Every team now invests heavily into advanced analytics, but are teams actually better for it? I'm not asking if the game is more entertaining, but rather are the teams better quality. It's hard to say, because the steroid era of the 1990s really distorts things, but it's a question I often wonder. I started looking into it today, and I don't think the advanced stats have really made a positive difference. For the most part, I am looking at stats 2005 and later, since that is the first year players got suspended for positive tests. Also, admittedly, it's next to impossible to compare seasons/era because as hitters have gotten better/worse, so have pitchers. I also realize my analysis is all very amateur, which makes sense since I'm not a pro, nor do I feel like spending days or weeks compiling these numbers.

My first theory was that if advanced stats are making offenses better, then we should see more runs being scored. This season MLB teams are averaging 4.47 runs per game, that's essentially flat from last season's 4.45. For the past 5 seasons, MLB teams are averaging 4.44 runs per game. From 2005-2009, MLB teams averaged 4.70 runs per game, or about 5% more.

Another stat I thought could be interesting is OBP. Ever since Moneyball was published, it has become more valuable than batting average. Since it is a statistic that is more valued now, you would expect to see OBP go up. However, the opposite has happened. From 05-09, the average OBP was .334, compared to .315 the past five years, a drop of .019. There is a similar drop in batting average, from .266 to .245. Interestingly, HRs have gone up compared to twenty years ago. For the past five years, teams average 1.14 HRs/G, compared to 1.04 HRs/G from 05-09. Even with the increase power, though, slugging is down (.402 compared to .422) leading to OPS being way down (.755 to .718).

To no one's surprise, the reason for the large drop in nearly all offensive categories is because strikeouts are up substantially. From 05-09, batters only struck out on 17.3% of ABs. Now, it's 22.5%. That leads to almost two strikeouts more per game (1.8).

Now, all of this could be because pitchers are improving at a faster rate than hitters. I don't really know how to prove/disprove that yet. I don't think that can be the only reason, though. I really feel like the move away from putting the ball in play, moving runners over, etc. isn't helping offenses. The increase in both HRs and strikeouts, combined with the decrease in OBP, seems to prove what everyone already knows. Guys are just swinging for the fences. Statistically speaking, even though guys are hitting more HRs, they aren't scoring more runs. Despite all the focus on advanced analytics to improve an offense, they are still scoring basically the same amount of runs. They are just scoring them a different way.

Or they could be specifically sitting on a certain pitch and not getting it?


This is interesting topic to me from a time line standpoint. I soured on the sport during the steroid scandals and then got caught up in life for about a 10-12 year stretch during the 2010s while my kids were young. It's just really been the last 3 or 4 years really started watching a lot of MLB again.

What has been most staggering to me in my "return" to the sport is what they're able to do, almost on the fly, with the pitching labs. They're basically unlocking maximum potential of these pitchers and the hitters just have try and survive. A guy gets into a funk - it's not 3 or 4 starts to figure it out and get their stuff back - it's the next day. Need a new pitch - here's one for your next start. It's crazy.

I do think, overall, the product is not as good. There is too much imbalance between the pitching and hitting now and I think we've lost so much of the beauty of the game - the shift, the fact that every hitter just tries to muscle the ball out of the park rather than hit a back side single to drive in a runner from second. There is a lot of strategy gone.

You could look at it this way, the additional home runs are keeping the run totals afloat. I would say in general it's been much easier to find 2-3 additional good pitchers at any given time for every 1 decent bat. Benches are generally poor (offensively). I'd say defensive versatility and value has gone up (which aids the pitching) even taking away the over-shift.

When you score a lot of runs, you can win in many different ways, so teams seem to be prioritizing being able to win on the margins in a low-scoring environment.

Random thoughts, sort of on topic:

- has the increase in the numbers of pitchers on the roster, and consequent reduction in hitters on the bench, contributed to any of this? It seems like starters, much of the time, go twice through the lineup and then get pulled for a parade of relievers, each of whom is throwing an inning or maybe two.

- how comparable are the stats between the two leagues, and how do the NL numbers compare from the beginning of your sample period, when the pitchers were still hitting, to the post-COVID, DH era? Adding the DH should, in theory, lead to more hitting, but it also probably contributes to increasing the number of relievers on the roster, because managers don't need to worry as much about needing PHs late in games when a pitcher comes up to bat.

