MLB offense

[Smitty]

What can be done to increase scoring? Pitcher specialization has led to the decline in scoring as of late. Just some anecdotal evidence that got me on this...

Yesterday there were 15 games. 7 were shutouts.

Tonight there were 7 games. 6 games didn't combine for more than 6 runs.

The pendulum has swung too far it seems.

[ShotgunDawg]

What can be done to increase scoring?

2 things:

1. Lower the mound
2. Change the bottom of the strike zone from the "middle of the knee caps", which it is now, to "top of the knee caps". This help decrease the lower strike and force pitchers to work higher in the zone. Here's an article on the topic: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25072916/mlb-is-right-to-consider-changing-strike-zone

[msstate7]

Level off the mound, aluminum bats, legalize PEDs**

I'm not a fan of these, but I think they'd lead to more offense...

--Make pitchers face more than 1 batter when they enter game.

--lower pitcher mound

--don't allow defensive shifts

[Dawg61]

It's cyclical. Hitters need to learn how to hit to all fields imo. Embarrassing that someone like Texiera or Ortiz can't hit the ball the other way. Spare me the gaybermetrics on why they should always pull the ball.

[Todd4State]

It's cyclical. Hitters need to learn how to hit to all fields imo. Embarrassing that someone like Texiera or Ortiz can't hit the ball the other way. Spare me the gaybermetrics on why they should always pull the ball.

Historically speaking baseball does tend to change every ten years or so between high and low scoring environments.

And to add- I do think that there is a major lack of fundamentals that has occurred recently. I think pitchers in general are ahead of the hitters in terms of position specific fundamentals- probably because of all of the Tommy John stuff where everyone is trying to figure out ways to protect pitchers.

But the recent offensive trend was to not worry about striking out rather than putting the ball in play, going the other way if you have to, etc. So, you end up with a bunch of hitters striking out all the time.

Look at this to illustrate my point:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SO_season.shtml

The top 20 alone have been mostly the last 10 years.

A lot of these hitters need to get through their heads that you actually hit more home runs the better you are at hitting and putting the ball into play. And I do think that if they start adding more speed guys into the game, you'll also see runs go up. These pitchers don't have to worry about anyone stealing, so they just attack the hitter who is likely a free swinger anyway.

[War Machine Dawg]

I'm all for letting players take HGH. Bring back the days of guys threatening 70 HRs. I love baseball, but you can't say it wasn't way more fun to watch guys like Bonds, Sosa, Big Mac, etc. crush balls to the moon and have multiple 5-4 games every day. And before anyone jumps my shit, let me add that steroids should be banned because they're criminally illegal. HGH isn't. Also, HGH isn't increasing hand-eye coordination. You either have it and can hit or you can't. Bonds was a HoF before he ever used the first steroid or HGH. Medical advances, in this instance HGH, are part of the game. Guys used to not lift weights, eat right, condition, etc. Now you can't play if you don't do that on some level.

I'd also add that a factor in the decrease in runs is the increase in pitcher velocity. Guys like Glavine and Maddux don't really exist anymore - finesse pitchers who beat you with pinpoint control that topped out at 91 on a good day. Now everyone throws 92+ in MLB.

[Todd4State]

I'm all for letting players take HGH. Bring back the days of guys threatening 70 HRs. I love baseball, but you can't say it wasn't way more fun to watch guys like Bonds, Sosa, Big Mac, etc. crush balls to the moon and have multiple 5-4 games every day. And before anyone jumps my shit, let me add that steroids should be banned because they're criminally illegal. HGH isn't. Also, HGH isn't increasing hand-eye coordination. You either have it and can hit or you can't. Bonds was a HoF before he ever used the first steroid or HGH. Medical advances, in this instance HGH, are part of the game. Guys used to not lift weights, eat right, condition, etc. Now you can't play if you don't do that on some level.

I'd also add that a factor in the decrease in runs is the increase in pitcher velocity. Guys like Glavine and Maddux don't really exist anymore - finesse pitchers who beat you with pinpoint control that topped out at 91 on a good day. Now everyone throws 92+ in MLB.

I agree about HGH. It's silly to expect baseball to be the only "pure" sport out there. All those senators who were pissed that their heroes like Mickey Mantle had their records shattered need to realize that if the Mick played baseball today- he would be on the same stuff. I know guys like Hank Aaron say that they wouldn't be on it- but they're full of it.

You judge baseball by eras. You can't compare the early 1900's to the 1960's or the 1990's. Things change and different things get emphasized at different times.

[msstate7]

If you allowed HGH, wouldn't the pitchers use it too? Doesn't seem it would accomplish much for offense unless you only allowed hitters to use it

[Dawg61]

If you allowed HGH, wouldn't the pitchers use it too? Doesn't seem it would accomplish much for offense unless you only allowed hitters to use it

Pitchers did use it. Clemens and Pettite for example but HGH really is effective for recovery and energy/awareness so a pitcher that already gets rest for 4-5 days in between starts doesn't see the production increase that an every day player does. Now closers on the other hand. Imagine Aroldis Chapman on HGH. Good luck ever touching his fastball.

[Todd4State]

Pitchers did use it. Clemens and Pettite for example but HGH really is effective for recovery and energy/awareness so a pitcher that already gets rest for 4-5 days in between starts doesn't see the production increase that an every day player does. Now closers on the other hand. Imagine Aroldis Chapman on HGH. Good luck ever touching his fastball.

This is one of the things that gets lost in the steroid debate. It's not like all the pitchers were taking Flintstones vitamins while the hitters were getting swelled up.

[War Machine Dawg]

I agree about HGH. It's silly to expect baseball to be the only "pure" sport out there. All those senators who were pissed that their heroes like Mickey Mantle had their records shattered need to realize that if the Mick played baseball today- he would be on the same stuff. I know guys like Hank Aaron say that they wouldn't be on it- but they're full of it.

You judge baseball by eras. You can't compare the early 1900's to the 1960's or the 1990's. Things change and different things get emphasized at different times.

And this is what pisses me off about the HoF voters. It's never been about comparing guys from the past to guys from the present. But suddenly to the old fart writers who consider themselves "guardians of the game" act like it is and have so screwed it up that it can't ever be fixed. When you look at who's on the ballot, who's not, and who's barely getting votes, it's just completely ridiculous. The process needs a complete overhaul.

[dawgs]

It's cyclical. Hitters need to learn how to hit to all fields imo. Embarrassing that someone like Texiera or Ortiz can't hit the ball the other way. Spare me the gaybermetrics on why they should always pull the ball.

Find me "gaybermetrics" that says it's better to pull the ball all the time instead of using the field.

You don't understand sabermetrics, so you are trying to discredit it, and instead just makes yourself look like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wanna know why guys like teixiera and Ortiz are pull happy? Because they are old, and when players get old, they lose bat speed, so in order to get power, they have to sell out early to generate power. That's why they don't hit the opposite way. They could, but they'd lose most of their power. Teixiera and Ortiz and other similarly skilled players are more valuable as low avg, high BB rate, 30+ HR guys than as a .300 slap hitter with no speed.

