Want More Home Runs? This One Simple Trick Will Knock You Out
June 5, 2017 6:11 AM Subscribe
The biggest change brought about by the Statcast data is illustrating the importance of an uppercut swing that results more often in fly balls and line drives rather than groundballs ... It appears that having a risk-free method of improvement available to all players has had an obvious effect: more players are hitting more home runs. The statistical revelation that has MLB hitters bombing more home runs than the steroid era [WaPo]
The New Science Of Hitting [FiveThirtyEight]
What's this 'launch angle' MLB people are talking about and who's the best at it? [CBS Sports]
From 2016:
A Baseball Mystery: The Home Run Is Back, And No One Knows Why [FiveThirtyEight]
Exit Speed and Home Runs [The Hardball Times]
From Diamond Kinetics: HOW TO DETERMINE LAUNCH ANGLES IN THE BATTING CAGE
The New Science Of Hitting [FiveThirtyEight]
What's this 'launch angle' MLB people are talking about and who's the best at it? [CBS Sports]
From 2016:
A Baseball Mystery: The Home Run Is Back, And No One Knows Why [FiveThirtyEight]
Exit Speed and Home Runs [The Hardball Times]
From Diamond Kinetics: HOW TO DETERMINE LAUNCH ANGLES IN THE BATTING CAGE
But it turns out that homer heyday pales in comparison to what we are seeing today: 14.2 percent of all hits in 2017 are home runs, the highest rate in baseball history.
So, um, why isn't the season home run record being broken?
Also, I agree with Ten Cold Hot Dogs. Bring back real baseball!
posted by languagehat at 7:27 AM on June 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
So, um, why isn't the season home run record being broken?
Also, I agree with Ten Cold Hot Dogs. Bring back real baseball!
posted by languagehat at 7:27 AM on June 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
So, um, why isn't the season home run record being broken?
Because it's less that 10 guys are mashing or trying to mash 70 dingers each and more that a bunch of guys who might otherwise have tried to slap singles and doubles are gunning for that 15-20 HR range and accepting a few more strikeouts and fly balls in trade for that power.
Also, there are still pitcher duels, but I don't think the dinger genie is going back in the bottle any time soon.
posted by protocoach at 7:32 AM on June 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
Because it's less that 10 guys are mashing or trying to mash 70 dingers each and more that a bunch of guys who might otherwise have tried to slap singles and doubles are gunning for that 15-20 HR range and accepting a few more strikeouts and fly balls in trade for that power.
Also, there are still pitcher duels, but I don't think the dinger genie is going back in the bottle any time soon.
posted by protocoach at 7:32 AM on June 5, 2017 [8 favorites]
The NBA eventually had to move back the 3-point line. It'll be much harder to move outfield walls back. Make HRs ground-rule triples?
posted by hwyengr at 7:33 AM on June 5, 2017
posted by hwyengr at 7:33 AM on June 5, 2017
The NBA eventually had to move back the 3-point line. It'll be much harder to move outfield walls back. Make HRs ground-rule triples?
Wind the balls looser. Deaden them.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:35 AM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Wind the balls looser. Deaden them.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:35 AM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
If it really became a problem (and I'm not convinced it's a problem, anymore than increased velocity is a problem), they'll de-juice the ball, raise the mound, or increase the zone before they change the scoring.
posted by protocoach at 7:36 AM on June 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by protocoach at 7:36 AM on June 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
I watched my Twins play the Angels yesterday. Nolasco was hurling for LAA so I knew there was a high probability of a couple Twins hitting dingers. Castro's was an ordinary HR but what Sano did in the sixth inning was the equivalent of a mortar round; way, way, up and then over the bullpen. I didn't see the Statcast on it but the launch angle must have been insane. The scary thing is Sano is still years away from his prime.
posted by Ber at 7:46 AM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Ber at 7:46 AM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
MuddDude and I were just talking about Ryan Schimpf who so far this season has 14 home runs in 26 hits, but his batting average is a miserable 0.161.
posted by muddgirl at 8:07 AM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by muddgirl at 8:07 AM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
To be entered into the argument: the increase in uppercut swings is not a good thing for many hitters. A lot of guys would be better off still going for groundballs.
And I agree, small ball, with base hits and steals, is far and away a more fun form of the game to watch. "Three True Outcomes" baseball (strikeouts, homers, or walks) is not nearly as good.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 8:09 AM on June 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
And I agree, small ball, with base hits and steals, is far and away a more fun form of the game to watch. "Three True Outcomes" baseball (strikeouts, homers, or walks) is not nearly as good.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 8:09 AM on June 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
All professional sports are essentially entertainment products. Home runs excite fans. It's good for business.
posted by davebush at 8:19 AM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by davebush at 8:19 AM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
the statistics must flow
posted by thelonius at 8:22 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 8:22 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
> Because it's less that 10 guys are mashing or trying to mash 70 dingers each and more that a bunch of guys who might otherwise have tried to slap singles and doubles are gunning for that 15-20 HR range and accepting a few more strikeouts and fly balls in trade for that power.
That doesn't make sense to me. If hitters have learned how to consistently hit more homers, why are they settling for that 15-20 HR range? The fame and wealth and baseball immortality consequent on breaking the season record are so great I refuse to believe everybody's saying "screw it, I just want to hit a few more than I did before."
posted by languagehat at 8:25 AM on June 5, 2017
That doesn't make sense to me. If hitters have learned how to consistently hit more homers, why are they settling for that 15-20 HR range? The fame and wealth and baseball immortality consequent on breaking the season record are so great I refuse to believe everybody's saying "screw it, I just want to hit a few more than I did before."
posted by languagehat at 8:25 AM on June 5, 2017
That doesn't make sense to me. If hitters have learned how to consistently hit more homers, why are they settling for that 15-20 HR range? The fame and wealth and baseball immortality consequent on breaking the season record are so great I refuse to believe everybody's saying "screw it, I just want to hit a few more than I did before."
