Article: Who's Up First?

[tobi0040]

I looked up Morneau and his timeline relative to his concussion.

 

He had the concussion in 2010.  Career 15.2% K rate and .483 slugging.

 

2011 - 15.3% K rate.  .333 Slugging

2012 -  17.9% K rate    .440 Slugging

2013 - 17.3% K rate.  .441 Slugging

2014 - 10.9% K rate.  .496 Slugging

 

I looked up Span, but it looks like he has dealt with concussions in many years since he has been here.   Justin's slugging dipped a ton that first year and it took a move to Colorado to get it back above career averages.  The K's spiked in years 2 and 3. 

Edited February 25, 2015 by tobi0040

[Brock Beauchamp]

If it is as Brock suggests a meeting of contact and opportunity, you'd expect more RBI's which is a similar meeting of contact and opportunity.

Joe Mauer doesn't hit dingers. That's why he doesn't lead the team in RBI. 

 

It's not as if he's a slouch when it comes to RBI, though. During his best seasons, he was usually between 75-95 RBI. That's pretty solid for a guy who often struggles to hit double-digit home runs. Not spectacular by any means, but solid.

 

Every home run is an RBI with many of them plating 2-3 runners. It's really hard to reach 100 RBI when you're hitting a bunch of singles, doubles, and walking a lot.

 

Puckett crossed the 100 RBI threshold only three times in his career and he failed to hit double-digit home runs just once in his career, excepting his first two seasons when he hit for almost zero power.

[USAFChief]

'I do not automatically believe he will go back to his MVP level, although a post-fatherhood bounce back is somewhat likely in my opinion, although it's really more of a theory.'

 

I think his issue have more to do with MLBs decision to expand the strike zone, which they will supposedly fix this season and which can really effect someone so in tune with what is and isn't a strike. And then there's the effects of the concussion. He had a wRC+ in the mid 120s in the 2nd half. Seems on his way back to normal.

I don't think MLB "decided" to expand the strike zone. I think there was much hue and cry from outside baseball about umpires not calling the Questec zone, and so we've gotten what many asked for.

 

In the specific case of Mauer, if he's so in tune with what is and isn't a strike, shouldn't it be quite simple for him to adjust to what is being called, instead of what he thinks should be called? Or is he just too stubborn, or too egotistical to adjust?

[jimmer]

I don't think MLB "decided" to expand the strike zone. I think there was much hue and cry from outside baseball about umpires not calling the Questec zone, and so we've gotten what many asked for.

 

In the specific case of Mauer, if he's so in tune with what is and isn't a strike, shouldn't it be quite simple for him to adjust to what is being called, instead of what he thinks should be called? Or is he just too stubborn, or too egotistical to adjust?

According to MLB they did expand the strike zone and instructed the umpires to expand it more than they normally had in recent time (and likely due to Questec). Some believe this was in response to too much scoring that many equated to PED and so they looked to lower scoring a bit more hurried by expanding the K zone..

 

'Over the past five seasons, the strike zone has expanded about 40 square inches, from 435 square inches in 2009 to 475 square inches in 2014'

 

So as the zone has expanded this batter with a keen eye has seen his K rate rise as well.  It's not so easy to have a certain pitch be a K your whole career, get really in tune with it, and then just change it.  Your mind tells you what is an isn't a strike based on years of experience.

 

The rest are slights on Mauer's character that are unfounded so I won't address.

Edited February 25, 2015 by jimmer

[Willihammer]

According to MLB they did expand the strike zone and instructed the umpires to expand it more than they normally had in recent time (and likely due to Questec). Some believe this was in response to too much scoring that many equated to PED and so they looked to lower scoring a bit more hurried by expanding the K zone..

Source?

[jimmer]

And, you know, K rate is up across the league (not just our team's fans' favorite punching bag). Due to the continued K rise across the league, MLB is looking to change it.

 

Over the past five seasons, the strike zone has expanded about 40 square inches, from 435 square inches in 2009 to 475 square inches in 2014

 

The largest part of that expansion is in the lower area of the strike zone, with umpires more frequently signaling strikes for pitches below the kneecap. Low pitches are generally considered more difficult to handle for batters, most of whom have a tougher time driving the ball when reaching down for it. Not surprisingly, the walk rate across the majors is down while the strikeout rate is up.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12320861/major-league-baseball-shrink-strike-zone-2016-report-says

Edited February 25, 2015 by jimmer

[USAFChief]

I'm not disputing the strike zone expanding over the past half decade or so.

