Last week, I wrote an article about Leverage Index (LI).  This article will focus on how the Orioles are doing so far in the four categories of Leverage situations. 

 

There¡¯s been a lot of consternation in Oriole Land over the makeup of the bench ¨C including quite a bit on my behalf.  After all, those scrubs they¡¯ve been carrying on the bench are going to cause this team to lose quite a few games.  Or are they?

 

For the purposes of this article, the winning team always receives .500 WPA points, while the losing team receives (-).500 WPA points.  In other words, .500 WPA points is equivalent to one win.

 

I¡¯ve been tracking every plate appearance of every Orioles game this year in an attempt to see how well Orioles players perform in High Leverage situations.  Through the first Toronto game, there were 164 situations in Orioles games in which the LI was 2.0 or higher.  Orioles¡¯ players posted positive Win Probability (WPA) points in 81 of those High Leverage situations. 

 

Starting pitchers have posted positive WPA points 19 of 32 times (including Erik Bedard¡¯s 9 of 12).  They have a cumulative WPA of .341 in LI 2.0 situations.  In 28 plate appearances against, they have allowed four singles, and four walks, with eight strikeouts.  Opponents are batting .174 / .321 / .174 / .495.  In other words, the starters have been very good in LI 2.0 situations.

 

Relievers have posted positive WPA points 32 of 52 times (including 6 of 7 from Danys Baez).  They have a cumulative WPA of (-).123 (take away the Ray/ARod match up and this number jumps to .595).  In 52 PAs against, they have allowed two home runs, with five walks, and 15 strikeouts.  Opponents are batting .261 / .358 / .413 / .771.

 

As for offensive players, I decided to separate the ¡°scrubs¡± from the regulars ¨C after all, one purpose of this article is to determine how much they are helping or hurting the team.  Castillo, Gomez, Bynum, and Bako have had 15 PAs in LI 2.0 situations.  (Knott was not up in such a situation.  I also don¡¯t necessarily consider Gomez to be a scrub, he just isn¡¯t a regular.)

 

The regulars have posted positive WPA points in 24 of 65 LI 2.0 situations (remember, even the best hitters are only successful 30 to 35% of the time).  Mora and Tejada lead this group by having come through in four of eight opportunities each.  Unfortunately, the cumulative WPA for this group in LI 2.0 situations is (-).441.  In 64 PAs, the regulars are batting 0-10-.275 / .377 / .373 / .750 with nine walks and eight strikeouts.

 

So how do the scrubs compare?  They¡¯ve actually posted positive WPA points 6 of 15 times (including two of four for Gomez).  Their cumulative WPA in LI 2.0 situations is an extremely impressive .664 (which is helped greatly by the .302 gained by one Gomez swing of the bat).  In other words, the scrubs have almost 1.5 more wins than losses in WPA points all by themselves in only 15 PAs.  The scrubs are batting an amazing 2-11-.385 / .385 / 1.000 / 1.385 in LI 2.0 situations.  Before getting too excited, remember this is an extremely small sample size.

 

The following chart shows the overall comparison between Orioles batters and their opponents in LI 2.0 situations.

 

	HR	R	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	K/BB	BB%	K%	WPA
Orioles	2	21	.297	.378	.500	.878	2.40	11.4	15.2	.223
Opp	2	20	.232	.346	.333	.679	2.88	11.3	28.8	-.218

 

This team has done very well in high leverage situations.  Keep in mind that through those first 16 games, the cumulative WPA for the team was 1.000.  The cumulative team WPA in LI 2.0 situations was .441.  Want an idea of the importance of LI 2.0 situations?  While those situations accounted for only 12.7% of all plays in Orioles games, they accounted for 31.4% of all positive WPA points, and 30.8% of all negative WPA points.

 

How do the Orioles do in the various situations?  Tom Tango breaks down LI into four categories: Low Leverage (<.80), Medium Leverage (¡Ý.80, <1.60), High Leverage (¡Ý1.60, <3.0), and Very High Leverage (¡Ý3.0).  This chart shows how Orioles hitters do in the different levels of LI:

 

	PA	HR	R	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	K/BB	BB%	K%	WPA
Low	290	7	17	.221	.307	.353	.660	1.52	10.0	14.1	-.109
Medium	221	7	32	.291	.361	.469	.830	1.89	9.0	16.3	.382
High	95	1	17	.259	.308	.424	.732	5.50	5.3	23.2	-.853
Very	20	1	9	.385	.526	.615	1.141	0.50	25.0	5.0	.534
Batters	626	16	75	.255	.333	.411	.744	1.92	9.4	16.0	-.046

 

The cumulative WPA tells us that Orioles batters have just about broken even ¨C they¡¯ve helped the team to the same number of wins as losses.  Notice that their BB% and K% each goes in the wrong direction as the situation gets tougher (it is difficult to get a reading with so few PAs in Very High Leverage situations).  It would be interesting to see how other teams do when looked at in this manner.

 

And the pitchers?

 

	PA	HR	R	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	K/BB	BB%	K%	WPA
Low	239	1	5	.205	.264	.291	.555	2.82	7.1	20.1	.863
Medium	243	4	33	.293	.386	.433	.819	1.44	11.5	16.0	-.617
High	109	1	16	.255	.327	.316	.643	3.63	8.3	26.6	.872
Very	29	2	15	.208	.321	.458	.779	2.00	10.3	20.7	-.076
Batters	620	8	69	.247	.325	.356	.681	2.22	9.2	19.7	1.042

 

Just as their partners with the bats have been most successful in Medium Leverage Situations, Orioles pitchers have struggled.  Maybe hitters in general feel most comfortable in these situations ¨C it could be that there¡¯s just enough stress to increase their concentration without generating too much pressure to succeed.  I can¡¯t help but like the performance of Orioles pitchers in Low and High Leverage situations.  Why were they two games over .500 through Friday?  A good place to start is the pitching, considering they are have been good for two more wins than losses cumulatively, based on WPA.

 

So what have we learned?  The regular position players need to continue improving in LI 2.0 situations (and they probably will).  The pitching has been great (of course, we already knew this).

 

And the scrubs?  To the surprise of many, they are more than carrying their weight when it matters most.