James Shields

[Reddy]

How many pitchers from this current generation are going to make the Hall of Fame or even make it to 200 wins?

 

There might be more focus on pitching than ever before...but it's obviously going to shift back to hitters at some point, because casual fans clearly prefer offense to defense.

 

If that wasn't the case. soccer/football would be much more popular in the US than it is.

 

 

 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/226964-...-the-90s/page/8

 

Take the "Top 30 pitchers from the 90's" and adjust their statistics to the new norm of the last few seasons for offense.

 

Yet another factor is the fascination with radar gun readings, many of which have been cranked up 2-3 MPH higher than reality in order to get fans more excited about numbers in the 100's.

 

Are we to believe pitchers magically are throwing much harder in the last five years than at any time in history, after basically having the notion that guys in the 50's and 60's like Sudden Sam McDowell, Ryne Duren or Nolan Ryan threw that much harder than anyone in modern baseball?

 

um... yes? emphatically yes?

 

[Eminor3rd]

Using Mike Trout as the baseline for any argument is silly. He's the exception, not the rule. How many guys can strike out near his rate while still hitting near or over .300 with an OBP of around .400? I'm not going to spend time looking it up but my guess is you'd be hard pressed to find many. In defense of the previous poster, I DO believe the high strikeout rates of a few of the Cubs' prospects is a real concern. I think far too many posters on this forum too quickly discount this issue. Baez is going to have an awfully hard time being a productive offensive player if he's striking out 35%+ of the time even if he cranks out 30 HR. Same goes for Bryant. The question is if Bryant strikes out at an incredibly high rate is he more likely to put up numbers closer to Mike Trout or White Sox Adam Dunn? My guess is he would end up closer to the latter which would obviously be a huge disappointment for those expecting all star worthy numbers from him over the next few years.

 

You're talking about something completely different with your example. Mike Trout is irrelevant. I'll try to boil it down further:

 

1. Strikeouts do contribute to bad offense.

 

2. Bad offense is bad offense regardless of strikeouts. Good offense is good offense, regardless of strikeouts.

 

3. You can say "Kris Bryant won't be good because he'll strikeout too much." You cannot say "Kris Bryant cannot be good if strikes out a bunch."

[Eminor3rd]

DP arguments about strikeouts are beyond lame. If you hit the ball there are no strike em out, throw em outs either. Strikeouts are fine if you are Mike Trout. They are not fine when you fan 140 times and have an OPS under .700, which there were several in 2014, including Flowers. I think there were 36 players that fanned over 100 times and had an OPS under .700. If you cannot hit, at least move runners around some other way. No one freaks out at run producers fanning. Its the ither guys. 100 strikeouts in a season used to be embarrassing, now 4 guys a team on average reach that level and far beyond. Strikeouts are way up, runs are down. Hit the ball.Some of those will become hits. Some will become errors. Some will be iuts that don't make a difference. Some will become walks as you foul off a tough pitch or 2. Some will be double plays but not nearly enough to offset the good that can happen if you just hit the ball.

 

You're once again missing the forest for the trees because you're focusing on one tangential point from my post.

 

No matter what you want to think, you cannot tell me if a guy is good or not based on how many times he strikes out. Those strikeouts are a factor, but you can be a good player despite them. That's the whole point I'm making.

[Eminor3rd]

How many pitchers from this current generation are going to make the Hall of Fame or even make it to 200 wins?

 

There might be more focus on pitching than ever before...but it's obviously going to shift back to hitters at some point, because casual fans clearly prefer offense to defense.

 

If that wasn't the case. soccer/football would be much more popular in the US than it is.

 

 

 

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/226964-...-the-90s/page/8

 

Take the "Top 30 pitchers from the 90's" and adjust their statistics to the new norm of the last few seasons for offense.

 

Yet another factor is the fascination with radar gun readings, many of which have been cranked up 2-3 MPH higher than reality in order to get fans more excited about numbers in the 100's.

 

Are we to believe pitchers magically are throwing much harder in the last five years than at any time in history, after basically having the notion that guys in the 50's and 60's like Sudden Sam McDowell, Ryne Duren or Nolan Ryan threw that much harder than anyone in modern baseball?