Edit:

Ortiz actually does a decent job spraying LDs the opposite way. His 2014-2015 spray chart is on the right.

http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=745&position=DH&type=battedball&pid2=745&ss1=2013&se1=2013&ss2=2014&se2=2015&cht1=battedball&cht2=battedball&vs1=ALL&vs2=ALL

Teixiera' spray chart is far more pull happy. 2014-2015 v. RHP on the left and v. LHP on the right. Split because he's a switch hitter.

http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=1281&position=1B&type=battedball&pid2=1281&ss1=2014&se1=2015&ss2=2014&se2=2015&cht1=battedball&cht2=battedball&vs1=R&vs2=L

[BrunswickDawg]

I agree about HGH. It's silly to expect baseball to be the only "pure" sport out there. All those senators who were pissed that their heroes like Mickey Mantle had their records shattered need to realize that if the Mick played baseball today- he would be on the same stuff. I know guys like Hank Aaron say that they wouldn't be on it- but they're full of it.

You judge baseball by eras. You can't compare the early 1900's to the 1960's or the 1990's. Things change and different things get emphasized at different times.

Read Mantle's book. If I remember correctly, he missed time in either 60 or 61 when he got a "B12" shot and the puncture wound got infected - those guys would try anything to get an edge too. Uppers in the 50s and 60s, COCAINE!!! In the 70s and early 80s.

[Really Clark?]

Find me "gaybermetrics" that says it's better to pull the ball all the time instead of using the field.

You don't understand sabermetrics, so you are trying to discredit it, and instead just makes yourself look like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wanna know why guys like teixiera and Ortiz are pull happy? Because they are old, and when players get old, they lose bat speed, so in order to get power, they have to sell out early to generate power. That's why they don't hit the opposite way. They could, but they'd lose most of their power. Teixiera and Ortiz and other similarly skilled players are more valuable as low avg, high BB rate, 30+ HR guys than as a .300 slap hitter with no speed.

Edit:

Ortiz actually does a decent job spraying LDs the opposite way. His 2014-2015 spray chart is on the right.

http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=745&position=DH&type=battedball&pid2=745&ss1=2013&se1=2013&ss2=2014&se2=2015&cht1=battedball&cht2=battedball&vs1=ALL&vs2=ALL

Teixiera' spray chart is far more pull happy. 2014-2015 v. RHP on the left and v. LHP on the right. Split because he's a switch hitter.

http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=1281&position=1B&type=battedball&pid2=1281&ss1=2014&se1=2015&ss2=2014&se2=2015&cht1=battedball&cht2=battedball&vs1=R&vs2=L

I agree with what you are saying and the charts. My problem is all the young guys coming up who are so pull happy. And it has nothing to do with age. I think there are two gaps that are an issue. The matrix guys have beat the drum that strikeouts don't matter and BA is not as good of an indicator of a good hitter. And I think that is dead wrong and is one reason why scoring is down. I love the Cabeara, Trouts, etc great hitters. But where are all of the Molitors, Brett's, Gwynn's. Guys who are outstanding hitters to all fields. And if you have these guys on base for you power hitters AND hitting at the top of the order where they are also getting late inning RBI's because they can flat hit. They may not get you 20+ HR but 10 with a .330 avg and can place the ball. I think that is where a gap is in hitting in general with those type of players. Also, a really good swing from a guy who hits to all fields can help offset the power pitcher prowess.

Now that being said, there is always going to be some generation ups and downs. We are in the age of the power pitcher. But if we do our due dilligence and teach a very fundmental simple swing that generates good solid contact then you just have to gear up the players to hit the speed. There is just too much swing and miss from guys who should be contact hitters with 8-15 HR and everybody is trying to get them so amped to get to 20 hr. I think it's a misinterpretation of the overall idea that strikeouts don't matter. Cut everybody's strikeout total by just 10% and runs go back up some.

[Dawg61]

Find me "gaybermetrics" that says it's better to pull the ball all the time instead of using the field.

You don't understand sabermetrics, so you are trying to discredit it, and instead just makes yourself look like you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wanna know why guys like teixiera and Ortiz are pull happy? Because they are old, and when players get old, they lose bat speed, so in order to get power, they have to sell out early to generate power. That's why they don't hit the opposite way. They could, but they'd lose most of their power. Teixiera and Ortiz and other similarly skilled players are more valuable as low avg, high BB rate, 30+ HR guys than as a .300 slap hitter with no speed.

Edit:

Ortiz actually does a decent job spraying LDs the opposite way. His 2014-2015 spray chart is on the right.

http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=745&position=DH&type=battedball&pid2=745&ss1=2013&se1=2013&ss2=2014&se2=2015&cht1=battedball&cht2=battedball&vs1=ALL&vs2=ALL

Teixiera' spray chart is far more pull happy. 2014-2015 v. RHP on the left and v. LHP on the right. Split because he's a switch hitter.

http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=1281&position=1B&type=battedball&pid2=1281&ss1=2014&se1=2015&ss2=2014&se2=2015&cht1=battedball&cht2=battedball&vs1=R&vs2=L

When your go to site for stats is fangraphs you know you're part of the gaybermetrics crowd. You just said it in your post too btw. You said Texiera is more valuable as a high strikeout low average guy than a normal ****ing baseball hitter that can hit a single the other way when nobody is playing defense on the entire left side of the infield. Gaybermetrics is everything that's wrong with baseball and why offense is down right now imo.

[Smitty]

But where are all of the Molitors, Brett's, Gwynn's. .

Jose Altuve, Michael Brantley, Robinson Cano

[shoeless joe]

I realize I'm in the minority but I love watching a pitchers duel. A 1-0, 2-1 type game is way more appealing to me personally.

[Smitty]

When your go to site for stats is fangraphs you know you're part of the gaybermetrics crowd. You just said it in your post too btw. You said Texiera is more valuable as a high strikeout low average guy than a normal ****ing baseball hitter that can hit a single the other way when nobody is playing defense on the entire left side of the infield. Gaybermetrics is everything that's wrong with baseball and why offense is down right now imo.

Sabermetrics is why offense is down but it's because of the new knowledge of how to use pitchers and defenses. Most all new knowledge is geared towards the pitchers and defense. You really think offense would be up if everyone played like Mississippi State on offense?

[Smitty]

I realize I'm in the minority but I love watching a pitchers duel. A 1-0, 2-1 type game is way more appealing to me personally.

No doubt, but what about a SP going 6 then 6 different flamethrowers coming in to righty-lefty everyone. And a pitcher's duel should not be the norm. Kluber vs Sale last night was great.

One of the all time greatest regular season games was the 11-10 Bill Mueller walkoff off Mariano propelling the Red Sox to break the curse later that year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=240724102

[Really Clark?]

