I guess the game has changed, but it's not better

[Monkeypaws]

Was looking at the MLB team hitting stats tonight, curious where the Bomba Squad sat in homers, because that seems to be the one thing they continue to do well, and I found they are #4 in MLB with 168, after only Atlanta, Toronto and leader SF with 176.

What surprised me was some of the other sortable stats. 

#9 in OPS

#18 in Ks, #14 in BBs.

This was the one that stunned me - the Twins, with all their Medoza lines, are 12th in MLB in batting average at .244. I was expecting near last.

The Rays, Yankees, A's, Mets, Indians all have team batting averages in the .230s.

For reference, the 91 team honored tonight led the AL in BA with a team average of .280. They were 6th in the AL with 140 Home runs.

The game has changed.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yep. The game has changed. This team is actually quite good offensively but ran into some bad outcomes, which we've seen balance out recently.

But the problem remains that MLB needs to take active measures to change that a .244 batting average is middle-upper in all of baseball. That's just a bad game to watch and this is a spectator sport.

[VivaBomboRivera!]

Used to be that players' presence in the Majors was not a sure thing if they couldn't at least keep their averages at .250.

[theBOMisthebomb]

The pregame highlight reel on the big scoreboard tonight at Target Field celebrating the 1991 World Series championship really hit me with the contrast. Players flying all over the field, both on defense and offense, taking extra bases, take out slides at second, collusions at home plate, bunts, hit and runs, advancing the runner. The differences from 30 years ago and today are almost stunning. It's a free world and a guy can swing for the fences all he wants and we can't stop him. I'd like to see some of today's superior athletes become more well rounded all around fundamental baseball players. 

[Steve71]

I wonder what league-wide batting averages would be if they banned the shift? 20 points higher?

[AZTwin]

Look at ft Myers roster.  Seems like most of the team is below .200. Unreal.

 

just checked again. Best 2 OPS stats on the team are hitting below .200 lol…. 5 players in starting lineup below .200.  Highest average is cavaco at .245.  team average is .213

[Monkeypaws]

One other statistical difference between 1991 and 2021:

The Twins as a team have struck out 1005 times so far this season. in pace for 1391.

The 91 Twins stuck out 747 times in an entire season.

 

I know the Twins were ridiculed back in the day for trying to get David Ortiz to hit to the opposite field, but I would love to see them try to make a complete hitter out of some of their younger guys before they become the next Sano, where hitting into the shift and whiffing are the 2 most likely outcomes.

[lecroy24fan]

11 hours ago, VivaBomboRivera! said:

Used to be that players' presence in the Majors was not a sure thing if they couldn't at least keep their averages at .250.

With the exception of catchers.

[bean5302]

While batting averages have absolutely tumbled, on base percentages are similar to 1990. Actual OPS is up quite a bit as singles and doubles have been replaced with home runs, but the added batting average makes wOBA between 1990 and 2021 hitters pretty similar.

3/6 with one double (OPS 1.166) (wOBA .506) vs. 1/5 with one home run, 4 strikeouts and a walk (OPS 1.200) (wOBA .445).

I honestly believe strikeouts should have a different factor in the calculation of wOBA because they virtually never lead to an opportunity for a runner to reach base or a runner to advance. That said, I don't know as it would change anything because if strikeouts were less valuable from a batter's profile, pitchers would be pressed even harder to obtain them.

Personally, I believe we've swung to the other extreme end of baseball based on metrics. The games hitters and pitchers aren't any more or less successful than they were before, they're just much less interesting to watch.

[SwainZag]

I think we probably get a point where some team starts to collect the Luis Arraez type player and flips the narrative on relying on home runs for strikeouts.  Obviously it's been the sexy play for the past few years, but how low are teams willing to let batting averages fall and strikeouts rise before it's not worth it anymore?

[RpR]

For what it is worth:  

The 1963 Twins, the original Bomba Squad,  had 225 HRs and 35 triples and , the 1962 Twins had 221 HRs and 46 triples but show what a team with cadre of Arraez type hitter might look like:

The 1976 Twins had 81  HRs and  51 triples while the 1977 Twins had 123 HRs and 60 triples.

