I'm torn. I'd rather see some baserunning, singles and doubles, and a bit of strategy versus hunting for HRs; but damn if that wasn't a fun game to watch last night.
I'm assuming this is just the state of the league? Pitchers are so good at keeping away from hitters that the hitters want to capitalize as much as possible when they make contact, versus just trying to get something past the infield to get a man on base? I'm doing a really bad job of translating this into words. I'm trying to figure out what led to all-HRs-forever instead of the more "grindy" versions of games that I'm used to; where you would see more guys on base and some strategy related to getting them home via sacrifices, steals, and passed balls.
This year had more homeruns overall but we aren't getting the single folks doing insane amounts it is more of an overall thing.
Though I am not sure I would call it a thing with the playoffs though. The Dodgers had 27 or something like that innings without giving up a run by their bullpen.
Nothing to add beyond the general sentiment of "!!!!!!!" that's already been expressed here and everywhere else, but gosh, that Game 5 was possibly the best game of baseball I've ever seen. It's top 5 for sure, across all sports. Thrilling.
It was a fun game to watch for sure but 9 year old me jumping up and down on a couch in middle Minnesota will never allow game 7 of the 1991 World Series to be topped.
Jack Morris pitching a ten inning shutout with shaggy Dan Gladden racing home in the bottom of the tenth to win the series is just too awesome.
Nothing tops 2002 Game 6 of the World Series for me. I thought it was over for the Angels, a lot of people did. Giants had a 3-2 lead in the series and were up 5-0 in the 7th in Game 6, coming off a 16-4 blowout of the Angels in Game 5. Angels came back with 3 in the 7th, and 3 in the 8th to win 6-5 and force Game 7.
The 2002 series held the previous record of 21 home runs in a WS which was beaten already this year and it isn't even over.
I'm torn. I'd rather see some baserunning, singles and doubles, and a bit of strategy versus hunting for HRs; but damn if that wasn't a fun game to watch last night.
I'm assuming this is just the state of the league? Pitchers are so good at keeping away from hitters that the hitters want to capitalize as much as possible when they make contact, versus just trying to get something past the infield to get a man on base? I'm doing a really bad job of translating this into words. I'm trying to figure out what led to all-HRs-forever instead of the more "grindy" versions of games that I'm used to; where you would see more guys on base and some strategy related to getting them home via sacrifices, steals, and passed balls.
The short answer is statistics.
The longer answer is that we found out that it’s better to fish for home runs than go for hits because home run fishing also produces more doubles at a rate which is significantly higher than the drop off in singles and the accumulated advancement rate. Most important is that on first you require two outs to reliably move someone to third; which negates the sac fly.
That is: swinging for the fences puts people on second where they can be driven in or advanced twice by sacrifice.
This is also why you may have thought you have seen more “challenges” from the outfield. People realized that you really don’t get those chances again so take them when they’re up
I want it to a 7th game that ends up at like.. 16 innings, with 6 or 8 home runs each, because anything else will almost certainly feel anti-climatic now.
I want it to a 7th game that ends up at like.. 16 innings, with 6 or 8 home runs each, because anything else will almost certainly feel anti-climatic now.
I want it to a 7th game that ends up at like.. 16 innings, with 6 or 8 home runs each, because anything else will almost certainly feel anti-climatic now.
Oh god no
My heart can't take it
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Stealing second has always mattered. But you have to do it at a high rate.
Frankly the main problem with stealing is that people don’t do it enough. A double is worth more than twice a single and so even if you have a lowish success ratio you’re doing well.
With 2 outs you should be attempting to steal almost all the damn time. Two outs and 1+ strike and you should be running especially with a good hitter at the plate. Not only do you have low probability fast ball but on first you’re worth little while on second a lot more. And, if you do get out you’ve bought your hitter another count and if there is a hit you might be able to score.
Stealing second has always mattered. But you have to do it at a high rate.
Frankly the main problem with stealing is that people don’t do it enough. A double is worth more than twice a single and so even if you have a lowish success ratio you’re doing well.