 

I question whether MLB made a conscious decision to expand it.

 

As for Mauer, I stand by my opinion that if he's so attuned to the strike zone--your claim, not mine--he should be able to adjust his personal one, particularly since this alteration has been, as noted, going on for some time. It's not like he woke in 2014 and suddenly the low outside corner was two inches farther away.

 

Now that I think about it, it sort of fits with my opinion on Mauer in general, he's a very good hitter, who could benefit from altering his approach at times.

[BK432]

I know this has all been said before, but I would really urge everyone to do a couple things as it relates to Joe Mauer:

 

1. Use the statistical facts to determine his strengths and shortcomings. Don't spout out "he hits into a lot of DPs". There are resources readily available that you can use to refute this in approximately 90 seconds. Use the Internet. We live in such a great age for baseball fandom.

 

2. Acknowledge that Joe Mauer does have shortcomings. Stop wanting him to be the player we decided to pay $23 million/year to. He had a career year at the right time. Get over it. It's sunk. The contract is done. Is he worth that as a 1B with his career averages? No. But he's not as far off as you'd think. His strengths are getting on base and baserunning. Those strengths are best leveraged very early in the lineup. I happen to argue for #1, in part because there's no clear alternative. But any spot in the top 3 is defensible. I just think we need to view him for who he is and leverage him appropriately. He's a valuable asset who can help you at the top of the lineup.

Edited February 25, 2015 by BK432

[Platoon]

Potential value, not value for sure.  Value only if the stolen base results in scoring. Like it's likely good strategy if playing for one run towards the end of the game if the stolen base gets the runner in scoring position AND THEN he's knocked in.  But if he steals 2B and get stranded, no value at all, even if it was considered good strategy.

But if he doesn't steal second....... He might stil get stranded

[jimmer]

But if he doesn't steal second....... He might stil get stranded

True and he might get thrown out on the attempt. :-)

[Platoon]

I'd also like to read that study. Obviously, the Rays believe the stolen base is valuable and I'd love to see what data told them that is the case.

. If 70% is the break even on stolen bases, does anyone have any idea on what the success rate on sacrifice bunts is? I am not advocating nor am I a fan of the bunt usually. Most of the time it puts the hitter in the hole due to a lack of desire to execute. But the benefits of moving up a base without giving up an out are pretty significant. Running on the right count, with the right runners goes a long way to increasing the success.

[Platoon]

I don't think MLB "decided" to expand the strike zone. I think there was much hue and cry from outside baseball about umpires not calling the Questec zone, and so we've gotten what many asked for.

In the specific case of Mauer, if he's so in tune with what is and isn't a strike, shouldn't it be quite simple for him to adjust to what is being called, instead of what he thinks should be called? Or is he just too stubborn, or too egotistical to adjust?

i think there might be some validity to the stubborn part. I found he was often correct, in that a called strike was not really a strike. There is also the issue of his not getting the "catchers zone" anymore. Umpires, at least smart ones, do not ring up catchers on borderline strikes. If they do, they get to listen to 9 innings of begging for that strike for his pitcher! That makes for a long day!

[Brock Beauchamp]

. If 70% is the break even on stolen bases, does anyone have any idea on what the success rate on sacrifice bunts is? I am not advocating nor am I a fan of the bunt usually. Most of the time it puts the hitter in the hole due to a lack of desire to execute. But the benefits of moving up a base without giving up an out are pretty significant. Running on the right count, with the right runners goes a long way to increasing the success.

Well, you're talking about bunting for a hit, not a sacrifice bunt (you mentioned "not giving up an out", which a sacrifice does).

 

I vaguely remember hearing that some of the best bunters are able to bunt for a hit at a .300+ clip. In other words, it's a solid tactic if you're fast and a .280 hitter. Of course, bunting largely depends on defense so it only works at specific times.

 

But overall bunt numbers and their corresponding averages? I have no idea. I'd love to see those numbers as well.

[Platoon]

True and he might get thrown out on the attempt. :-)

This is getting to be a little like "why did the chicken cross the road?" But we won't ever know if he gets run over?

[Platoon]

Well, you're talking about bunting for a hit, not a sacrifice bunt (you mentioned "not giving up an out", which a sacrifice does).

 

I vaguely remember hearing that some of the best bunters are able to bunt for a hit at a .300+ clip. In other words, it's a solid tactic if you're fast and a .280 hitter. Of course, bunting largely depends on defense so it only works at specific times.

 

But overall bunt numbers and their corresponding averages? I have no idea. I'd love to see those numbers as well.

whoops, I probably was not clear. I was soley referring to sac bunts. I personally prefer a steal vs a sac bunt to move up a runner, ie, not giving up the out to move up. I find it particularly aggravating to see 2 half hearted bunt attempts, and then most likely a weak out! I am a firm believer if you don't want to bunt on the first 2 strikes, maybe your desire will improve significantly on the 3rd?

[USAFChief]

Well, you're talking about bunting for a hit, not a sacrifice bunt (you mentioned "not giving up an out", which a sacrifice does).

 

I vaguely remember hearing that some of the best bunters are able to bunt for a hit at a .300+ clip. In other words, it's a solid tactic if you're fast and a .280 hitter. Of course, bunting largely depends on defense so it only works at specific times.

 

But overall bunt numbers and their corresponding averages? I have no idea. I'd love to see those numbers as well.

I have no proof, but it seems self evident to me there is also some value to your average in forcing teams to defend against bunts for hits. My personal opinion is anyone with even modest speed should drop down a surprise bunt every so often just to keep the corner IFers playing honest.

 

Just not with two outs. I hate that play.

 

And sac bunts should be exceedingly rare. Late game, one run is huge, good hitters due up situations.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Absolutely, Chief. It pissed me off to no end every time I see Ortiz hit a ground ball directly into a shift.

 

Lay down a bunt. Make the defense play you straight.

[Jham]

Joe Mauer doesn't hit dingers. That's why he doesn't lead the team in RBI. 

 

It's not as if he's a slouch when it comes to RBI, though. During his best seasons, he was usually between 75-95 RBI. That's pretty solid for a guy who often struggles to hit double-digit home runs. Not spectacular by any means, but solid.

 

Every home run is an RBI with many of them plating 2-3 runners. It's really hard to reach 100 RBI when you're hitting a bunch of singles, doubles, and walking a lot.

 

Puckett crossed the 100 RBI threshold only three times in his career and he failed to hit double-digit home runs just once in his career, excepting his first two seasons when he hit for almost zero power.

I mean, that's sort of my point.  Puckett hit home runs.  Mauer is a contact hitter...  I'm not bemoaning the lack of power or disagreeing with your reason why he led the team in double plays last year.  I'm just wondering if 3rd is the best spot to bat him considering he is a contact hitter.  

 

I'm concerned that he may have gotten lucky to have only hit into 12 dp's considering his spray chart shows a lot of balls on the ground, particularly toward 2nd.  

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/spraycharts.aspx?playerid=1857&position=C&type=battedball  

 

We were 7th in baseball in runs scored last year.  Mauer drove in only 55 of those. I think its fair to wonder if batting Mauer third helps the team.  I also think it's fair to say that his skill set would make him an unusual lead off hitter or 2nd place hitter.  We all have theories about why Joe declined last year.  We all have an opinion on whether he'll bounce back.  I'd prefer to see Joe bat 2nd behind Santanta.  I'm not going to throw a fit if he bats 3rd if its because Moliter thinks he will bounce back.  However, if he has another year like last, I think we would be wasting Joe's talents by not moving him up in the order.  

 

[jimmer]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-truth-about-bunting/

 

'The frequent bunters bunted the ball fair 49.5% of the time. The infrequent bunters bunted the ball fair 46.1% of the time. I should note before I forget that I excluded pitchers from this. There’s a clear advantage to bunting more often, in terms of bunt success, but it’s also pretty small, and even the upper-tier bunters, as a group, bunt poorly a lot.'

 

'So why don’t we see more bunting against the shift? Certainly, there has to be some element of stubbornness. But it’s also just a hard thing to do, even with a lot of practice, which most shifted hitters don’t have. A foul bunt or a missed bunt is just a strike, a strike that also makes the defense aware of the bunt possibility. The pitcher, as well, becomes aware of the possibility, and might throw less buntable pitches. The math might still work out in the pro-bunt favor — I’m not close to smart enough to work all that out. But I’ve never seen bunt success rates before, and I wasn’t expecting 50%. That’s a pretty low success rate, for bunts that aren’t even necessarily successful.'

 

'For years, it’s seemed so obvious to me. When Kyle Seager successfully bunted for a single against the shift last summer, it felt to me like a top-ten Mariners moment. If the defense wants to give the hitter an easy hit, the hitter should take the easy hit, without question. I could never understand how hitters could be so stubborn in the face of a potentially high batting average. Turns out there’s no such thing as an easy hit after all. Oh, bunt singles against the shift look easy when they’re successful, but so do Chris Davis home runs. Most of the time, Chris Davis doesn’t homer.'

Edited February 26, 2015 by jimmer

[jimmer]

and a followup article about bunting against the shift

//www.fangraphs.com/blogs/more-about-bunting-and-beating-the-shift/

Edited February 26, 2015 by jimmer

[USAFChief]

I wasn't necessarily talking about bunting against a shift, but that's part of it. Even in a regular defensive alignment, it's to the hitters advantage to force the third baseman to play in.

[Platoon]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-truth-about-bunting/

 

'The frequent bunters bunted the ball fair 49.5% of the time. The infrequent bunters bunted the ball fair 46.1% of the time. I should note before I forget that I excluded pitchers from this. There’s a clear advantage to bunting more often, in terms of bunt success, but it’s also pretty small, and even the upper-tier bunters, as a group, bunt poorly a lot.'

 

'So why don’t we see more bunting against the shift? Certainly, there has to be some element of stubbornness. But it’s also just a hard thing to do, even with a lot of practice, which most shifted hitters don’t have. A foul bunt or a missed bunt is just a strike, a strike that also makes the defense aware of the bunt possibility. The pitcher, as well, becomes aware of the possibility, and might throw less buntable pitches. The math might still work out in the pro-bunt favor — I’m not close to smart enough to work all that out. But I’ve never seen bunt success rates before, and I wasn’t expecting 50%. That’s a pretty low success rate, for bunts that aren’t even necessarily successful.'

 

'For years, it’s seemed so obvious to me. When Kyle Seager successfully bunted for a single against the shift last summer, it felt to me like a top-ten Mariners moment. If the defense wants to give the hitter an easy hit, the hitter should take the easy hit, without question. I could never understand how hitters could be so stubborn in the face of a potentially high batting average. Turns out there’s no such thing as an easy hit after all. Oh, bunt singles against the shift look easy when they’re successful, but so do Chris Davis home runs. Most of the time, Chris Davis doesn’t homer.'

The low level of fair ball bunts does not at all surprise me. It's part of what makes sac bunting such a poor strategy, except in very limited scenarios.

[USAFChief]

I'm not sure "fair ball" is the definition I'd use for "successful bunt."

 

Afoul bunt is just a strike. If you are only bunting strikes, which you should be, a foul ball is no more harmful than taking the pitch for a strike, no?

 

For that matter, A foul bunt may do just as much good as a fair one in forcing the defense to defend against bunts.

 

And I think bunting against a shift is different--easier--than bunting against a standard defensive alignment, and much easier than bunting in a sacrifice situation, where the corners might be 60 ft from home plate as the pitch is delivered.

So I'm not sure how helpful this article is. Yeah, bunting is hard, and may take some practice. So is swinging away.

[Jham]

I remember going to a game last season against Cleveland where we shifted against Carlos Santana.  He laid one down for a walking single.  Later that game, he crushed one over the limestone.  There's a couple ways to beat the shift!  

[Dantes929]

"Studies in recent years have shown that lineup construction has less of a practical impact on overall scoring than many had previously believed".   Can't help but think any study would be flawed.   Put Nishoka and Punto at their worst in front of Cabrerra and Morneau and then Span and Mauer in the 8 and 9 spots over the entire season and compare it to Span and Mauer batting in front of Cabrerra and Morneau with Nishioka and Punto at their worst in the 8 and 9 spots.      I am guessing the  latter lineup would outscore the former.     

[Willihammer]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-truth-about-bunting/

 

'The frequent bunters bunted the ball fair 49.5% of the time. The infrequent bunters bunted the ball fair 46.1% of the time. I should note before I forget that I excluded pitchers from this. There’s a clear advantage to bunting more often, in terms of bunt success, but it’s also pretty small, and even the upper-tier bunters, as a group, bunt poorly a lot.'