A groundball hitter who switches to a flyball style may increase his HR totals by five or ten but also a lot of his at-bats that would have been singles or doubles become outs. Uppercut swinging is a high-risk approach. Not everyone can mash it over the fences regularly, even if they try all the time. Big-time HR guys have either great size (McGuire) or absolutely perfect swings that make angels weep with each at-bat (Griffey Jr.). For a regular player to switch up can be hazardous for them.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 8:32 AM on June 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
A groundball hitter who switches to a flyball style may increase his HR totals by five or ten but also a lot of his at-bats that would have been singles or doubles become outs. Uppercut swinging is a high-risk approach. Not everyone can mash it over the fences regularly, even if they try all the time. Big-time HR guys have either great size (McGuire) or absolutely perfect swings that make angels weep with each at-bat (Griffey Jr.). For a regular player to switch up can be hazardous for them.
posted by Harvey Jerkwater at 8:32 AM on June 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
I dunno, dead ball style play might sound fun in theory, but lots of stolen bases tends to create lots of throws to first base, which is as tedious as any part of the game other than the current preference for swapping out relievers every inning or so after the fifth.
I do agree though that a more balanced style of play, where the ball in play is a more crucial element is more enjoyable as long as the threat of a home run or "little ball" tactics still have some value. The problems in that lie in part with changes in fielding, where shifts and better knowledge of how to play hitters matched with improved metrics on how good fielders really are, as opposed to the Jeter rules of eye tests. There is also that change in pitching strategies, where more pitchers come in throw harder and generally make life more difficult for teams to sustain rallies, along with analysis that has led to teams being more accepting of strike outs, especially when they come as a trade off for increased power.
Modern statistical analysis has radically changed the game and will continue to do so, catcher's pitch framing, the art of "stealing" strikes, for example, is just one of the newer areas of interest. Given the ultimate of this kind of statistical analysis is to provide complete predictability to sports, it should come as no surprise that steps along that path, even if that ultimate end isn't reached aren't necessarily in the best interest of the sport overall, as a completely predictable sport is a dead one. In that sense, as it is elsewhere, the desire for a competitive edge without the larger picture in mind may doom everyone in the long run, but until that time no team can afford to ignore the changes as they'll be left behind. It's the tragedy of the diamonds I guess.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:41 AM on June 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
I do agree though that a more balanced style of play, where the ball in play is a more crucial element is more enjoyable as long as the threat of a home run or "little ball" tactics still have some value. The problems in that lie in part with changes in fielding, where shifts and better knowledge of how to play hitters matched with improved metrics on how good fielders really are, as opposed to the Jeter rules of eye tests. There is also that change in pitching strategies, where more pitchers come in throw harder and generally make life more difficult for teams to sustain rallies, along with analysis that has led to teams being more accepting of strike outs, especially when they come as a trade off for increased power.
Modern statistical analysis has radically changed the game and will continue to do so, catcher's pitch framing, the art of "stealing" strikes, for example, is just one of the newer areas of interest. Given the ultimate of this kind of statistical analysis is to provide complete predictability to sports, it should come as no surprise that steps along that path, even if that ultimate end isn't reached aren't necessarily in the best interest of the sport overall, as a completely predictable sport is a dead one. In that sense, as it is elsewhere, the desire for a competitive edge without the larger picture in mind may doom everyone in the long run, but until that time no team can afford to ignore the changes as they'll be left behind. It's the tragedy of the diamonds I guess.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:41 AM on June 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
That doesn't make sense to me. If hitters have learned how to consistently hit more homers, why are they settling for that 15-20 HR range? The fame and wealth and baseball immortality consequent on breaking the season record are so great I refuse to believe everybody's saying "screw it, I just want to hit a few more than I did before."
What Harvey Jerkwater said. Also, there are still a few people hitting a lot of homers - last year in the NL, Nolan Arenado and Chris Carter led the league with 41, and Mark Trumbo led the AL with 47. There are a few differences from the last home run boom - guys aren't as heavily juiced, which cuts some of the available power (and the current drugs act differently - HGH is more about staying healthy longer than getting huge, unlike the anabolic steroids that were more common in the '90s and early '00s). Also also, there isn't an alien god destroying space-time to bring us joy.
posted by protocoach at 8:51 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
What Harvey Jerkwater said. Also, there are still a few people hitting a lot of homers - last year in the NL, Nolan Arenado and Chris Carter led the league with 41, and Mark Trumbo led the AL with 47. There are a few differences from the last home run boom - guys aren't as heavily juiced, which cuts some of the available power (and the current drugs act differently - HGH is more about staying healthy longer than getting huge, unlike the anabolic steroids that were more common in the '90s and early '00s). Also also, there isn't an alien god destroying space-time to bring us joy.
posted by protocoach at 8:51 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
That doesn't make sense to me. If hitters have learned how to consistently hit more homers, why are they settling for that 15-20 HR range?
Oh, they're definitely not settling. Some players may only be able to hit 15 to 20 HRs or whatever, but if they are skilled enough fielders at important defensive positions, that will still be a significant boost to their productivity if the trade off was more ground balls.
