mdenny wrote:JN wrote:Randle McMurphy wrote:The alternative, Stanton, is not a high contact guy, he's actually the opposite. Again, this reason makes no sense.
They certainly did until they were staring at extra innings in the face.
Stanton goes up to bat knowing the pitcher has to throw strikes and does not want to fall behind in the count.
His effectiveness and contact rate will inherently go up by a fairly significant margin because of that factor.
That is the factor that is the biggest for me. Player "X" whomever it is, gets much more comfortable at the place when the bases are loaded because the range of pitches should go down significantly. I would love to see the analytics on how much more effective a batter becomes with bases loaded and a tie game in late innings. And compare that to DP rates, Groundball Rates, Walk Rates, I really do not think there is a clear answer here especially in modern day when less balls are put in play.
Either way appreciate the good baseball argument. I miss those whether people think I am right or wrong. I lost a lot of passion for baseball after 1994 (in part the strike, in part university/work), and my passion took a last gut bunch when the Expos left in 2004. I was not a Jays fan at the time -- in fact I hated them in the early 90's when the Expos were somewhat competitive. Got over my hatred for the Jays when I lived in Toronto in the early 2000's,but never really got into them either. Appreciated getting into baseball and the Jays quite a bit more this year.
I was a hardcore baseball stat nerd as a kid before it got really advanced. I think I was the only 8/9/10 year old who religiously read Bill James and the Elias Baseball Analyst each year in the mid 80's. Stats were developing at that point (and not nearly as advanced as today but the underlying concepts of player value (good / bad) were certainly being formed and opinions were starting to change. Concepts like walks are underrated, empty batting averages, secondary averages, and then OPS at the end were filling my mind. And Ken Phelps should have been treated better!! I remember getting in arguments with other 11 year oldsexplaining that some guys who got 100RBI's were not nearly as good as they thought. As a 12 year old remember getting in a heated 30 minute discussion with my friend at the time that Tim Raines was better than Tim Wallach -- and he kept pointing to his 123 RBI's.
Anyway, I am digressing, but right or wrong I enjoy a good baseball argument. I enjoy the fact that tactics or norms in baseball have to change or be re-considered as eras and the way the game is played.
I guess another factor is that ypu could try to paint corners to judge with breaking balls knowing that a walk doesnt hurt you.
I think i read moneyball like 5 times in the aggregate lol. I love that book and i'm not even a baseball fan. There were so many intuitive things in that book that i wondered to myself when i was a kid and cheering for Willie Upshaw. Crazy to find out that so many of the stats were misleading because they were based on cricket.
I have the same intuition now when it comes to sacrifice flies. Seems to me that not nearly enough players/teams advance guys from 1st to second and even moreso from second to third on flyouts.
Ever heard that argument? There were a couple today in the relevant games including a rare first to second by the winning runner in the yanks game. Figure its just a matter of time til a team like tampa figure this out and the rest of the leagye follows.
I never actually read Moneyball. I was new to Toronto at the time, starting my career, and my interests were changing greatly, My conceptual base was Bill James in the 1980's and it set the conceptual basis for many things that were built on even more after that.... but I moved on from the analytics part of baseball by 15.
I am trying to understand your observation
#1. Are you saying that teams should tactically try for more fly balls that could turn into sac flies?
OR
#2. Are you saying that teams should be more aggressive on tagging up on flyballs?
I think your observation is #2. And I don't think teams will be any more aggressive in trying for that extra base via sac fly in the future. ***
A comparable would be the stolen base which is an "aggressive" move to gain an extra base. Many teams don't think the gamble is worth it and don't attempt many stolen bases. And that is even with the threat of a stolen base messing with pitcher's head which has value. The threat of taking that extra base on a sacrifice fly does not have the same "**** with the other teams head" value. I actually think the stolen base is a bit underrated in modern times. Not the actual value of getting that base, which is largely diminished in this low contact / high walk / high HR era. But many pitchers still seem to be bothered with guys on base that can steal, and that "**** with their head" has to help the batter be more effective.
*** Giving this further thought I think teams bail out on that potential extra base to often (especially first to second). Many long fly balls to center runners at first will just give up on the tag up, when there are probably situations where it is pretty easy to get. But players at first are generally never taught to tag up.... always go half way or more if you are at first on a fly ball.
I hope we keep the core in tact but money talks.