With 2 outs you should be attempting to steal almost all the damn time. Two outs and 1+ strike and you should be running especially with a good hitter at the plate. Not only do you have low probability fast ball but on first you’re worth little while on second a lot more. And, if you do get out you’ve bought your hitter another count and if there is a hit you might be able to score.
How do you measure worth? I'm kind of surprised about this statement. I haven't kept up recently with new research, but just looking up some references like https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-visual-look-at-woba/ (admittedly from 2011, so things might have changed) the weights for a single are either 2 (for OPS, obviously) or 0.9 for wOBA (not something I'm particularly familiar with, but I think it still used. It certainly seems more thoughtful than OPS), while for a double, OPS is 3 and wOBA 1.24. So, at least for that particular article, the argument is the opposite. A double is worth much less than double a single (50% more for OPS, only 38% more for wOBA).
Edit: Another way to look at it: Would you prefer to have 2 singles or 1 double? I think everyone would prefer the former, right? So, I think its a pretty convincing argument that a double is not worth even twice a single.
chrono_traveller on
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. ~ Terry Pratchett
FanGraphs' current BsR (baserunning runs added) statistic is illustrative, if you take it as reasonably accurate. The best baserunner I ever watched play on a regular basis was Michael Bourn. According to FanGraphs, he added about 1.3 wins of value in his best season with his baserunning. By comparison, take a guy like Cody Bellinger who was close to the league average this season on offense in everything but his power output, where he was elite. The result? 2.8 wins of offensive value. (Edit: For a more apples-to-apples comparison, Byron Buxton was the BsR leader this season, and added about 1.2 wins of value with his legs.)
And I think that seems reasonable, based on everything I've seen. Being elite at power or OBP seems about twice as valuable as being elite at baserunning.
Good baserunning of course does have value, but there's a reason it's not prized as heavily on the open market as other categories.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Stealing second has always mattered. But you have to do it at a high rate.
Frankly the main problem with stealing is that people don’t do it enough. A double is worth more than twice a single and so even if you have a lowish success ratio you’re doing well.
With 2 outs you should be attempting to steal almost all the damn time. Two outs and 1+ strike and you should be running especially with a good hitter at the plate. Not only do you have low probability fast ball but on first you’re worth little while on second a lot more. And, if you do get out you’ve bought your hitter another count and if there is a hit you might be able to score.
How do you measure worth? I'm kind of surprised about this statement. I haven't kept up recently with new research, but just looking up some references like https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-visual-look-at-woba/ (admittedly from 2011, so things might have changed) the weights for a single are either 2 (for OPS, obviously) or 0.9 for wOBA (not something I'm particularly familiar with, but I think it still used. It certainly seems more thoughtful than OPS), while for a double, OPS is 3 and wOBA 1.24. So, at least for that particular article, the argument is the opposite. A double is worth much less than double a single (50% more for OPS, only 38% more for wOBA).
Edit: Another way to look at it: Would you prefer to have 2 singles or 1 double? I think everyone would prefer the former, right? So, I think its a pretty convincing argument that a double is not worth even twice a single.
Implicit in your question of "would you rather have two singles or a double" is "would you rather have two singles in a row or a double" the answer is obviously you would rather have two singles in a row. But two singles isn't two singles in a row.
wOBA has some issues (not worth getting into right now*) but the main thing is that wOBA (and OPS) are not measuring the event we want to discuss. They're attempting to measure a general run scored probability for a given event. But we want to measure a conditional run scored probability for a given situation. OPS's weights are also kind of pointless because they're not a measurement they're just a dumb weight.
That is; the value of a single is, roughly, "Value of base runner on first + Probability of knocking in a run + advancement value" while the value of a double is "Value of a base runner on second + probability of knocking in a run+ advancement value". When discussing stealing the measurement were looking at is simple "value of a base runner on first" compared to "value of a base runner on second". The "potential score" and "advancement value" are null since there is no one to advance.