That's really the key to the change. It's as much avoidance of ground balls, which are far more generally unproductive outs, as it is seeking home runs willy nilly for their own sake. The goal is to minimize bad plate appearances as much as possible. For some batters, a higher "launch angle" may not benefit them as much, particularly faster, smaller players who may not have HR strength. But for other guys who made a career out of hitting the ball on the ground yet lacked the speed to make that work, changing the angle of their approach can be a huge difference. See Yonder Alonso's season for an example of how radical a change this new approach can be. Yonder never hit more than 9 HRs in a full season before and this year he's already hit 16 in 172 at bats. That's enormous.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:53 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Oh, they're definitely not settling. Some players may only be able to hit 15 to 20 HRs or whatever, but if they are skilled enough fielders at important defensive positions, that will still be a significant boost to their productivity if the trade off was more ground balls.
That's really the key to the change. It's as much avoidance of ground balls, which are far more generally unproductive outs, as it is seeking home runs willy nilly for their own sake. The goal is to minimize bad plate appearances as much as possible. For some batters, a higher "launch angle" may not benefit them as much, particularly faster, smaller players who may not have HR strength. But for other guys who made a career out of hitting the ball on the ground yet lacked the speed to make that work, changing the angle of their approach can be a huge difference. See Yonder Alonso's season for an example of how radical a change this new approach can be. Yonder never hit more than 9 HRs in a full season before and this year he's already hit 16 in 172 at bats. That's enormous.
posted by gusottertrout at 8:53 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
If you read the articles on this you will see that is the angle plus bat velocity. That velocity is really hard to get unless you are very strong and mechanically perfect. So it is not really 'one simple trick' despite what clickbait article title writers want you to think. It is one additional trick added to all the other tricks that make you someone who can hit MLB pitching.
(The last time I connected with a 90 mph pitching machine fastball I didn't have full feeling in my hands for about 5 hours. And I played a lot of baseball in my younger days. Those MLB guys are ridiculously arm strong).
posted by srboisvert at 8:55 AM on June 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
(The last time I connected with a 90 mph pitching machine fastball I didn't have full feeling in my hands for about 5 hours. And I played a lot of baseball in my younger days. Those MLB guys are ridiculously arm strong).
posted by srboisvert at 8:55 AM on June 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
In a sport where getting a hit 30% of the time makes you a hall of famer, and a team winning 60% of the time makes them a juggernaut, I don't think there's much chance of it becoming too predictable.
Take my beloved Cleveland Indians: last year they had a balanced offence that could string together hits, led the league in stolen bases, and added in a decent, but not extraordinary, amount of pop. This, together with great pitching, got them to the World Series. Last off-season, they added a renowned home run hitter (Encarnacion). I thought this would be a great improvement. But two of the team's best players (infielders Lindor and Ramirez) have gone from being line-drive hitters with averages around .300 to up-swinging power hitters with averages around .270. Encarnacion is off to a slow start, so maybe this will re-equilibrate as a net positive for the team in the second half of the season, but so far the result has been lower run production.
Obviously, my observation is not a proper statistical analysis, but the hypothesis I'm suggesting is that there's an optimum amount of home-run hitting in a line up. The StatCast analysis says that for individual players they can hit more home runs if they swing up, in exchange for a lower average. But more lower averages in the line up means a lower probability of stringing hits together and getting people on base. So, even when there are more home runs, they're frequently solo shots with the bases empty.
Just as one other data point: the hapless Oakland A's are leading the league in home runs! Granted, they have mediocre pitching and terrible defense, but my point is simply that the relationship between team run production and individual players' home runs is not obvious.
posted by mondo dentro at 9:01 AM on June 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
Take my beloved Cleveland Indians: last year they had a balanced offence that could string together hits, led the league in stolen bases, and added in a decent, but not extraordinary, amount of pop. This, together with great pitching, got them to the World Series. Last off-season, they added a renowned home run hitter (Encarnacion). I thought this would be a great improvement. But two of the team's best players (infielders Lindor and Ramirez) have gone from being line-drive hitters with averages around .300 to up-swinging power hitters with averages around .270. Encarnacion is off to a slow start, so maybe this will re-equilibrate as a net positive for the team in the second half of the season, but so far the result has been lower run production.
Obviously, my observation is not a proper statistical analysis, but the hypothesis I'm suggesting is that there's an optimum amount of home-run hitting in a line up. The StatCast analysis says that for individual players they can hit more home runs if they swing up, in exchange for a lower average. But more lower averages in the line up means a lower probability of stringing hits together and getting people on base. So, even when there are more home runs, they're frequently solo shots with the bases empty.
Just as one other data point: the hapless Oakland A's are leading the league in home runs! Granted, they have mediocre pitching and terrible defense, but my point is simply that the relationship between team run production and individual players' home runs is not obvious.
posted by mondo dentro at 9:01 AM on June 5, 2017 [4 favorites]
Dang I love this thread. Interesting statistical analysis + a critique of statistical methodologies + a reminder that there exists a baseball player with what may be the perfect baseball player name (Yonder Alonso).
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:16 AM on June 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:16 AM on June 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
All I wanna know is: what has to happen for the Phillies to stop sucking?
posted by SansPoint at 9:20 AM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 9:20 AM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
The NBA eventually had to move back the 3-point line. It'll be much harder to move outfield walls back.
About half of the MLB parks currently in use were built after 1995, and it feels like a lot of them were made outsized in reaction to the steroid era, and then had their walls moved in when pitching began to dominate soon after (looking at you, Citi Field). So it wouldn't necessarily be very difficult in a lot of cases. It would mean clubs eliminating some seats, however, which they may not be inclined to do.
posted by AndrewInDC at 9:22 AM on June 5, 2017
About half of the MLB parks currently in use were built after 1995, and it feels like a lot of them were made outsized in reaction to the steroid era, and then had their walls moved in when pitching began to dominate soon after (looking at you, Citi Field). So it wouldn't necessarily be very difficult in a lot of cases. It would mean clubs eliminating some seats, however, which they may not be inclined to do.
posted by AndrewInDC at 9:22 AM on June 5, 2017
and I'm not convinced it's a problem, anymore than increased velocity is a problem
Not yet, but the question is, how far can this increase in the home runs to hits percentage go? The bar chart at the top linked WaPo article shows three consecutive rises in that percentage: from 11.1 to 11.7 to 13.3 to 14.2 this year. There is a whole generation of future major leaguers who are now in school and in the minors who are going to grow up with this technique and eventually saturate the majors. So the trend could continue for quite a few years, conceivably reaching 18 to 20 percent.