Jose Altuve, Michael Brantley, Robinson Cano

Boggs, Mattingly, Madlock, etc

Yes we have good hitters today. But in this recent turn since 2010 look at the numbers. For the first time we are avg above 7 k's per game and BA is below .260. Runs per game is down is a direct correlation to those two numbers. Also because of the philosphy of BA doesn't mean as much guess what else has happened. HR are also down because guys are not making contact. Does the power arms play a part? Absolutely it does. But the misunderstanding of the sabr and strike outs and BA has caused it to go too far too fast. Look at all of those contact hitters listed, and there were more of those type of hitters in the 80's and 90's than there are today. But something they nearly all have in common and you can run it through the contact guys of today like Mauer. Some of their best slugging years were years that they had great BA. Some years the ball just doesn't fall for you but If you consistently hit the ball with solid contact over time the ball will find the holes. And even contact hitters will have power spikes just because they are driving the ball well. That is what I am talking about. There is not enough of an emphasis on developing these type of hitters. Guys who play for 15+ years and just rake single after single and who avg 30+ doubles a year because they are gap hitters. Wade Boggs type. Never strikeout and don't look to walk, bust the ball back at the pitcher. Let that happen more and more and the power pitchers then have to learn they had better place the ball better. That is the gap I'm referring to. The guys you mentioned. They are really good hitters and have the potential. I would like to see Cano lower those strike out numbers. I think he is leaving .010 BA points. I think his overall numbers would be even better including his power numbers. And I mean a .320 career type of hitter. Brantley is one I think has had to work to get to this point harder than some other guys. His 22-24 age years he was about a .260 hitter. Cut down his strikeouts just 5% and his avg rose to over .280 and the last year and so far this year he is below 10% SO per ab and now look at his BA. Altuve I love. Same kind of deal with him as Brantley though. Didn't break .300 until his strike out rate lowered by 5% till he is below 10% K per AB. I think contact is a key to seeing numbers back up offensively

[smootness]

It will naturally swing back some, and it already has slightly so far this year. Offense is up slightly across the board over the last couple of years.

But there is no need to make any changes to the actual game itself. I believe they should go back to whatever ball they were using in the late 90s (I'm sorry, but I will never believe all that offense was attributable simply to steroids) and then just let hitters catch up to the pitchers again.

A .300 hitter should be a good hitter, not an average one. However, you shouldn't always have to be a phenomenal hitter to get there.

[dawgs]

When your go to site for stats is fangraphs you know you're part of the gaybermetrics crowd. You just said it in your post too btw. You said Texiera is more valuable as a high strikeout low average guy than a normal ****ing baseball hitter that can hit a single the other way when nobody is playing defense on the entire left side of the infield. Gaybermetrics is everything that's wrong with baseball and why offense is down right now imo.

Do you want to have a real discussion or are you too ****ing anti-facts to have a discussion? Google "(player name) spray chart" and fangraphs is what pops up.

And yes, for teixiera, he's better going for a lower avg and higher power, because even if he wanted to try to be Tony Gwynn at his advanced age, it's just not going to happen. He could probably hit ~.280 if he sacrificed half his HRs, but he can hit ~.250 with double the HRs. He's just not going to be a .320 hitter regardless of how he tries to hit LDs the other way because being Tony Gwynn type guy is as hard as being a 35+ HR guy like teixiera.

Then we can get into how a BB is almost as valuable as a single, and teixiera has a BB rate double that of gwynn's career BB rate, so he's making up for some of those singles with BBs. Sure if there's a man on 2nd or 3rd, a single is better than a BB, but that's why I said ALMOST AS VALUABLE. No one on base and a BB and single have the same value, maybe even a slight edge to the BB because the pitcher might throw more pitches.

Also, offense is rebounding slightly from a few years ago. Maybe lower offensive numbers in general the last 7 or 8 years has to do with pitchers and defense better understanding how to get guys out and the use of bullpens and starters not continuing to stay in games toughing it out after they've clearly tired from 6+ IP of work.

But no, it's "gaybermetrics" fault.

[Bubb Rubb]

Jose Altuve, Michael Brantley, Robinson Cano

Are you really comparing these guys to Molitor, Brett, and Gwynn? Altuve is only just now realizing his potential and has two sub-.700 OPS seasons. Brantley had a breakout year last year and has started well this year, but let's see him do that for 12 more years before he can be compared to those guys. Robinson Freakin' Cano? He of the .647 OPS?

There are some good ballplayers out there, and you could've named players that may have been a better comparison than these three. It's not about having a good year or two. It's about sustained excellence for more than a decade. There's not many of those.

[Bubb Rubb]

Do you want to have a real discussion or are you too ****ing anti-facts to have a discussion? Google "(player name) spray chart" and fangraphs is what pops up.

And yes, for teixiera, he's better going for a lower avg and higher power, because even if he wanted to try to be Tony Gwynn at his advanced age, it's just not going to happen. He could probably hit ~.280 if he sacrificed half his HRs, but he can hit ~.250 with double the HRs. He's just not going to be a .320 hitter regardless of how he tries to hit LDs the other way because being Tony Gwynn type guy is as hard as being a 35+ HR guy like teixiera.

Then we can get into how a BB is almost as valuable as a single, and teixiera has a BB rate double that of gwynn's career BB rate, so he's making up for some of those singles with BBs. Sure if there's a man on 2nd or 3rd, a single is better than a BB, but that's why I said ALMOST AS VALUABLE. No one on base and a BB and single have the same value, maybe even a slight edge to the BB because the pitcher might throw more pitches.

Also, offense is rebounding slightly from a few years ago. Maybe lower offensive numbers in general the last 7 or 8 years has to do with pitchers and defense better understanding how to get guys out and the use of bullpens and starters not continuing to stay in games toughing it out after they've clearly tired from 6+ IP of work.

But no, it's "gaybermetrics" fault.

What about when he strikes out with runners in scoring position against a shift to kill a rally? That happens more times than not and is directly related to lower scoring. The best way to fix this is to hit the ball the other way, or at the very least, drop a bunt down on the left side. You can't tell me with a straight face that he's more valuable striking out than doing that.

The game has become ridiculous. Fundamentals and common sense have gone by the wayside. Just last night, in the Mets-Cardinals game, I witnessed:

The Mets scoring their first run because they were playing their defense in and playing an extreme shift against Lucas Duda at the same time. Duda slapped a grounder that would've been an easy double play to short if everyone's playing straight up, but became a run-scoring single because of the stupid shift.

A brain surgeon of a manager deciding that his lineup looks better with a pitcher hitting 8th.

Matt Harvey dominating and leaving after 8 innings because he's thrown 104 pitches, only to see his bullpen blow the game in the ninth.

Poor baserunning and inability to get down bunts by both teams in critical situations.

A lot about the game has changed. Too many pitch counts and bullpen specialists, too many defensive shifts, and too many egocentric players who refuse to make teams pay for shifting on them. No wonder scoring is way down.

I will give Teixiera credit for one thing though: I saw him drop down a bunt earlier this year against the shift.

[Bubb Rubb]

Boggs, Mattingly, Madlock, etc

Yes we have good hitters today. But in this recent turn since 2010 look at the numbers. For the first time we are avg above 7 k's per game and BA is below .260. Runs per game is down is a direct correlation to those two numbers. Also because of the philosphy of BA doesn't mean as much guess what else has happened. HR are also down because guys are not making contact. Does the power arms play a part? Absolutely it does. But the misunderstanding of the sabr and strike outs and BA has caused it to go too far too fast. Look at all of those contact hitters listed, and there were more of those type of hitters in the 80's and 90's than there are today. But something they nearly all have in common and you can run it through the contact guys of today like Mauer. Some of their best slugging years were years that they had great BA. Some years the ball just doesn't fall for you but If you consistently hit the ball with solid contact over time the ball will find the holes. And even contact hitters will have power spikes just because they are driving the ball well. That is what I am talking about. There is not enough of an emphasis on developing these type of hitters. Guys who play for 15+ years and just rake single after single and who avg 30+ doubles a year because they are gap hitters. Wade Boggs type. Never strikeout and don't look to walk, bust the ball back at the pitcher. Let that happen more and more and the power pitchers then have to learn they had better place the ball better. That is the gap I'm referring to. The guys you mentioned. They are really good hitters and have the potential. I would like to see Cano lower those strike out numbers. I think he is leaving .010 BA points. I think his overall numbers would be even better including his power numbers. And I mean a .320 career type of hitter. Brantley is one I think has had to work to get to this point harder than some other guys. His 22-24 age years he was about a .260 hitter. Cut down his strikeouts just 5% and his avg rose to over .280 and the last year and so far this year he is below 10% SO per ab and now look at his BA. Altuve I love. Same kind of deal with him as Brantley though. Didn't break .300 until his strike out rate lowered by 5% till he is below 10% K per AB. I think contact is a key to seeing numbers back up offensively

Very well said.

