MLB Off-Topic

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Add my 2 cents in with the "deal with it" crowd when it comes to shifting. Adapt or die. A part of me thinks this might help "shift" the game ever so slightly back toward valuing guys with top-notch bat control (Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs types) that can take advantage of the new fad rather than unconscionable mashers.

Not arguing but adding to the conversation.

I see this said a lot. The we need to go back to the days of Gwynn and Boggs. Those hitters.

But everytime this is said, everyone only names Gwynn and Boggs. Those are two players out of 700+.

How are we making a shift "back" to something that never existed?

Canes said one day we will go back to lineups with good hitters. When did we have that though? There have always been an abundance weak hitters and a handful of greats.


I just think people want this time that never ever existed. Sure maybe not everyone was a pull hitter that can hit 20+ homeruns but how is that any worse than having a bunch of pee wee .240 hitters with no power?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[canes21]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Not arguing but adding to the conversation.

I see this said a lot. The we need to go back to the days of Gwynn and Boggs. Those hitters.

But everytime this is said, everyone only names Gwynn and Boggs. Those are two players out of 700+.

How are we making a shift "back" to something that never existed?

Canes said one day we will go back to lineups with good hitters. When did we have that though? There have always been an abundance weak hitters and a handful of greats.


I just think people want this time that never ever existed. Sure maybe not everyone was a pull hitter that can hit 20+ homeruns but how is that any worse than having a bunch of pee wee .240 hitters with no power?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by good hitters. I simply mean going back to the days of teams not striking out 10-15 times a game on average. Going back to the worst hitters in your lineup being .220 instead of having 3 guys under .200 because you value their power.


Maybe baseball will never return to that, but I think with the shift to shifting that good contact guys are going to become valuable again and these K or HR guys will start to fall off like they used to.


Unless we start making every park have dimensions smaller than my little league parks then things may not change and we'll move into the popup era.

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by good hitters. I simply mean going back to the days of teams not striking out 10-15 times a game on average. Going back to the worst hitters in your lineup being .220 instead of having 3 guys under .200 because you value their power.


Maybe baseball will never return to that, but I think with the shift to shifting that good contact guys are going to become valuable again and these K or HR guys will start to fall off like they used to.


Unless we start making every park have dimensions smaller than my little league parks then things may not change and we'll move into the popup era.

I understand that. I haven't checked but are there teams with more than one regular batting under .200?

I know that was the case early in the year but we know averages fluctuate a lot early. I rather wait till the end of the season to see if this remains true.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Rocky2018]

MLB Off-Topic

At the end of the day the game will continue to follow trends that win. The Rays were first team to dramatic shift and they were winning with a mediocre roster back then, Hou was most shifting team in MLB last year and won WS. Just like how Cubs and Hou tanked then built powerhouses and won it all now others are following suit, teams will do what has worked for others until it doesn’t anymore. Look at my Yankees they built contenders on high price FA and vets now they are very young because that’s what works now. Shifting is what’s hot now, the game will soon drift to a more mix of guys exploiting it and rebalance it out again minus select players. That’s the natural order of baseball. I’m tired of everyone wanting to change baseball all the time now for minor anomalies, let this magical game be what it is on it’s own. It will all balance out in the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TripleCrown9]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

They need to take the walls back to 600 feet, bring in the aluminum bats, juice up, and let's just go nuts.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It's funny. They wanted steroids gone. But they moved the fences in. Such a contradiction if you really think about it.

Sent from my SM-J327VPP using Tapatalk

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It's funny. They wanted steroids gone. But they moved the fences in. Such a contradiction if you really think about it.

Sent from my SM-J327VPP using Tapatalk

Also juiced up balls. I'm making a bigger stink of it now more than ever because I'm seeing the clear effect. Not the number of home runs but the ball's flight pattern. There is a stark and obvious difference.

But there can be so many arguments made for the fences from an organizational standpoint, such as adding more expensive seats that the crowd gets closer action with.

There is more to the contradiction than what you are thinking, and steroids aren't magic juice either way (I think their best effect looked to be endurance/recovery abilities). Not to mention it would also open up to pitchers as well, who arguably benefit as much as hitters do.