On the other hand — the average number of runs per game and the total number of home runs per season has been declining since peaks around 2000, basically because pitchers were getting better and striking out more hitters. Over the three Statcast years, the number of runs per game has been trending back up. So unless we get somewhere north of the historical high of 5.14 runs per game (per team) which happened in 2000, I agree that there is not yet a problem. In 2017 so far it's 4.57. It's more of a re-balancing going on between hitters and pitchers. For the increase in HRs alone to push the average runs per game back to that high point of 5.14, the HRs to hits percentage would indeed have to rise to the 20 percent ballpark (so to speak).
posted by beagle at 9:24 AM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
Not yet, but the question is, how far can this increase in the home runs to hits percentage go? The bar chart at the top linked WaPo article shows three consecutive rises in that percentage: from 11.1 to 11.7 to 13.3 to 14.2 this year. There is a whole generation of future major leaguers who are now in school and in the minors who are going to grow up with this technique and eventually saturate the majors. So the trend could continue for quite a few years, conceivably reaching 18 to 20 percent.
On the other hand — the average number of runs per game and the total number of home runs per season has been declining since peaks around 2000, basically because pitchers were getting better and striking out more hitters. Over the three Statcast years, the number of runs per game has been trending back up. So unless we get somewhere north of the historical high of 5.14 runs per game (per team) which happened in 2000, I agree that there is not yet a problem. In 2017 so far it's 4.57. It's more of a re-balancing going on between hitters and pitchers. For the increase in HRs alone to push the average runs per game back to that high point of 5.14, the HRs to hits percentage would indeed have to rise to the 20 percent ballpark (so to speak).
posted by beagle at 9:24 AM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
When I used to play baseball, I ran about (IIRC) a .275(?). I NEVER once got a home run, but I got a lot of decent doubles and triples and I was quite good at base theft.
I also think people are underestimating the amount of effort needed in retraining to a different swing plane.
posted by Samizdata at 9:36 AM on June 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
I also think people are underestimating the amount of effort needed in retraining to a different swing plane.
posted by Samizdata at 9:36 AM on June 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
The A's also lead the league in errors, it makes for a fun, if a bit demented, game. Can the offensive power keep up with defensive miscues? Will they actually get men on base or will it just be solo home runs all game long?
posted by Carillon at 9:39 AM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Carillon at 9:39 AM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
> Also, there are still a few people hitting a lot of homers - last year in the NL, Nolan Arenado and Chris Carter led the league with 41, and Mark Trumbo led the AL with 47.
But that's not "a lot of homers" by historical standards; there have been 38 player-seasons with 50 or more HRs, and most of them had nothing to do with steroids (I don't think Jimmie Foxx was juicing). I continue to be mystified. I realize hitting homers is hard, I realize teams would prefer players do what's good for the overall benefit of the team, but I still find it impossible to believe that the urge to break the record has completely vanished.
posted by languagehat at 9:41 AM on June 5, 2017
But that's not "a lot of homers" by historical standards; there have been 38 player-seasons with 50 or more HRs, and most of them had nothing to do with steroids (I don't think Jimmie Foxx was juicing). I continue to be mystified. I realize hitting homers is hard, I realize teams would prefer players do what's good for the overall benefit of the team, but I still find it impossible to believe that the urge to break the record has completely vanished.
posted by languagehat at 9:41 AM on June 5, 2017
but I still find it impossible to believe that the urge to break the record has completely vanished.
Of course not. I can guarantee you there are plenty of guys, in effect, trying to break the record, even as they have virtually no chance of doing so. Joey Gallo, for example, couldn't be any more intent on absolutely destroying baseballs than he is already. He simply does not have remotely the same kind of bat control skills Bonds had, so instead Gallo will maybe hit fortysome and strike out a couple hundred times. Maybe eventually he gets luckier or improves and moves closer to seventy, but there are a host of other problems then he'd have to face.
Take Mike Trout for example, who, before his thumb injury, was having as Bondsesque a season as anyone could, but already there was talk of walking him with the bases loaded rather than risk him actually hitting a HR. That was something Bonds had to deal with, no one would pitch to him at a certain point. In a line up like the Angels have, why would anyone pitch to Trout if they can walk him and deal with his junior high level teammates?
There just aren't many guys or situations currently where hitting 70+ HRs is all that likely no matter how much they want it. Maybe the game will change and/or players will come along soon to do that, but it isn't an easy task to match one of the greatest hitters ever.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:12 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Of course not. I can guarantee you there are plenty of guys, in effect, trying to break the record, even as they have virtually no chance of doing so. Joey Gallo, for example, couldn't be any more intent on absolutely destroying baseballs than he is already. He simply does not have remotely the same kind of bat control skills Bonds had, so instead Gallo will maybe hit fortysome and strike out a couple hundred times. Maybe eventually he gets luckier or improves and moves closer to seventy, but there are a host of other problems then he'd have to face.