3rd Coast said:

---

I think it's helping pitching and hurting hitting. Paralysis by analysis. I see a lot of teams taking called third strikes down the plate, which to me indicates they are guessing.

---

I posted on a different thread how terrible hitters are in today's game. Launch angle horse****, zero contact hitting, zero effort to hit to the opposite field.

I love that Milwaukee has the best record in baseball while hitting the fewest home runs. However, as usual, they will likely get taken out in the playoffs by a team with exceptional pitching.

It's hard for me to quantify perfectly, but a factor influencing what we see with offensive numbers relates to the amount of crappy pitchers allowed to pitch a ton of innings.

In 2005 23 pitchers qualified for the ERA title (162 innings pitched) with an ERA over 4.50 including Jose Lima with a 6.99!

This year there are only 6 pitchers over 4.50. Last year only 5.

Pitching is better, but more than that teams don't run ineffective arms out there like they used to. Hitters used to feast on these guys late in games, but now innings 7-9 have them facing elite relievers. Obviously their approach at the plate could be better, but slug wins games and brings in runs.

Thats a good point....there are certainly times for a home run approach, but game situations may require a different approach at the plate and we see so much less of that - there is too much "hit a big fly or bust" mentality

I assure you that if you ask the Brewers if they'd like to hit more home runs, the answer would be yes. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Brewers are among the teams with the hardest exit velocities, but they don't put the ball in the air. They beat you with speed. They lead the bigs in Bolts, are the 2nd-fastest overall team speed, and have 9 guys in the top 100 in sprint speed. Oh, and they're really good at drawing walks. Once on base, they beat you there too (2nd in baserunning runs).

Analytics tell you how valuable those things are. A dummy like me can go to readily available leaderboards and see it. I think we simply take trends and styles of play that happen and just blanketly say "analytics".

good points above

analytics struggles with two long-time baseball stat categories: batting average and RBI

(also struggles with the value of singles with respect to run-scoring)

when a batter leads off an inning...walk or single is fine -- OBP is a great stat

when a batter is hitting w/RISP...singles are extremely valuable and batting average is very important

a great example this year is Alec Burleson with the Cardinals. He has 100 RBI with just 21 HR's

in his 156 RISP at-bats this season...he has 14 doubles, 37 singles, and only 4 homers -- batting .353 w/RISP

he's not trying to hit 400 ft bombs in run-scoring situations. But analytics doesn't always like or value the singles approach and/or the resulting RBI

I'd say its the exact opposite - the common fan struggles with understanding the value of batting average and RBI, simply because for the better part of most of their fandom's those have been key statistics.

Sure, when a batter leads off an inning, walk or a single is fine and OBP is key.

And when a batter is hitting w/RISP, batting average is very important.

But outside of the first inning there's no way to actually predict those situations, so the the more analytical statistics that show scenario-isolated production are often leaned upon.

W said:

---

good points above

analytics struggles with two long-time baseball stat categories: batting average and RBI

(also struggles with the value of singles with respect to run-scoring)

when a batter leads off an inning...walk or single is fine -- OBP is a great stat

when a batter is hitting w/RISP...singles are extremely valuable and batting average is very important

a great example this year is Alec Burleson with the Cardinals. He has 100 RBI with just 21 HR's

in his 156 RISP at-bats this season...he has 14 doubles, 37 singles, and only 4 homers -- batting .353 w/RISP

he's not trying to hit 400 ft bombs in run-scoring situations. But analytics doesn't always like or value the singles approach and/or the resulting RBI

---

Depends on what you're looking at.

Take RE24 as an example. It compares Runs Expected before the at bat vs after.

Situation is Runner on 1st, 1 out: 0.51 Runs
Single, Runner moves to third: 1.14 Runs or +0.63 Runs
vs
Walk, Runner moves to second: 0.88 Runs or +0.37 Runs

The stat clearly tells you that a hit is better than a walk in that situation.

But RE24 is a descriptive stat and not a predictive one. Most of those are context-neutral.

Like in many statistical cases, it's not "the stats don't tell the whole story" and more "you're not using the correct stats".