[jkcarew]

13 hours ago, Steve71 said:

I wonder what league-wide batting averages would be if they banned the shift? 20 points higher?

That’s a popular opinion, and one I reject.

It lifts BA slightly with a few extra miss-hit balls going through the hole. But the flaw in the conventional logic is that hitters are NOT going to start trying to hit line drives through the hole. In stead, they will be FURTHER encouraged to pull and launch everything…for the precise reason that they will be rewarded more often when they ‘miss’. So, in practice, it further increases K’s and reduces balls in play. Even to the extent that it moderately increases base runners, it feeds the trend that the baserunner will be big and slow…and base running continues its decline as a strategic part of the game. 

[jkcarew]

8 hours ago, bean5302 said:

While batting averages have absolutely tumbled, on base percentages are similar to 1990. Actual OPS is up quite a bit as singles and doubles have been replaced with home runs, but the added batting average makes wOBA between 1990 and 2021 hitters pretty similar.

3/6 with one double (OPS 1.166) (wOBA .506) vs. 1/5 with one home run, 4 strikeouts and a walk (OPS 1.200) (wOBA .445).

I honestly believe strikeouts should have a different factor in the calculation of wOBA because they virtually never lead to an opportunity for a runner to reach base or a runner to advance. That said, I don't know as it would change anything because if strikeouts were less valuable from a batter's profile, pitchers would be pressed even harder to obtain them.

Personally, I believe we've swung to the other extreme end of baseball based on metrics. The games hitters and pitchers aren't any more or less successful than they were before, they're just much less interesting to watch.

I think you’re hitting on it here. It’s HOW offensive value is achieved now. What we have now is an extreme (literally off the charts) example of the 1960’s. The 70’s, and 80’s…into the 90’s…seemed to be a good in-between (as compared with the ‘wait for the three-run homer’ 60’s vs the dead-ball game).

To me it starts with geometry. The ballparks started getting much smaller at the exact time that the size and strength of the hitters got much larger. Combine that with the max-effort on every pitch made possible by the evolution of how bullpens are used…and now we have a situation where it’s both extremely difficult to consistently get hits, and extremely easy for anyone in the lineup to reach the seats when they hit the ball in the air. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

19 minutes ago, jkcarew said:

That’s a popular opinion, and one I reject.

It lifts BA slightly with a few extra miss-hit balls going through the hole. But the flaw in the conventional logic is that hitters are NOT going to start trying to hit line drives through the hole. In stead, they will be FURTHER encouraged to pull and launch everything…for the precise reason that they will be rewarded more often when they ‘miss’. So, in practice, it further increases K’s and reduces balls in play. Even to the extent that it moderately increases base runners, it feeds the trend that the baserunner will be big and slow…and base running continues its decline as a strategic part of the game. 

Frankly, I don't think banning the shift will result in much of a net positive statistically, though I believe it will result in a net positive from a spectator perspective. Groundballs being sucked up with routine efficiency because the right side of the infield is stacked with players is BORING. But if a player has to make a dive and a play, or the ball scoots to the outfield, that is entertaining. An out can still be recorded but the out is more entertaining than a guy standing ten feet in the grass would be.

But while you may be right in that hitters dedicate themselves even more to the TTO barrel launch angle business, mistakes happen. That's literally the point of pitching, is to force hitters into mistakes.

And seeing more infield and groundball action, whether it results in significantly more baserunners or not, is more entertaining than the current shift-heavy environment where so many balls are routine and low-effort.

[jkcarew]

6 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Frankly, I don't think banning the shift will result in much of a net positive statistically, though I believe it will result in a net positive from a spectator perspective. Groundballs being sucked up with routine efficiency because the right side of the infield is stacked with players is BORING. But if a player has to make a dive and a play, or the ball scoots to the outfield, that is entertaining. An out can still be recorded but the out is more entertaining than a guy standing ten feet in the grass would be.