Take Mike Trout for example, who, before his thumb injury, was having as Bondsesque a season as anyone could, but already there was talk of walking him with the bases loaded rather than risk him actually hitting a HR. That was something Bonds had to deal with, no one would pitch to him at a certain point. In a line up like the Angels have, why would anyone pitch to Trout if they can walk him and deal with his junior high level teammates?
There just aren't many guys or situations currently where hitting 70+ HRs is all that likely no matter how much they want it. Maybe the game will change and/or players will come along soon to do that, but it isn't an easy task to match one of the greatest hitters ever.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:12 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Yankee fan here. Apologies. Anyway, yesterday's Yankee - Blue Jays game was really exciting (to me). It was a classic pitcher's duel, 2-0 Yankees in the 7th when the Jays put a man on then hit a two -run dinger to tie it. In the 9th, with Clippard on the mound, Donaldson hit a solo banger to put the Jays ahead for good, 3-2. The previous day, in the 8th of a Yankee laugher of a win, the Baby Bombers hit 4 solo homers in the same inning, 3 of them, back to back to back. Guys are hitting homers.
Finally, look at Yankee rookie phenom Aaron Judge. He is 6'8' 282lbs. He absolutely mashes the ball. His double two days ago was a rocket of a line drive that almost took Pillar's glove off. His exit velocity stats are unreal compared to the rest of the league. Strength coupled with plate discipline can yield spectacular results. Judge's at bats are must see TV in NY. I add that Judge steals bases regularly too and plays a damn good right field.
Excitement in baseball is not binary. Both the long ball and small ball are exciting. I happen to think mixing the two is the most exciting. What I think would interest a younger generation more in baseball is actually somthing I dislike, more showmanship. The Jose Bautista bat flip was bush league in my opinion, but I get that many fans and many younger fans like that excitement.
posted by AugustWest at 10:21 AM on June 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
Finally, look at Yankee rookie phenom Aaron Judge. He is 6'8' 282lbs. He absolutely mashes the ball. His double two days ago was a rocket of a line drive that almost took Pillar's glove off. His exit velocity stats are unreal compared to the rest of the league. Strength coupled with plate discipline can yield spectacular results. Judge's at bats are must see TV in NY. I add that Judge steals bases regularly too and plays a damn good right field.
Excitement in baseball is not binary. Both the long ball and small ball are exciting. I happen to think mixing the two is the most exciting. What I think would interest a younger generation more in baseball is actually somthing I dislike, more showmanship. The Jose Bautista bat flip was bush league in my opinion, but I get that many fans and many younger fans like that excitement.
posted by AugustWest at 10:21 AM on June 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
If you were truly determined to reduce the number of home runs, all you'd need to do is make the red dye on the seams of the baseball a couple of shades lighter, because hitters are very dependent on knowing how the ball is spinning to determine what kind of pitch it is and predict its trajectory.
Trouble is, you'd reduce the number of hits of all kinds.
posted by jamjam at 10:27 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Trouble is, you'd reduce the number of hits of all kinds.
posted by jamjam at 10:27 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
50 homer seasons are rare enough as to be not very useful in measuring home run surges from the steroid era. 40 home run seasons show the pattern much more clearly. Yes, there were a handful of all time greats who mashed 40, even 50 homers back in the day, but I don't see how comparing the modern era to times when pitchers would regularly go nine innings and even pitch both ends of a doubleheader makes all that much sense.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:30 AM on June 5, 2017
posted by tonycpsu at 10:30 AM on June 5, 2017
Saturday was one of the most interesting days in baseball history. SEVEN grand slams were hit, grand slam #6 being Albert Pujols' 600th career home run. But none of those grand slams were hit by a Diamondback, because Edinson Volquez pitched a no-hitter.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:45 AM on June 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by dirigibleman at 10:45 AM on June 5, 2017 [6 favorites]
"Hey, which Alonso radically improved his home run rates by adjusting his launch angle?"
*points toward first* "Yonder Alonso!"
So because I'm a total commie who loves drab concrete bunkers — shout-out to any Hoxhaists in the thread! — my favorite baseball stadium of all time was the Kingdome in Seattle. This stadium was for whatever reason built way too small -- I'm pretty sure the "space" stadium in the original NES RBI Baseball was based on the Kingdome. Because the fences were so short, hits that would have been line drives in other stadiums frequently turned into home runs.
The "solution" for this was raising the fences by putting up progressively taller and taller plexiglass panels in front of the outfield seats.
So if the game starts trending too "three true outcomes," that might be a generally applicable way of dealing with the problem -- raising the fences in order to turn home runs into off-the-wall doubles and triples.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:51 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
*points toward first* "Yonder Alonso!"
So because I'm a total commie who loves drab concrete bunkers — shout-out to any Hoxhaists in the thread! — my favorite baseball stadium of all time was the Kingdome in Seattle. This stadium was for whatever reason built way too small -- I'm pretty sure the "space" stadium in the original NES RBI Baseball was based on the Kingdome. Because the fences were so short, hits that would have been line drives in other stadiums frequently turned into home runs.
The "solution" for this was raising the fences by putting up progressively taller and taller plexiglass panels in front of the outfield seats.
So if the game starts trending too "three true outcomes," that might be a generally applicable way of dealing with the problem -- raising the fences in order to turn home runs into off-the-wall doubles and triples.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 10:51 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
SEVEN grand slams were hit,
Don't remind me... (Disgruntled Brewers fan)
posted by drezdn at 10:52 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Don't remind me... (Disgruntled Brewers fan)
posted by drezdn at 10:52 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
I'm guessing because the big home run hitters always took uppercut swings (and struck out more). The change is that less powerful guys are doing it too now.
posted by msalt at 11:15 AM on June 5, 2017
posted by msalt at 11:15 AM on June 5, 2017
I think that this might be a reaction to the increase in infield shifting brought on by the increased use of Big Data. Ground balls don't go between the fielders any more, because opposing teams have charts that indicate where the ball is likely to go, and are clever enough to put their fielders there.
