We are inexorably headed for the first season in baseball history in which there will be more strikeouts than hits... The analytics people say strikeouts are okay as long as they’re the end result of batters swinging hard and upward in an attempt to hit the ball in the air and hopefully over the wall....Interesting that the problem isn't just the number of strikeouts, but the kind of strikeouts — because it's all about how they make people feel and whether we'll want to be spectators.
Just to demonstrate how different hitters are today when it comes to strikeouts, Mickey Mantle led the American League in strikeouts five times from 1952-60 and never came close to having more K’s than hits. The closest was 1960 when the Mick whiffed 125 times to 145 hits. Even the all-time whiffmeister, Reggie Jackson, had only 13 more career strikeouts (2,597) than hits (2,584).
Besides the strikeouts going up and up, so, too are the pitching changes. When Manfred took over as a commissioner in 2013, they were averaging 7.9 pitchers per game. It’s gone steadily upward to the 8.5 it is today.
The pitching changes, of course, are another prime factor in the rise of strikeouts, with batters now facing a steady diet of 98-100 mph relievers from the sixth inning on....
२२ जून, २०१८
Too many strikeouts? It's "sucking the action out of [baseball] to the point where it too often feels like a funeral for all those runners left dying on base."
Writes Bill Madden in The Daily News.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
You want the right degrees of difficulty, and crisis action that's fast but not too fast to follow.
The beauty of baseball is in its interplay of consistency and variability. Every fan/observer can have an opinion, yet the game plays itself out all the same. In social medialand, this is a negative because not everyone sees their opinion validated, as they do in politics; where everyone feeds off everything else, immediately and with response opinions. Say what you want: the game of baseball doesn't care what anyone's opinion is.
"Relax, all right? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."
Overcompensation: a few years ago, games were too long, there were too many home runs, the balls were juiced. Now, they're too short: everybody's trying to hit home runs, and they're striking out too much, and not just too much, but too much in a certain way.
Maybe home runs and strikeouts are fascist. Maybe other kinds of outs are democratic. Maybe they did something to the balls. Or maybe, the media just need something new to say about a very old game. Hard to tell. The games do seem shorter. That might be the way to see if there's something to this.
Is audience attention a variable in the quant analytics models?
Interesting that the problem isn't just the number of strikeouts, but the kind of strikeouts
Madden kind of butchers the analysis.
Two of the main focuses of analytics in the last few years are exit velocity and launch angle. Hard hit balls are more likely to become hits. Hard hit balls at a specific angle are much more likely to become hits and even more likely to become doubles and home runs.
(This isn't exactly news. Ted Williams made this point 60 years ago. But analytics have established that Ted was right and the "level swing" hitting coaches were wrong.)
Many players have improved their production by increasing their launch angle. This has nothing to do with them striking out more.
Increased strikeouts come because analytics have demonstrated that players that hit for power and draw walks are more valuable than players that hit singles and don't draw walks. So these kind of hitters get playing time. Taking more pitches and swinging harder often means more strikeouts. Baseball analysts call this the "three true outcomes" - walk, strikeout, home run.
If baseball is to encourage more contact hitting, more balls-in-play, more singles -- they have to change the rules of play.
"Take two and hit to right." That was an old baseball adage, when you got behind in the count, shorten up your stroke and choke up on the bat and hit the ball where it is pitched. Today you rarely ever see a guy do that. (Anthony Rizzo is about the only one who comes to mind). It is a lost art. Everyone swings from their heels.
Shane, that is the beauty of baseball. But it's also a game that is measured. More measures and more attempts to measure and still more and more attempts to measure than any other game. Kind of like life.
To this fan an out is an out. Flying out and grounding out are no more or less interesting than a strikeout. For the players strikeout is less bad than a ground out when men are on base - no real chance for a double play unless one of the runners does something stupid.
The things in the modern game that bug me and stop me from watching are the more frequent pitching changes and the overall length of the game. Strikeouts reduce both of those.
-sw
Watching some guys standing around has never been more exciting.
Strikeouts have risen proportional to the players facial hair. Make them shave and get a haircut.
The analytics people say strikeouts are okay as long as they’re the end result of batters swinging hard and upward in an attempt to hit the ball in the air and hopefully over the wall....
The analytics people say strikeouts are a fair tradeoff if a team scores more runs and win more games.
As one of my analytics friends says, "this game was more fun when we were stupider."
The challenge is this: can you change the rules of play to return value to contact hitting and base running without screwing up the game entirely.
What does the UN think?
