I admit, I enjoy researching statistics to uncover trends in sports. I’m also aware that you could pull out some stats out of context, and suggest that the numbers are revealing in almost any way you want them to be. I ran into just such a case while listening to “Mike and Mike” on ESPN radio’s morning show. The hosts were holding up with glee the statistic regarding the Cleveland Indians ability to drive in runs with 2 outs in the American League Championship Series vs. Boston. A majority of the Indians runs were driven in while there were 2 outs, and with breathless amazement- the radio hosts proclaimed the Indians 2-out magic as the reason why they were winning the series.

No way, I say! Driving in a majority of runs with 2 outs is noteworthy, but let’s not get too worked up over the significance of the statistic. I ask: why are runs driven in with 2 outs any more important to the outcome of a game than runs driven in with 0 or 1 out? Runs are runs, and no runs driven in are worth any more than any others regarding the number of outs when the runs touch home. If the Indians drove in most of their runs with 0 or 1 out, would that be noteworthy? No. So why so when they score with 2 outs?

There’s a notion that exists in baseball that batting with 2 outs is a “pressure” or “clutch” situation. But is it really? Think about it: each team gets 3 outs in an inning. If they’ve used up 2 of them, they still have 33% of their allotment remaining for that inning. Also, there’s no clock in baseball. There is in football. So, for example, if a football team scores 30 points in a quarter- that would be noteworthy because a clock would limit the amount of time a team would have to pile up that many points. In baseball- an inning goes on until the 3rd out is recorded. Scoring runs with 2 outs can be an unlimited venture.

I will concede this much, though: scoring runs with 2 outs in the 9th inning can be more noteworthy in that it’s likely that the team batting is facing a “specialist” (i.e. closer) in a late-inning save situation. But if the starting pitcher is in the game, and there are 2 outs in the 4th inning, and the batting team scores runs- how remarkable is that? I contend, it’s no more remarkable or important than if those runs were scored with 0 or 1 out.

But, if we buy into the notion that hitting with 2 outs is a “pressure” or “clutch” situation, and a team performs well in those clutch situations, then they are likely to be a successful team, right? Uh, no. The 2007 Baltimore Orioles were very good when batting with 2 outs and runners in scoring position. The O’s had a .267 batting average, ranked 5th best in the Major Leagues. The O’s performed better in that “pressure” situation than the Indians, Red Sox, Angels, Cubs, Phillies, D-backs and Rockies. Better than 7 of the 8 playoff teams! Wow! Yeah, wow. Big deal. Get my drift?

The hype over runs with 2 outs is just that. I like stats, but I don’t like stats that are presented to mean something they’re not.

Posted on Thursday, October 18th, 2007 at 4:19 pm.
Categories: Opinion.
Track comments to this post: RSS 2.0.

POST A COMMENT  |  TRACKBACK