Nearly one-third of plate appearances this season have ended without the ball being put in play.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Sounds like a Launch Angle problem to me. ;-)
it sounds like people have over corrected what is deemed to be a good thing....couple guys in a line up the K ratio is not a big deal...the entire line up is just silly. at some point things that are good for you (team) become bad for you (team)...kind of like being out of balance.
it isn't good for the game or for the teams or the fans. I like homeruns a whole lot!
I think part of the problem is pitcher's are throwing much harder overall, and the ball is juiced. Therefore, a lot of swings and misses, but when contact is made, the ball is going to go far.
Joe DiMaggio finished his career with more Doubles than Strikeouts. Times have definitely changed!
rynoattack posted:I think part of the problem is pitcher's are throwing much harder overall, and the ball is juiced. Therefore, a lot of swings and misses, but when contact is made, the ball is going to go far.
Not to mention every ball park built in the last 20-25 years has had shorter fences than the one it replaced. This brings out the stupid in hitters. Now every 165 lb player in the majors and minors is swinging for the fences.
Great article. I think the best answer is a combination of the quotes from Bud Black and Joe Maddon.
I really believe a big factor is the combination of absolutely flawless infields & super athletic infielders. I would be curious to see On Base % for balls hit on ground between 25 years ago & today.
Basically, if you hit it on the ground today you are out, therefore, everyone is trying to hit it in the air & they are bigger & stronger than ever.
This is a fascinating topic. I agree pretty much with everything in this article except the prediction by Bud Black about a future trend to put the ball in play more. That is not going to happen unless they ban the shift.
Starters leaving the game before seeing a batter a third-time, increases in throwing velocity, more match-up pitching late in games, the shift, skill of infielders. All of these tell hitters and hitting coaches putting the ball on the ground is a losing strategy. Advanced stats made it this way.
oh...plus...chicks love the long ball...
old_school posted:it sounds like people have over corrected what is deemed to be a good thing....couple guys in a line up the K ratio is not a big deal...the entire line up is just silly. at some point things that are good for you (team) become bad for you (team)...kind of like being out of balance.
it isn't good for the game or for the teams or the fans. I like homeruns a whole lot!
Teams are actually going away from the Ks don't matter thing. a couple years ago the three true outcome teams dominated because the Ks were compensated by walks and homers but now the ball is likely juiced and anyone can hit homers. and when you can't separate with power anymore because even the replacement level player hits 15 and the average guy like 20 then suddenly lower Ks become more valuable again.
the notion that Ks don't matter never was correct. it is true that low K players have not beformed better than high K players but that was an indirect correlation. what was true is that Ks are less important than power. but given the same power the lower K guy is going to be better. I would rank the big 3 peripherals in importance: 1. power 2. contact 3. walks. and when the league gets closer together it makes sense that contact becomes important again.
the astros and indians were the two lowest K rate teams and the cubs made a big effort to lower their K rate before their championship year. granted the Braves and giants also were in the top6 so this isn't always an indicator but low Ks plus good power almost always means good hitting.
I don't think that the article mentioned that while strike outs have increased every year since 2013, runs per game have also increased every year. Scoring runs is still how you win, right? Don't look for anything to change until the RPG number starts going in the other direction. Too early to say for sure for this season.
MidAtlanticDad posted:I don't think that the article mentioned that while strike outs have increased every year since 2013, runs per game have also increased every year. Scoring runs is still how you win, right? Don't look for anything to change until the RPG number starts going in the other direction. Too early to say for sure for this season.
well runs have increased because the ball was juiced in 2015. between 2009 and 2014 the runs per game were actually going down.
Dominik85 posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:I don't think that the article mentioned that while strike outs have increased every year since 2013, runs per game have also increased every year. Scoring runs is still how you win, right? Don't look for anything to change until the RPG number starts going in the other direction. Too early to say for sure for this season.
well runs have increased because the ball was juiced in 2015. between 2009 and 2014 the runs per game were actually going down.
The ball change half way through 2015, right? That would explain 2015 and 2016. Why did it increase again in 2017? Was it just because HRs increased again? I really have no idea.
MidAtlanticDad posted:Dominik85 posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:I don't think that the article mentioned that while strike outs have increased every year since 2013, runs per game have also increased every year. Scoring runs is still how you win, right? Don't look for anything to change until the RPG number starts going in the other direction. Too early to say for sure for this season.
well runs have increased because the ball was juiced in 2015. between 2009 and 2014 the runs per game were actually going down.
The ball change half way through 2015, right? That would explain 2015 and 2016. Why did it increase again in 2017? Was it just because HRs increased again? I really have no idea.
yes, just homers. this time it probably was the players though who adjusted to the ball with higher launch angles. juiced balls mean fly balls are rewarded more.
btw I tested it last year and didn't find a strong correlation between LA and K rate. slight increase of Ks with higher LA but not a ton. probably not the cleanest statistical method but by creating LA buckets the effect wasn't huge.