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 07-06-2012, 08:00 AM
 
749 posts, read 717,598 times
Reputation: 640

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by John23 View Post
The pitching wasn't as sophisticated. How many guys would have hit .400 if closers were brought in? Pitching has gotten much more specialized. If todays starters pitched as many innings as the old guys did....probably more guys hitting close to .400.
There's your answer.

The Splinter often saw the starting pitcher 4-5 times a game.....these days he'd be lucky to see him 3 times a game on average....not to mention rotations weren't as deep in 1941 as they are now. Then about the 6th-7th inning he'd see a left-hander who comes from the side....throwing nothing but nasty sliders, and then a closer in the 9th who throws gas.

Not that a guy like Teddy couldn't hit these guys, it's just that .400 these days would be extremely unlikely. Another guy like Suzuki would have to come along, a singles hitter with the speed to crank out infield hits to the tune of 40+ a yr.

The overwhelming proliferation of night games, ballpark outfield's are less spacious, the relentless media circus that would ensue if a guy entered September with a shot at it, and also the fact that big contracts seem to fall into the hands of the guys that can go yard....add it all together, and it makes the feat just that much more difficult.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2012, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Hometown of Jason Witten
5,985 posts, read 3,742,079 times
Reputation: 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyTrav View Post

The Splinter often saw the starting pitcher 4-5 times a game.....these days he'd be lucky to see him 3 times a game on average....not to mention rotations weren't as deep in 1941 as they are now. Then about the 6th-7th inning he'd see a left-hander who comes from the side....throwing nothing but nasty sliders, and then a closer in the 9th who throws gas.
And playing every other team 22 games per season also increased the hitters' familiarity with opposing pitchers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 08:28 AM
 
749 posts, read 717,598 times
Reputation: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner View Post
And playing every other team 22 games per season also increased the hitters' familiarity with opposing pitchers.
Yup...completely forgot about that. Not to mention inter-league play forces hitters to see even more pitchers that they've had minimal to no at-bats against.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,263 posts, read 18,634,241 times
Reputation: 18779
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
I was responding to this.



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.
I realized that, I was curious as to what measures in addition to altering the ball you would employ to make sure that the altered ball did not result in decreased offense.

I shall guess your plan would be to shrink the strikezone, increasing batted balls in play, but achieve a result of a smaller percentage of those balls being converted into hits with a less lively ball.

Of course that would also mean that you will be reducing home runs, so you would have to actually make your adjustments so that you have not just duplicated present batting averages, they must be increased to compensate for the loss of homeruns in order to maintain present scoring levels.

It would be something of a return to the deadball era. Is that something the fans want? Slow footed sluggers will be driven from the game, they will become liabilities.

Anyway, however you feel about a return to deadball style play (which might not be too bad...stolen bases, sacrifices, hit and run and all those strategies rendered pointless in the powerball era, will be revitalized) , that isn't the stated goal by MLB. They want to reduce strikeouts without changing anything else.

I do not think that it can be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
13,293 posts, read 12,818,899 times
Reputation: 6637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
I realized that, I was curious as to what measures in addition to altering the ball you would employ to make sure that the altered ball did not result in decreased offense.

I shall guess your plan would be to shrink the strikezone, increasing batted balls in play, but achieve a result of a smaller percentage of those balls being converted into hits with a less lively ball.

Of course that would also mean that you will be reducing home runs, so you would have to actually make your adjustments so that you have not just duplicated present batting averages, they must be increased to compensate for the loss of homeruns in order to maintain present scoring levels.

It would be something of a return to the deadball era. Is that something the fans want? Slow footed sluggers will be driven from the game, they will become liabilities.

Anyway, however you feel about a return to deadball style play (which might not be too bad...stolen bases, sacrifices, hit and run and all those strategies rendered pointless in the powerball era, will be revitalized) , that isn't the stated goal by MLB. They want to reduce strikeouts without changing anything else.