So the solution is to try to hit it where the fielders can't catch it.
In semi-related news: I'm a Blue Jays fan, and I am still getting used to the idea that Justin Smoak is now actually good.
posted by tallmiddleagedgeek at 11:18 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
So the solution is to try to hit it where the fielders can't catch it.
In semi-related news: I'm a Blue Jays fan, and I am still getting used to the idea that Justin Smoak is now actually good.
posted by tallmiddleagedgeek at 11:18 AM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
Oof, I posted this to the WaPo too but the 538 title made me groan -- the OLD "Science of Hitting" was exactly this, as stated by Ted Williams in The Science of Hitting (1971) -- "[T]he ball angles down, not straight or up. You don't need calculus to see it. It's obvious. And it means the best way to hit it is to swing slightly up, not level or down. Meet it squarely along its path. They got that wrong for years, ever since Ty Cobb."
and also, “When the ball is on the ground, it puts a greater burden on the fielders; things can happen,..But if you get the ball into the air with power, you have the gift to produce the most important hit in baseball — the home run. More important is that you hit consistently with authority.” (see this from NYT)
Ted Williams had the equivalent of deep learning algorithms running all the time, is my theory.
But the real story is that all the coaches and experts, starting in "Johnny Little League" have argued against this and said that you should swing level or down -- to swing down on the ball --
>[T]here’s even a batting tee endorsed by Ken Griffey Jr. called the Instructo Swing,
>which forces players to hit down on the ball. If you don’t have a downward swing
>path when using the Instructo Swing, you are rewarded by smashing your barrel
>into a piece of blue metal.
posted by PandaMomentum at 1:11 PM on June 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
and also, “When the ball is on the ground, it puts a greater burden on the fielders; things can happen,..But if you get the ball into the air with power, you have the gift to produce the most important hit in baseball — the home run. More important is that you hit consistently with authority.” (see this from NYT)
Ted Williams had the equivalent of deep learning algorithms running all the time, is my theory.
But the real story is that all the coaches and experts, starting in "Johnny Little League" have argued against this and said that you should swing level or down -- to swing down on the ball --
>[T]here’s even a batting tee endorsed by Ken Griffey Jr. called the Instructo Swing,
>which forces players to hit down on the ball. If you don’t have a downward swing
>path when using the Instructo Swing, you are rewarded by smashing your barrel
>into a piece of blue metal.
posted by PandaMomentum at 1:11 PM on June 5, 2017 [9 favorites]
The Kid was just trying to stunt potential competition. Can't fault a Real Competitor™ for preemptively getting after the potential opposition.
posted by protocoach at 1:22 PM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by protocoach at 1:22 PM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
> I think that this might be a reaction to the increase in infield shifting brought on by the increased use of Big Data. Ground balls don't go between the fielders any more, because opposing teams have charts that indicate where the ball is likely to go, and are clever enough to put their fielders there.
I haven't paid close attention to baseball in like 15 years — current-day baseball has insufficient concrete bunker stadiums or teams based in Montreal for me to care about it.
But I was talking this over with a friend who's way into baseball/statistical analysis of baseball, who echoed your observation and added that over time the tendency to swing for the fences will actually increase the use of extreme infield shifts even more, since most batters tend to pull when they're swinging for home runs.
The thing he added is that this feedback effect will start/has started to change which skills are undervalued. If extreme shifts are common, and if everyone is swinging for the fences, suddenly the ability to hit to all fields becomes much more valuable — if you can actually hit it where they ain't, you benefit from a shift-heavy environment.
This is one way that in the long run you can't develop an abstract sense of what makes a great baseball player. instead, you must historicize baseball talent, because the usefulness of discrete baseball skills depends on how well those skills respond to the extant metagame at a particular moment.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:45 PM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
I haven't paid close attention to baseball in like 15 years — current-day baseball has insufficient concrete bunker stadiums or teams based in Montreal for me to care about it.
But I was talking this over with a friend who's way into baseball/statistical analysis of baseball, who echoed your observation and added that over time the tendency to swing for the fences will actually increase the use of extreme infield shifts even more, since most batters tend to pull when they're swinging for home runs.
The thing he added is that this feedback effect will start/has started to change which skills are undervalued. If extreme shifts are common, and if everyone is swinging for the fences, suddenly the ability to hit to all fields becomes much more valuable — if you can actually hit it where they ain't, you benefit from a shift-heavy environment.
This is one way that in the long run you can't develop an abstract sense of what makes a great baseball player. instead, you must historicize baseball talent, because the usefulness of discrete baseball skills depends on how well those skills respond to the extant metagame at a particular moment.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:45 PM on June 5, 2017 [3 favorites]
I think that this might be a reaction to the increase in infield shifting...
Interesting insight. I'm wondering why there seems to be a reluctance to lay down bunts in the opposite direction of the shift, especially when nobody's on base. It seems like a free base hit.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:52 PM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
Interesting insight. I'm wondering why there seems to be a reluctance to lay down bunts in the opposite direction of the shift, especially when nobody's on base. It seems like a free base hit.
posted by mondo dentro at 1:52 PM on June 5, 2017 [2 favorites]
I've wondered about that, especially as a Cubs fan. We've got a bunch of guys who see a bunch of shifts - Fangraphs has the Cubs as seeing the third most shifts of all teams last year. A potential answer is that bunting is harder than it looks, and that the relative value of practicing bunting enough to get consistently good at it is lower than just practicing regular hitting enough to knock it either over the shift or over the wall.
posted by protocoach at 2:07 PM on June 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by protocoach at 2:07 PM on June 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
Wouldn't the ideal angle of attack be a level swing, striking just a smidge below centerline on the ball so you get golf ball-like backspin? Not too much, more like a driver than a 7-iron.
posted by ctmf at 2:18 PM on June 5, 2017
posted by ctmf at 2:18 PM on June 5, 2017
> Interesting insight. I'm wondering why there seems to be a reluctance to lay down bunts in the opposite direction of the shift, especially when nobody's on base. It seems like a free base hit.