 

This is one of the strangest posts I've ever read.

 

[Eminor3rd]

um... yes? emphatically yes?

 

Lol pretty much.

[caulfield12]

This is one of the strangest posts I've ever read.

 

 

Why are we to believe that pitchers have significantly improved and are actually better in this generation?

 

They haven't. They aren't.

 

It's simply perception. Back in the 90's, the hitters seemed better because of their glaring statistical numbers. Now that has shifted to the favor of the pitchers, but it will swing back again. It always does.

 

Whether it's changes to the baseball, the calling of the strike zone, steroids, Tommy John recoveries...all these things will return to mean, just as the National League was the dominant style from the late 50's to the 70's and then shifted back to the American League (along with the DH change) until returning to balance again in the last 5-10 years.

 

Are we to believe that parents all across America are suddenly training their children to be left-handed pitchers instead of catchers or 3B?

Edited February 8, 2015 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

um... yes? emphatically yes?

 

 

If that's true, shouldn't there be 3:20-3:30 minute mile runners by now?

 

There are physical limitations to what the human shoulder/labrum and elbow can withstand. There always will be, until they invent Robot Baseball.

[Jerksticks]

If that's true, shouldn't there be 3:20-3:30 minute mile runners by now?

 

There are physical limitations to what the human shoulder/labrum and elbow can withstand. There always will be, until they invent Robot Baseball.

Everyone is way bigger now across the board, in all sports.

[caulfield12]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9749

 

If it was mostly about size, you wouldn't see the success of pitchers like Pedro, Maddux, Glavine, Billy Wagner, Roy Oswalt, Tim Lincecum, Fernando Valenzuela, Ron Guidry or Whitey Ford.

 

Another factor is that some of the greatest athletes of this generation have been attracted to the NBA and NFL to a lesser extent...with that talent gap being "covered" largely by the explosion in Latin American and Asian players.

 

Has there ever been a correlation analysis done with size and pitching effectiveness?

 

For example in soccer, three of the greatest players of all-time (Pele, Messi and Diego Maradona, not to mention Ronaldhino) were short/slight of stature.

 

How can the Asian MLB players be successful when their size is typically smaller as well?

 

[Dick Allen]

You're once again missing the forest for the trees because you're focusing on one tangential point from my post.

 

No matter what you want to think, you cannot tell me if a guy is good or not based on how many times he strikes out. Those strikeouts are a factor, but you can be a good player despite them. That's the whole point I'm making.

And I agreed with that point. The fact of the matter is, and what I emphasized, is there are terrible players striking out tons of times and not doing much else.

 

When everyone played in little league, the guys who struck out all the time sucked. Now those same guys are trying to tell everyone striking out is because of the pitcher, it has little to do with your skill as a hitter.

 

Don Bayler, a former MVP who struck out 51 times his MVP year and was pissed off abiut it. Now a hitting coach, see what he has to say about thiese totals. What I don't understand is if you do the math, your DP argument doesn't hold water. You also get a hit around 30% of the time you don't strike out. I do know if Mike Trout cut his whiffs to 120, he would be even more devasting than he is now. Hitters these days give up outs without even realizing it.

 

Just ask yourself what is the the percentage of time a player reaches base via the strikeout vs anything else. That will show you strikeouts are bad even though they usually don't turn into double plays. Bunting guys over , giving up an out is bad, yet flailing away at a 1 and 2 pitch with your strike zone expanded, with the same approach you had the first pitch of the AB is just fine. That makes no sense.Changing your approach with 2 strikes also makes a pitcher work a little harder.

 

I guess what I don't understand is you emphasize doubke plays yet ignore babip when saying strikeouts are no big deal.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Dick Allen

[Reddy]

If that's true, shouldn't there be 3:20-3:30 minute mile runners by now?

 

There are physical limitations to what the human shoulder/labrum and elbow can withstand. There always will be, until they invent Robot Baseball.

 

I have no idea about runners, but I'm sure that there are MORE people with faster times now, than at any other point in history.

 

Additionally, you're right! The elbow CAN'T handle it! That's why 33% of pitchers in baseball had TJ surgery last year! The difference is that most of them will come back stronger than before! Meaning there are MORE good pitchers now, than at any other time in history. Just like runners.

