White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
GO SOX! DSNB!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #331  
Old 10-22-2018, 07:34 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo
as well as the plethora of smaller parks with less foul territory that have replaced the cavernous multipurpose stadia and/or the parks with exceptionally deep outfields (like Old Comiskey).
This ties in with the Nellie Fox debate as well. Park dimensions no longer allow guys with single-digit home run totals to hit 30+ doubles to mitigate the lack of home runs. 70 players hit 30+ doubles last year; only 3 of them hit fewer than 10 home runs.

Like the “perennial .300 hitter”, the “singles/doubles hitter” profile has disappeared. Projecting it onto future players is basically chasing a phantom.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 10-22-2018, 08:04 PM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 19,842
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
This ties in with the Nellie Fox debate as well. Park dimensions no longer allow guys with single-digit home run totals to hit 30+ doubles to mitigate the lack of home runs. 70 players hit 30+ doubles last year; only 3 of them hit fewer than 10 home runs.

Like the “perennial .300 hitter”, the “singles/doubles hitter” profile has disappeared. Projecting it onto future players is basically chasing a phantom.
Fair point, but Madrigal has the kind of profile that could project to exactly that kind of production: .300+ average, 30 doubles, 20+ steals, 5-10 HR. I agree that that kind of player is rare in today’s game, though. And just because it would be rare/otherwise nonexistent, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be valuable in today’s game. In fact, a player like that could end up exploiting an inefficiency in the current game, specifically because:

1. He sprays the ball everywhere with such precise bat control, and thus will routinely beat any shift, upon which teams have come to reply, because;

2. Teams increasingly are willing to sacrifice defense at second and third base, and in the outfield, because of the reduction in batted balls, and thus a hitter who sprays the ball to all fields will have more batted balls drop in for hits.

I’m not saying Madrigal will hit .350, but his game is the kind of game that could exploit inefficiencies in the modem game to hit for that kind of average.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:12 PM
A. Cavatica A. Cavatica is offline
Chief Skeptic and 2015 Preseason Predictions Contest Winner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
This ties in with the Nellie Fox debate as well. Park dimensions no longer allow guys with single-digit home run totals to hit 30+ doubles to mitigate the lack of home runs. 70 players hit 30+ doubles last year; only 3 of them hit fewer than 10 home runs.

Like the “perennial .300 hitter”, the “singles/doubles hitter” profile has disappeared. Projecting it onto future players is basically chasing a phantom.
Those doubles are carrying out of parks now. Have there been studies about how juiced the ball has been, from year to year?
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:43 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Cavatica
Those doubles are carrying out of parks now. Have there been studies about how juiced the ball has been, from year to year?
There is that, plus there is not as much of a chance at stretching a single to a double on any balls that don’t reach the wall, plus “no doubles” defensive alignments, plus all the other factors already mentioned in the thread. All of it adds up to a fairly definitive conclusion that trying to do things the way they used to be done in the past is detrimental over the long haul. Doubles are no longer the province of slap-hitters finding the gap and beating a throw to 2B; they are the province of power-hitters who get them as consolation prizes when they miss home runs.
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:50 PM
Tragg Tragg is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gonzales LA
Posts: 15,013
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Cavatica View Post
Those doubles are carrying out of parks now. Have there been studies about how juiced the ball has been, from year to year?
That's also because they are trying to hit them out of the park and it's worth the extra Ks to try do so. There is also less value in "putting the ball in play" and for good reason.
There were 46 players with OBP over .350, and 46 hit at least 10 homers; 34 hit at least 20.
To use an old school stat, there were 43 players that hit at least .280 and 38 had at least 10 homers; 24 had at least 20. There were more lower homer/high BA guys, but OBP is just a better measure.
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 10-23-2018, 01:40 AM
Nellie_Fox's Avatar
Nellie_Fox Nellie_Fox is offline
Official Professor
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North Mankato, MN
Posts: 16,832
Default

Besides a lower mound and smaller parks since 1968, the ball is (in most opinions) wound tighter, and has much flatter seams. Additionally, any ball that hits the dirt automatically gets thrown out of use. Back then, unless the umpire asked for the ball, the catcher quickly threw such a ball back to the pitcher, because most of the pitchers knew how to use a small scuff to create movement.
__________________

"Nellie Fox, that little son of a gun, was always on base and was a great hit-and-run man. He sprayed hits all over."
Yogi Berra in the New York Sunday News (July 12, 1970)
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 10-23-2018, 05:31 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 3,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post
Teams increasingly are willing to sacrifice defense at second and third base, and in the outfield, because of the reduction in batted balls, and thus a hitter who sprays the ball to all fields will have more batted balls drop in for hits.

I’m not saying Madrigal will hit .350, but his game is the kind of game that could exploit inefficiencies in the modem game to hit for that kind of average.
First off, if there is a reduction of contact and poorer defensive fundamentals by the players in the long haul those defensive lapses will cause teams to lose ball games.