You'll see guys do this occasionally -- Cody Bellinger did it for the Dodgers yesterday -- but the conventional wisdom is that you'd gladly let them give up their chance to hit a homer / extra base hit for a bunt attempt at a single. I don't know how the expected run value works out there -- I guess it depends on the player's skill laying down the bunt -- but when you've got half of the infield to work with (as long as you get it by the pitcher), it seems like a no-brainer, and I hope more guys start doing it. Nothing in baseball is less fun than watching hits get taken away by defensive shifts.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:40 PM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
You'll see guys do this occasionally -- Cody Bellinger did it for the Dodgers yesterday -- but the conventional wisdom is that you'd gladly let them give up their chance to hit a homer / extra base hit for a bunt attempt at a single. I don't know how the expected run value works out there -- I guess it depends on the player's skill laying down the bunt -- but when you've got half of the infield to work with (as long as you get it by the pitcher), it seems like a no-brainer, and I hope more guys start doing it. Nothing in baseball is less fun than watching hits get taken away by defensive shifts.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:40 PM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
> All I wanna know is: what has to happen for the Phillies to stop sucking?
God begins to cry.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:56 PM on June 5, 2017
God begins to cry.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:56 PM on June 5, 2017
Another theory I've heard tossed out there, though I can't remember where I heard it, is that the launch angle thing is a result of (or reaction to) pitchers getting more low strikes called. If pitchers are throwing more low strikes and the hitters are starting to expect more of them, then it's logical to think that may result in more hitters "golfing" the balls out with an upward swing trajectory.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:08 PM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 5:08 PM on June 5, 2017 [1 favorite]
Ah, found it:
All right. Let’s look at this very simply. Where did all those extra home runs come from last season? In this plot, home runs per swing, on pitches in the strike zone, where the zone is divided into thirds. [...]posted by tonycpsu at 5:10 PM on June 5, 2017 [5 favorites]
Homers on pitches in the lower third took off. Homers on pitches in the middle third also increased. Homers on pitches in the upper third…stayed the same. All that extra good contact was coming from the zone’s lowest 66%. [...]
So for pitchers feeling spooked, there’s the hint of a solution in here. And it’s something we’ve discussed before, with regard to the big picture, and with regard to Mike Trout. Conventional wisdom has said the best swing is a level one. In truth, the best swing is a swing up. And, conventional wisdom has said the best way to avoid a home run is to pitch down. In truth, at least now, it’s probably to pitch up. High fastballs are associated with homers, but they should really be associated with pop-ups and empty whiffs. The swing-changers, the power-hitting revolution — it’s all designed to combat how pitchers have gone on the attack. Pitchers can change how they attack if they want. The more a hitter swings up, the more he can probably be exploited around the belt. Baseball can seemingly never just stand in one place.
Relevant: Ryan Howard’s Career Is Dead. The Shift Killed It.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:32 AM on June 7, 2017
posted by tonycpsu at 8:32 AM on June 7, 2017
I'm wondering why there seems to be a reluctance to lay down bunts in the opposite direction of the shift, especially when nobody's on base.
These days, almost everyone is terrible at bunting.
posted by drezdn at 9:13 AM on June 7, 2017
These days, almost everyone is terrible at bunting.
posted by drezdn at 9:13 AM on June 7, 2017
I found these two blog posts by Joe Posnanski on this topic great:
The Balance of Baseball
A Baseball Seesaw
The second post is centered around a great analogy by Bill James:
The Balance of Baseball
A Baseball Seesaw
The second post is centered around a great analogy by Bill James:
“It is actually a very interesting phenomenon, a kid’s seesaw,” he writes. “If you put two kids on a seesaw, they will instinctively figure out the balance. The bigger kid will scoot forward so that the impact of his weight and distance from the center is the same as the smaller kid, so that the two of them will balance so they can go up and down. What is really interesting there is that kids instinctively figure that out; nobody has to explain it to them.posted by HighLife at 10:24 AM on June 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
“A similar thing DOES happen in baseball, and has happened, and you’re right about the balance point in a sense; the hitters have scooted forward and the pitchers have scooted backward so that they’re maintaining balance, in a sense.
“But we are dangerously near the point at which the fat kid is right in the center so the seesaw doesn’t work anymore. We are maintaining a balance by rushing toward the extreme points.”
> These days, almost everyone is terrible at bunting.
Everyone on the Mets has always been terrible at bunting. I have been complaining about this since 1981.
posted by languagehat at 10:48 AM on June 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Everyone on the Mets has always been terrible at bunting. I have been complaining about this since 1981.
posted by languagehat at 10:48 AM on June 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
These days, almost everyone is terrible at bunting.
There is the issue that many players don't practice it anymore, because there are few situations where it actually makes sense.
But also, bunting is *hard*. Even for the players that do make a point of incorporating it into their game.
posted by HighLife at 11:25 AM on June 7, 2017
There is the issue that many players don't practice it anymore, because there are few situations where it actually makes sense.