I do not think that it can be done.
You're now asking a much harder question than the one I tried to answer
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?
Make the ball softer and batted balls will go for more outs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2012, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,263 posts, read 18,634,241 times
Reputation: 18779
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok View Post
You're now asking a much harder question than the one I tried to answer

.
And your harder answer would be...?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2012, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
2,884 posts, read 5,187,135 times
Reputation: 2731
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyTrav View Post
There's your answer.

The Splinter often saw the starting pitcher 4-5 times a game.....these days he'd be lucky to see him 3 times a game on average....not to mention rotations weren't as deep in 1941 as they are now. Then about the 6th-7th inning he'd see a left-hander who comes from the side....throwing nothing but nasty sliders, and then a closer in the 9th who throws gas.

Not that a guy like Teddy couldn't hit these guys, it's just that .400 these days would be extremely unlikely. Another guy like Suzuki would have to come along, a singles hitter with the speed to crank out infield hits to the tune of 40+ a yr.

The overwhelming proliferation of night games, ballpark outfield's are less spacious, the relentless media circus that would ensue if a guy entered September with a shot at it, and also the fact that big contracts seem to fall into the hands of the guys that can go yard....add it all together, and it makes the feat just that much more difficult.
I bet the 154 game schedule, playing 22 games x 7 opponents (more intimacy per pitcher, per team) + fewer pitchers per team accounts for at least an extra .10 or .12 batting percentage a season.

George Brett for example in 1980, he had 13 games x 6 opponents in his own division. And 12 games x 7 opponents in other division. He's playing against 13 teams. How many pitchers per team?

How many more pitchers did George Brett face in 1980, vs Rogers Hornsby in 1924 or 25? How many more specialized closers? How many tired pitchers did .400 hitters face (who shouldn't have been in the game), who would be relieved today?

Put Suzuki in a 16 team league, 154 games, no closers. I bet you he'd be hitting .370-.390 some seasons. Put him in a hitters park with some weird quirks, add another .05. Add no night games, another .05.

-I think other extraneous factors. Traveling by train. Probably more relaxing than air travel. And players didnt have to speak to the media as much. Concentration was probably better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Hometown of Jason Witten
5,985 posts, read 3,742,079 times
Reputation: 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by John23 View Post
I bet the 154 game schedule, playing 22 games x 7 opponents (more intimacy per pitcher, per team) + fewer pitchers per team accounts for at least an extra .10 or .12 batting percentage a season.

George Brett for example in 1980, he had 13 games x 6 opponents in his own division. And 12 games x 7 opponents in other division. He's playing against 13 teams. How many pitchers per team?

How many more pitchers did George Brett face in 1980, vs Rogers Hornsby in 1924 or 25? How many more specialized closers? How many tired pitchers did .400 hitters face (who shouldn't have been in the game), who would be relieved today?

Put Suzuki in a 16 team league, 154 games, no closers. I bet you he'd be hitting .370-.390 some seasons. Put him in a hitters park with some weird quirks, add another .05. Add no night games, another .05.

-I think other extraneous factors. Traveling by train. Probably more relaxing than air travel. And players didnt have to speak to the media as much. Concentration was probably better.
So many "what ifs." What if DiMaggio had played for the Red Sox and Williams had played for the Yankees? I assume their BA's would have been remarkably higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2012, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
2,884 posts, read 5,187,135 times
Reputation: 2731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner View Post
So many "what ifs." What if DiMaggio had played for the Red Sox and Williams had played for the Yankees? I assume their BA's would have been remarkably higher.
The 154 game schedule seems pretty nice for a hitter.

Remember guys hitting .380, .390 in Sept? John Olerud was hitting .390 in late august in 1993. Similar for Todd Helton in 2000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2012, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,663 posts, read 74,401,000 times
Reputation: 36095
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyTrav View Post
Yup...completely forgot about that. Not to mention inter-league play forces hitters to see even more pitchers that they've had minimal to no at-bats against.
Easy to test that. What is the overall BA of all players in interleague games, compared to within-league games?
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