But while you may be right in that hitters dedicate themselves even more to the TTO barrel launch angle business, mistakes happen. That's literally the point of pitching, is to force hitters into mistakes.

And seeing more infield and groundball action, whether it results in significantly more baserunners or not, is more entertaining than the current shift-heavy environment where so many balls are routine and low-effort.

But my point would be that the increase in goodness that you speak of would be absorbed in a handful of years as the TTO trend accelerates…which it will if you further reward it in this manner. I think you’re better off if you wait for the hitters to hit the BA/OBP threshold where they change the behavior. He’ll, more shift, not less, as far as I’m concerned. To me, no lasting goodness happens without a change in the batters’ approach/ behavior/ skill set…anything that doesn’t do that will only have short term benefit and could easily make it worse in the longer term.

[Brock Beauchamp]

30 minutes ago, jkcarew said:

But my point would be that the increase in goodness that you speak of would be absorbed in a handful of years as the TTO trend accelerates…which it will if you further reward it in this manner. I think you’re better off if you wait for the hitters to hit the BA/OBP threshold where they change the behavior. He’ll, more shift, not less, as far as I’m concerned. To me, no lasting goodness happens without a change in the batters’ approach/ behavior/ skill set…anything that doesn’t do that will only have short term benefit and could easily make it worse in the longer term.

But do you believe a change is coming from hitters? I don't. We've seen increasing shifts for a decade now, particularly against LHB, yet nothing has changed. Hitters remain - almost surely from the advice of front offices and coaches - dogmatically stuck to launch angle and exit velocity. I don't see this changing because high xBA balls are so much more valuable than low xBA balls. This isn't a course I see righting itself naturally, which is why I've been an increasingly big advocate for rules changes.

If this course was going to right itself, why don't we even see LHB bunting against the shift? If we can't even get that much to happen, I believe expecting hitters to fundamentally change their approach enters fairytale territory.

I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm legitimately asking the question but I don't really see your scenario playing out.

We don't even have to look far. What about Max Kepler? He's a really good example of what we're talking about here. Horribly low batting average, good-but-not-great power, athletic as all hell. He should be the poster child for bunting in some scenarios to beat the shift. It wouldn't take much for Max to beat out a bunt against the shift, yet it never happens.

And if we don't see it from Max, why should we expect to see it from anyone else?

[jkcarew]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

But do you believe a change is coming from hitters? I don't.

It’s our only hope.

Look, your side of the argument says players will never (at least in the foreseeable future) change the current launch/pull TTO approach. That it’s sybermetrically superior and how players are promoted and paid.

My side of the argument simply says…”yes, but the sybermetric threshold is here (or very close), and now the real problem is the modern player doesn’t have the skill set to adjust.” It’s not just that they won’t…it’s that they can’t. This is the real problem. And a solution to that problem is not advanced…in fact it’s delayed…if you further incentivize the current approach, which is what restricting the shift does.

Admittedly, this is akin to saying it has to get worse before it gets better. But, there you are. FWIW, I’m sure you’re in the majority here. I’ve heard Bob Costas take my view on it, but very few others among the ‘experts’ or the fans.

[jkcarew]

For my grandkids…(great grandkids?)…

Mandate that all new minor and major league fields have larger minimum dimensions…and significantly larger dimensions down the line and to straightaway left and right. So, make the stadiums larger and more symmetrical…reduce incentive to pull, and to launch…increase incentive for fast outfielders…create more shallow singes or risk more triples over the outfielders head.

Restrict/stop…even walk back…specialization in how pitchers are used. Put teeth in pitcher roster restrictions.

In conjunction with significantly larger/symmetrical field dimensions…consider moving the pitching rubber back 6 inches.

In short, make it harder to hit a home run. And easier to get a base hit. That’s the fundamental change needed so that we can get back to a healthy balance between contact and HR’s and speed and power.

[Steve71]

Sorry, jkcarew, but respectfully disagree. 

