What's the big deal with HRs

[JHodges57]

Why does video of HRs appear all the time? HRs are a dime a dozen. To me, there is no excitement in HRs any more. The payoff for the record setting number of HRs is the record number of strikeouts.


Every time I see another video of someone hitting a homerun I'm like *YAWN*.

[Master Live 013]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

I agree with the sentiment that homers have been devalued. I prefer it when there is less offense and the highs are in mid 40's with less than a handful reaching them.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

Alright, y'all can go watch games from the 70s.

Meanwhile, I'll load up some more home run highlights.

[Master Live 013]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

2011:




2012:




2013:




2014:

[Master Live 013]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

Right there in the 2010's. I even heard they had the internet back then.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

And here we are almost a decade later. The game (and the ball) has changed. Crazy how that happens.

The last time there was legitimately fewer than 4000 home runs in a season was 1992 (there were 3,306 in 1994, but they would've passed 4000 if not for the strike).

Hell, the almighty baseball purist National League was the first league to hit 3,000 in a season (in 2000). The American League didn't reach that until 2017.

2014 was the last "depowered" year at 4186. The next season increased by 723.

[Sportsforever]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

And here we are almost a decade later. The game (and the ball) has changed. Crazy how that happens.

A decade? It’s been 5 years since Stanton led the league with 37...not close to a decade.

I’m as big a baseball fan as you will ever find...and I can’t wait until Manfred and the powers that be go back to a more reasonable baseball. It’s gotten out of hand...


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[countryboy]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

While I agree that homeruns have been devalued, they still remain one of the most exciting plays in sports.

And before Triplecrown tells me to go watch games from the 70's, I love the game as much today as I ever have, I just wish that what I consider one of the most exciting plays in sports, still carried the same sense of accomplishment as it did back then.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

While I agree that homeruns have been devalued, they still remain one of the most exciting plays in sports.

And before Triplecrown tells me to go watch games from the 70's, I love the game as much today as I ever have, I just wish that what I consider one of the most exciting plays in sports, still carried the same sense of accomplishment as it did back then.

You were just saying how Bryce Harper's grand slam is part of why you feel baseball is the greatest sport on the planet.

Home runs haven't been devalued. They never will be. The increase in coverage and saturation makes it seem that way, but home runs are still the most exciting way to score points in any sport.

[countryboy]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

You were just saying how Bryce Harper's grand slam is part of why you feel baseball is the greatest sport on the planet.

Home runs haven't been devalued. They never will be. The increase in coverage and saturation makes it seem that way, but home runs are still the most exciting way to score points in any sport.

I know what I said and you need to read more carefully what I post. I said that I feel that homeruns are still one of the most exciting plays in all of sports.

They are devalued in the sense that they are happening more frequently and one of the reasons is due to alteration of the baseball to make them happen more frequently.

And to me the homerun loses some of the excitement and allure that made it so great to begin with when its happening so frequently and part of that is due to them being manufactured instead of happening "naturally".

[Blzer]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

If you're like me, you've essentially recognized the "look" of a ball that should be going out even from the behind-the-pitcher broadcast camera. You've identified things like what part of the bat it hit, the spin type of the ball, the sound of the hit, the speed that it leaves our view, the dimensions of the park they're playing in, the stadium's BTP cam angle itself, and heck even the angle that the player's head goes to watch it... and you're analyzing this in a quarter of a second. I subconsciously do this all the time (not just for home runs, but any kind of hit).

That being said, when I see a hit like this...

https://www.mlb.com/video/freddie-freeman-homers-31-on-a-fly-ball-to-left-center-field

I'm thinking: "Awesome slicer, split the gap! Get over the left fielder's head!" Never once has it crossed my mind that this ball might actually go over the fence. Low and behold...

This ball had absolutely no business going out. It's just too low for everything else that's happening with it. One-hopping the wall? Maybe, depends on whether it hits the track or the grass before it. My point is that I'm fully expecting this might.

