately has to be talent related. I don't think anyone is denying the fact that our hitting has not been up to par. NA stands for national average.


2010 NA 2011 NA 2010 UL 2011 UL 2012 UL
BA 0.305 0.282 0.291 0.277 0.258
Hits per game 10.4 9.7 10.0 9.0 8.5
Runs Per game 7.0 5.6 6.4 5.2 4.6