Are Analytics killing Baseball

[Jr.]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

Players can change their natural swing path if they wanted to. Just like when you get a pitch on the outside of the plate, you go the other way with it. If you try and pull it, you end up grounding out.

You don't change your swing to go the other way. You let the pitch get deeper, which is why you more often see guys hit the ball in the air that way rather than on the ground when an extreme pull shift is employed. When they do hit it on the ground, it's an abbreviated swing.

Cody Bellinger is a good example from the playoffs. He had a couple of backside hits in the NLCS and World Series that ended up as singles. I would bet anything the Brewers and Red Sox were 100% okay with that considering they didn't change their alignment and the ball didn't go out of the park. Without the shift, Bellinger is more likely to keep his natural swing, knowing that even if he rolls over he's got a good chance at a hit through the 3/4 hole. The shift lowers the possibility of a base hit when the hitter is swinging for the fences.

You contradict yourself with complaining about guys not going the other way, but also wanting power guys to drive in runs. For the most part, extreme shifts are employed against power hitters (power hitters tend to pull the ball much more). So do you want them hitting for power, or hitting for contact by going backside?

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

Wut?

Anyway to the other dude who I was asking in the first place, what about George Springer's low average, low steals, makes him a better leadoff hitter than the ones you say shouldn't be hitting in that spot, like Rizzo? I'm not understanding why he is a leadoff hitter but the other ones can't do it. What's the old school rationale for Springer at leadoff?

The sample sizes cited are way too small to be able to infer anything meaningful. The OP is clearly in the “anti-intellectualism” basket.

I also didn’t say Rizzo was a bad option, he was one of the examples of teams putting their best hitters at the top of the order.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

....but is baseball killing analytics? Let's mull that over.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

The sample sizes cited are way too small to be able to infer anything meaningful. The OP is clearly in the “anti-intellectualism” basket.

I also didn’t say Rizzo was a bad option, he was one of the examples of teams putting their best hitters at the top of the order.

I said the other guy, referring to OP, all of this the entire time was to him lol. I don't really remember what the old school ideal for a leadoff hitter is, small, fast, high average? Altuve? Even Tony Kemp if you just take out the average part? He singled out Springer saying "George Springer is a leadoff hitter" before going onto Bryce, but how does George Springer fit the old leadoff hitter rules? He seems like a guy you might've hit 5 or 6 if not 3 in the past, not leadoff. I'm trying to understand how that fits.

[Speedy]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

No, analytics isn't killing baseball.

Furthermore, I don't think baseball can be killed.

I agree that it isn't killing the game.

But I also think it's somewhat overused in the postseason when the law of averages doesn't exactly apply in such a short series (7 games versus 162). An example is how useless the bunt is made out to be with sabermetrics but in the postseason, a bunt could be huge. Another example is moving a runner over by grounding out to the right side of the infield with 0 out and a guy on 2nd...sabermetrics sees that as being as productive as a strikeout but that's not true either in the postseason (well, frankly ever, but that's beside the point).

I would argue though...I think the change in relief pitching the last few years has got to be one of the biggest changes to the game of baseball in its history. Using starters less (primarily due to injury prevention but also that the relief pitching is on par with the starters in some cases) doubled with the use of analytics...it all is increasingly putting more value on relief pitching. Being able to have a "guy" to handle the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th...that's a mindset every GM has now...and that's beyond the mis-match guys in the pen that is frankly a requisite now. I seriously look for MLB to cap the number of relief pitchers that can be used in the next 5 years.

[MBMavs20]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

The leadoff spot only matters in the first inning, for one, and assuming the batters ahead of the cleanup hitter will be on is totally predictive and thus an inefficient way to construct a lineup. You want the guys most proficient at getting on base and hitting for extra bases getting the most at bats.

Teams with deep lineups occasionally will put guys like that in the leadoff spot; off the top of my head I can think of Harper, Rizzo, and Springer as examples.

Springer is the Astros regular leadoff hitter so I am really sure what you mean by teams with deep lineups occasionally will hit guys like this in the leadoff spot.

What about Springer's 265/346/434 slash line with 6 steals and 22 homers makes him an ideal leadoff hitter?

Not sure what you mean. Springer in his rookie year did not bat leadoff. His second year in 2015 the Astros made him their leadoff hitter. A.J. Hinch liked the fact he was an aggressive hitter and could work the counts.

Wut?

Anyway to the other dude who I was asking in the first place, what about George Springer's low average, low steals, makes him a better leadoff hitter than the ones you say shouldn't be hitting in that spot, like Rizzo? I'm not understanding why he is a leadoff hitter but the other ones can't do it. What's the old school rationale for Springer at leadoff?

Their is no old school rational for hitting Springer in the leadoff spot. That is where the Astros like him to hit.

My point about hitting Harper or Rizzo leadoff is this: They are power hitters who drive in runs for their team. Springer is not that type of hitter for the Astros and he never has been. He is a leadoff hitter with power. Just like Ricky Henderson, who teams never had hit 3rd or 4th.

Springer's speed makes him better than Rizzo in the leadoff spot alone.

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

I said the other guy, referring to OP, all of this the entire time was to him lol. I don't really remember what the old school ideal for a leadoff hitter is, small, fast, high average? Altuve? Even Tony Kemp if you just take out the average part? He singled out Springer saying "George Springer is a leadoff hitter" before going onto Bryce, but how does George Springer fit the old leadoff hitter rules? He seems like a guy you might've hit 5 or 6 if not 3 in the past, not leadoff. I'm trying to understand how that fits.