 

Usually your posts are so logical and well thought out. I'm surprised.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Reddy

[JUSTgottaBELIEVE]

You're talking about something completely different with your example. Mike Trout is irrelevant. I'll try to boil it down further:

 

1. Strikeouts do contribute to bad offense.

 

2. Bad offense is bad offense regardless of strikeouts. Good offense is good offense, regardless of strikeouts.

 

3. You can say "Kris Bryant won't be good because he'll strikeout too much." You cannot say "Kris Bryant cannot be good if strikes out a bunch."

Regarding point 2, I think the point that some of us are trying to make is that high strikeout rates DO contribute to bad offense. Let me ask this because I'm sure someone on this board could quickly figure this out. How many of the top 3 scoring offenses in MLB the last 10 years have also been in the top 3 in strikeouts that same season?

 

And yes, I can say that if Bryant strikes out a ton (at a similar rate to 2014 Baez) he CANNOT be the player everyone expects him to be. He would literally have to hit a bomb on every fifth ball he put in play to put up good numbers with a strikeout rate that high.

[GGajewski18]

Dennis Lin ‏@dennistlin 32m32 minutes ago

Sounds like James Shields' decision could now come either today or Mon. Believe he was told early Saturday that Padres had made final offer.

[caulfield12]

Yes, pitching has become more specialized, with the supreme example of the Royals' bullpen, speed and defense from innings 6-9 making a so-so offense dangerous.

 

On the other hand, as Dick Allen has pointed out....hitters no longer are:

 

1) Threats to bunt, which puts less pressure on pitchers and catchers

2) Running nearly as aggressive on the basepaths, with a few exceptions

3) Capable of situational hitting, for the most part

4) Providing any offense from 3B and C

5) Changing their approach with two strikes

6) Shifts, defensive metrics and focus on defense in the last decade have given the pitchers another advantage

7) Expanded strike zone by the umpires

 

I don't know where you could find it, but surely the batting average success of hitters at 0-2, 1-2, 0-1 is much worse for this generation of hitters than it used to be in the past.

 

How many hitters (other than Barry Bonds) do you see choking up on the bat, AT ALL, let alone with 2 strikes?

 

What negative consequence is there for hitters if they strike out 25-40% of the time, as long as they maintain a 800+ OPS?

 

How much easier is it for pitchers to only go 200 innings per season (and that's been very hard for Sale) compared to their predecessors who commonly went 225-275 innings per year? Remember when four man rotations were common in the game?

 

To be a pitcher is easier than ever before because you only have to go 5-7 innings (forget about complete games, that's why the Quality Start was invented by agents, for arbitration hearings and to protect the arms of clients)....we all know Hawk's stories from the past about pitchers going back-to-back doubleheaders at a time when throwing a complete game was EXPECTED and not a rare anomaly.

 

 

[Reddy]

Yes, pitching has become more specialized, with the supreme example of the Royals' bullpen, speed and defense from innings 6-9 making a so-so offense dangerous.

 

On the other hand, as Dick Allen has pointed out....hitters no longer are:

 

1) Threats to bunt, which puts less pressure on pitchers and catchers

2) Running nearly as aggressive on the basepaths, with a few exceptions

3) Capable of situational hitting, for the most part

4) Providing any offense from 3B and C

5) Changing their approach with two strikes

6) Shifts, defensive metrics and focus on defense in the last decade have given the pitchers another advantage

7) Expanded strike zone by the umpires

 

I don't know where you could find it, but surely the batting average success of hitters at 0-2, 1-2, 0-1 is much worse for this generation of hitters than it used to be in the past.

 

How many hitters (other than Barry Bonds) do you see choking up on the bat, AT ALL, let alone with 2 strikes?

 

What negative consequence is there for hitters if they strike out 25-40% of the time, as long as they maintain a 800+ OPS?

 

How much easier is it for pitchers to only go 200 innings per season (and that's been very hard for Sale) compared to their predecessors who commonly went 225-275 innings per year? Remember when four man rotations were common in the game?

 

To be a pitcher is easier than ever before because you only have to go 5-7 innings (forget about complete games, that's why the Quality Start was invented by agents, for arbitration hearings and to protect the arms of clients)....we all know Hawk's stories from the past about pitchers going back-to-back doubleheaders at a time when throwing a complete game was EXPECTED and not a rare anomaly.

