Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
Hitters are clearly striking out much more than they used to, and sabermetrics can help us determine what that means.
Actually, according to sabermetrics, pitchers are striking guys out more.
Small sample size, but it IS a weird skyrocketing of Trout's strikeout totals. Not something you really expect from one of the best hitters in the world at age 22.
so do you think contact oriented hitters will start to get more play?
but scoring is decreasing. it's so obvious even the most oblivious teams have to recognize that offense is reduced across mlb
Replacing high-K hitters with high contact hitters who just ground out all the time and have no power is not going to increase scoring.
it would be kind of amusing in a twisted way if the guys that this community finds least appealing (the juan pierre types) suddently become the desired skill set of mlb teams
If MLB decides scoring needs to increase and strikeouts need to decrease, lowering the mound is the obvious way to accomplish that. Perhaps combined with making fielding gloves smaller.
I'm getting really tired of seeing 9 or 10 Ks per team per game, and starters leaving in the 6th inning because they're already at 110 pitches. It's the worst of both worlds -- low scoring games that take forever because of lengthy ABs and the endless parade of relievers.
The radical solution if you think this is a problem consists of: juicing the ball a little; thickening the bat handles; moving the box a few inches back off the plate; calling an armpits-to-knees strike zone; and--this is the really radical part--moving the mound back a few feet.
The strikeout rate jump is almost certainly the result of changing approaches/usage patterns by both hitters and pitchers. You can't ignore the strike zone called by the umps, and the catcher efforts to frame those pitches either.
But you certainly cannot absolve the hitters. If batters came into MLB with the approach of Nori Aoki, then strikeouts would be greatly reduced.
I'd be fine with that, I prefer watching that game instead of every batter going to 3-2 every time up and the result being a true outcome. I don't think it will happen unless fences are moved back or the ball becomes less lively, reducing homeruns.
1993-2014 was a good time for baseball. lots of contrasting styles, lots of individual achievement in a breadth of categories and different teams in the mix with a sprinkling of mini-dynasties
1993-2014 was a good time for baseball. lots of contrasting styles
For pitchers hitting though, strikeouts are down. Last year it was 42.5%, this year it's 41.6%. Could just be a fluke.
If MLB decides scoring needs to increase and strikeouts need to decrease, lowering the mound is the obvious way to accomplish that.
I assume the changes in the 1970s reflected changes in the called strikezone. Anyone know?
To do that, thicken the handles and make them swing heavier bats. I think that combining that with flattening the seams a bit (and possibly juicing the ball a little) would have a good chance of moving baseball away from the Three True Outcomes without making run scoring implode.
Some teams won by working the count, taking walks, and hitting lots of home runs. Other teams won by working the count, taking walks, and hitting lots of home runs.
The contrasting styles were so drastic, we'd need someone like Christopher Nolan to make a movie about it.
First, it’s important to note why strikeouts are bad, which is fairly simple. Outs are generally the worst possible outcome in a plate appearance, and every strikeout is a guaranteed out, barring a rare dropped third strike. Every ball that is hit into play has a reasonable chance of not being an out.
I've long supported that change Zeth, as I think it's the best solution (outside playing in much larger ballparks, which is pretty much impossible at this point). My fear is that even if you thicken the handles (and make homers harder), batters may determine that swinging balls-out is still the way to go.
IOW, you might be able to change the homers to singles/doubles mix, which is good, but I'm not sure there's an easy solution to the strikeout issue.
Striking out 160 times is fine if you hit 25 home runs; if you strike out 160 times and hit 8 home runs, you won't keep a job.
While reducing contact rate, increasing strikeouts,
While reducing contact rate, increasing strikeouts, and turning a decent chunk of those home runs into routine flyouts. Just what the game needs!
Everyone makes every play with no mistakes, that's a bit predictable.
Re 64: The .514 OPS is a fluke, sure, but I don't know houw Mike Trout is going to be as good as the last two years if he is King 28% of the time (up from 19% last year) while BBing 11.5% of the time (down from 15.4%). Both of those numbers tend to stabilize pretty quickly, and those are pretty big changes that are not explained by the small increase in SO from last year to this year. He'll still be a great player, but I don't see how this can be seen as anything other than a step down, if he keeps up anything near these new ratios. (His BABIP is going to be fine, I'm sure, but he also is going to start slowing down, so is not going to have a .365 career BABIP forever.
Well.... here is the best way I can put it. If I were Dictator for Life of MLB there is no way I would make substantive rule changes right now (other than curbing the late-inning pitching changes) because the enterprise is thoroughly healthy and I don't yet see any warning signs that a problem is coming.
so do you think contact oriented hitters will start to get more play?
Thickening bat handles and moving the batters box back seem like reasonable and possibly effective ideas to me if it's done gradually (a la Bill James' essay in the Historical Abstract)
If I were Dictator for Life of an independent league trying to survive in a landscape dominated by MLB, I absolutely would overhaul the rules to create a product centered around fast-paced, high-tempo, lots-of-balls-in-play baseball. I think the difference between that brand of baseball and modern MLB would be startling, and it would be very well received by fans; and I think that over time MLB would take notice and begin to move its own product in that direction, albeit in the clumsy, lurching way megaconglomerates do.
boy yesterday he and segura had a contest who could take the looniest swing. both swung at pitches around eye level. segura won because his pitch almost hit him in the head
These sorts of ebbs and flows of offense are pretty consistent with the history of the game and I think a change would probably be an overreaction.
i see that more often than a guy swinging at a ball that if not for the movement caused by his swing would have bonked him in the forehead
So...like the baseball version of the XFL? I don't remember that working out the way Vince McMahon hoped it would...
and it isn't also true that almost all great leaps forward in attendance have been tied to upticks in scoring? scoring equates to action on the field.
I don't care if the games are 2-0 or 12-10 if they move along. Take 30-40 seconds between pitches, though, and I'd rather watch golf.
I think in a near perfect world, baseball action would be most appreciated if...
3. That the average game score was roughly 5 to 4.
4. Teams average around 140 homeruns a year.
5. babip league wide was around .310-.320
7. Average fielders looked like average fielders...when you have someone like Matt Holliday(or another) qualifying as a league average fielder, it really contradicts the view of what a fan thinks of is an average fielder.
1975-1992 was a good time for baseball. lots of contrasting styles, lots of individual achievement in a breadth of categories and different teams in the mix with a sprinkling of mini-dynasties
I perceive no way at all that any football league that isn't the NFL can survive in the US (and numerous have tried). I don't think there's any way to make football meaningfully different from how the NFL plays it while still being recognizably football, and the only way to carve a market out of one of the major sports is to offer a product that is DIFFERENT, but still recognizably the same sport.
There's nothing wrong with baseball so long as there are young exciting players in the league.
Kershaw, Sale, Jose Fernandez
I don't think there's any parallel between what I suggested and the XFL at all. Please enlighten me on what I'm missing here.
Is this just a small-sample-size problem that will go away by the end of the year? Or is WAR broken in Anaheim?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (8 members)
Page rendered in 0.9668 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed