Effects of the shift

[Platoon]

There is a fourth true outcome. Boredom!  Moving the mound back would maybe/likely cause more baseballs to be struck, but in this era they would be either HR’s of fly balls. HR’s while productive get more blasé by the day. As would 14-7 games. What’s really missing is action plays, but these have been deemed analytically non productive. (And for all I know, they may be). But by nor bunting, stealing, hitting behind a runner, and hit and running, an essence of the game is removed. Simply accepting that these strategies are non productive may make mathematical sense. But it still removes an element of the game that used to exist. Strategy! It’s becoming a possibility that good math, and good entertainment are not one and the same thing? 

[TheLeviathan]

14 hours ago, Platoon said:

There is a fourth true outcome. Boredom!  Moving the mound back would maybe/likely cause more baseballs to be struck, but in this era they would be either HR’s of fly balls. HR’s while productive get more blasé by the day. As would 14-7 games. What’s really missing is action plays, but these have been deemed analytically non productive. (And for all I know, they may be). But by nor bunting, stealing, hitting behind a runner, and hit and running, an essence of the game is removed. Simply accepting that these strategies are non productive may make mathematical sense. But it still removes an element of the game that used to exist. Strategy! It’s becoming a possibility that good math, and good entertainment are not one and the same thing? 

Perhaps if hitters are better able to make regular contact the analytical emphasis might wane?  I get the sense that part of this is different than basketball where it just makes sense to never shoot long 2s and only 3s, because in baseball your likelihood of getting K'd is so high right now that the best way to overcome that is to aim for the most direct route of scoring.  If hitters have a better chance to make better contact, perhaps the emphasis on homeruns would peel back a bit because the chances of stringing hits together is significantly better.

Just spitballing.

[Vanimal46]

Mind boggling stat. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

13 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Mind boggling stat. 

If you follow that thread, the Senior Data Architect for MLBAM chimes in and says there are measurement/classification issues with the data Parker was likely using. (Basically, pre-2020 there were some likely outs which weren't getting their angles/directions recorded correctly by Statcast, so pre-2020 averages based on angle/direction are artificially high. Parker cited proprietary TruMedia data but they were likely using Statcast angles/directions as a source?)

Here's the more reliable data, on his recommendation:

 

[Dodecahedron]

Statcast was mistaking popups with grounders before 2020?  Is that what he is saying?  

Sheesh.   

[Otto von Ballpark]

2 minutes ago, Dodecahedron said:

Statcast was mistaking popups with grounders before 2020?  Is that what he is saying?  

Sheesh.   

No, I think there were more balls that just didn't have angle/direction recorded before 2020 ("untracked batted balls"). So if you look at pre-2020 Statcast data, be aware that it's not complete in that regard.

[Dodecahedron]

1 hour ago, spycake said:

No, I think there were more balls that just didn't have angle/direction recorded before 2020 ("untracked batted balls"). So if you look at pre-2020 Statcast data, be aware that it's not complete in that regard.

Gotcha.  I'm wondering how this will affect defensive metrics.  

(Also, Sheesh).

[Otto von Ballpark]

10 minutes ago, Dodecahedron said:

Gotcha.  I'm wondering how this will affect defensive metrics.  

(Also, Sheesh).

It shouldn't matter -- sounds like it just didn't record some of the easier plays those years. At the MLB level, nobody's metrics are particularly affected either way by those plays.

And most metrics use other sources for their data anyway.

[Dodecahedron]

13 hours ago, spycake said:

It shouldn't matter -- sounds like it just didn't record some of the easier plays those years. At the MLB level, nobody's metrics are particularly affected either way by those plays.

And most metrics use other sources for their data anyway.

Having a gap will create inaccuracies.  If a certain stadium's setup had a gap that made it impossible to categories 20% of the LF position's plays, for example, the numbers will simply be not accurate.  It's not that there was less measurable data, it's that there was data that wasn't measured.

[Otto von Ballpark]

8 hours ago, Dodecahedron said:

Having a gap will create inaccuracies.  If a certain stadium's setup had a gap that made it impossible to categories 20% of the LF position's plays, for example, the numbers will simply be not accurate.  It's not that there was less measurable data, it's that there was data that wasn't measured.

Nothing stadium or even position specific here. Seems to just be certain batter ball types that were likely outs anyway.

And defensive metrics are just estimates of defensive value relative to the average player. You could probably remove every infield pop-up from the data set and it wouldn’t change anyone’s defensive value, because no MLB players are accumulating value above or below the average player from infield pop-ups.

[Nine of twelve]

On 6/16/2021 at 9:31 PM, Vanimal46 said:

Mind boggling stat. 

Who says shifting doesn't work?

[Otto von Ballpark]

12 hours ago, Nine of twelve said:

Who says shifting doesn't work?

As mentioned in the replies, those numbers are likely skewed by incomplete data. There is an effect, but not nearly that pronounced.