[smootness]

What about when he strikes out with runners in scoring position against a shift to kill a rally? That happens more times than not and is directly related to lower scoring. The best way to fix this is to hit the ball the other way, or at the very least, drop a bunt down on the left side. You can't tell me with a straight face that he's more valuable striking out than doing that.

The game has become ridiculous. Fundamentals and common sense have gone by the wayside. Just last night, in the Mets-Cardinals game, I witnessed:

The Mets scoring their first run because they were playing their defense in and playing an extreme shift against Lucas Duda at the same time. Duda slapped a grounder that would've been an easy double play to short if everyone's playing straight up, but became a run-scoring single because of the stupid shift.

A brain surgeon of a manager deciding that his lineup looks better with a pitcher hitting 8th.

Matt Harvey dominating and leaving after 8 innings because he's thrown 104 pitches, only to see his bullpen blow the game in the ninth.

Poor baserunning and inability to get down bunts by both teams in critical situations.

A lot about the game has changed. Too many pitch counts and bullpen specialists, too many defensive shifts, and too many egocentric players who refuse to make teams pay for shifting on them. No wonder scoring is way down.

I will give Teixiera credit for one thing though: I saw him drop down a bunt earlier this year against the shift.

First, just as a general statement, 'sabermetrics' is not a style of play. It is simply the act of trying to find as much information as you can so that you can then make decisions. There has been some new conventional wisdom that has recently arisen from more advanced information, and like everything else, some of it is very good and some of it has gone too far. But believing that strikeouts don't matter is no worse than believing that RBIs are the greatest measure of a hitter, as many proponents of conventional baseball thinking believe. Jeff Franceour once said OBP didn't matter because they didn't put it on the scoreboard. That falls in line with some older thinking that HR and RBI are more valuable than OBP. In reality, the truth is somewhere in between. There is nothing good or bad about any sabermetrics data. You can use or ignore any of the information that you want. Front offices who use sabermetrics are usually simply trying to find market inefficiencies; they're not trying to find one specific type of player above all. Most of the stupid claims that have come forth recently, like 'strikeouts don't matter' or 'bunting is incredibly stupid 100% of the time' come from fans who just try to regurgitate things they've heard that they think are smart, not from actual baseball people.

In reference to your post above, I don't think shifts have made the game ridiculous. In fact, I think they are actually more along the lines of the way the game was naturally meant to be played. Believing a player should stand in the exact same spot regardless of batter and situation is more ridiculous than a shift. Baseball is a thinking game and is meant to be molded and shaped; you have 9 defensive players, and no one tells you how you must line them up. Traditional spots on the field came about more from making the game easier to understand, not necessarily from what works best. It's like the idea of 'We have to have a SG' for basketball. A lineup of 'PG-SG-SF-PF-C' is just something that came about to make sense of the game better. The game rarely plays itself out to where each player has a defined, specific role and only contributes certain things.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: do you think shifts are a recent baseball phenomenon? And how do you think a great hitter like Ted Williams would react to a shift?

You say there are too many pitch counts and pitching specialists, and also too many defensive shifts. If these things are worse for pitchers and defenses, why would they lead to lesser scoring?

[Really Clark?]

Smootness. I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you just stated. Always things seem to go one extreme or the next. But there is a trickle down effect to younger players and hitting coaches about strikeouts. When scouts and front offices push that idea more and more it has an effect with the players. I am not saying it's advocating a style of play but they are saying that strikeouts are not the detriment that previous generations think they are. That thought process has been in play for over a decade and has caused an issue. Now I will say I do know a lot of baseball people who have broken away and are combating the bad sabr stuff that has been put out there. Like anything there is a ton of good numbers that are out there to use. I think we will start to see those ideas be balanced out with non-numerical baseball logic. It can work together but you have to be balanced. Using the strikeout doesn't matter example. I know that the numbers say an out is an out and a walk is the same as a single as far OBP. But we also know that continuous putting the ball in play and hits are contagious. It doesn't kill momentum as much as a strikeout. If you keep hitting a pitcher, especially kind of hard, you will get to him and he eventually makes mistakes. It's an imperfect balance, yes. But use those numbers to enhance making your players better and your team better. Here is a great philosphy. K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid. Give your player something positive to do is always better than reinforcing a negative.

[dawgs]

No one thinks a lineup filled with guys with 20+% K rates are good for offense, just like a lineup full of guys with no power but above avg contact skills is good for offense. A good lineup needs all types. Also, if a guy has a K rate of 15% but hits for good power and creates runs, having him change his approach to drop his K rate a few % isn't worth the loss in run production.

As for shifts in key situations, is there data to show guys approach a shift with no one on in the 3rd inning the same way the do in the 9th inning of a tied game with a man on 2nd?

[Todd4State]

Boggs, Mattingly, Madlock, etc

Yes we have good hitters today. But in this recent turn since 2010 look at the numbers. For the first time we are avg above 7 k's per game and BA is below .260. Runs per game is down is a direct correlation to those two numbers. Also because of the philosphy of BA doesn't mean as much guess what else has happened. HR are also down because guys are not making contact. Does the power arms play a part? Absolutely it does. But the misunderstanding of the sabr and strike outs and BA has caused it to go too far too fast. Look at all of those contact hitters listed, and there were more of those type of hitters in the 80's and 90's than there are today. But something they nearly all have in common and you can run it through the contact guys of today like Mauer. Some of their best slugging years were years that they had great BA. Some years the ball just doesn't fall for you but If you consistently hit the ball with solid contact over time the ball will find the holes. And even contact hitters will have power spikes just because they are driving the ball well. That is what I am talking about. There is not enough of an emphasis on developing these type of hitters. Guys who play for 15+ years and just rake single after single and who avg 30+ doubles a year because they are gap hitters. Wade Boggs type. Never strikeout and don't look to walk, bust the ball back at the pitcher. Let that happen more and more and the power pitchers then have to learn they had better place the ball better. That is the gap I'm referring to. The guys you mentioned. They are really good hitters and have the potential. I would like to see Cano lower those strike out numbers. I think he is leaving .010 BA points. I think his overall numbers would be even better including his power numbers. And I mean a .320 career type of hitter. Brantley is one I think has had to work to get to this point harder than some other guys. His 22-24 age years he was about a .260 hitter. Cut down his strikeouts just 5% and his avg rose to over .280 and the last year and so far this year he is below 10% SO per ab and now look at his BA. Altuve I love. Same kind of deal with him as Brantley though. Didn't break .300 until his strike out rate lowered by 5% till he is below 10% K per AB. I think contact is a key to seeing numbers back up offensively

Very well said.

