Anyone see this? Seems the consensus is that athleticism is missing from the game. Kenny Williams drafting football players was ahead of his time. Paging Aggravated Bob!

One thing I can't get my head around- and dolphin and RPB had a discussion about this awhile ago. If the overall batting average on balls in play is always going to come out to around .300, how is it that strikeouts aren't seen as a huge negative the way they once were? It seems like a contradiction. Now that we know that balls is play result in getting on base 30% of the time over a large enough sample, we should be trying to limit strikeouts more than ever, no?

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Cause: No Steroids.

Show over.

_________________

I do not look that closely but it stands to reason for me that no matter what a fly or ground out is better than a strike out. No matter what number you give me there is a chance a fly is dropped or grounder flubbed or a bounce. I strikeout is zero chance. Do these guys that calculate factor in errors?

_________________
Elections have consequences.

But it's nearing historic lows. It can't just be no PEDs, even if you believe there are no PEDs, which I don't.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

I wanted to watch this show. Did the topic of steroids even come up?

_________________

Oh yeah, that was the baseline where they started. Harold Reynolds' position is that the steroid era allowed non-athletic sluggers to exist and now the prodigious power is gone but the athleticism hasn't returned.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

Here's one thing. When you break it down to its most basic level, swinging and hitting a weak grounder is better than swinging and missing. That can't be disputed when talking simply about trying to hit as pitched ball

At the same time, the result of the grounder is essentially the same as a strikeout when talking about creating runs

I think its mostly misinterpreted between predictive and historic significance


Kerry Wood's 20 K game is better than a lot of perfect games from a predictive standpoint (A guy who can strikeout 20 has a great chance for success in the future) but not historical (the perfect game was a better game but not necessarily a sign of future dominance)


Also if someone has an opb above .300, then why would they alter other approach (strikeout less) to get down to .300?

You make an incredible amount of seemingly anti scientific posts for a scientist


Of course they calculate errors. The number is miniscule. Also there are dropped third strikes (even more minuscule but it exists)


As dolphin pointed out, I'm not great at explaining it but if you use Google you'll find many more detailed explanations

Non Juiced ball less peds, and MLB has an interest in keeping scoring low to prove they fixed the PED issue

Well I don't care to research this. I gave an opinion. I am not interested quite honestly in over analyzing baseball. I like to watch it and follow in casually and root for the Sox. I don't need to know the actual number as to why a strikeout is better than grounding into a double play. Sorry I wasted your time.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

First of all, SHUT UP

Secondly I didn't mean that in an insulting way but I can see ho it came off that way. I guess I have a stereotypical viewof what a scientist would be and when you say stuff like "meh, it seems wrong" it just seems off to me


There is no wasting peoples time on this board. If one is here, they have the time


I like you, Timmy

Its ok man mine also wasn't meant to be so aggressively defensive. In general, let me put it to you this way. If you spend all your time and thoughts to doing things a certain way in a job/career you may not want to even consider how you come across when you throw shit up on a board.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I suppose it's still a matter of limiting double plays and therefore preserving outs. With less emphasis on baserunning now that the stolen base has been largely dismissed (Earl Weaver was ahead of his time), you don't want to erase a baserunner on a weak infield grounder. As someone who watched the Cubs while Dusty Baker was here, bad baserunning and weak grounders are indeed a lethal combination.

It would be fun to see a team zig where the rest of baseball zags and try to play that crazy '80s offense of bloops and steals. I'm getting really burned out on this tortoise-slow Red Sox style of "smart" play, and I was a guy who bought Weaver on Strategy and Moneyball ten years ago and treated them as the Old and New Testaments.

_________________

I agree.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

You're making my head hurt now. I have to think about that one. They did address the concept that it used to be fine for a 30 homer guy to strike out 150 times by now you have 10 homer guys doing it and teams living with that.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

But isn't that dependent on the value of an out? An out not being quite so precious in an era of limited run scoring.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

wait, what was the question? I thought we agreed that BABIP varies from batter to batter. not really so from pitcher to pitcher.

if you can figure out why 30 years ago 90 mph was a FASTball and now its a SLOWball, that would be a good start in figuring this out.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Steroids isn't really the quick answer in my estimation. Pitcher were juicing also. The way balls and strikes are called may be different since the Questec machine was put in. I think Hatchetman is onto something, almost every team has a bunch of guys throwing 95+ in the bullpen now, and bullpen specialization almost guarantees that only the absolute studs of stud starters will ever face a lineup for the third, fourth time

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

Underlined for emphasis...we have a guy on the All Star team who started the season as a designated ROOGY...think about that for a second.

Yeah, and the funny thing about that is, he throws about 82... i was ready to send him on a slow boat to Memphis at the start of the year, but he has gotten the job done

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

Me too...I remember our conversation on here opening day when they brought him in...thought Matheny was out of his gourd.

He just looked done the last few years... baseball is full of stories of guy falling off a map and returning to glory. I even got caught up in the Ankiel business... I prob come across as kind of a nerdy numbers guy, but some of the narratives make for excellent theater

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

Right. so look at it strictly from the pitcher side. Each strikeout that turns into a ball in play goes from having a .0001% (or whatever the tiny number is) chance of resulting in a man on base to a 30% chance of resulting in a man on base. That being the case, one would think there would be an imperative for cutting down the strikeouts. However, I believe some of the strikeouts and their subsequent low percentage chance of a baserunner are offset by the walks that are not included in the equation. Part of the reason strikeouts are up is that more counts are going deeper.

_________________
The Court will accord substantial deference to the government's immigration policies, particularly those that implicate matters of national security.

If only you examined the absurdity of the pitcher win with such precision...

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

It's because our best athletes are playing soccer.

One benefit of batters striking out a lot is forcing the pitcher to throw more pitches. Not sure if that is significant, even with pitch counts being so vigilantly watched.

_________________

Absolutely.

Whenever I think of this topic I go back to a 2003 May pitchers duel between Matt Morris and Carlos Zambrano (stop laughing...that really was a thing). I vividly remember the announcer saying that while Zambrano had better stuff and was likely the more dominant pitcher, Morris was better because he was more efficient, inducing weak ground balls and pitching to the strength of his defense.

Of course, I go back to look up the box score in question and Morris had twice as many Ks as Z.

For some reason I was under the impression that total league BABIP was trending slightly downward at least since the steroid era, where small incremental changes can be pretty significant. And that spray charts, defensive shifts & efficiency were a big part of that. Can't really find any numbers backing that up though. Might be lower natural testosterone levels, helicopter parenting instead.

_________________
Soccer 1,2,3
Spanish Honor Society 1,2,3,4
Forensics 1,2,3,4

"Smiles with Nostrils"

"...no Hmong, go find some blacks"

I know that has become contemporary thinking. I think it needs to be reconsidered in light of how little is expected of pitchers these days. The pitch count is less a landmark than the turnover of the order, as has been stated previously in this thread. Good-great pitchers make it to 100 pitches. Average to below average seem to go about five and are gone at the first sign of trouble in the sixth.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Right but if what's coming from the bullpen is inferior to the starter (which it is most of the time) you still want to get in the bullpen as soon as possible