Yes, the home run is devalued because players are hitting ones that don't earn it. Even mammoth blasts are a dime a dozen now, and I'm desensitized to it. It doesn't impress me because it doesn't make me feel like it's the player's doing. They are comparing them to blasts of the past, and the amount of excitement I got out of those before were of a higher amount of legitimacy.

Anyway, yeah I'm frankly bored of the long ball. Not so much the home run in and of itself, but the amount of players who appear to be less enthralled over a smash line drive single because it didn't go out, or being okay with striking out 200 times a year because it got them like eight more home runs. It's just not my brand. More power to those (no pun intended) whose brand it is.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

I'd like it to back to normal. But I also believe people over exaggerate the juiced balls. If anything it makes the pitchers that have low ERA's look even more immaculate.


Sent from my SM-J337VPP using Tapatalk

[CBoller1331]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

I don't have any doubt that the balls are different than what they used to be, but I think that the increase in home runs is also due to the increase in average fastball velocity along with the fact that swings have changed to promote a more line-drive-to-fly-ball approach instead of "getting on top of the ball" (I didn't really want to use the "launch-angle" buzzword there but it's the basically the same thing).

In the past smaller guys with good speed like Ketel Marte or Ozzie Albies would be taught to try to hit the ball on the ground and try to beat out an infield single, but infielders are so good today and with the increased amount of shifts almost every ground ball is an out. These guys are also strong enough to hit the ball out of the park, so they now swing to hit hard rising line-drives as opposed to ground balls.

I'd like to see the ball go back to "normal", but I don't know how much it will change the way the game is played.

[Blzer]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

I don't have any doubt that the balls are different than what they used to be, but I think that the increase in home runs is also due to the increase in average fastball velocity along with the fact that swings have changed to promote a more line-drive-to-fly-ball approach instead of "getting on top of the ball" (I didn't really want to use the "launch-angle" buzzword there but it's the basically the same thing).

You do know what "getting on top of the ball" means though, right?

Spoiler

Buzzword or not, the new swing does not promote line drives at all, it promotes fly balls (we're talking the "good" angles though, like 25-35 degrees). A hitter that squares it up will be attempting to do so with said angle. If they hit a legitimate line drive (5-15 degrees or so), that means they hit over it, and thereby would induce top spin. No matter, those have a chance of coming hard in front of the outfield for a base hit (or a double if hit at the right place), but it's not their home run and therefore they are disappoint.

If a player's intent is to find a swing plane that matches that of the pitcher's ball plane as opposed to a "completely flat" swing, I surely see some good in that for many particular reasons. However, if your swing plane is steeper than it or if you are doing too much on the front-end of the swing to force that lift, there are major holes that have been exhibited for the past few years. It is one of the several reasons you are seeing more strikeouts. Plus, with that kind of extreme tilt, swing under it and it is a guaranteed pop-up (if even a deep one), and swing over it and you either have a top-spin liner or a meh ground ball.

"Getting on top of the ball" has nothing to do with trying to swing flat or trying to hit grounders. It has to do with ensuring that your hands never go below the ball's height, as your barrel will assuredly do that for you. Go down with a direct route toward it to "level out" (even if that means the slight plane lift), then finish up. Now, I'm not sitting here advocating that approach (though I prefer it), I'm just clearing the air here.

Yes, it is true there are certain players who are more or less instructed to not try and hit the home run. Their other assets they bring to the lineup combined with a low probability of being successful due to "warning track power" provide such a notion, unlike Willie Mays Hayes entering Spring Training in Major League II, or like how we would play MVP Baseball (hold up for home run guys, but don't for others). There are few home run hitters today who attribute themselves as line drive hitters today, though there are a couple. Those who do (the "line drive with backspin" thing) are those whose approach encapsulates the "stay on top of the ball" mantra. They ain't tryin' to hit ground balls.