[Todd4State]

First, just as a general statement, 'sabermetrics' is not a style of play. It is simply the act of trying to find as much information as you can so that you can then make decisions. There has been some new conventional wisdom that has recently arisen from more advanced information, and like everything else, some of it is very good and some of it has gone too far. But believing that strikeouts don't matter is no worse than believing that RBIs are the greatest measure of a hitter, as many proponents of conventional baseball thinking believe. Jeff Franceour once said OBP didn't matter because they didn't put it on the scoreboard. That falls in line with some older thinking that HR and RBI are more valuable than OBP. In reality, the truth is somewhere in between. There is nothing good or bad about any sabermetrics data. You can use or ignore any of the information that you want. Front offices who use sabermetrics are usually simply trying to find market inefficiencies; they're not trying to find one specific type of player above all. Most of the stupid claims that have come forth recently, like 'strikeouts don't matter' or 'bunting is incredibly stupid 100% of the time' come from fans who just try to regurgitate things they've heard that they think are smart, not from actual baseball people.

In reference to your post above, I don't think shifts have made the game ridiculous. In fact, I think they are actually more along the lines of the way the game was naturally meant to be played. Believing a player should stand in the exact same spot regardless of batter and situation is more ridiculous than a shift. Baseball is a thinking game and is meant to be molded and shaped; you have 9 defensive players, and no one tells you how you must line them up. Traditional spots on the field came about more from making the game easier to understand, not necessarily from what works best. It's like the idea of 'We have to have a SG' for basketball. A lineup of 'PG-SG-SF-PF-C' is just something that came about to make sense of the game better. The game rarely plays itself out to where each player has a defined, specific role and only contributes certain things.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: do you think shifts are a recent baseball phenomenon? And how do you think a great hitter like Ted Williams would react to a shift?

You say there are too many pitch counts and pitching specialists, and also too many defensive shifts. If these things are worse for pitchers and defenses, why would they lead to lesser scoring?

I've never heard anyone ever say that you measure a hitter on how many RBI's they drive in. SABR keeps trying to find a perfect stat. WAR is about as close as you can come-and even that has some controversy. You measure players based on several stats- BOTH traditional and analytical. Then you have the total picture.

[Todd4State]

No one thinks a lineup filled with guys with 20+% K rates are good for offense, just like a lineup full of guys with no power but above avg contact skills is good for offense. A good lineup needs all types. Also, if a guy has a K rate of 15% but hits for good power and creates runs, having him change his approach to drop his K rate a few % isn't worth the loss in run production.
As for shifts in key situations, is there data to show guys approach a shift with no one on in the 3rd inning the same way the do in the 9th inning of a tied game with a man on 2nd?

This is the part of the game that sabermetrics doesn't understand. If you drop your K rate, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to lose power or drop production. What does a hitter produce when he strikes out? Nothing.

When a hitter is more well rounded they are more difficult to pitch to. That in effect causes makes it a LOT tougher on the pitcher- and it actually causes the hitter to see more pitches to hit because then they get into more favorable hitters counts and things like that.

Who would rather pitch to- a guy with power that can hit the ball to all fields or a power hitter that will swing at anything in the zip code?

[I seen it dawg]

Are you really comparing these guys to Molitor, Brett, and Gwynn? Altuve is only just now realizing his potential and has two sub-.700 OPS seasons. Brantley had a breakout year last year and has started well this year, but let's see him do that for 12 more years before he can be compared to those guys. Robinson Freakin' Cano? He of the .647 OPS?

There are some good ballplayers out there, and you could've named players that may have been a better comparison than these three. It's not about having a good year or two. It's about sustained excellence for more than a decade. There's not many of those.

You expected more?

[I seen it dawg]

boy there is some good shit in the thread here...

[dawgs]

This is the part of the game that sabermetrics doesn't understand. If you drop your K rate, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to lose power or drop production. What does a hitter produce when he strikes out? Nothing.

When a hitter is more well rounded they are more difficult to pitch to. That in effect causes makes it a LOT tougher on the pitcher- and it actually causes the hitter to see more pitches to hit because then they get into more favorable hitters counts and things like that.

Who would rather pitch to- a guy with power that can hit the ball to all fields or a power hitter that will swing at anything in the zip code?

Well if it's that's easy, then why isn't everyone a .300+ hitter, walking 20% of the time, and hitting 30+ HRs? It's easy to say "if you do this, this, and this, then you are a tougher out", but the fact remains that (1) it's hard to do what you are advocating, not every player has HoF skill sets capable of K'ing only ~10% of the time while maintaining their power, and (2) pitchers are good too and are going to try to get hitters out, and whereas 30+ years ago, a hitter faced 1-2 pitchers most games, in 2015, hitters often face 3 or more pitchers in a game. That means the not only do the hitters have to be prepared for a lot of different pitching arsenals every game, but they pitchers they are facing tend to be fresher, and thus throwing closer to their peak performance than a guy that's already thrown 6+ innings.

Fact is there's a lot of factors are driving a downturn in offense the last 7 or 8 years, probably the most logical one being that when most current pro baseball players where in little league and HS, hitting was huge (thanks steroids!), therefore pitching was at a premium, and so if a guy had potential as a pitcher and a hitter, the path that offered the least resistance to reaching MLB was pitching. Guys that did both in HS or college well and got drafted would be pushed towards pitching by MLB clubs desperate to find effective arms. Now the opposite is in effect. Everyone can find a staff to give you a reasonable era, it's power and hitting that's missing. Guys that could pitch or play a position are now being looked at more as a hitter because that's what MLB needs. (Obviously not every guy that both pitched and hit in HS and college as a high level end up as hitters these days, but nothing is ever 100%). That's why the Cubs have hoarded bats in the draft and on the international market. They can find a staff decent enough to keep them in games, but if their talent keeps developing at the plate, they'll have the best lineup in baseball in a few years, which creates a bigger gap between them and a majority of the league when offense is down.

[Smitty]

I've never heard anyone ever say that you measure a hitter on how many RBI's they drive in

Bryce Harper said to judge players on how many World Series' they won.

[Really Clark?]

Well if it's that's easy, then why isn't everyone a .300+ hitter, walking 20% of the time, and hitting 30+ HRs? It's easy to say "if you do this, this, and this, then you are a tougher out", but the fact remains that (1) it's hard to do what you are advocating, not every player has HoF skill sets capable of K'ing only ~10% of the time while maintaining their power, and (2) pitchers are good too and are going to try to get hitters out, and whereas 30+ years ago, a hitter faced 1-2 pitchers most games, in 2015, hitters often face 3 or more pitchers in a game. That means the not only do the hitters have to be prepared for a lot of different pitching arsenals every game, but they pitchers they are facing tend to be fresher, and thus throwing closer to their peak performance than a guy that's already thrown 6+ innings.

Fact is there's a lot of factors are driving a downturn in offense the last 7 or 8 years, probably the most logical one being that when most current pro baseball players where in little league and HS, hitting was huge (thanks steroids!), therefore pitching was at a premium, and so if a guy had potential as a pitcher and a hitter, the path that offered the least resistance to reaching MLB was pitching. Guys that did both in HS or college well and got drafted would be pushed towards pitching by MLB clubs desperate to find effective arms. Now the opposite is in effect. Everyone can find a staff to give you a reasonable era, it's power and hitting that's missing. Guys that could pitch or play a position are now being looked at more as a hitter because that's what MLB needs. (Obviously not every guy that both pitched and hit in HS and college as a high level end up as hitters these days, but nothing is ever 100%). That's why the Cubs have hoarded bats in the draft and on the international market. They can find a staff decent enough to keep them in games, but if their talent keeps developing at the plate, they'll have the best lineup in baseball in a few years, which creates a bigger gap between them and a majority of the league when offense is down.