Yeah my bad lol

The trend back in the day was putting guys who steal bases at the top, for sure, but 30-35 years ago you had guys like Tim Raines and Rickey Henderson who were both historically good and efficient at it. They also has career .385 and .401 OBPs, respectively, which is why they’re the two best leadoff hitters of all time. Over the years teams have realized that stealing isn’t really worth it unless you have guys that had at least a 75% success rate, and the focus has shifted to putting guys who can get on base because of the increased amount of PA’s that I alluded to earlier.

[MBMavs20]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

Because a .346 on base percentage is very good and his 10% walk rate is above average.

But people are going to continually make excuses for not wanting to learn new things so there’s really no sense in trying to convince someone why they’re not killing baseball. Big mistake on my part.

Not learning new things?

I am not saying you can't learn new things from Analytics. It's just a tool you can use. Doesn't always mean it's right or it will work.

I think teams are relying on Analytics too much. Hitting is down, strikeouts are up, and starters are becoming 5 inning pitchers.

Hitters need to make adjustments. Period.

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

Not learning new things?

I am not saying you can't learn new things from Analytics. It's just a tool you can use. Doesn't always mean it's right or it will work.

I think teams are relying on Analytics too much. Hitting is down, strikeouts are up, and starters are becoming 5 inning pitchers.

Hitters need to make adjustments. Period.

That explains why the teams who spend the most resources on data and analytics have been the most successful in recent years. There’s a reason why teams have followed the Astros lead.

It’s not a belief system or a series of random numbers and equations, it’s literally just quantifying things that happen during games and putting them into scales that can be understood by the average person to show a more in-depth look at individual players and teams.

[rdnk]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

The batting order only matters in the 1st inning, after that, god only knows who will be starting an inning off. Your lead-off hitter might be coming on with 2 outs, your cleanup guy leading off and your no. 9 hitter coming to bat with the bases loaded. In theory, managers should put their best hitter first, as there is a higher chance of getting more plate appearances.

I don't like watching a game with 7 pitching changes, but I get why they do it. Other than aces, I think in the next decade or so, the idea of the starting pitcher we know and love is going to die a painful death. There is a reason the Rays' coaching staff got raided.

Teams would stop shifting if pull heavy players would start slap hitting or bunting away from the shift.

There is a downside to increasing your launch angle; teams and pitchers just haven't figured out how to exploit it yet. It's not like the uppercut swing is anything new.

[KSUowls]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

Short answer yes. If not killing it, it's making it a lot less enjoyable to watch. For me it mostly revolves around two things. First is the notion of the "3 true outcomes" thing of a strikeout, walk, or homerun. Strikeouts are fun to watch when your team gets them, but they are infuriating when your team is on the receiving end. More strikeouts also means less balls in play so fewer opportunities for those web gems.

This all also has the effect of an absurd amount of bullpen changes throughout the game (more commercial breaks), and it would be odd if the lack of command that so many pitchers have these days was just a strange coincidence and didn't have anything to do with this emphasis on strikeouts.

I'm not going to argue the effectiveness of analytics. Baseball is just a more enjoyable game when there is more action on the field and we don't have to sit through an extra 20 minutes of commercial breaks each game because the starter goes 5 and then you use 5 pitchers to cover the final 4 innings.

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

The batting order only matters in the 1st inning, after that, god only knows who will be starting an inning off. Your lead-off hitter might be coming on with 2 outs, your cleanup guy leading off and your no. 9 hitter coming to bat with the bases loaded. In theory, managers should put their best hitter first, as there is a higher chance of getting more plate appearances.

I don't like watching a game with 7 pitching changes, but I get why they do it. Other than aces, I think in the next decade or so, the idea of the starting pitcher we know and love is going to die a painful death. There is a reason the Rays' coaching staff got raided.

Teams would stop shifting if pull heavy players would start slap hitting or bunting away from the shift.

There is a downside to increasing your launch angle; teams and pitchers just haven't figured out how to exploit it yet. It's not like the uppercut swing is anything new.

I disagree a bit with the starting pitcher part; I think guys who are capable of going 6-7 innings will always be more valuable, and part of the reason why teams do bullpen games is because of who they have at their disposal. I’d imagine that the A’s would not have gone the route they did in the wild card game if Sean Manaea was healthy, for example.

[rdnk]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

I disagree a bit with the starting pitcher part; I think guys who are capable of going 6-7 innings will always be more valuable, and part of the reason why teams do bullpen games is because of who they have at their disposal. I’d imagine that the A’s would not have gone the route they did in the wild card game if Sean Manaea was healthy, for example.

I agree, but I think it is a slowly dying breed. I also think that Manaea would have had a short leash in the WC game with a fully rested bullpen.

[MBMavs20]

Re: Is Analytics killing Baseball

They should have started Edwin Jackson in the WC game against the Yankees. A veteran starter with playoff experience.

I am not sure how much longer this whole let's start relievers trend is going to last.

The Rays did win 90 games this year using relievers as starters and were 2nd in the American League in ERA.

However, I think we can agree that the American League was historically bad this year with 5 teams with 95 loses and 3 teams with 100 loses. The Rays beat up on bad teams this year, going 56-30 against teams with a losing record and only 34-42 against teams with a winning record.

[Caulfield]

Re: Are Analytics killing Baseball

For anyone concerned the sky is falling, I highly recommend the new book Power Ball by Rob Neyer. Came out last month and I've been reading and enjoying it immensely, it should alleviate any fears about the death of baseball and give one a better and deeper understanding of just what it is that's taking place in today's game. Since alot of it involves the A's Billy Beane, maybe Brad Pitt can reprise his role from Moneyball when Hollywood comes a calling lol