 

'So why don’t we see more bunting against the shift? Certainly, there has to be some element of stubbornness. But it’s also just a hard thing to do, even with a lot of practice, which most shifted hitters don’t have. A foul bunt or a missed bunt is just a strike, a strike that also makes the defense aware of the bunt possibility. The pitcher, as well, becomes aware of the possibility, and might throw less buntable pitches. The math might still work out in the pro-bunt favor — I’m not close to smart enough to work all that out. But I’ve never seen bunt success rates before, and I wasn’t expecting 50%. That’s a pretty low success rate, for bunts that aren’t even necessarily successful.'

 

'For years, it’s seemed so obvious to me. When Kyle Seager successfully bunted for a single against the shift last summer, it felt to me like a top-ten Mariners moment. If the defense wants to give the hitter an easy hit, the hitter should take the easy hit, without question. I could never understand how hitters could be so stubborn in the face of a potentially high batting average. Turns out there’s no such thing as an easy hit after all. Oh, bunt singles against the shift look easy when they’re successful, but so do Chris Davis home runs. Most of the time, Chris Davis doesn’t homer.'

The low level of fair ball bunts does not at all surprise me. It's part of what makes sac bunting such a poor strategy, except in very limited scenarios.

On top of that, the breakeven point must scale with the skill of the batter. For a .750 batter like Kyle Seager, the breakeven point for successful bunts, defined as bunts that beat the shift and go for a single, is 38%. A 38% success rate equates to a .380/.380/.380 (.760) OPS. For a .950 batter like Ortiz, the breakeven point would be 48%. Again these are bunts that are both fair and go for hits (not just fair).

 

So bunting doesn't seem like a viable tactic for any decent hitter, considering that even a good bunter is barely going to get the ball in play 50% of the time, and a portion of those will be outs.

 

But if Aaron Hicks or Jordan Schafer gets shifted on, then its probably a different story.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Willihammer

[Shane Wahl]

"Studies in recent years have shown that lineup construction has less of a practical impact on overall scoring than many had previously believed".   Can't help but think any study would be flawed.   Put Nishoka and Punto at their worst in front of Cabrerra and Morneau and then Span and Mauer in the 8 and 9 spots over the entire season and compare it to Span and Mauer batting in front of Cabrerra and Morneau with Nishioka and Punto at their worst in the 8 and 9 spots.      I am guessing the  latter lineup would outscore the former.     

 

It might translate to a few wins a year. Some people make light of that. I don't!

[Shane Wahl]

Bunting is easy compared to most other things batters are trying to do. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

On top of that, the breakeven point must scale with the skill of the batter. For a .750 batter like Kyle Seager, the breakeven point for successful bunts, defined as bunts that beat the shift and go for a single, is 38%. A 38% success rate equates to a .380/.380/.380 (.760) OPS. For a .950 batter like Ortiz, the breakeven point would be 48%. Again these are bunts that are both fair and go for hits (not just fair).

 

So bunting doesn't seem like a viable tactic for any decent hitter, considering that even a good bunter is barely going to get the ball in play 50% of the time, and a portion of those will be outs.

 

But if Aaron Hicks or Jordan Schafer gets shifted on, then its probably a different story.

The problem with this analysis is that some seem to take the 48% number as if a foul bunt is an out.

 

Who cares is the bunt goes foul? For a hitter like Ortiz, a foul bunt might be better than successfully bunting. The goal is to break the shift, which any bunt will do. The benefit of a foul bunt is that he can go back to a full swing with a defense that has probably abandoned the shift.

[KGB]

I'm not disputing the strike zone expanding over the past half decade or so.

 

I question whether MLB made a conscious decision to expand it.

 

As for Mauer, I stand by my opinion that if he's so attuned to the strike zone--your claim, not mine--he should be able to adjust his personal one, particularly since this alteration has been, as noted, going on for some time. It's not like he woke in 2014 and suddenly the low outside corner was two inches farther away.

 

Now that I think about it, it sort of fits with my opinion on Mauer in general, he's a very good hitter, who could benefit from altering his approach at times.

 

The strike zone is being called more accurate.  Mauer is not getting the favorable calls anymore, so unless he adjusts his approach, he going to continue to strike out.  It's been 2 years of not adjusting, I think calling it stubborness at this point is probably accurate.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2279903-what-can-mlb-do-to-solve-its-expanding-strike-zone-problem