Was Harmon Killebrew the ultimate dream for analytical baseball?

What about Joe Mauer?

The strikeout thing puzzles me. We look for pitchers who can rack up the K’s as it’s an important metric in pitching. 
 

At the same time we minimize the impact that strike outs do vs the chance that the hitter may hit one over the fence. (See Sano, Miguel). When your middle of the order hitters are prone to strike out at least a third of the time, is simply has to impact the teams production. 
 

There is nothing inherently wrong with power. It has its place. But thinking it’s an end all on offense is oversimplifying baseball. There are times and places for the other aspects of the game. Right now so many hitters (and coaches) are so invested in the long ball that players without the ability to be a consistent HR threat are still trying to jack one. With the often expected results. Ran down on the track, or more likely the catcher tossing the ball to the third baseman! 

I understand and empathize with several of your frustrations. I think baseball needs to do something to increase balls in play and more hits. The three true outcome era isn't exactly thrilling baseball to watch. 

On the other hand, what exactly are hitters supposed to do these days? Hitting in the MLB hasn't been this difficult since the dead ball era. It was rare for a pitcher in the past to throw 95-100 MPH. Today, half of the pitching staff is capable of throwing that velocity. Pitchers are able to throw 99 MPH sinkers and 92 MPH sliders from the exact same arm slot. No wonder why players are selling out for the home run... 

So it's easier said than done to say slap the ball the other way, or hit it where they ain't. How do they fix this? Maybe they need to use analytics to find out the reaction time players had in the past with upper 80's fastballs and move the mound back to give the hitters a chance. Maybe they need to ban the shift. I don't know... But something needs to be done to get more excitement in the game. 

 

I understand and empathize with several of your frustrations. I think baseball needs to do something to increase balls in play and more hits. The three true outcome era isn't exactly thrilling baseball to watch. 

On the other hand, what exactly are hitters supposed to do these days? Hitting in the MLB hasn't been this difficult since the dead ball era. It was rare for a pitcher in the past to throw 95-100 MPH. Today, half of the pitching staff is capable of throwing that velocity. Pitchers are able to throw 99 MPH sinkers and 92 MPH sliders from the exact same arm slot. No wonder why players are selling out for the home run... 

So it's easier said than done to say slap the ball the other way, or hit it where they ain't. How do they fix this? Maybe they need to use analytics to find out the reaction time players had in the past with upper 80's fastballs and move the mound back to give the hitters a chance. Maybe they need to ban the shift. I don't know... But something needs to be done to get more excitement in the game. 

 

Thanks for the note - watching the Dodgers get it done with both singles and HRs is exciting - just like Mookie stealing bases and moving around.  The Dodgers have forced errors by being aggressive and so have the Rays.  In their last win the Rays took to small ball and Phillips hit was 82 MPH - a ball does not have to have a massive exit velocity.  We even saw a sacrifice bunt for a run in one game.

I am a big fan of Arraez and I think his small ball makes a difference.  I think ownerships statements after the playoff loss hint at getting some guys on base and moving runners along.  I hope so.

I even see statements on ESPN and Athletic hinting that the three outcomes are creating boring games.  Since MLB wants fans in the stands shorter games with more action is what they need to find.  

The 100 mph pitch is hittable by mlb batters if they want to adjust - we see it all the time and that is about to level out.  How much can an arm produce?

Thanks for the note - watching the Dodgers get it done with both singles and HRs is exciting - just like Mookie stealing bases and moving around.  The Dodgers have forced errors by being aggressive and so have the Rays.  In their last win the Rays took to small ball and Phillips hit was 82 MPH - a ball does not have to have a massive exit velocity.  We even saw a sacrifice bunt for a run in one game.

 

I am a big fan of Arraez and I think his small ball makes a difference.  I think ownerships statements after the playoff loss hint at getting some guys on base and moving runners along.  I hope so.

 

I even see statements on ESPN and Athletic hinting that the three outcomes are creating boring games.  Since MLB wants fans in the stands shorter games with more action is what they need to find.  

 

The 100 mph pitch is hittable by mlb batters if they want to adjust - we see it all the time and that is about to level out.  How much can an arm produce?

Mixing small ball with 3 true outcomes makes for a more exciting ball game. It just doesn't happen enough. The Rays this postseason are hitting .214 as a team. The Dodgers are hitting .258. When the very best teams are unable to secure a hit 3 out of 4 times, there's a problem. 

I think you're really overestimating batters adjusting to 100 MPH pitches. There's almost no reaction time available to decide whether the player is going to swing for the fences or slap a single to the opposite field. That's why I was talking about moving the pitcher's mound back to give the hitters a chance at making contact. 

Interesting take on the state of the game. It would take some doing to reinstitute a small ball/old school approach as the development process for many aspiring major leaguers focuses on launch angles and pulling the ball, which result in more home runs, strike outs and defensive shifts. All things adding to your negative view of the state of the game.

Time for a counter-revolution?