Daskol: I agree that baseball is a lot like every day life. I learned basic maths from interpreting baseball cards long before it was formally taught in school. When my Phillies are doing well, I am eight years old again, usually for the balance of the season.
Alhtough I'm a fan who likes defense better than offense I do agree that there are too many pitching changes. IMO, three is enough, with possible exceptions for extra innings. There has always been a balance of intensity between pitching and hitting, with one always lagging behind the other in any given season. This works well except that pitchers' arms are being taxed to the max, not in number of pitches but in velocity and type of pitch. 'Tommy John' surgery has become almost a given for a pitcher today.
I've noticed in the games I'm watching batters are facing more 95-100 mph from starting pitching too. I've also can't recall a more unbalanced season of teams who have and teams who have not, either. Four teams winning 100 games means those other teams just suck.
I was a baseball autist for the first 60 years of my life. As a kid I’d listen to every game. No more. One day between a batter stepping out of the box or maybe it was during a three-minute review delay, no wait, I remember, it was watching the latest in a string of three new pitchers for three new batters ... whatever the trigger moment I fell out of love hard. Baseball is now dead to me.
It saddens me, to be honest. Divorces are harder than death, they say. But the game is run by idiots whose solution to an eleven inning, We’ve run out of players All-Star game was to make the game “count” the next year. Not allow player re-entry or end tie games with a home-run derby, but “make it count.”
When I was a kid a sandlot on a summer day had a fifty-fifty chance of having a group of kids playing a two-on-two or three-on-three baseball game with special rules to make it work (like “pitchers’ hand is as good as first” and “choose the field, left or right, you’re going to hit into”). Today those kids are playing video games or worse, at soccer practice.
Maybe deep down I still love the game but it’s hard to carry on a marriage to a retarded glacier.
here's my solution (to EVERYTHING!)
a rule that says: If you stop the game to change a player, it's an injury
take a pitcher out During an inning, he goes on the disabled list.
change pitchers? between innings? fine
change pitchers During an inning? not eligible for play for some number of days (7?)
This would:
Really speed up the game
Really increase 'strategy' (he's pitchin good now, but can he last the inning?)
Slow down the pitch speed, and make it easier to hit
If they restrict the number of pitchers, will there be even more time between pitches?
"Unknown said...
To this fan an out is an out. Flying out and grounding out are no more or less interesting than a strikeout. For the players strikeout is less bad than a ground out when men are on base - no real chance for a double play unless one of the runners does something stupid.
The things in the modern game that bug me and stop me from watching are the more frequent pitching changes and the overall length of the game. Strikeouts reduce both of those."
Increased strikeouts = longer games. Not shorter. And a ground out, or fly out, can have positive effects that strikeouts don't. The can move, and score runners. Strikeouts cannot.
"Henry said...
The challenge is this: can you change the rules of play to return value to contact hitting and base running without screwing up the game entirely."
Sure, raise the strike zone. Pitchers are already countering higher launch angles by throwing pitches higher in the zone.
It is boring, and a lot more boring than it was. My ranking of he most exciting offensive plays are:
1. Inside the park homerun
2. Triple
3. Double
4. Home run with baserunners
5. Single
6. Strikeout
7. Solo homer
OK, I fudged on 6.
The Astros have 2 of the best pitchers in baseball so I’m ok with a lot of strikeouts.....
MLB could also save a lot of money by having only 2 fielders.
"john said...
It is boring, and a lot more boring than it was. My ranking of he most exciting offensive plays are:
1. Inside the park homerun
2. Triple
3. Double
4. Home run with baserunners
5. Single
6. Strikeout
7. Solo homer"
Wouldnt be mine, but the most exciting play in baseball is the play at the plate from the outfield. Here's Jason Heyward showing you how the other day against the Dodgers https://www.mlb.com/video/share/heyward-nabs-taylor-at-the-plate/c-2176904183?tid=51231442
Curious George. I wouldn't disagree but I point out that there were baserunners on 1st and 3rd, and they got there somehow (although they could have both walked and advanced on a passed ball, snooze).
My plan would be to require each pitcher to face at least two batters, unless it were the end of an inning. You would have to finish with the first batter you face and one more. We shouldn't have to watch three pitchers warm up to face one batter each. And it would make the managers' decisions somewhat more...challenging.
A finely executed double play is my favorite but a leaping catch at the fence in center field a close second.
1. Baseball played until November is where I start. 2. Too many pitching changes mid-inning. 3. Inconsistent and often poor ball/strike calls by umps.
