Minor League K Rates

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Why do that when we have Ted Williams on ice?

BABIP plummets with Manny playing rover.

[Tony-OH]

31 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Isn't that on our development guys?

I can't answer that yet. Seems like it's across baseball right now so it doesn't appear that the Orioles are any different.

[Just Regular]

While its true that more Damage to Contact ratio is sought after, I think some of these early results too are regular, "Hitting a baseball is the hardest thing in sports" stuff.

I believe MLB vets like Trey can take 20 at-bats in the spring and be good.    But the Low-A guys the Wood Ducks are striking out, or being struck out by, are youngsters who missed their reps.    Pitchers don't need game reps to refine their craft like they used to.    What was it Earl said, "the hitters will let me know".    Now the quants are like your Rhapsodo readings say you don't get to face hitters.

Good luck minor league hitters when the Rhapsodo-approved execute and you haven't seen live pitching since August 2019.

I did see Drungo's 186 per 600, and think .300 is now more of a strikeout average than a batting average.

[Three Run Homer]

I think the root cause of the rise in strikeouts is that pitcher training and development has improved dramatically in the last 10 years.  I'm sure average fastball velocity has jumped substantially at all levels of baseball over the last decade.  Pitchers can go to Driveline over the offseason and add 3 MPH plus better movement.

The launch angle revolution has also contributed to rising strikeouts, but I see that as an optimal response by hitters to the increase in pitcher velocity and movement, rather than an independent factor.  As it becomes harder to hit for average, it becomes harder to score runs by stringing singles and walks together, making it more important to hit home runs. 

Lowering the mound helped after 1968 and I would try that again before I'd try moving the mound back.  Pitchers have spent all their lives learning to throw from 60.5 feet; I don't see how they could adjust to throwing 62 feet, especially for breaking balls.  

[DrungoHazewood]

13 hours ago, OrioleDog said:

I did see Drungo's 186 per 600, and think .300 is now more of a strikeout average than a batting average.

For decades I've told everyone who'd listen that batting average doesn't matter nearly so much as OBP and SLG. But it's sad that league averages are in the .230s and no major leaguer has hit .350 since Josh Hamilton a decade ago.  If there's anything that would get me to watch more baseball it's someone making a run at .400.

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, Three Run Homer said:

I think the root cause of the rise in strikeouts is that pitcher training and development has improved dramatically in the last 10 years.  I'm sure average fastball velocity has jumped substantially at all levels of baseball over the last decade.  Pitchers can go to Driveline over the offseason and add 3 MPH plus better movement.

The launch angle revolution has also contributed to rising strikeouts, but I see that as an optimal response by hitters to the increase in pitcher velocity and movement, rather than an independent factor.  As it becomes harder to hit for average, it becomes harder to score runs by stringing singles and walks together, making it more important to hit home runs. 

Lowering the mound helped after 1968 and I would try that again before I'd try moving the mound back.  Pitchers have spent all their lives learning to throw from 60.5 feet; I don't see how they could adjust to throwing 62 feet, especially for breaking balls.  

On another board someone observed that, yes, velocity is a big part.  But fastballs as a percentage of pitches are down quite a lot.  Spin rate and 92 mph wipeout breaking balls are probably just as much to blame.

I'm not convinced that the mound height is as much a factor as some think.  In 1893 they went from flat ground and roughly 56' to a mound and 60' 6" and runs jumped.  The ~4' was a much bigger deal than the mound.  In '69 they redefined the strike zone along with lowering the mound a bit.  And runs were still pretty low until the later 70s.  My mostly unscientific guess is that lowering the mound 6" wouldn't produce a noticeable effect.  Throwing from flat ground might be like moving the distance back a foot or so.  Maybe... but the reaction times would be the same.

[Sports Guy]

I wonder exactly what the analytics are saying.

The NBA is facing some similar issues in terms of how the game is being played.  What the analytics in the NBA have said is that the mid range game is a waste.  Layups, foul shots and 3 pointers.  Teams are jacking up 30-40 3s a game.

Do the MLB analytics say that singles don’t matter?  What about doubles and triples?

I get the importance of homers and walks and i get why they don’t care about Ks but what about the rest of it?  Any studies on that?

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

On another board someone observed that, yes, velocity is a big part.

I feel so....violated!

[Can_of_corn]

11 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I wonder exactly what the analytics are saying.

The NBA is facing some similar issues in terms of how the game is being played.  What the analytics in the NBA have said is that the mid range game is a waste.  Layups, foul shots and 3 pointers.  Teams are jacking up 30-40 3s a game.

Do the MLB analytics say that singles don’t matter?  What about doubles and triples?

I get the importance of homers and walks and i get why they don’t care about Ks but what about the rest of it?  Any studies on that?

You've read The Book right?

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

You've read The Book right?

No

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

No

I suggest you do.

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Playing-Percentages-Baseball-ebook/dp/B00GW6A89Y/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=The+Book+baseball&qid=1620909940&s=digital-text&sr=1-3

 

Basically every outcome changes the probability of a team scoring in an inning.  They know the various values.  

Teams have evidently found that the value of additional homeruns is high enough to counter the additional outs generated by this strategy.  Hits other than homeruns just don't provide enough value.

[Sports Guy]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I suggest you do.

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Playing-Percentages-Baseball-ebook/dp/B00GW6A89Y/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=The+Book+baseball&qid=1620909940&s=digital-text&sr=1-3

Yea that’s a big no for me. Sounds painful.

[ChrisP]

I think we can blame this on 2 people...Tony LaRussa & Joe Maddon. Tony started it with the power/specialized RP's & Joe started the massive shifts which led to players changing swings, etc..

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

I think we can blame this on 2 people...Tony LaRussa & Joe Maddon. Tony started it with the power/specialized RP's & Joe started the massive shifts which led to players changing swings, etc..

The impact of the shifts, is, imo, overrated.

This is all a natural progression in which teams prioritize behaviors that increase the odds of them winning.  It was going to happen regardless of what La Russa or Maddon did. 

If you want to assign blame, wouldn't Weaver be a better starting point?

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea that’s a big no for me. Sounds painful.

A lot of it is of the form: People in baseball say X.  Is X true?  Let's look at the facts and find out. 

For example, is bunting a bad idea?  The answer is sometimes it's a very poor thing, often even.  But sometimes it's justifiable, and sometimes you should definitely bunt, and here's what those situations are based on analysis.  It's arguably the most important book on baseball and baseball strategy in the past 20 years.