As you say Madrigal could thrive in the the league as the league as a whole continues to slide in executing the fundamentals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
There is that, plus there is not as much of a chance at stretching a single to a double on any balls that don’t reach the wall, plus “no doubles” defensive alignments,
There's a "no doubles alignment"? How is that possible when the game degrades fundamentally especially on the defensive side of the ball?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
All of it adds up to a fairly definitive conclusion that trying to do things the way they used to be done in the past is detrimental over the long haul. Doubles are no longer the province of slap-hitters finding the gap and beating a throw to 2B; they are the province of power-hitters who get them as consolation prizes when they miss home runs.
(emphasis mine)

'fairly definitive'? Like an open secret or jumbo shrimp?

As far as the rest of your comments go and my emphasis to who is this detrimental?
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 10-23-2018, 08:14 AM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz
As far as the rest of your comments go and my emphasis to who is this detrimental?
It’s detrimental to teams who want to score as many runs as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 10-23-2018, 07:17 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 3,958
Default

Having guys in the lineup that can stretch singles into doubles is detrimental to scoring runs?

So is, apparently defense because you'd rather put a sub-standard defensive player at second base. That certainly runs counter to conventional baseball theory that you need one of your best fielders at second. Nellie Fox would sit? Right. What about Brett Butler? Or Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew? Roberto Alomar, Willie Wilson? Willie McGee?

Pitching and defense was the mantra for all my formative baseball years. If you couldn't run the bases, play defense and pitch, if you happened to take the mound and couldn't throw a strike you sat. No matter how you hit the ball. Half the game was in the field and you had to play a complete game.

Not any more. Propeller heads rule. The league is geared for homers: balls bats, parks, poor pitching quality all of it defining the quality of the product down.

This is an incredible era in the game. I'll give you that much.
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 10-23-2018, 08:09 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz
Having guys in the lineup that can stretch singles into doubles is detrimental to scoring runs?

So is, apparently defense because you'd rather put a sub-standard defensive player at second base. That certainly runs counter to conventional baseball theory that you need one of your best fielders at second. Nellie Fox would sit? Right. What about Brett Butler? Or Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew? Roberto Alomar, Willie Wilson? Willie McGee?

Pitching and defense was the mantra for all my formative baseball years. If you couldn't run the bases, play defense and pitch, if you happened to take the mound and couldn't throw a strike you sat. No matter how you hit the ball. Half the game was in the field and you had to play a complete game.

Not any more. Propeller heads rule. The league is geared for homers: balls bats, parks, poor pitching quality all of it defining the quality of the product down.

This is an incredible era in the game. I'll give you that much.
Can’t fight City Hall...
Reply With Quote
  #341  
Old 10-23-2018, 08:38 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 3,958
Default

You see where that has gotten us...
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:02 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz
Nellie Fox would sit? Right. What about Brett Butler? Or Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew? Roberto Alomar, Willie Wilson? Willie McGee?
On this list, the only comparable player to Nellie Fox is Willie Wilson. Both Fox and Wilson had negative values for career batting Runs Above Average (Fox -57, Wilson -53), while everyone else on the list was positive. Besides, baseball immortals like Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn are a different breed altogether.

Did their defense more than make up for it? Yes. In Wilson’s case, his baserunning also more than made up for it. That doesn’t mean that either guy was good at the plate, though.
Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:41 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 55,238
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
On this list, the only comparable player to Nellie Fox is Willie Wilson. Both Fox and Wilson had negative values for career batting Runs Above Average (Fox -57, Wilson -53), while everyone else on the list was positive. Besides, baseball immortals like Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn are a different breed altogether.

Did their defense more than make up for it? Yes. In Wilson’s case, his baserunning also more than made up for it. That doesn’t mean that either guy was good at the plate, though.
I think you are looking at it wrong. Fox had a decade of excelelnce where his batting was above average. He slumped dramatically toward the end of his career and wasn't a good hitter when he came into the league but his core years were very solid with the bat. You are looking at his whole career and not the year that the teams would want a player for. I would bet a good chunk of his runs below average came during those years outside the core of his career again, from ages 23-31.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 10-23-2018, 09:50 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 3,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
In Wilson’s case, his baserunning also more than made up for it. That doesn’t mean that either guy was good at the plate, though.

Yeah, he (Wilson) was never good at the plate.


https://www.mlb.com/player/willie-wilson-124435
Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 10-23-2018, 10:04 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 9,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile
I think you are looking at it wrong. Fox had a decade of excelelnce where his batting was above average. He slumped dramatically toward the end of his career and wasn't a good hitter when he came into the league but his core years were very solid with the bat. You are looking at his whole career and not the year that the teams would want a player for. I would bet a good chunk of his runs below average came during those years outside the core of his career again, from ages 23-31.
I don’t know if it’s fair to just completely drop Fox’s off-peak years and pretend like they never existed, but here it is...

From 1951-1961, Fox was an All-Star every year, so let’s use that stretch. During that stretch, he had a cumulative 24 batting Runs Above Average. He had a positive batting RAA value in 6 of those years, a negative batting RAA value in 4 of those years, and a value of exactly 0 in 1960. By contrast, he had 223 total Runs Above Average. The fact that he played top-level defense (104 fielding Runs Above Average) at a premium defensive position (63 positional Runs Above Average) contributed far more to his value than his bat did.

I don’t know why this is so controversial. Plenty of very good 2B throughout baseball history were below average with the bat.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.