W said:

---

good points above

analytics struggles with two long-time baseball stat categories: batting average and RBI

(also struggles with the value of singles with respect to run-scoring)

when a batter leads off an inning...walk or single is fine -- OBP is a great stat

when a batter is hitting w/RISP...singles are extremely valuable and batting average is very important

a great example this year is Alec Burleson with the Cardinals. He has 100 RBI with just 21 HR's

in his 156 RISP at-bats this season...he has 14 doubles, 37 singles, and only 4 homers -- batting .353 w/RISP

he's not trying to hit 400 ft bombs in run-scoring situations. But analytics doesn't always like or value the singles approach and/or the resulting RBI

---

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to convey.

Crooked numbers are great but with RISP, especially with less than 2 outs, a hitter has to find a way to get those runs home and I'd rather have the guy focusing on trying to hit a line drive in the opposite gap (ie- RC for a righty or LC for a lefty) than have him sell out for that 400' bomb.

Will Clark tells a story of him watching Eddie Murray doing a round of BP and talking about how he was just putting ugly swings on bad pitches over and over. He asked Murray what he was doing and Murray's response was basically that he was putting himself in a situation where there were runners on and less than 2 outs and he had to put the ball in play to either advance the runners or score a run.

That mentality doesn't really exist today. It's not sexy and analytics say it's no good but it's still necessary. I mean, would you rather have a guy selling out for a nuke with a runner on 3rd and 1 out in a tie game or a guy that will do anything it takes to put a ball in play to get that run home?

TarponChaser said:

---

W said:

---

good points above

analytics struggles with two long-time baseball stat categories: batting average and RBI

(also struggles with the value of singles with respect to run-scoring)

when a batter leads off an inning...walk or single is fine -- OBP is a great stat

when a batter is hitting w/RISP...singles are extremely valuable and batting average is very important

a great example this year is Alec Burleson with the Cardinals. He has 100 RBI with just 21 HR's

in his 156 RISP at-bats this season...he has 14 doubles, 37 singles, and only 4 homers -- batting .353 w/RISP

he's not trying to hit 400 ft bombs in run-scoring situations. But analytics doesn't always like or value the singles approach and/or the resulting RBI

---

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to convey.

Crooked numbers are great but with RISP, especially with less than 2 outs, a hitter has to find a way to get those runs home and I'd rather have the guy focusing on trying to hit a line drive in the opposite gap (ie- RC for a righty or LC for a lefty) than have him sell out for that 400' bomb.

Will Clark tells a story of him watching Eddie Murray doing a round of BP and talking about how he was just putting ugly swings on bad pitches over and over. He asked Murray what he was doing and Murray's response was basically that he was putting himself in a situation where there were runners on and less than 2 outs and he had to put the ball in play to either advance the runners or score a run.

That mentality doesn't really exist today. It's not sexy and analytics say it's no good but it's still necessary. I mean, would you rather have a guy selling out for a nuke with a runner on 3rd and 1 out in a tie game or a guy that will do anything it takes to put a ball in play to get that run home?

---

I think this is what it comes down to -- you say analytics say its no good, but it's still necessary.

Why if the data says it's not good do you say it's still necessary?

I agree it has cheapened the strategy and beauty of the game, but the one thing about baseball is there is no shortage of historical data -- and historical data overwhelmingly shows that compromising exit velocity leads to lower run production.

We all remember our little league coach telling us to choke up with 2 strikes and just "put the ball in play". And when hitting the ball to a bunch of kids who are as likely to throw the ball away as to successfully record an out, that made sense.

On the major league level it simply doesn't.

Just rough numbers, but a hard hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out has a run expectancy of ~1.25-1.50.

A weak hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out, depending on the depth of the fielders, is roughly 0.75 run expectancy -- less than the baseline in that situation.

Now when you factor in a runner potentially on 1st (double play possibility) and the value of multi-run innings over valuing just that one run at third... you see why the "just put the ball in play" approach has been abandoned.

The data overwhelmingly tells you to hit the ball hard or walk.

And what's the expectancy of getting an out when the hitter is selling out? Run expectancy of hitting the ball hard vs making contact isn't really relevant when you're playing for 1 run.

In the situation I detailed I'm choosing Luis Arraez over Kyle Schwarber.

The Brewers are pretty darn close

TarponChaser said:

---

And what's the expectancy of getting an out when the hitter is selling out? Run expectancy of hitting the ball hard vs making contact isn't really relevant when you're playing for 1 run.

In the situation I detailed I'm choosing Luis Arraez over Kyle Schwarber.