 

Almost everything in this post is factually incorrect.

 

There were an average of 10 more stolen bases per team in 2014 than 2005, and the average OPS is down 50 points to .700, not .800.

 

I could address the rest of your bullet points too, but it would pretty much all read like the above.

[caulfield12]

Almost everything in this post is factually incorrect.

 

There were an average of 10 more stolen bases per team in 2014 than 2005, and the average OPS is down 50 points to .700, not .800.

 

I could address the rest of your bullet points too, but it would pretty much all read like the above.

 

 

I'm talking about the 60's-80's style of player, compared to today. Of course, stolen bases were non-existent back in the heart of the steroids era (1995-2010), as everyone employed the Earl Weaver "wait for a three run homer" style of offense, Ozzie Ball for two plus months notwithstanding.

 

There are two different arguments here, the pitchers of 2014 versus the 1990's and the pitchers of today versus the pitchers of the past, let's say 1968, when Gibson, Drysdale, McLain, etc., were so dominant.

 

My point is that one-dimensional players like Adam Dunn in the past weren't thought of as superstars...to be a truly great player back then, you had possess at least 3 of the 5 skills and usually 4 or even 5 out of 5. If nothing else, Moneyball has created a generation where hitters could make millions with just three outcomes...whereas those players in the past, the likes of Pete Incaviglia, Dave Kingman or Rob Deer, were derided for their lack of contact and lower batting averages.

 

As to my remark about an 800 OPS, it was about the idea that unless you were Dayan Viciedo in the OF, no matter how many K's you put on the stat sheet, it was all things considered a good season (with the possible exception of a 1B/DH, where an 850+ was desired).

Edited February 8, 2015 by caulfield12

[LDF]

I'm talking about the 60's-80's style of player, compared to today. Of course, stolen bases were non-existent back in the heart of the steroids era (1995-2010), as everyone employed the Earl Weaver "wait for a three run homer" style of offense, Ozzie Ball for two plus months notwithstanding.

 

There are two different arguments here, the pitchers of 2014 versus the 1990's and the pitchers of today versus the pitchers of the past, let's say 1968, when Gibson, Drysdale, McLain, etc., were so dominant.

 

My point is that one-dimensional players like Adam Dunn in the past weren't thought of as superstars...to be a truly great player back then, you had possess at least 3 of the 5 skills and usually 4 or even 5 out of 5. If nothing else, Moneyball has created a generation where hitters could make millions with just three outcomes...whereas those players in the past, the likes of Pete Incaviglia, Dave Kingman or Rob Deer, were derided for their lack of contact and lower batting averages.

 

let me add to your statement. baseball in general have indeed change. i see what is gone is a power hitter who can hit the hrs and have a low avg and high strikeout. as long he can hit the long ball. fans love that long ball. will a fan love a game where the score is tied at 0-0 and going into the 9 inning. no they would like to see the score be 7-5 with several hrs.

 

second, the need to generate runs, via situational hitting to get runs in becoming more important, esp if a team doesn't have a Trout, a Giancarlo Stanton, who can hit hrs.

 

bottom line, the fans, maybe some are becoming better educated with the other part of baseball, the number crunching part. this part seem to be the most important part now.

 

 

[Jose Abreu]

Jim Bowden ‏@JimBowden_ESPN 46m46 minutes ago

James Shields spent all 9 seasons of his career in the AL and that will soon change…#Padres source sounds confident they’ll land Shields

[caulfield12]

This just in, AJ Preller named "most interesting GM in the world."

 

In talks to do an advertisement with the Dos Equis bearded marvel.

Edited February 8, 2015 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

I'm talking about the 60's-80's style of player, compared to today. Of course, stolen bases were non-existent back in the heart of the steroids era (1995-2010), as everyone employed the Earl Weaver "wait for a three run homer" style of offense, Ozzie Ball for two plus months notwithstanding.

 

There are two different arguments here, the pitchers of 2014 versus the 1990's and the pitchers of today versus the pitchers of the past, let's say 1968, when Gibson, Drysdale, McLain, etc., were so dominant.