I like good pitching. Pitching is IMO the game's essence. The game should be mainly about pitching and pitching should dominate. I like pitching changes too. The more the better. It's like a chess match. The managers are really important in baseball and I like that too.
Henry nails it: "Increased strikeouts come because analytics have demonstrated that players that hit for power and draw walks are more valuable than players that hit singles and don't draw walks. So these kind of hitters get playing time. Taking more pitches and swinging harder often means more strikeouts. Baseball analysts call this the "three true outcomes" - walk, strikeout, home run."
No one has mentioned that a major reason these are the "three true outcomes" is that defense has gotten so good. Teams keep track of the location of every ball a hitter hits, and move fielders accordingly. So you hear a fair amount of, "[excitedly] there's a hard line drive [less excitedly] right at the left fielder." It's just so much harder to get anything between a strikeout and a homer. I hate it. The new game is boring. But I don't see any easy way to change it.
My radical solution: have only seven fielders instead of nine. That will create a lot more room for hits and base running, for continuity in play rather than the jerky strike out/infield out/home run/fly out we have now.
We're seeing a drift towards the "three true outcome" hitter, with the three true outcomes being walk, strikeout, and homer. Joey Gallo gets mentioned in the article, and he is certainly Exhibit A right now. (Note to self: Don't draft him next year in FBB. Live and learn.)
I would say that if one sees too much of any type of baseball, that will make the game less interesting to watch. Baseball should have a sufficient variety of plays, at bats, and final outcomes to remain interesting. If baseball is headed towards too many "three true outcome" hitters, it's going to get boring in a hurry.
"mockturtle said...
A finely executed double play is my favorite but a leaping catch at the fence in center field a close second."
It's like a dance. Here is a nice one from last nights Cubs game...don't see a lot of 2-6-4's
https://www.mlb.com/cubs/video/contreras-starts-a-double-play/c-2180106683
The real problem is too many home runs. It means manufacturering runs doesn't pay. Just get on base and wait is the profitable approach.
Keep fiddling with the system until you get your desired outcome. What could possibly go wrong? Good thing this philosophy isn't applied to society as a whole. Oh, wait...
Of course, when it comes to our society as a whole, we can't simply turn off the TV and refuse to continue to participate (if only as spectators) in the sport. We are all base runners.
I love baseball for every reason everyone else does, and more. If you don't love baseball then you hate America and what she stands for. This is why Trump needs to conquer the commies of Venezuela who are depriving the world of great baseball players.
I can't wait until the Norks start playing baseball, then you know we got 'em.
On the point of more strikeouts, it's the beauty that grows out of the perfection of baseball. The game remains in the 19th Century, yet the style in which it is played is always changing. Idiots want to ban the shift, instead guys learn to hit the other way: the moves and counter-moves ad infinitum keep it fresh.
The Braves have a 19 year old rookie from Venezuela who hits line drives for home runs. Clone him and the problem is fixed.
The analytics' relative forgiveness of strikeouts has absolutely nothing to do with "how they make people feel and whether we'll want to be spectators."
It is, rather, a twist on Moneyball and its original pursuit of efficiency. Early on, strikeouts were the Original Sin in Moneyball, but perhaps predictably, while making contact with the ball remains a goal, factoring in the opportunity for a homerun became a massive part of the New Math.
Today's batters are mostly interested in launch angle for the long ball and, regardless of what analytics indicate, if they don't clear the fence they either strike out or fly-out. What I miss are the spray hitters - probably because hitting coaches don't stress it. Too bad. Makes for a more interesting game. What baseball doesn't need is any more rule changes. And that includes an electronic strike zone.
I think it's great that tobacco spitting ball players are changing their game because of what some dweeb thinks he saw when he drilled down into baseball's eigenspace.
The biggest problem baseball has is length of game, and lack of consistent action. Not for old time fans like me, but for today's youth. Kids are not going to invest 3 hours, or even two hours, to a ballgame. They'll watch highlights on line. Look in the crowd at people who actually go to the game...and see how many are dicking around on their smartphones.
@Roger Sweeney -- my proposal is that any time a pitcher throws a pick-off, it's a ball.
That would speed up the game and give a big boost to fast guys who can get on base via walk or single. It would also increase steals, which is exciting.
For the folks mentioning exciting plays (and I agree, outfield assists are pretty awesome), shouldn't the straight steal of home be added somewhere? I think it's a far more exciting offensive play than the "double" listed above. Or how about the suicide squeeze?
