re: What's your take on the current homerun situation in the MLB?

Chicks dig the long ball. It ain’t changing back. Strike out or hit it out new training regimens full bore this way. Shift has played a big part. I personally hate the shift more than any other changes in the game. Hate it.

im torn on it, for sure. i understand what's happening and understand the shift, but im a little frustrated by it.

the team i support the most (the reds) are possibly the biggest example of it in baseball history. more walks than singles (i think first time ever, but i know just 60 games), tons of HRs, horrific batting averages across the board.

it's less fun to me, sue me. rallies, base hits, moving through the lineup is just more fun. part of this is gonna be team style, but it's also a shift in baseball as a whole. im also a fan of maximizing win probability and runs scored, so im gonna support doing what makes the most sense. but part of me wouldnt mind banning shifts or some extreme shite like that to get some base hits flowing.

Its a direct result of how good these pitchers are. Everyone in the league is throwing 97 with a wipeout slider. No matter what you do, teams arent going to be able to put together sustained rallies against that. If you take juice out the ball that would mean even less runs are scored.

quote:

---

They were absolutely juicing the balls to drive up the run totals in order to spike British fan interest. A 2-1 pitching duel snoozer would've been terrible for advancing the sport into Europe.

---

Ironic considering their favorite sport frequently ends 0-0 or 1-0.

Home runs in and of themselves aren't a problem, as homers are cool. But the style of play right now is... ugh. It's pretty unappealing to watch.

The OP brought up 1993, which is right as run scoring exploded while runs scoring in MLB has been fairly steady the past 3-4 years after dropping to 4.07 in 2014. Now it's at 4.65.

So let's compare those three years: 2020, 2014, 1993

Runs: 4.65/4.07/4.60
HR: 1.28/1.02/0.89
H: 8.04/8.56/9.05
SB: 0.49/0.57/0.72
SO: 8.68/7.70/5.80

There's clearly less running in today's game, which means less action. Steals are steadily going down and sacrifices dropped to 0.07 a game, down from around 0.30, where it's been for roughly 50 years. It's probably a better run scoring strategy to not run as much, but... it's not as much fun to watch.

The real problem is that in order to gain about a quarter of a home run a game (which does add up, that's a lot), we've added THREE strikeouts per game and lost one hit. So, that's less runners on and worst yet, fewer balls in play. Guys are hitting 245 this season, but that's because they strike out so much.

Roughly 14 of 37 PA's per game end in a home run, walk, HBP or strikeout. So 7 of 23 balls in play turn into hits, right at the 1/3 historical average, but that means on about 40% of at bats... the ball is never put into play. There's nothing to watch happen.

In 1993, 12 of 38 PA's per game ended up without a ball in play, less than a third of the time. That's the fundamental difference.

The game is turning into a battle between the pitcher and the hitter, while eight guys stand around and watch. The numbers do look better than in 2014, which is good, but that HR/K trendline is not changing.

Great post, Baloo

I mean, teams are under no obligation to play the most aesthetic style, I get that. Teams are trying to win, and that means we're going down this path of tons of strikeouts and homers. I don't know if there's anything that can be done.

That said, I would like for BAD teams to mix it up. The classic example is this: Adam Dunn and Juan Pierre each had the same career WAR and now every team plays like Adam Dunn, and Juan Pierre types have been driven from the game. But they were equally valuable, even if Dunn got paid about five times as much. Which makes the Dunn model (not to pick on Dunn), the inefficient one.

If I'm a bad team on a budget, I acquire a bunch of high contact speedsters with good gloves to fill out my roster. Sure, you need stars, but you could get these other players for nothing. Best yet, teams aren't built to stop you. Run like mad, make tons of contact, eliminate their ability to shift. You'll probably still max out at 80 wins but... it would be a ton of fun. If you're the Orioles, what do you have to lose? You're never gonna be able to outspend the Yankees and Red Sox for sluggers. so go after what they don't value. That's what analytics was founded on: what don't teams value that you can acquire for less than market value?

quote:

---

No it wasn’t

---

Ok

quote:

---

That said, I would like for BAD teams to mix it up. The classic example is this: Adam Dunn and Juan Pierre each had the same career WAR and now every team plays like Adam Dunn, and Juan Pierre types have been driven from the game. But they were equally valuable, even if Dunn got paid about five times as much. Which makes the Dunn model (not to pick on Dunn), the inefficient one.

---

people like Kevin keirmaier are still getting paid

quote:

---

Best yet, teams aren't built to stop you.

---

Sure there are teams and pitchers and catchers who you can run on but I’d think almost every team in the league is built pretty well to defend ground balls put in play.