 

My point is that one-dimensional players like Adam Dunn in the past weren't thought of as superstars...to be a truly great player back then, you had possess at least 3 of the 5 skills and usually 4 or even 5 out of 5. If nothing else, Moneyball has created a generation where hitters could make millions with just three outcomes...whereas those players in the past, the likes of Pete Incaviglia, Dave Kingman or Rob Deer, were derided for their lack of contact and lower batting averages.

 

As to my remark about an 800 OPS, it was about the idea that unless you were Dayan Viciedo in the OF, no matter how many K's you put on the stat sheet, it was all things considered a good season (with the possible exception of a 1B/DH, where an 850+ was desired).

 

All of this is because - statistically - these "one dimensional players" contribute FAR more to their team than people thought they did back before the new metrics existed. They're paid because they're that valuable. To argue they'd be even more valuable if they didn't strike out is a moot point, because if they had a different approach, they probably wouldn't walk as much, or hit as many home runs.

 

[LDF]

 

i asked a question where i asked about the amount of hrs were done in a decade going back several decades. the list is 20 hrs, 30hrs, 40hr.

 

now lets look at that it is rare that someone will hit 40 +, only 2 comes to my mind.

 

but if a team is able to get a player who can play his position and smack 30+ hrs, but strikeout a lot, has low avg, how many teams would be willing to sign that player.

[ILMOU]

A lot of good points being made on all sides, but if you don't think the evolution of hitters' approach is part of the high K/low-run-scoring environment, you're not paying attention.

 

The high slugging of the steroid era changed hitting philosophies throughout organizations, and the hitters have not yet adjusted back to a more contact-oriented approach, but they will in order to survive. I think, also, it's become apparent to many that "professional AB" guys like Pence and Sandoval are better bets in October than clout-or-K type sluggers.

 

And yes, pitching is as good and specialized as ever, but they're also ahead of the batters on the adjustment curve.

[Reddy]

A lot of good points being made on all sides, but if you don't think the evolution of hitters' approach is part of the high K/low-run-scoring environment, you're not paying attention.

 

The high slugging of the steroid era changed hitting philosophies throughout organizations, and the hitters have not yet adjusted back to a more contact-oriented approach, but they will in order to survive. I think, also, it's become apparent to many that "professional AB" guys like Pence and Sandoval are better bets in October than clout-or-K type sluggers.

 

And yes, pitching is as good and specialized as ever, but they're also ahead of the batters on the adjustment curve.

 

I think this is a GREAT point. And a big reason that Oakland never won it all.

 

[LDF]

A lot of good points being made on all sides, but if you don't think the evolution of hitters' approach is part of the high K/low-run-scoring environment, you're not paying attention.

 

The high slugging of the steroid era changed hitting philosophies throughout organizations, and the hitters have not yet adjusted back to a more contact-oriented approach, but they will in order to survive. I think, also, it's become apparent to many that "professional AB" guys like Pence and Sandoval are better bets in October than clout-or-K type sluggers.

 

And yes, pitching is as good and specialized as ever, but they're also ahead of the batters on the adjustment curve.

 

there is a caveat in your statement, which by the way is a excellent one. that part that is missing is, what will the owners want, the answers is to have fans in the stands???

 

if the owner doesn't have the team, they will go for that hrs hitting, low avg high strikeout, b/c he wants fans in the park. in other words..... money.....

Edited February 8, 2015 by LDF

[ILMOU]

I think this is a GREAT point. And a big reason that Oakland never won it all.

Green? Sarcasm? I'm guessing.

 

Regardless, the A's didn't have a single 800 OPS on their playoff roster. They were counting on the pitching to be perfect - and the playoffs are a crapshoot anyway. Had they held on against the Royals, who knows?

 

there is a caveat in your statement, which by the way is a excellent one. that part that is missing is, what will the owners want to have fans in the stands???

 

if the owner doesn't have the team, they will go for that hrs hitting, low avg high strikeout, b/c he wants fans in the park. in other words..... money.....

I'm a firm believer than winning trumps style of play, from a fans' standpoint, but there will be rule tweaks coming soon, that are at least designed to raise scoring. May even see an NL DH.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Stan Bahnsen