There is some truth in your last paragraph but it is really just one more cog in the wheel. Everybody looks to steroids for the offense increase of the late 90's and I don't dispute that. But there was also a different ball during that time. The analytical stuff really began taking hold and changed a lot of thinking. But as big of an issue that I don't see ever mentioned is the 4 expansion teams that came along. That really hurt pitching a good bit as well for over a decade. Then you get the Philosophical hitting fundamentals and approach changes. I love power hitters but I think it went too far to the power and forgot the hitting aspect creating too many flawed offensive players.

Eta. I still believe if we drop the k per game back to 6 per game and have the additional non strike outs be contact with the ball, offense would go up immediately. Just elementate 1.3 k per game and have the balls put in play increases the offense.

[Really Clark?]

Bryce Harper said to judge players on how many World Series' they won.

Really? We are going with what Bryce Harper thinks? How many did Ted Williams win? Tony Gwynn? Ernie Banks? Harmon Killebrew? Ty Cobb? Ken Griffey Jr? This is not an individual sport and timing with an organization, especially back in the day, has a lot to do with championships.

[Todd4State]

Well if it's that's easy, then why isn't everyone a .300+ hitter, walking 20% of the time, and hitting 30+ HRs? It's easy to say "if you do this, this, and this, then you are a tougher out", but the fact remains that (1) it's hard to do what you are advocating, not every player has HoF skill sets capable of K'ing only ~10% of the time while maintaining their power, and (2) pitchers are good too and are going to try to get hitters out, and whereas 30+ years ago, a hitter faced 1-2 pitchers most games, in 2015, hitters often face 3 or more pitchers in a game. That means the not only do the hitters have to be prepared for a lot of different pitching arsenals every game, but they pitchers they are facing tend to be fresher, and thus throwing closer to their peak performance than a guy that's already thrown 6+ innings.

Fact is there's a lot of factors are driving a downturn in offense the last 7 or 8 years, probably the most logical one being that when most current pro baseball players where in little league and HS, hitting was huge (thanks steroids!), therefore pitching was at a premium, and so if a guy had potential as a pitcher and a hitter, the path that offered the least resistance to reaching MLB was pitching. Guys that did both in HS or college well and got drafted would be pushed towards pitching by MLB clubs desperate to find effective arms. Now the opposite is in effect. Everyone can find a staff to give you a reasonable era, it's power and hitting that's missing. Guys that could pitch or play a position are now being looked at more as a hitter because that's what MLB needs. (Obviously not every guy that both pitched and hit in HS and college as a high level end up as hitters these days, but nothing is ever 100%). That's why the Cubs have hoarded bats in the draft and on the international market. They can find a staff decent enough to keep them in games, but if their talent keeps developing at the plate, they'll have the best lineup in baseball in a few years, which creates a bigger gap between them and a majority of the league when offense is down.

Oh, it's NOT easy. And I'm not saying that everyone will hit .300+ if they focus more on fundamentals. BUT there is no doubt that if hitters improve their fundamentals that they will hit better and be more productive than what they are. More productive hitters = more runs. There has been a massive erosion in hitting fundamentals the past decade- and what we are seeing now is the result of that.

[Smitty]

Really? We are going with what Bryce Harper thinks? How many did Ted Williams win? Tony Gwynn? Ernie Banks? Harmon Killebrew? Ty Cobb? Ken Griffey Jr? This is not an individual sport and timing with an organization, especially back in the day, has a lot to do with championships.

Responding to Todd never hearing something like that....

[Todd4State]

Bryce Harper said to judge players on how many World Series' they won.

So, Bryce Harper thinks that Yogi Berra was the best player of all time?

[Really Clark?]

Responding to Todd never hearing something like that....

Gotcha. Harper is a little off center with some of his thinking anyway.

[Dawg61]

Do you want to have a real discussion or are you too ****ing anti-facts to have a discussion? Google "(player name) spray chart" and fangraphs is what pops up.

And yes, for teixiera, he's better going for a lower avg and higher power, because even if he wanted to try to be Tony Gwynn at his advanced age, it's just not going to happen. He could probably hit ~.280 if he sacrificed half his HRs, but he can hit ~.250 with double the HRs. He's just not going to be a .320 hitter regardless of how he tries to hit LDs the other way because being Tony Gwynn type guy is as hard as being a 35+ HR guy like teixiera.

Then we can get into how a BB is almost as valuable as a single, and teixiera has a BB rate double that of gwynn's career BB rate, so he's making up for some of those singles with BBs. Sure if there's a man on 2nd or 3rd, a single is better than a BB, but that's why I said ALMOST AS VALUABLE. No one on base and a BB and single have the same value, maybe even a slight edge to the BB because the pitcher might throw more pitches.

Also, offense is rebounding slightly from a few years ago. Maybe lower offensive numbers in general the last 7 or 8 years has to do with pitchers and defense better understanding how to get guys out and the use of bullpens and starters not continuing to stay in games toughing it out after they've clearly tired from 6+ IP of work.

But no, it's "gaybermetrics" fault.

The entire one side of a team's defense is missing in the infield because of sabermetrics and the players refuse to hit the ball the other way. How is that even possible for a MLB hitter? Hitting the other way is like a layup for the basketball player and refusing to do it even when the entire one side of the infield is missing is like having every player on your team pass up the free wide open layup for the contested 3. It's just flat stupid to not hit the ball the other way in that situation. You fix this failed logic in baseball and you'll fix your poor offense.

[Dawg61]

In reference to your post above, I don't think shifts have made the game ridiculous. In fact, I think they are actually more along the lines of the way the game was naturally meant to be played. Believing a player should stand in the exact same spot regardless of batter and situation is more ridiculous than a shift. Baseball is a thinking game and is meant to be molded and shaped; you have 9 defensive players, and no one tells you how you must line them up. Traditional spots on the field came about more from making the game easier to understand, not necessarily from what works best. It's like the idea of 'We have to have a SG' for basketball. A lineup of 'PG-SG-SF-PF-C' is just something that came about to make sense of the game better. The game rarely plays itself out to where each player has a defined, specific role and only contributes certain things.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: do you think shifts are a recent baseball phenomenon? And how do you think a great hitter like Ted Williams would react to a shift?


You just turned baseball into soccer and then threw in some weird basketball reference.

[Really Clark?]

Let me ask you a couple of questions: do you think shifts are a recent baseball phenomenon? And how do you think a great hitter like Ted Williams would react to a shift?

You say there are too many pitch counts and pitching specialists, and also too many defensive shifts. If these things are worse for pitchers and defenses, why would they lead to lesser scoring?

I missed this part of your post earlier. You do realize there is a historical significance with the shift and Ted Williams, right? First off, it was first employed in the 1920's against Cy Williams but it is always remembered for being used against Ted and called the Boudreau or Ted Williams shift. Boudreau, the Indians manager admitted that this was mainly a psychological not tactical defense and was an extreme overloading of infielders and outfielders. It did work, kind of. The man still went 1-2 with a double and 2 walks in that second game of the double header. (Really lit them up the first game). Later in the World Series, against St Louis, they used it as well against Williams and that resembled what we see today. All in all he saw more and more shifts and with advise from Paul Waner, Williams moved off the plate some and really pounded the ball to oppo and largely helped him become an even better hitter. But even prior, the numbers suggest that the shifts didn't really hurt him that much but Cobb and others pointed out, rightfully so, that he was stupid for not taking what the defense was given him even if he could still hit normal. A lot of that is from Ted Williams own words.