I'm an Astros fan, and with them evolving into the "Blastros"--and definitely being one of the greatest if not the greatest users of analytics/shifts/etc.--, I miss seeing them execute the types of plays I mentioned.
As for the topic on strikeouts, I do like seeing Cole, McCullers, and Verlander ring up strikeouts. It does run their pitch counts up, though. "Pitch to contact" guys like Oswalt would routinely get to the late 7th/8th before needing a reliever. But you don't see "pitch to contact" as much anymore.
Analytics is killing the game. Exhibit A is the clown of a manager that we have here in Philly. Last I looked we were leading the league in strikeouts (i.e. getting struck out) but he wanted his batters to take more pitches.
My idol when I was growing up was a Hall of Fame by the name of Richie Ashburn. He twice beat out guys like Willie Mays to lead the league in hitting. He was what was known as a contact hitter. He nothing but line drives. If he hit one or two home runs, it was a big year for him.
There are many ways to be a successful hitter. Problem is now, the analytics guys think there is only one way. Richie Ashburn wouldn't make it passed A ball in today's game.
So we get to watch guys take two strikes, then swing at a bad pitch for strike three. As the game goes on and on.
I have always liked baseball's mix between (a) things like hockey and soccer, where nothing ever happens, they go back and forth and back and forth and do all kinds of GREAT PLAYS but they don't ever score so who cares, and (b) things like basketball, where everyone scores constantly all the time so who cares. Baseball (and football) have very tangible goals like getting on base, which happens a lot, and we follow the stats on it - and then a reasonable amount of scoring.
Over the years, baseball has fiddled with the hitter/pitcher ratio by raising and lowering the pitcher's mound, moving it farther away or closer, forbidding spitballs, etc. If strikeouts are too big a problem they can fix it.
"by raising and lowering the pitcher's mound, moving it farther away or closer..."
It's been 60' 6" since 1893. So on practical level, always.
The game is always evolving. If too many strikeouts is an error in strategy, the game will evolve away from it. If it is the correct strategy, then the game will evolve in such a way to overcome that strategy's success within a few years. I am old enough to have seen this process play out more than once.
Fun fact- who was the last player to have more than 80 stolen bases in a season?
No no no, the most exciting plays are either: stealing home, or a nice suicide squeeze.
Part of the issue is shifts. Ground balls are far more likely to be outs than 10 years ago because teams know where the batter hits ground balls and then puts the fielders in that area. There is a fairly extreme version with one batter where they actually put an infielder in the outfield since the batter is so extreme in his ground balls. The thing is if this was the 1950s this would not work nearly as well as most batters knew how to bunt and slap. You want to put the entire infield on the right side? Thanks for the free hits! Let's bunt for doubles! Bunting is mostly a lost art now and the shifts caught many existing players by surprise - watching Mark Teixeira flail around for the end of his career was unpleasant - so the shifts work. The batter basically has two solutions: learn how to bunt and get some free hits until teams stop shifting, or hit it over the infield. Hitting fly balls results in more strikeouts.
What ruins it for me on TV is all the waiting, maybe a man gets on base, then baam! 2 seconds and the inning is over. That, and zero emotional investment in a team or player, and the constant announcer blather and bizarre statistics.
The most interesting thing is that it isn't over until it's over, unlike every other game I can think of.
"Fun fact- who was the last player to have more than 80 stolen bases in a season?"
Ricky Henderson?
Tank said...
No no no, the most exciting plays are either: stealing home, or a nice suicide squeeze.
6/22/18, 12:10 PM
I was at Miller Park the night the Brewers turned a rare triple play against the Dodgers in 2011, in fact, I'm in the audience shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpuXBlQaJEU
It was magical.
On the point of more strikeouts, it's the beauty that grows out of the perfection of baseball. The game remains in the 19th Century, yet the style in which it is played is always changing. Idiots want to ban the shift, instead guys learn to hit the other way: the moves and counter-moves ad infinitum keep it fresh.
Bingo, Howard!
Blogger exiledonmainstreet said...
I was at Miller Park the night the Brewers turned a rare triple play against the Dodgers in 2011, in fact, I'm in the audience shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpuXBlQaJEU
Funny, I was at Miller Park years ago (2009, I just checked) to witness an around the horn triple play against the Giants. Rowand hit a hard grounder right to McGehee at third and around the horn it went. Can't find a video, but it was pretty ordinary, even if flawlessly executed.
Prince Fielder provided a couple of highlights of his own that game, too. In an early inning, he hit a hard shot against the right field fence that just missed clearing, and he labored mightily to get to second safely for a double.
