U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2012, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,851,958 times
Reputation: 6637

Advertisements

http://www.billjamesonline.com/can_mike_trout_hit_400/

Quote:
I don’t know what the solution will be….but I think that major league baseball will decide that there are too many strikeouts, and they’ll figure out a way to increase contact while maintaining a reasonable balance between offense and defense.

A rule change that reduces the overall strikeout would help batting averages. And it would give Mike Trout a shot at hitting .400.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2012, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,589,026 times
Reputation: 36111
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
The white bars are the percentage of players how walk more than they K.

The black line is the league strike out percentage. You can see that no one has hit .400 since the strike out became sexy (or something)

That's a good point. Even if hitters had constant hit percentage of BIP, more Ks would reduce the number of hits per AB. It's all become power pitching.

But in 1941, the strike zone was a lot bigger, up to the armpits. Hitters needed batlift to hit the high hard ones, which bled their batspeed. decelerating grounders headed for the holes.

That chart is amazing. In barely a decade ('50-'64), the K:BB ratio literally doubled, and nobody seemed to notice at the time. Koufax alone couldn't have accounted for it all.

Last edited by jtur88; 07-02-2012 at 03:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2012, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,570 posts, read 18,713,424 times
Reputation: 18833
Trout made another interesting point in that article:
Quote:
I’ll also throw in my entirely subjective belief that, WAR-be-damned, a player hitting .400 is the most significant single-season achievement that a player can accomplish. With the single-season homerun record a bit tarnished by the steroid era, hitting .400 is the default standard-bearer of awe-inspiring batting feats.
I think that this is true. Future assaults on the single season home run record are going to be befuddled affairs. Perhaps some future Uberman player might be able to hit 74, but for the moment, it looks like such a total, sans banned chemicals, is out of reach. If someone goes into the final games with a shot at hitting 62, many will regard it as the real new record, but in the official books it will just be the seventh highest total ever. The romance of the chase will be buried in legalities and debates about legitimacy.

Because of that, batting .400 will move from second place to first place in terms of fan captivation, home run records will probably drop to third place, behind a pitcher winning thirty games.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Hometown of Jason Witten
5,985 posts, read 3,749,606 times
Reputation: 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
Some of you can remember when Yaz won the batting title at .301. If pitching ever again becomes as dominant as in the late 1960's, we will probably see a larger strike zone or lower pitching mound or both. Today I think the pitching and hitting are very well matched, as we've seen spectacular performances from both this season.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,570 posts, read 18,713,424 times
Reputation: 18833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner View Post
Some of you can remember when Yaz won the batting title at .301. If pitching ever again becomes as dominant as in the late 1960's, we will probably see a larger strike zone or lower pitching mound or both. Today I think the pitching and hitting are very well matched, as we've seen spectacular performances from both this season.
Their goal this time is unique and will require a unique solution. They wish to reduce strikeouts, but not alter the current balance between scoring and the prevention of scoring.

In the past when they have made adjustments to the strikezone, larger in 1963 and 1988, smaller in 1969, redefined in the mid '90's, offensive levels have gone either up or down. If they attempt to reduce strikeouts now by shrinking the strikezone, offensive levels will go up, the present balance will be altered in favor of the hitters.

The mound was lowered in 1969, and offensive levels immediately rose, but the strikezone was also shrunk, so what effect the independent lowering of the mound might have, isn't established.

I'm not confident that this goal can be achieved. How can reducing strikeouts not increase offensive output? The strikeout is the main defensive weapon, it eliminates all of the risks involved in batted balls. Fewer strikeouts will have to mean more batted balls, and how can batted balls be controlled so that they go for outs any more frequently than they presently do? Add a tenth defensive position? Move all the bases five feet further away from the plate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 11:16 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,851,958 times
Reputation: 6637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
how can batted balls be controlled so that they go for outs any more frequently than they presently do? Add a tenth defensive position? Move all the bases five feet further away from the plate?
Alter the ball
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,589,026 times
Reputation: 36111
Another sub-point worthy of discussion is, what kind of a hitter would be more likely to do it?

Will it be a superhuman player who stands out over all other for a whole career, like Ted Williams, or just an also-ran having a good year, like Andres Galarraga or John Olerud or Joe Mauer or Norm Cash?

I once had a lengthy discussion at a game about the effect on offensive-defensive balance if the bases were moved 2 feet further apart to 92 feet, or two feet closer together to 88 feet. No agreement could be reached. Is 90 feet a magic number, the only distance at which baseball can be played with offense and defense balanced, or would things still work out much the same with an adjustment of a few feet one way or another?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2012, 11:46 PM
 
Location: southwestern USA
1,816 posts, read 1,770,039 times
Reputation: 2396
I think there is too much specialization in baseball now to produce a .400 hitter.

The number of pitching changes and matchup changes is far greater than it used to be.

Putting starting pitchers on strict pitch counts and yanking them when they approach 100 pitches is another factor-----starter goes six and is replaced for an inning by a guy who throw it at 95-------than you eight inning guy who throws sliders and heat and than the closer.

I just feel this relatively new useage of as much as four or five pitchers in a game reduces a great hitters chances of hitting .400-----I dont think it will happen in modern era baseball.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 07:23 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,570 posts, read 18,713,424 times
Reputation: 18833
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
Alter the ball
In what manner? How will altering the ball reduce strikeouts?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,851,958 times
Reputation: 6637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
In what manner? How will altering the ball reduce strikeouts?
I was responding to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
how can batted balls be controlled so that they go for outs any more frequently than they presently do? Add a tenth defensive position? Move all the bases five feet further away from the plate?
I wasn't suggesting to alter the balls to decrease strikeouts. I was suggesting altering the ball so that batted balls go for outs more frequently than they presently do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top