[War Machine Dawg]

There is some truth in your last paragraph but it is really just one more cog in the wheel. Everybody looks to steroids for the offense increase of the late 90's and I don't dispute that. But there was also a different ball during that time. The analytical stuff really began taking hold and changed a lot of thinking. But as big of an issue that I don't see ever mentioned is the 4 expansion teams that came along. That really hurt pitching a good bit as well for over a decade. Then you get the Philosophical hitting fundamentals and approach changes. I love power hitters but I think it went too far to the power and forgot the hitting aspect creating too many flawed offensive players.

Eta. I still believe if we drop the k per game back to 6 per game and have the additional non strike outs be contact with the ball, offense would go up immediately. Just elementate 1.3 k per game and have the balls put in play increases the offense.

Excellent point. This was a HUGE reason for the increase in run production. Hell, I remember talk of needing to contract a couple of teams because of how diluted pitching had become. Now those teams have all stocked up their pitching and it isn't an issue anymore. Even Colorado has figured out a style of pitching that allows their guys to be successful up there instead of getting absolutely crushed like they did for many years.

But I still say f it and legalize HGH. The guys who can hit will hit and the guys who can't won't. Your'e either born with the hand-eye coordination or you aren't.

[Smitty]

Brantley was better last year than Molitor's best year. And he's even better this year.

Gwynn was great. Cano is better. At a much more premium position in 2B.

George Brett. Great example of the typical aging pattern. As his career progressed he K'd more, BB'd more, and hit more HR.

[dawgs]

The entire one side of a team's defense is missing in the infield because of sabermetrics and the players refuse to hit the ball the other way. How is that even possible for a MLB hitter? Hitting the other way is like a layup for the basketball player and refusing to do it even when the entire one side of the infield is missing is like having every player on your team pass up the free wide open layup for the contested 3. It's just flat stupid to not hit the ball the other way in that situation. You fix this failed logic in baseball and you'll fix your poor offense.

Guys might poke a few balls the opposite way, but then the D will align more traditionally. Some balls would get still get through the infield after the D went back to a more traditional alignment but not enough to "fix your poor offense" like you think.

And let's not forget that the pitchers are going to pitch guys in a way that they will either pull the ball to the shift or pop it up. Not like the pitchers are gonna purposefully give the hitters balls they can drive the other way against a shift. Every single one of your points ignores that you have pitchers that can hit a very small spot more often than not with movement on their pitches, they aren't out there throwing straight fastballs over the plate and seeing where the hitters hit it.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/mlb/what-is-the-average-number-of-runs-scored-in-an-mlb-game.aspx

Offense now is approximately what it was in the early 90s, pre-strike. Hmm, I wonder what corresponded with the era from post-strike to the mid 00s?

[Really Clark?]

Brantley was better last year than Molitor's best year. And he's even better this year.

Gwynn was great. Cano is better. At a much more premium position in 2B.

George Brett. Great example of the typical aging pattern. As his career progressed he K'd more, BB'd more, and hit more HR.

Where are you getting that? Molitor had 4 years better than any of Brantley's. When he was 39 he hit .341. He has a career .306 BA with .817 OPS. And that was over a 21 year career. Molitor beats Brantley hands down. No contest. Brantley has had a good year and a half. Let's pump the breaks until he does it for at least another decade. Much less 2 decades like Molitor.

Out of your mind. A lifetime .338 and .847 OPS hitter and OPS+ 6 points higher than Cano, over 300 stolen bases and 5 gold gloves and HOF and he is not as good as Cano? You are delirious.

Ok Brett's strikeouts went up some when he got older. And it still never over 70 in a season and he is also higher than Cano in OPS+ and only .005 points lower in OPS. All three of my guys are 3,000 hit men. Get back to me if any of your three get over 2,500. Cano and Altuve will have a shot. I don't think Brantley gets there. But again you are making big big assumptions on Altuve and Brantley. Let's wait until they have at least 10 years in. Cano is either dropping or this year is just a rough start. He cuts down his strikeouts he should make the 3,000 hit club, barring injuries but it's going to be close.

ETA. Ted Williams, Stan Musial, and Tony Gwynn are the only modern era players to have a career BA over .330. Only 3 men. Cano is not close to Gwynn in terms of being an elite hitter. He does have time but a .330 hitter is extremely rare in the modern era.

[Really Clark?]

Guys might poke a few balls the opposite way, but then the D will align more traditionally. Some balls would get still get through the infield after the D went back to a more traditional alignment but not enough to "fix your poor offense" like you think.

And let's not forget that the pitchers are going to pitch guys in a way that they will either pull the ball to the shift or pop it up. Not like the pitchers are gonna purposefully give the hitters balls they can drive the other way against a shift. Every single one of your points ignores that you have pitchers that can hit a very small spot more often than not with movement on their pitches, they aren't out there throwing straight fastballs over the plate and seeing where the hitters hit it.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/mlb/what-is-the-average-number-of-runs-scored-in-an-mlb-game.aspx

Offense now is approximately what it was in the early 90s, pre-strike. Hmm, I wonder what corresponded with the era from post-strike to the mid 00s?

Expansion, steroid use, hotter ball, etc

[Smitty]

Where are you getting that? Molitor had 4 years better than any of Brantley's. .

If all you are looking at is batting average...

[Really Clark?]

If all you are looking at is batting average...

Well what a else do you want to look at? Brantley is not ahead of Molitor in many categories. Molitor had over 500 Stolen bases.

Here is Molitors analytical's:

162 Game Avg. 735 485 113 6.2 100 .326 .306 .264 .369 .331 .448 .405 .817 .736 122 .623 21 2 .811 .277 .142 19


Brantley's:

162 Game Avg. 688 469 93 5.3 94 .312 .291 .252 .346 .316 .417 .397 .763 .713 114 .569 13 1 .715 .232 .126 15

Molitor beats him nearly every category.

Defense? Maybe Brantley has the edge in total but that's because it includes Molitors declining years. In each players prime and considering Molitor played 3rd and 2nd I give him the edge.

I think you just want Brantley to be ahead but you didn't look. And he has only had a 1 1/2 year of even being in position to have a debate. Way way way to soon for you tout Brantley. He has potential but vs a 20 year guy? Way off base

[Smitty]

Way off base

You asked where are any hitters like that NOW and I gave them. Nobody knows if he can do it for a whole career but the frameworks you wanted (hit to all fields, no K's) is Brantley. He is a 20-20 guy in a league where SB's are not as high anymore. He could be a 30+ SB guy back in the heyday of the SB.

[sleepy dawg]

What can be done to increase scoring? Pitcher specialization has led to the decline in scoring as of late. Just some anecdotal evidence that got me on this...

Yesterday there were 15 games. 7 were shutouts.

Tonight there were 7 games. 6 games didn't combine for more than 6 runs.

The pendulum has swung too far it seems.

Mandatory steroids.

[Really Clark?]

You asked where are any hitters like that NOW and I gave them. Nobody knows if he can do it for a whole career but the frameworks you wanted (hit to all fields, no K's) is Brantley. He is a 20-20 guy in a league where SB's are not as high anymore. He could be a 30+ SB guy back in the heyday of the SB.