Fielder would then provide the final highlight of the day with a walk off homer in the 12th. Can't beat fun at the old ballpark.
Make the time between pitches shorter. A pitch clock, set at 15 seconds from the time the catcher, umpire, or other player throws the ball to the pitcher.
More mistakes, more stolen bases, more wayward throws, less watching the interminable amount of settling in of the batter and the endless preparation of the pitcher.
Most batters up and on base or down and out in a minute or two, instead of the 5 or so it now takes to get to the next batter.
Bricap, I loved Fielder. I was sad when he left the Brewers and was even sadder when he had to retire due to his injuries.
Carlos Martinez, the Cardinals pitcher who normally shines against the Brewers, did not strike many out last night. The final was Brewers 11 Cards 3.
Martinez blames a ghost at the Pfister Hotel. The ghost kept him up the night before he pitched.
Maybe it was the ghost of Harvey Kuenn, seeking revenge for the '82 WS.
"Not for old time fans like me, but for today's youth. Kids are not going to invest 3 hours, or even two hours, to a ballgame."
People were saying that 40 years ago. People 40 years ago were also saying:
-American Pro Soccer is the wave of the future. Wait till all those young players get older!
-Pro Golf is finished. Its too white and boring.
-Team Tennis will conquer the world
-White fans won't watch the NBA when all the stars are black.
With the new rule about not having to actually throw four wide ones to issue an intentional walk, it is now actually possible to have a one-pitch inning: Intentionally walk the first two batters, then induce a triple play on the first pitch to the third batter. All you need to pull this off is a really good sinkerball pitcher. Bring back Jake Westbrook!
Here's an idea to end all the strikeouts: Pay batters $500 for each pitch they see. In no time you'll have everyone trying to foul off as many pitches as they can, starting pitchers lasting only three innings, and tons of walks. Also an extremely boring game.
Like the philosopher said about the kidney stone: This, too, shall pass.
The first change to make is a uniform strike zone. This could be easily done by having balls and strikes called by an AI using cameras above and to the sides of home plate. Once you have established a precise strike zone that everyone acknowleges is being fairly enforced, the next step is to make small adjustments to it along the lines suggested above by Curious George, i.e., raise the top of the zone a bit.
I watch a lot of baseball on TV, and I really hate watching a pitcher and catcher have to abandon a well-thought out and executed game plan because the umpire doesn't agree with the rule book about where the strike zone is. It happens far too often and leads to poorly played games. You shouldn't have to spend the first two innings experimenting to try to figure out what's going to be called a strike. And the strike zone shouldn't be changing through the course of a game.
Haven't watched a major league baseball game since the League went on strike to cancel an unbroken run that even WWII did not break. Ninety years of history stopped over a contract dispute.
Well...granted, I always found Baseball boring, so it was no big loss. That they are making it more boring is gilding the lily. I now understand why beer sales are not only important to the league, but to the fans to undertake the dreary spectacle.
FIDO, if we thought it was a "dreary spectacle" we wouldn't watch it.
The walk off HR at the end of tonight's Brewers-Cardinals game made me jump off the sofa and cheer. Yay, Brew Crew!
Went to Giants and Padres last night. 7th inning, first 4 Giants faced 4 different Padre pitchers. You can imagine how it slowed play. Perhaps the simple solution is to require a new pitcher face a minimum of 2 batters, baring injury. If you claim a pitcher is injured, he goes on the DL.
A way to keep National League starting pitchers in the game: Let a starting pitcher stay in the game, if you pinch hit for him after the 5th inning. So not a DH, but a reward for a starting pitcher going deep in the game. A related change would require a relief pitcher bat, unless he pitched a full inning.
Regarding shifts, perhaps lines in the infield that require each fielder to start within. So no more putting the 3rd baseman out in short right field.
Bunting is a lost art. The Giants have a clueless starting pitcher. The Giants color commenter, Mike Krukow (former starting pitcher) points out how he can injure his fingers, the way he holds the bat trying to bunt. I blame the DH in the minors. National league teams should require pitchers bat in the minors.
Been a Giants fan since they came west in 1958. Have a couple of 1959 Seals Stadium score cards with Mays, McCovey and Cepeda written by me, as I kept score.
The most fun item we bring to games is an ear of corn from center field of the actual field of dreams in Iowa. It is interesting how real baseball fans change when they learn where the icon was born, and say. "This is the coolest thing..." The corn has traveled to many games. We have a photo of me picking it 20 years ago, as well as my son merging into the corn...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा