.258

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, JR Oriole said:

I think being able to hit a ball where 8 guys in front of you either can't get to it or can't get it to the base before you get there is a very cool skill....especially doing it approximately 37% of the time you show up at the plate for your entire career.  

Gunnar Henderson would hit .470 if his opponents averaged 5' 9", 160 pounds, the pitchers were all trying to complete a game every four days, there were no minorities and few non-Americans in the Majors, minor league systems barely existed, scouting was threadbare and primitive.  Just imagine any current MLBer playing in the Korean League, where Hyun Soo Kim hit .357 in consecutive seasons with almost twice as many walks as strikeouts.

[Moose Milligan]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Everyone knows that scientific base ball is the way to go.  Place hitting, bunting, hitting and running, never striking out.  Any 6' tall, 200 lb moose can hit a ball 400' once in a while.  Yep, it's been all downhill since 1920, boys.  The peak of the sport was the 1906 White Sox, who hit .230 and slugged .286 and won the Series.

You're poo-pooing it and I'm not saying the peak of baseball was the 1906 White Sox but their team K rate was 3.5.  and 2.6 BB rate.

I have to think that a sport with more balls in play would be fun to watch.  I know it was deadball so there was no power and that's fun and all but watching a team strike out 10+ times a night is tiresome.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

You're poo-pooing it and I'm not saying the peak of baseball was the 1906 White Sox but their team K rate was 3.5.  and 2.6 BB rate.

I have to think that a sport with more balls in play would be fun to watch.  I know it was deadball so there was no power and that's fun and all but watching a team strike out 10+ times a night is tiresome.

I think that if they are striking out 7 times a night, getting one bloop single, two routine groundballs to short and a can of corn to right field it's pretty much the same thing.

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Sure.  But it would be like the NFL not scoring enough and the solution is that you can't cover wide receivers outside the hash marks.

The NFL *did* make changes to open up offenses.   Compare what DBs were allowed to get away with in coverage now compared to the 1960s.   Compare the protection afforded quarterbacks today compared with in the 1970s.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

You're poo-pooing it and I'm not saying the peak of baseball was the 1906 White Sox but their team K rate was 3.5.  and 2.6 BB rate.

I have to think that a sport with more balls in play would be fun to watch.  I know it was deadball so there was no power and that's fun and all but watching a team strike out 10+ times a night is tiresome.

It would be very different, and I think it would be interesting.  But maybe not long term.  Error rates were much higher and they still scored less than four runs a game.  That White Sox team scored 570 runs.  I'm sure their fans loved it, but imagine being one of those 54-100 teams scoring two runs a game, with a cleanup hitter with zero homers.  Actually, those '06 White Sox most common cleanup hitters were Jiggs Donohue and George Davis who combined for one homer all season.

I'd rather watch 1890s baseball where they did all that hitting and running and bunting and stealing, hit few homers, but they scored 5, 6, 7 runs a game and whole teams hit well over .300.

[DrungoHazewood]

Just now, SteveA said:

The NFL *did* make changes to open up offenses.   Compare what DBs were allowed to get away with in coverage now compared to the 1960s.   Compare the protection afforded quarterbacks today compared with in the 1970s.

Sure, but they didn't say "hey, don't cover that guy even though you the ball is going to him."  MLB is saying that they know Joey Gallo is going to hit the ball *right here* but you aren't allowed to adjust (okay, optimize) your defense for that.

[Moose Milligan]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think that if they are striking out 7 times a night, getting one bloop single, two routine groundballs to short and a can of corn to right field it's pretty much the same thing.

Well yeah, because if they're not striking out it's automatically one bloop single, two routine ground balls and a can of corn to right field.  I mean, obviously.  Duh.

 

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It would be very different, and I think it would be interesting.  But maybe not long term.  Error rates were much higher and they still scored less than four runs a game.  That White Sox team scored 570 runs.  I'm sure their fans loved it, but imagine being one of those 54-100 teams scoring two runs a game, with a cleanup hitter with zero homers.  Actually, those '06 White Sox most common cleanup hitters were Jiggs Donohue and George Davis who combined for one homer all season.

I'd rather watch 1890s baseball where they did all that hitting and running and bunting and stealing, hit few homers, but they scored 5, 6, 7 runs a game and whole teams hit well over .300.

Ah, yeah, right, right, I was just getting ready to say that in fact, I'd prefer the 1890s style of play but you beat me to it.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Sure, but they didn't say "hey, don't cover that guy even though you the ball is going to him."  MLB is saying that they know Joey Gallo is going to hit the ball *right here* but you aren't allowed to adjust (okay, optimize) your defense for that.

Would it be similar to when zone defense was banned in the NBA?

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Moose Milligan said:

Well yeah, because if they're not striking out it's automatically one bloop single, two routine ground balls and a can of corn to right field.  I mean, obviously.  Duh.

 

Ah, yeah, right, right, I was just getting ready to say that in fact, I'd prefer the 1890s style of play but you beat me to it.

Most balls in play are routine outs.

Four more balls in play resulting in a single and three routine outs seems to me to be a pretty fair example of how a random game might go.

Would you prefer an extra walk or homerun?  We'd get more of those with fewer strikeouts.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

Most balls in play are routine outs.

Four more balls in play resulting in a single and three routine outs seems to me to be a pretty fair example of how a random game might go.

Would you prefer an extra walk or homerun?  We'd get more of those with fewer strikeouts.

Most balls in play are routine outs, sure.

And it does allow for more randomness.  Randomness such as this:

Sure, I'd prefer extra walks and homers.  But I'd also prefer more randomness, too.  Granted Mancini's shot off Lowe's face was an outlier but no one here's upset that I posted it.  

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Would it be similar to when zone defense was banned in the NBA?

Maybe, but that would validate a position I oppose so I'll go with no. 

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Most balls in play are routine outs.

Four more balls in play resulting in a single and three routine outs seems to me to be a pretty fair example of how a random game might go.

Would you prefer an extra walk or homerun?  We'd get more of those with fewer strikeouts.

What if we moved the mound back 6', but had all parks be 200' all around?  Who doesn't like 12-run-a-game baseball?

[jamalshw]

I used to be vehemently opposed to the idea of banning the shift, but while I'm not exactly a proponent of it, I'm not up in arms about it either. I'm interested to see if this helps return us to a game closer to what I remember seeing growing up. If that's how it plays out next year, I could be swayed to be in favor of it. I wouldn't mind seeing the league average bump up a good 15-20 points and with it the averages of our players as well. 

[JR Oriole]

1 minute ago, jamalshw said:

I used to be vehemently opposed to the idea of banning the shift, but while I'm not exactly a proponent of it, I'm not up in arms about it either. I'm interested to see if this helps return us to a game closer to what I remember seeing growing up. If that's how it plays out next year, I could be swayed to be in favor of it. I wouldn't mind seeing the league average bump up a good 15-20 points and with it the averages of our players as well. 

I definitely understand the school of thought that hitters should just adjust to it.....but in large part, they haven't.  And I am not patient enough at this point to wait for them to adjust.  So I am glad they are banning it.  But again, it is really for selfish reasons.  I watched so much baseball as a kid and I loved being able to tell a base hit directly off the bat.  Now I have no idea whether a liner off the bat will make its way through the infield. 

Case in point.....I knew the Marlins won Game 7 of the WS immediately when Renteria hit that ball because there was no way any fielder would have been there to get it.  I am glad that Omar Vizquel or Tony Fernandez were not standing right behind second base ready to field it.  But admittedly, that is also because I hated that Indians team for ruining our 1997 season.  

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, JR Oriole said:

I definitely understand the school of thought that hitters should just adjust to it.....but in large part, they haven't.  And I am not patient enough at this point to wait for them to adjust.  So I am glad they are banning it.  But again, it is really for selfish reasons.  I watched so much baseball as a kid and I loved being able to tell a base hit directly off the bat.  Now I have no idea whether a liner off the bat will make its way through the infield. 

Case in point.....I knew the Marlins won Game 7 of the WS immediately when Renteria hit that ball because there was no way any fielder would have been there to get it.  I am glad that Omar Vizquel or Tony Fernandez were not standing right behind second base ready to field it.  But admittedly, that is also because I hated that Indians team for ruining our 1997 season.  

For a lot of the ones that are getting hit hardest by the shift it would be dumb to adjust to it.

Lets take a bit of an extreme example.  Prime Chris Davis, he's hitting around 50 dongs a year, he's getting 70-80 walks a year.

Someone like that why would he adjust his approach even if he is losing 30 points of batting average to a shift?

Selling out for power makes more sense than beating the shift.