Part of the charm and interest in baseball is the variety of stadiums and their dimensions.  Your plan would eliminate the Green Monster, for example.  Boston baseball is unique due to Fenway.  Don't change it.

I asked a sincere question up-thread:  Does anyone have any data on how much the shift is depressing batting averages?

Lastly, is bunting really that difficult?  As someone mentioned, Kepler could bat 500 if he could simply lay down a bunt down the 3rd base line.  For that matter, simply inside-outing a ball to the left field side would lead to doubles, like his double in the 9th yesterday that led to the win.

Good discussion!

[Craig Arko]

Of course when Joe Mauer hit in exactly the ways hoped for in this thread, people griped about his lack of HRs. Fickle bunch, those fans.

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, Steve71 said:

Sorry, jkcarew, but respectfully disagree. 

Part of the charm and interest in baseball is the variety of stadiums and their dimensions.  Your plan would eliminate the Green Monster, for example.  Boston baseball is unique due to Fenway.  Don't change it.

I asked a sincere question up-thread:  Does anyone have any data on how much the shift is depressing batting averages?

Lastly, is bunting really that difficult?  As someone mentioned, Kepler could bat 500 if he could simply lay down a bunt down the 3rd base line.  For that matter, simply inside-outing a ball to the left field side would lead to doubles, like his double in the 9th yesterday that led to the win.

Good discussion!

Actually, once he demonstrated that he was going to bunt whenever they moved the 3B past where a SS plays, teams would quit shift him and he would get a lot more base hits.  It absolutely drives me nuts that he has not learned to bunt adequately to where he can bunt hard down the 3B line.  That takes a lot less skill than laying one down softly when the 3B is traditionally positioned.  Rod Carew would have hit 900 against that shift.

[Aerodeliria]

On 8/15/2021 at 10:44 PM, Steve71 said:

I wonder what league-wide batting averages would be if they banned the shift? 20 points higher?

Maybe, but I sure hope they don't. Restricting movement of players on the field is just a bridge too far. Shifts have been used for ages, but if players are intent on pulling the ball, teams will shift. In bygone days, there were more players hitting to all fields, so shifts were used sparingly. In Japan, shifts are rarely employed because a majority of hitters are content to hit to the opposite field. I hope they don't ban the shift. Good hitters will make the opposition pay for using the shift. (I've seen Donaldson beat the shift on a number of occasions this year.)

[Cap'n Piranha]

15 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Frankly, I don't think banning the shift will result in much of a net positive statistically, though I believe it will result in a net positive from a spectator perspective. Groundballs being sucked up with routine efficiency because the right side of the infield is stacked with players is BORING. But if a player has to make a dive and a play, or the ball scoots to the outfield, that is entertaining. An out can still be recorded but the out is more entertaining than a guy standing ten feet in the grass would be.

But while you may be right in that hitters dedicate themselves even more to the TTO barrel launch angle business, mistakes happen. That's literally the point of pitching, is to force hitters into mistakes.

And seeing more infield and groundball action, whether it results in significantly more baserunners or not, is more entertaining than the current shift-heavy environment where so many balls are routine and low-effort.

I don't think banning the shift makes for more entertaining baseball, unless your idea of entertaining baseball is weakly hit groundballs dribbling through the right side.  Homeruns are far more entertaining, and far more valuable, so the idea that taking away the one disincentive for left-handers to sell out for power will in any way reduce the current mode of hitting is just silly.  The only way to stop the shift is to make it more valuable for players to hit to all fields.  The only way to make it more valuable for players to hit to all fields is to increase the value proposition of non-homeruns vis-à-vis homeruns.  Artificially eliminating the shift through rule changes, as has been noted, will make launch angle-driven pull hitting more prevalent, not less, and therefore, doesn't fix the root cause of lack of action in the game.

[Cap'n Piranha]

On 8/15/2021 at 8:30 AM, Monkeypaws said:

One other statistical difference between 1991 and 2021:

The Twins as a team have struck out 1005 times so far this season. in pace for 1391.