The twenty-eight player roster was a bad idea from day one, just an excuse to add more pitching which naturally tilted the game towards length and more use of relief pitchers. Perhaps some changes are needed. A shift in how the injured list is used, keeping it at 15 days from when the player is placed on the list and not back dated is one suggestion. Another suggestion is to reduce the number of options a player has in terms of being sent back to the minors. If you need to keep a player for 21 days and cannot call them back up for 30 days there would be less shifting of players and maybe more concern for the welfare of the players as well.  The actual use of a time clock on pitchers/batters staying in the box would help. Twenty seconds is enough, even with runners on base. Every player in baseball today played with those rules their entire lives until MLB. The use of cards in helmets/hats isn't necessary either. If another team steals the signs so be it. If there is usage of technology for stealing signs and proof, a 162 game ban should work. All of the preparation can take place before the game- let some of the human element return. 

Like I stated on another post, diehard fans will always tune in but a decline in the younger audience keying in to the game may be problematic. A complaint i hear from younger viewers is the slowness of mound visits and umpire reviews. I'm not sure about the data on this from a national survey point and have no strong opinions on the matter, but as annoyed as I get with umpires I prefer their mistakes to the long reviews that take place and the trips to the mound. One trip per game is enough. Any necessary adjustments can take place verbally or between innings. I'm interested to see a national poll or survey that encapsulates some ideas from a wide sector of the baseball viewing public. I cannot consider myself as representative of any norm because I enjoy baseball in spite of its warts.

The twenty-eight player roster was a bad idea from day one, just an excuse to add more pitching which naturally tilted the game towards length and more use of relief pitchers. Perhaps some changes are needed. A shift in how the injured list is used, keeping it at 15 days from when the player is placed on the list and not back dated is one suggestion. Another suggestion is to reduce the number of options a player has in terms of being sent back to the minors. If you need to keep a player for 21 days and cannot call them back up for 30 days there would be less shifting of players and maybe more concern for the welfare of the players as well.  The actual use of a time clock on pitchers/batters staying in the box would help. Twenty seconds is enough, even with runners on base. Every player in baseball today played with those rules their entire lives until MLB. The use of cards in helmets/hats isn't necessary either. If another team steals the signs so be it. If there is usage of technology for stealing signs and proof, a 162 game ban should work. All of the preparation can take place before the game- let some of the human element return. 

Like I stated on another post, diehard fans will always tune in but a decline in the younger audience keying in to the game may be problematic. A complaint i hear from younger viewers is the slowness of mound visits and umpire reviews. I'm not sure about the data on this from a national survey point and have no strong opinions on the matter, but as annoyed as I get with umpires I prefer their mistakes to the long reviews that take place and the trips to the mound. One trip per game is enough. Any necessary adjustments can take place verbally or between innings. I'm interested to see a national poll or survey that encapsulates some ideas from a wide sector of the baseball viewing public. I cannot consider myself as representative of any norm because I enjoy baseball in spite of its warts.

Well thought out response.  Thanks.  A lot to think about and baseball better start thinking about more than cutting the minors and furloughing its scouts.

Thanks for asking the question. I agree that it's not about scouts v. stats or old-school v. analytics. Balls in play are just plain more fun.

A couple possible fixes, which start to stretch into the ridiculous:

Reduce rosters. Fewer pitchers means more times through the order, and less ability to rely on just heat. Plus same-sided batters might swing more defensively? The impact of this might be marginal

Move the fences out/up. We do live in an era of stadiums that are easier to hit home runs in, and where it's a feat to produce a triple

Remove/modify the foul-bunt strikeout. Make the bunt a palatable option again, force teams out of the shift.

Deaden the ball further

8 fielders?

80-foot baselines?

No mound at all?

Over the fence is a double?

Kevin Cash got the old spreadsheet out.

"........Snell’s reward for his work: the hook. That’s what Tuesday night amounted to: The analytics-driven Rays removed a starting pitcher who had a 1-0 lead, who had gotten one out in the sixth, who had struck out nine, who had given up two measly singles and hadn’t walked anyone.

Read that sentence. Know the result. Consider whether it makes any sense"
 

From WAPO article on WS game 6.  Here’s the link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/10/28/blake-snell-kevin-cash-world-series/ 

Kevin Cash got the old spreadsheet out.

 

"........Snell’s reward for his work: the hook. That’s what Tuesday night amounted to: The analytics-driven Rays removed a starting pitcher who had a 1-0 lead, who had gotten one out in the sixth, who had struck out nine, who had given up two measly singles and hadn’t walked anyone.

Read that sentence. Know the result. Consider whether it makes any sense"
 

From WAPO article on WS game 6.  Here’s the link.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/10/28/blake-snell-kevin-cash-world-series/ 

I am with you.  The great starters learned how to change things when the third AB came up.  Now we will never know who is the Tom Seaver or Carlton or Spahn or Marichal or Gibson....

Thanks for asking the question. I agree that it's not about scouts v. stats or old-school v. analytics. Balls in play are just plain more fun.

 

A couple possible fixes, which start to stretch into the ridiculous:

 

Reduce rosters. Fewer pitchers means more times through the order, and less ability to rely on just heat. Plus same-sided batters might swing more defensively? The impact of this might be marginal

 

Move the fences out/up. We do live in an era of stadiums that are easier to hit home runs in, and where it's a feat to produce a triple

 

Remove/modify the foul-bunt strikeout. Make the bunt a palatable option again, force teams out of the shift.

 

Deaden the ball further

 

8 fielders?

 

80-foot baselines?

 

No mound at all?

 

Over the fence is a double?

Fun to speculate.  I do not know why, but I am hung up on letting the manager have only 4 designated pitchers for any game.  Imagine the anguish when they have only one of them left.