Plus the health risks...

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Players are striking out at a record rate so the issue is that players are choosing not to put the ball in play but swing for the fence. I do not believe eliminating the shift is going to create more offense.

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Players are striking out at a record rate so the issue is that players are choosing not to put the ball in play but swing for the fence. I do not believe eliminating the shift is going to create more offense.

It's an interesting contradiction from all serious baseball fans, and a reason why I think rule changes don't really mean happy fans.

On one side you have fans that complain there's too much offense. Too many home runs. But then you also have, there's too many strikeouts and not enough balls in play.

I get it. Maybe they can put the ball in play more but not always hit home runs. It just seems like a far-fetched hope.

Imagine saying that to basketball players. Maybe you can drive to the basket more but not always hit the layup.

If you want guys to put the ball in play, it would be criminal of them to not look for the more valuable result.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Sportsforever]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think the issue is that the home run has become "too" easy (something changed in 2015 if you look at the data). What I mean by this is the risk/reward for the offense favors going for the home run. Yes, you will strike out a lot, but since the home run is within reach you just hope to run into a few.

In order to accomplish what CMH is talking about, the possibility of a home run all need to decrease (and it will...it always has). When that happens, an offense has to string together hits to generate runs and strikeouts really hurt that effort.

[canes21]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It's an interesting contradiction from all serious baseball fans, and a reason why I think rule changes don't really mean happy fans.

On one side you have fans that complain there's too much offense. Too many home runs. But then you also have, there's too many strikeouts and not enough balls in play.

I get it. Maybe they can put the ball in play more but not always hit home runs. It just seems like a far-fetched hope.

Imagine saying that to basketball players. Maybe you can drive to the basket more but not always hit the layup.

If you want guys to put the ball in play, it would be criminal of them to not look for the more valuable result.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

You say this like there is no difference in swinging for homers and taking the risk of more strikeouts versus swinging to put the ball in play. There is easily a difference. Teams are putting too much value into one dimensional hitters and that's simply why shifts are so effective. Hitting the ball up the middle or to opposite field is becoming a lost art. It's all pull, pull, pull, and go for the homer. You still have teams like the Braves who value contact and hits over power, but the league as a while obviously doesn't and now we have a weird situation of less contact, more strikeouts, but more homers. I'm not a fan and it seems most aren't either.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Not arguing but adding to the conversation.

I see this said a lot. The we need to go back to the days of Gwynn and Boggs. Those hitters.

But everytime this is said, everyone only names Gwynn and Boggs. Those are two players out of 700+.

How are we making a shift "back" to something that never existed?

Canes said one day we will go back to lineups with good hitters. When did we have that though? There have always been an abundance weak hitters and a handful of greats.


I just think people want this time that never ever existed. Sure maybe not everyone was a pull hitter that can hit 20+ homeruns but how is that any worse than having a bunch of pee wee .240 hitters with no power?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

I think the reason why people just list Gwynn and Boggs is more out of brevity rather than they were the only 2 contact hitters back then. Hitting .300 used to be an almost holy accomplishment. When was the last time you heard a current day ballplayer bragging about batting .300? With the rise of OBP and SLG and strikeouts going up, it's just not emphasized as much. It's a better strategy to flail away for the 3-run homer than have the meticulously set up inning with a ground ball single, a hit-and-run, and a sac fly. There's no question that contact skills used to be far more emphasized in the past. If contact was still so important as it once was, the strikeout rate wouldn't have increased for, what, 20 years in a row?

But to say "shifting back to something that never existed" is a bridge too far, imo. That time most definitely did exist with batters emphasizing putting the ball in play. Teams manufactured runs. Home runs were far lower. Strikeouts were far lower. This all actually happened once upon a time. It's not made up.

[Sportsforever]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I keep seeing reference to strikeouts going up as if it's a recent trend...if you look at MLB history, it has always been trending towards more K's:

[TripleCrown9]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Interesting, strikeouts have gone down since testing while hits have increased.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Interesting, strikeouts have gone down since testing while hits have increased.

Hits is blue. K's is red. It's a poorly designed graph...