The 91 Twins stuck out 747 times in an entire season.

 

I know the Twins were ridiculed back in the day for trying to get David Ortiz to hit to the opposite field, but I would love to see them try to make a complete hitter out of some of their younger guys before they become the next Sano, where hitting into the shift and whiffing are the 2 most likely outcomes.

What's the difference in velocity, spin rate, and break on pitches in the last 30 years?  Do hitters strike out more than they used to because they care less about strikeouts, as they seem them as a necessary evil in the pursuit of power, or do hitters strike out more because every team now features multiple pitchers who throw harder, with better breaking balls, than almost any pitcher from 30 years ago?

[Brock Beauchamp]

11 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Artificially eliminating the shift through rule changes, as has been noted, will make launch angle-driven pull hitting more prevalent, not less, and therefore, doesn't fix the root cause of lack of action in the game.

Everyone keeps saying this as if it's fact and I don't get it.

Hitters already sell out to pull with the shift in place. If shifting hasn't produced the desired outcome of spray hitters becoming prevalent, why hasn't it happened already, especially for left-handed hitters? The shift has been used extensively against LHB for a decade now and pull hitting has only become more dominant during that time.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Everyone keeps saying this as if it's fact and I don't get it.

Hitters already sell out to pull with the shift in place. If shifting hasn't produced the desired outcome of spray hitters becoming prevalent, why hasn't it happened already, especially for left-handed hitters? The shift has been used extensively against LHB for a decade now and pull hitting has only become more dominant during that time.

Ummm...this is the exact point jkcarew and I are making.  The shift does not reduce the prevalence of LHB pull hitting.  The same amount of LHB pull hitting happens whether there is a shift or not.  The reason the shift has not reduced LHB pull hitting is because as the last decade has progressed, more and more teams have come to the determination that hitting homeruns is worth the lower batting average that results from more weak grounders to the right side.  Thus, eliminating the shift will make no difference in the approach being employed by LHB's.

If what we're after is more men getting on base, eliminating the shift won't make much of an impact, as it won't change the approach of any hitters, and probably not that many balls (maybe 1-2 a game?) are fielded by shifted defenders.  Here's two rule changes that would results in more balls in play.

1. Only 3 infielders.  Now there will never be three players on the right side of the diamond, and in fact, there will be only the standard alignment.  There will therefore be two large gaps on the left side, to both sides of the 3B, encouraging players to go oppo.  Just in general, hitting the ball on the ground will be far more likely to produce a hit, making homeruns less relatively valuable
2. Pitchers can only be the first defender to touch a ball if they do so while on the mound.  Bunting now becomes much easier to do, as there's no longer a need to push the ball past the pitcher.  This would force third basemen to play in more frequently, making the left side more open.

[Thegrin]

Maybe for better and in some ways for worse. My wife watched the 91 highlights and she was surprised by the collisions at home and 2b.  She doesn't want to see players hurt.  Maybe now its better in that way..

An above poster mentioned that baseball tends to drift between the extremes.  I think that is true but they had to lower the mound to bring back the balance last time (along with adding expansion teams which weakened the talent pool. Maybe moving back the pitching rubber 6" or a foot might bring the balance.  However, I'd prefer to see players get paid more for hits and runs scored than for solo HomeRuns. 

[a-wan]

Judging the low minor league hitters this year after most didn't have competitive baseball last year is unfair.

And hitting a baseball has always been considered one of the hardest things in sports. Right now, with velocity, movement of pitches, and hitters not facing a tired starting pitcher for a third time, what do we as fans expect hitters to be hitting? .250? .275?

[KirbyDome89]

On 8/16/2021 at 6:07 PM, Cap'n Piranha said:

The shift does not reduce the prevalence of LHB pull hitting. 

That isn't being argued.

The question is whether turning good/great defensive plays and base hits into routine outs is good for a spectator sport. Do you share jkcarew's sentiment that this version of baseball will correct itself?