How the Juiced Ball Killed the Orioles

[Camden_yardbird]

A few weeks ago someone wrote a thread about how the launch angle revolution was affecting the Orioles, and while I think there is some validity to that theory, I do not think it accounts for everything.  But it got me thinking, "what if the launch angle revolition is a symptom of something bigger."

Then the news came out, "MLB denies they are juicing the ball."  In the quick highlights and fast information era we live in that is the headline which spread.  The context however was a far different thing, MLB only admitted that there was no significant change between 2016 and 2017 baseball.  What if the ball were changed before then?  We certainly had a lot of evidence (increased home runs being the obvious one) to suggest that this isn't just a 2017 trend, no, it goes back further.

Are the Balls juiced?  Evidence is trending in that direction.  Studies by Ben Lindberg and Mitchel Lichtman (The Ringer) have show there are a number of changes between pre 2016 balls and post 2016 balls.  The seams are lower, the ball is "bouncier," and the circumference is smaller.  There is no huge change, but small incremental changes.  Rob Arthur (538) has built on this analysis, showing that lower wind resistances (due to changes in the ball) has lead to increased in home runs.

So if this is happening what effect would this have on an Orioles model that built itself around a few well known strengths, most notably hitting home runs, defense, strong bullpen pitching, and more than any other team a willingness to utilize the full extent of their 40 man roster.

Let's take the last one first because it's something I have been thinking about a lot.  There are differences between the minor league ball and the major league ball.  They are not manufactured in the same place and players have noticed a difference.  Earlier this year Jose Barrios of the Twins was asked why he is doing so much better this year.  His answer was interesting, it's because he started throwing side sessions in the minors with major league baseballs.  There is a difference is how the two balls perform.  And then we have the Orioles, who use every inch of the 40 man roster, transferring pitchers between the major and minor leagues on a daily basis.  We have certainly seen an increase in ERA, especially this year, in the bullpen and amongst those players who are being transferred a lot.  It is not outside the realm of possibility that the different baseballs could be having an effect on their performance.  Then again there has always been a difference in the baseballs, so maybe this is a non starter but it's worth recognizing as a possible effect on performance.

When everyone hits homeruns, no one is special.  The increase in homeruns has certainly brought the league up to an Orioles team that was built to hit more home runs then the other guy.  The Orioles came along in 2012 and said to the league "we are okay having a lineup full of three outcome hitters, and we will take your under utilized three outcome hitters and succeed."  It's was an iteration of the money ball concept, and empirically it worked.  But the league always catches up.  More teams started grabbing up three outcome hitters, the league started adjusting to facing these types of hitters.  Shifts started to take away hits on the edges.  But now we have the coup de gras, juice the ball and now you have second baseman hitting 40 home runs a year.  The Orioles system is nothing special and despite having a team built around power they have been passed by many teams hitting more homeruns.  Rather than the launch angle revolution leading to more home runs perhaps the real progression is the juiced ball leading to a performance increase from those who can increase launch angle, thus resulting in more people trying it and more home runs.  The ball came first, then the approach, then the outcome.

Corresponding with a shift in offense toward homeruns the Orioles started sacrificing outfield defense for power.  Mark Trumbo and Seth Smith play the majority of games in RF.  But with the juiced baseball hard hit rates are up 3% and there are more flyballs.  The infield defense is less beneficial, and the slow outfield defense is a bigger liability.

The ultimate effect of all of these changes is to have rendered the Orioles model toothless and we have seen a decrease in performance.  For a team that "made hay" on the margins, the margins are shrinking and a lot of it has to do with the juiced baseball.  Does this theory have holes?  Yes.  Is player performance more to blame than a change in the baseball?  Certainly.  But it's worth noting that the juiced baseball is not something that would help the Orioles competitive model.

 

[esmd]

If the ball is juiced, how come our guys that already hit a lot of home runs like Trumbo, Machado, Davis, Jones, etc., aren't seeing a spike in performance?  I find it hard to believe the rest of the league is benefiting while the O's aren't seeing an increase in HR's.  The fact is that our offensive production compared to previous years is down.  If the ball was juiced, wouldn't we see more production?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, esmd said:

If the ball is juiced, how come our guys that already hit a lot of home runs like Trumbo, Machado, Davis, Jones, etc., aren't seeing a spike in performance?  I find it hard to believe the rest of the league is benefiting while the O's aren't seeing an increase in HR's.  The fact is that our offensive production compared to previous years is down.  If the ball was juiced, wouldn't we see more production?

You ever hear the story about when Earl had them cut the infield grass extra long to help his already talented infield?

I think that is part of it.

[Moose Milligan]

The pitching sucks.  

[Frobby]

We are hitting fewer homers than we were before they juiced the baseball.    That can't be blamed on juicing the baseball.    The other things you say make some sense, but our pitchers are doing a lousy job of HR suppression.      Last year we outhomered opponents 253-183; this year we are on pace to be outhomered 226-237.    So, we're on pace to be down 27 (-11%) homers while our opponents are on pace to be up 54 (+30%).    The league as a whole is +6%.      

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

The pitching sucks.  

You have to be able to miss bats.  Baltimore is 25th in team K rate.

[sportsfan8703]

We are a terrible road team that isn't built to win in bigger ballparks. Our guys have WTP there and the OF defense gets exposed. 

Playing on the road is the obvious answer. Although I do agree that the juiced ball has allowed other teams to copy our strategy and has exposed are pitch to contact  SP's. 

[Cumberbundy]

We lose our advantage and our weaknesses are magnified. We can't run which means more doubles against us and we are able to take the extra base less frequently. We can't miss bats and our d is slow everywhere, a ball being hit with more velocity kills us. 

[Babypowder]

I don't see how this makes sense. Why would the juiced ball hurt the Orioles ability to hit home runs? A juiced ball doesn't put the Orioles at a disadvantage, they should see the same increase in home runs as everyone else. They've hit less, that isn't the ball. How could the ball only help everyone else hit more home runs while causing the Orioles to be less effective?

The hitters should be hitting slightly more homers, and the pitching should be allowing slightly more homers if all that has changed with the Orioles is the ball. That obviously is not the case.

[Ripken]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

The pitching sucks.  

Really, really sucks.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Babypowder said:

I don't see how this makes sense. Why would the juiced ball hurt the Orioles ability to hit home runs? A juiced ball doesn't put the Orioles at a disadvantage, they should see the same increase in home runs as everyone else. They've hit less, that isn't the ball. How could the ball only help everyone else hit more home runs while causing the Orioles to be less effective?

The hitters should be hitting slightly more homers, and the pitching should be allowing slightly more homers if all that has changed with the Orioles is the ball. That obviously is not the case.

Not necessarily. 

[Babypowder]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Not necessarily. 

If the ball is the only changed variable, why not?

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Babypowder said:

If the ball is the only changed variable, why not?

There's always going to be some variance.     We were at an extremely high peak on homers last year.     Still, I do think we've underperformed on homers, given the current environment.   But I'm more worried about the 30% increase in homers allowed, which is five times the average 6% increase.    

[Babypowder]

Just now, Frobby said:

There's always going to be some variance.     We were at an extremely high peak on homers last year.     Still, I do think we've underperformed on homers, given the current environment.   But I'm more worried about the 30% increase in homers allowed, which is five times the average 6% increase.    

Of course there's always variance. What I am saying is, if you replay all of last season exactly the way it happened and just inserted the juiced ball into it, the team would hit more homers... probably inline with the increase throughout the league.

Obviously the ball is not the only variable that has changed. It doesn't make sense that the new ball would make the Orioles worse, specifically.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Babypowder said:

If the ball is the only changed variable, why not?

I mentioned Earl and the long grass earlier.

Going to go real simple with this one, broadest scenario.

Let us say that the juiced ball makes 70% of balls that would have died on the warning track home runs.  If a team like the Orioles had less balls falling into that category (because they were already going out) they would see less of an increase.  All of the other possible outcomes, strike outs, ground balls, pop outs, are not going to be effected by the juiced ball.