The majority of value of "singles" is hitting singles with runners in scoring position. The conditional required to steal (essentially no one one second, someone on first) negates the primary value of singles, which is the fact that they can occur when people are in scoring position. Indeed we can know this because the "value of a person on first" must be less than the value of a walk since walks are "Value of 1B occupied plus 1b advancement value" and the value of a walk is .72. The value of "probability of scoring someone" is going to be pretty similar for a double and single (doubles will sometimes score people from first but this is rare enough that the value is largely in getting someone into scoring position). This puts the value of the person on second at a minimum of 50% greater value than a person on first(by putting the advancement value of a walk at zero). In reality (once you remove all the value of moving up people when you walk as well as increased pitch count etc) you expect this difference to be much greater.
Additionally there are different values of people on various bases at different out values. A person on third with 1 out is worth a lot more than a person on third with two outs, obviously. A person on first with two outs is worth almost nothing as the probability of scoring them while not getting an out is very low(basically two non-triple or above hits in a row + probability of > double). The probability of scoring someone from second in this situation is actually pretty decent, you just need a single hit. Roughly the ratio between these values is going to be equal to slightly less than the inverse of the teams batting average. If your team is batting .300 a person on second is worth almost 3.3 times as much as a person on first. Triples and Home Runs modify this but even the best HR hitter is going to be hitting a HR maybe 6 or 7% of plate appearances which will have a very minor effect on the positional value of the runner compared to batting averages.
That is, if you have two outs getting to second base a third of the time probably gives your teams some extra runs.
*The main issues are that Reached on Error should not be included because its exceedingly unlikely that these should be correlated with the skills of the hitter (indeed the definition should almost prevent it) while also obviously producing more value than a single and similarly NIBB and HPB should be the same value, differences in offensive value from this result from variance in the effect of the pitcher or simply randomness.
I can’t decide if I appreciate Fox’s strike zone box stuff or not. I like seeing it but the calls that don’t agree with it make me irrationally irritated.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I can’t decide if I appreciate Fox’s strike zone box stuff or not. I like seeing it but the calls that don’t agree with it make me irrationally irritated.
The weird thing about Fox's strike zone is that it's WAY smaller than MLB Gameday's.
Posts
This year had more homeruns overall but we aren't getting the single folks doing insane amounts it is more of an overall thing.
Though I am not sure I would call it a thing with the playoffs though. The Dodgers had 27 or something like that innings without giving up a run by their bullpen.
This has been an insane series though.
Jack Morris pitching a ten inning shutout with shaggy Dan Gladden racing home in the bottom of the tenth to win the series is just too awesome.
The 2002 series held the previous record of 21 home runs in a WS which was beaten already this year and it isn't even over.
The short answer is statistics.
The longer answer is that we found out that it’s better to fish for home runs than go for hits because home run fishing also produces more doubles at a rate which is significantly higher than the drop off in singles and the accumulated advancement rate. Most important is that on first you require two outs to reliably move someone to third; which negates the sac fly.
That is: swinging for the fences puts people on second where they can be driven in or advanced twice by sacrifice.
This is also why you may have thought you have seen more “challenges” from the outfield. People realized that you really don’t get those chances again so take them when they’re up
I got to go to that game
Holy shit was it insane and incredible
Cant we just get a standard 2 hour 9 inning game with a score of 7-2 to win the series? Just...cmon guys....i cant handle this much stress.
SHUSH! lol
Oh god no
My heart can't take it
Mlb just announced they're extending the series to a best of 19.
That thud you hear is me passing out in a most dramatic fashion.
3 Home Runs. Mediocre.
philistines
He also hit home runs. Like a nine tool player.
The secret is that stealing bases never actually mattered.
If you can steal them at high volume with high success rate they do.
If you look down, Rickey has managed to steal your shoes without you noticing.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Frankly the main problem with stealing is that people don’t do it enough. A double is worth more than twice a single and so even if you have a lowish success ratio you’re doing well.
With 2 outs you should be attempting to steal almost all the damn time. Two outs and 1+ strike and you should be running especially with a good hitter at the plate. Not only do you have low probability fast ball but on first you’re worth little while on second a lot more. And, if you do get out you’ve bought your hitter another count and if there is a hit you might be able to score.