He is not there yet though. A player has to have at least a longer track record. And you are changing the question. You stated Brantley was ready better and had a better season than any of Molitors. That was flat incorrect. Does he have the potential? Maybe. Altuve is closer than Brantley in pure potential to be that type of player. But you are touting a couple of guys vs how many we had during the 80's, 90's early 2000's? There is a gap in today's game of those type of really great hitters, in quality and quantity.

[Smitty]

He is not there yet though. A player has to have at least a longer track record. And you are changing the question. You stated Brantley was ready better and had a better season than any of Molitors. That was flat incorrect.

WAR disagrees

[Bubb Rubb]

First, just as a general statement, 'sabermetrics' is not a style of play. It is simply the act of trying to find as much information as you can so that you can then make decisions. There has been some new conventional wisdom that has recently arisen from more advanced information, and like everything else, some of it is very good and some of it has gone too far. But believing that strikeouts don't matter is no worse than believing that RBIs are the greatest measure of a hitter, as many proponents of conventional baseball thinking believe. Jeff Franceour once said OBP didn't matter because they didn't put it on the scoreboard. That falls in line with some older thinking that HR and RBI are more valuable than OBP. In reality, the truth is somewhere in between. There is nothing good or bad about any sabermetrics data. You can use or ignore any of the information that you want. Front offices who use sabermetrics are usually simply trying to find market inefficiencies; they're not trying to find one specific type of player above all. Most of the stupid claims that have come forth recently, like 'strikeouts don't matter' or 'bunting is incredibly stupid 100% of the time' come from fans who just try to regurgitate things they've heard that they think are smart, not from actual baseball people.

In reference to your post above, I don't think shifts have made the game ridiculous. In fact, I think they are actually more along the lines of the way the game was naturally meant to be played. Believing a player should stand in the exact same spot regardless of batter and situation is more ridiculous than a shift. Baseball is a thinking game and is meant to be molded and shaped; you have 9 defensive players, and no one tells you how you must line them up. Traditional spots on the field came about more from making the game easier to understand, not necessarily from what works best. It's like the idea of 'We have to have a SG' for basketball. A lineup of 'PG-SG-SF-PF-C' is just something that came about to make sense of the game better. The game rarely plays itself out to where each player has a defined, specific role and only contributes certain things.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: do you think shifts are a recent baseball phenomenon? And how do you think a great hitter like Ted Williams would react to a shift?

You say there are too many pitch counts and pitching specialists, and also too many defensive shifts. If these things are worse for pitchers and defenses, why would they lead to lesser scoring?

I don't think defensive shifts are bad necessarily. I think that it's done too much by managers who tend to outsmart themselves. My bigger issue is how hitters react (or don't react) to it.

And I didn't say that pitch counts and pitching specialists are bad for pitchers and defenses. But I do think it's hurt the quality of the game. Arm injuries are way up, and some say it's because guys are throwing harder. Some say it's because guys are throwing too much junk. Some say it's because guys aren't as conditioned because they don't throw as many innings anymore. I think the answer is all of it, and it's all related.

As far as "specialty pitchers," there's nothing wrong with it, per se. I just don't like seeing hour-long seventh innings because there are six pitching changes.

[Bubb Rubb]

Brantley was better last year than Molitor's best year. And he's even better this year.

Gwynn was great. Cano is better. At a much more premium position in 2B.

George Brett. Great example of the typical aging pattern. As his career progressed he K'd more, BB'd more, and hit more HR.

You have said a lot of really dumb things over the years, but you have outdone yourself here.

[dawgs]

ETA. Ted Williams, Stan Musial, and Tony Gwynn are the only modern era players to have a career BA over .330. Only 3 men. Cano is not close to Gwynn in terms of being an elite hitter. He does have time but a .330 hitter is extremely rare in the modern era.

Seems like a .330 hitter is extremely rare in all eras. And even more rare if we are talking about career averages.

Also, another factor not discussed, at least today versus the 70s-90s, those AstroTurf fields were like playing on concrete. Groundballs flew through the IF. I know Brett and molitor spent a lot of their careers playing in home stadiums with AstroTurf, so that definitely helps. Don't think the pads had AstroTurf but I could be wrong.

[Really Clark?]

WAR disagrees

Where are you getting that? Molitor avg 3.6 WAR per year for 21 years. And includes his declining years and the years he was mainly a DH. Brantley is a 2.1 over his 6 years. Again, you are wrong. Just admit you are wrong. Everytime you bring up something else to compare the two players Molitor beats him. And it's not even close right now. Heck Brantley hasn't even had a season to match Molitor in HR's yet. Will he? I think so but that has not happened and is just one piece of the puzzle. HOF Molitor is way ahead as a player compared to Brantley.

[Smitty]

Where are you getting that? Molitor avg 3.6 WAR per year for 21 years. And includes his declining years and the years he was mainly a DH. Brantley is a 2.1 over his 6 years. Again, you are wrong. Just admit you are wrong. Everytime you bring up something else to compare the two players Molitor beats him. And it's not even close right now. Heck Brantley hasn't even had a season to match Molitor in HR's yet. Will he? I think so but that has not happened and is just one piece of the puzzle. HOF Molitor is way ahead as a player compared to Brantley.

Brantley is obviously just now hitting his prime. He was a 6.3 WAR last year, besting any Molitor had. IF HE KEEPS THIS UP he will be there, obviously he's not yet but his walks are up, his power has developed, and his K's are minimal.

He could be a flash in the pan or he could have staying power at this output but RIGHT NOW he is the hitter you described as not being around anymore.

You could point at a Buster Posey as well.

[Really Clark?]

Brantley is obviously just now hitting his prime. He was a 6.3 WAR last year, besting any Molitor had. IF HE KEEPS THIS UP he will be there, obviously he's not yet but his walks are up, his power has developed, and his K's are minimal.

He could be a flash in the pan or he could have staying power at this output but RIGHT NOW he is the hitter you described as not being around anymore.

You could point at a Buster Posey as well.

And he has a 1.3 War right now. Molitor had 7 years of 5 War or better. In 7 years Brantley has had one. One and is not close for this year. Molitor avg a 5 War or better every 3 years. Again, it's not even close between these two. Give it up and admit you are wrong at every turn. Brantley is not close. Not yet anyway.

Again you want to change the debate. Posey is great. The War for Molitor's first 6 full years vs Posey's is almost identical at 4. Try all you want but Molitor was a great HOF player. And he wasn't even the best during that time frame. There were more and had better numbers during his and Gwynn's era.

[Really Clark?]

Seems like a .330 hitter is extremely rare in all eras. And even more rare if we are talking about career averages.

Also, another factor not discussed, at least today versus the 70s-90s, those AstroTurf fields were like playing on concrete. Groundballs flew through the IF. I know Brett and molitor spent a lot of their careers playing in home stadiums with AstroTurf, so that definitely helps. Don't think the pads had AstroTurf but I could be wrong.

It is extremely rare in the modern era but there are several from the dead ball era. So in the modern game I would definitely agree with you. Anybody who approaches .330 for a career is a historically elite hitter.

AstroTurf debate has some validity but at one point you had so many ballparks with turf that it even out the numbers. Philly, Pit, St Louis, Cin, Seattle, etc. a lot of turf fields during the 70's and 80's.