But also, bunting is *hard*. Even for the players that do make a point of incorporating it into their game.
posted by HighLife at 11:25 AM on June 7, 2017
A couple of interesting dinger-adjacent Fangraphs posts today:
You’ll Never Forget About Scooter Gennett
You’ll Never Forget About Scooter Gennett
The easiest interpretation here is that Scooter Gennett has become a living symbol of our new home-run era. Scooter Gennett hit four home runs in a game because there are constant home runs now, in every game, and a lot of the shine has come off, and we know a lot of the shine has come off because four home runs were just hit in a game by Scooter Gennett. Gennett has a career slugging percentage of .431. Now this year he’s slugging .578. Yesterday he slugged 3.400. The home-run spike colors everything. If the ball isn’t juiced, it feels like the ball is juiced, and it’s just a weird time to be alive. [...]Joe Kelly and Baseball in Another Dimension
Scooter Gennett went 5-for-5. He drove in 10 runs, and he knocked out four homers. In so doing, he tied the all-time record, and he broke Joey Votto. [...]
Joey Votto has thought about everything. You’ve seen his sprawling interviews posted here, chats he’s had with Eno Sarris where it’s Eno who sometimes has to leave the clubhouse before Votto’s done talking. All Votto wants to do is exchange baseball information. He’s about so much more than himself, easily one of the game’s most thoughtful and inquisitive minds. When it comes to the major leagues, Joey Votto has thought about everything. He’d never before thought of a four-homer game from Scooter Gennett.
History is made by the historic. It’s Wednesday, now, and Scooter Gennett awoke a different man.
Strikeout rate continues to inch up for MLB hitters, sitting at a record rate of 21.6% of plate appearances at the moment. That’s up 3.1 percentage points since 2010 and 4.5 points since 2007. While some of that might be tied to hitters trading contact focus for power focus — the 2017 HR/FB rate sits at a record 13.4% at the moment — more is likely tied to the continued reduction of hitter’s reaction time, which makes batters more vulnerable to spin and changeups. [...]posted by tonycpsu at 2:48 PM on June 7, 2017
And just as the air-ball revolution has the potential to fundamentally change the game, there would seem to be a significant issue down the road — and perhaps not too far down the road — if velocity continues to inch up for the foreseeable future. While velocity can increase, the ability for a hitter to see a pitch and react seems rather fixed. If reaction time keeps being reduced, the game will continued to be warped toward one of three true outcomes, and more and more toward one outcome, in particular: the strikeout. [...]
Perhaps hitters will be able to continue to trade contact for power to keep the run-scoring environment within the game’s normal range, even as strikeouts continue to rise. Perhaps hitters can continue adapting to a higher-velocity environment. Perhaps as strikeouts continue to rise so will power.
Perhaps there could be a leveling off in velocity if injuries continue to rise.
But the incentive for pitches is to continue throwing harder, which poses a problem when the distance to home plate remains stable. The time, for batters, from pitch recognition to the start of a swing continues to be reduced. We are just seeing the first waves of pitchers raised and developed in the 21st century — with the benefit of modern science, training, and ideas — reaching the majors. These are pitchers who’ve grown up understanding how important radar readings can be and how best to achieve impressive ones.
Regarding the Joe Kelly article, I wonder if the seesaw there is arm injuries. It kinda looks like it's not currently possible for a human to throw above a certain speed for any real length of time without sustaining serious injuries. At some point, I assume players are going to deliberately dial back on the velocity a little bit to reign in the Tommy John/thoracic outlet/what-have-you surgeries and attendant career issues. Someone like like Kyle Hendricks isn't ever going to blow up the radar gun, but he's very effective and is also significantly less likely to blow up his elbow.
posted by protocoach at 3:48 PM on June 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by protocoach at 3:48 PM on June 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Agree with those who say that watching runners duelling with the pitcher (and catcher and basemen) to steal bases is one of the best parts of baseball. Home runs are good every so often, but not the reason I like the sport. Too many is not good for baseball.
posted by Pouteria at 9:07 PM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Pouteria at 9:07 PM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
AndrewInDC: "About half of the MLB parks currently in use were built after 1995, and it feels like a lot of them were made outsized in reaction to the steroid era, and then had their walls moved in when pitching began to dominate soon after (looking at you, Citi Field)."
Even in earlier configuration, modern parks tend to be small. If you look back at the dimensions of some the earlier parks, they are very far to the wall (or where not, had a super high wall, like at the Baker Bowl), plus had tons of foul territory.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:12 PM on June 21, 2017
Even in earlier configuration, modern parks tend to be small. If you look back at the dimensions of some the earlier parks, they are very far to the wall (or where not, had a super high wall, like at the Baker Bowl), plus had tons of foul territory.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:12 PM on June 21, 2017
The Demystification of the Dinger
When every park is a hitter’s park, none of them are. When everyone’s hitting homers, nobody is, except for the mightiest of mashers. We lose something in that kind of game. We lose the childlike wonder we feel as we watch a man hit all the way over a wall with a wooden club, because it’s already happened two times today, and happened two times the day before.posted by tonycpsu at 9:05 AM on June 26, 2017
Here's a new piece at 538 that ascribes the home runs spike to miniscule changes in the ball, within specs but significant enough to account for the added distance.
posted by beagle at 3:27 PM on June 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by beagle at 3:27 PM on June 30, 2017 [1 favorite]
MLB just broke the record for most home runs in a month (or was it for a June?). Regardless, on pace to easily break the season record.
posted by AugustWest at 7:50 PM on June 30, 2017
posted by AugustWest at 7:50 PM on June 30, 2017
« Older Anyone who gets hold of the pen & writes... | How do flamingos balance on one foot? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Yes I'd prefer to live in the dead-ball era, why do you ask?
posted by Ten Cold Hot Dogs at 7:05 AM on June 5, 2017 [8 favorites]