How do you measure worth? I'm kind of surprised about this statement. I haven't kept up recently with new research, but just looking up some references like https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-visual-look-at-woba/ (admittedly from 2011, so things might have changed) the weights for a single are either 2 (for OPS, obviously) or 0.9 for wOBA (not something I'm particularly familiar with, but I think it still used. It certainly seems more thoughtful than OPS), while for a double, OPS is 3 and wOBA 1.24. So, at least for that particular article, the argument is the opposite. A double is worth much less than double a single (50% more for OPS, only 38% more for wOBA).
Edit: Another way to look at it: Would you prefer to have 2 singles or 1 double? I think everyone would prefer the former, right? So, I think its a pretty convincing argument that a double is not worth even twice a single.
And I think that seems reasonable, based on everything I've seen. Being elite at power or OBP seems about twice as valuable as being elite at baserunning.
Good baserunning of course does have value, but there's a reason it's not prized as heavily on the open market as other categories.
Implicit in your question of "would you rather have two singles or a double" is "would you rather have two singles in a row or a double" the answer is obviously you would rather have two singles in a row. But two singles isn't two singles in a row.
wOBA has some issues (not worth getting into right now*) but the main thing is that wOBA (and OPS) are not measuring the event we want to discuss. They're attempting to measure a general run scored probability for a given event. But we want to measure a conditional run scored probability for a given situation. OPS's weights are also kind of pointless because they're not a measurement they're just a dumb weight.
That is; the value of a single is, roughly, "Value of base runner on first + Probability of knocking in a run + advancement value" while the value of a double is "Value of a base runner on second + probability of knocking in a run+ advancement value". When discussing stealing the measurement were looking at is simple "value of a base runner on first" compared to "value of a base runner on second". The "potential score" and "advancement value" are null since there is no one to advance.
The majority of value of "singles" is hitting singles with runners in scoring position. The conditional required to steal (essentially no one one second, someone on first) negates the primary value of singles, which is the fact that they can occur when people are in scoring position. Indeed we can know this because the "value of a person on first" must be less than the value of a walk since walks are "Value of 1B occupied plus 1b advancement value" and the value of a walk is .72. The value of "probability of scoring someone" is going to be pretty similar for a double and single (doubles will sometimes score people from first but this is rare enough that the value is largely in getting someone into scoring position). This puts the value of the person on second at a minimum of 50% greater value than a person on first(by putting the advancement value of a walk at zero). In reality (once you remove all the value of moving up people when you walk as well as increased pitch count etc) you expect this difference to be much greater.
Additionally there are different values of people on various bases at different out values. A person on third with 1 out is worth a lot more than a person on third with two outs, obviously. A person on first with two outs is worth almost nothing as the probability of scoring them while not getting an out is very low(basically two non-triple or above hits in a row + probability of > double). The probability of scoring someone from second in this situation is actually pretty decent, you just need a single hit. Roughly the ratio between these values is going to be equal to slightly less than the inverse of the teams batting average. If your team is batting .300 a person on second is worth almost 3.3 times as much as a person on first. Triples and Home Runs modify this but even the best HR hitter is going to be hitting a HR maybe 6 or 7% of plate appearances which will have a very minor effect on the positional value of the runner compared to batting averages.
That is, if you have two outs getting to second base a third of the time probably gives your teams some extra runs.
*The main issues are that Reached on Error should not be included because its exceedingly unlikely that these should be correlated with the skills of the hitter (indeed the definition should almost prevent it) while also obviously producing more value than a single and similarly NIBB and HPB should be the same value, differences in offensive value from this result from variance in the effect of the pitcher or simply randomness.
The weird thing about Fox's strike zone is that it's WAY smaller than MLB Gameday's.
I'm pretty sure that's just an artifact of the camera angle, the box isn't actually starting at their shins.
I know it’s partially because of the importance of the games but I can’t remember seeing so many hitters double-taking a ball/strike call.