I of all people do not see sustained success with being a ground ball hitter, and furthermore I sometimes would attribute ground ball singles to simple luck. But such a trajectory path that can give you hard shot grounders as well as backspin liners is a-ok with me, even by the biggest power hitters. However, because of the juiced balls today, that changes everything; yesterday's warning track flyout is today's no-doubter.

I would take "unjuiced balls" back again tomorrow, and you will see incredibly different stats by players who continue their same approaches. Everyone will be hitting less home runs, in particular.

As for your shifts comment, I want to legally rid those as well, but I have for years (long, long before they were cool).

EDIT: On that note, Bellinger just upswinged his way to a single-season-leading 42nd home run that Acuña nearly robbed. Again, few years ago that leads to just a deep sacrifice fly, and in other cases is an 0-fer. I don't think players would be swinging so upward so often if it didn't produce positive results for themselves. That being said, he was always on top of the ball throughout the swing.

[CBoller1331]

Re: What's the big deal with HRs

You do know what "getting on top of the ball" means though, right?

Spoiler

Buzzword or not, the new swing does not promote line drives at all, it promotes fly balls (we're talking the "good" angles though, like 25-35 degrees). A hitter that squares it up will be attempting to do so with said angle. If they hit a legitimate line drive (5-15 degrees or so), that means they hit over it, and thereby would induce top spin. No matter, those have a chance of coming hard in front of the outfield for a base hit (or a double if hit at the right place), but it's not their home run and therefore they are disappoint.

If a player's intent is to find a swing plane that matches that of the pitcher's ball plane as opposed to a "completely flat" swing, I surely see some good in that for many particular reasons. However, if your swing plane is steeper than it or if you are doing too much on the front-end of the swing to force that lift, there are major holes that have been exhibited for the past few years. It is one of the several reasons you are seeing more strikeouts. Plus, with that kind of extreme tilt, swing under it and it is a guaranteed pop-up (if even a deep one), and swing over it and you either have a top-spin liner or a meh ground ball.

"Getting on top of the ball" has nothing to do with trying to swing flat or trying to hit grounders. It has to do with ensuring that your hands never go below the ball's height, as your barrel will assuredly do that for you. Go down with a direct route toward it to "level out" (even if that means the slight plane lift), then finish up. Now, I'm not sitting here advocating that approach (though I prefer it), I'm just clearing the air here.

Yes, it is true there are certain players who are more or less instructed to not try and hit the home run. Their other assets they bring to the lineup combined with a low probability of being successful due to "warning track power" provide such a notion, unlike Willie Mays Hayes entering Spring Training in Major League II, or like how we would play MVP Baseball (hold up for home run guys, but don't for others). There are few home run hitters today who attribute themselves as line drive hitters today, though there are a couple. Those who do (the "line drive with backspin" thing) are those whose approach encapsulates the "stay on top of the ball" mantra. They ain't tryin' to hit ground balls.

I of all people do not see sustained success with being a ground ball hitter, and furthermore I sometimes would attribute ground ball singles to simple luck. But such a trajectory path that can give you hard shot grounders as well as backspin liners is a-ok with me, even by the biggest power hitters. However, because of the juiced balls today, that changes everything; yesterday's warning track flyout is today's no-doubter.

I would take "unjuiced balls" back again tomorrow, and you will see incredibly different stats by players who continue their same approaches. Everyone will be hitting less home runs, in particular.

As for your shifts comment, I want to legally rid those as well, but I have for years (long, long before they were cool).

EDIT: On that note, Bellinger just upswinged his way to a single-season-leading 42nd home run that Acuña nearly robbed. Again, few years ago that leads to just a deep sacrifice fly, and in other cases is an 0-fer. I don't think players would be swinging so upward so often if it didn't produce positive results for themselves. That being said, he was always on top of the ball throughout the swing.

As a pitcher I'll definitely admit I am not as familiar with the hitting buzzwords as the pitching ones. My misuse of "getting on top of the ball" probably explains why I don't get to swing the bat any more

My main point is that offensive approaches have changed to promote fly balls which certainly has helped cause the increase in home runs