---

So then you'd be looking at a subset of when you're playing for 1 run - which for the vast majority of innings is not the goal, as statistics overwhelmingly show that crooked number innings are what separates winners from losers.

So you're talking late in a game in certain key situations, then yeah altering your approach to "putting the ball in play" may be the better option (which is why you see sac bunts late but rarely early), but as the run expectancy charts show you, lowering your swing velocity still isn't a recipe for great success.

Truth is slapping the ball in the infield in the big leagues is not going to result in a positive outcome.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

W said:

---

good points above

analytics struggles with two long-time baseball stat categories: batting average and RBI

(also struggles with the value of singles with respect to run-scoring)

when a batter leads off an inning...walk or single is fine -- OBP is a great stat

when a batter is hitting w/RISP...singles are extremely valuable and batting average is very important

a great example this year is Alec Burleson with the Cardinals. He has 100 RBI with just 21 HR's

in his 156 RISP at-bats this season...he has 14 doubles, 37 singles, and only 4 homers -- batting .353 w/RISP

he's not trying to hit 400 ft bombs in run-scoring situations. But analytics doesn't always like or value the singles approach and/or the resulting RBI

---

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to convey.

Crooked numbers are great but with RISP, especially with less than 2 outs, a hitter has to find a way to get those runs home and I'd rather have the guy focusing on trying to hit a line drive in the opposite gap (ie- RC for a righty or LC for a lefty) than have him sell out for that 400' bomb.

Will Clark tells a story of him watching Eddie Murray doing a round of BP and talking about how he was just putting ugly swings on bad pitches over and over. He asked Murray what he was doing and Murray's response was basically that he was putting himself in a situation where there were runners on and less than 2 outs and he had to put the ball in play to either advance the runners or score a run.

That mentality doesn't really exist today. It's not sexy and analytics say it's no good but it's still necessary. I mean, would you rather have a guy selling out for a nuke with a runner on 3rd and 1 out in a tie game or a guy that will do anything it takes to put a ball in play to get that run home?

---

I think this is what it comes down to -- you say analytics say its no good, but it's still necessary.

Why if the data says it's not good do you say it's still necessary?

I agree it has cheapened the strategy and beauty of the game, but the one thing about baseball is there is no shortage of historical data -- and historical data overwhelmingly shows that compromising exit velocity leads to lower run production.

We all remember our little league coach telling us to choke up with 2 strikes and just "put the ball in play". And when hitting the ball to a bunch of kids who are as likely to throw the ball away as to successfully record an out, that made sense.

On the major league level it simply doesn't.

Just rough numbers, but a hard hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out has a run expectancy of ~1.25-1.50.

A weak hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out, depending on the depth of the fielders, is roughly 0.75 run expectancy -- less than the baseline in that situation.

Now when you factor in a runner potentially on 1st (double play possibility) and the value of multi-run innings over valuing just that one run at third... you see why the "just put the ball in play" approach has been abandoned.

The data overwhelmingly tells you to hit the ball hard or walk.

---

To paraphrase Moneyball, "If hitting the ball harder leads to more runs, then why aren't teams scoring more runs?"

I think most everyone understands that when you hit the ball harder, your more likely to get a hit. However, the trade off for swinging harder is more swings and misses. Statistically speaking, it appears that the net effect is 0 at best, because teams aren't scoring more runs.

I would love to see if a team can be successful using the old style of just putting the ball in play, and moving runners. However, I think those days are gone because there just aren't hitters who can do that anymore.

---

Why teams aren't scoring more runs could have three dozen different reasons that have nothing to do with hitting the ball harder.

Look, I enjoy the old style approach, but there's decades of statistics now that make it very clear that hitting the ball hard leads to full season success, not "putting the ball in play".

Pitching is significantly better, fielding is significantly better. This idea that you can go up there and just slap the ball where you want it is just not reality - you'll be a routine ground out most times, a double play candidate much of the time. Maybe you can move a runner from 2nd to 3rd from time to time if you can go oppo effectively. A player that can just hit the ball hard somewhere is going to produce more value than that guy every time.

Proposition Joe said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

W said:

---

good points above

analytics struggles with two long-time baseball stat categories: batting average and RBI

(also struggles with the value of singles with respect to run-scoring)

when a batter leads off an inning...walk or single is fine -- OBP is a great stat

when a batter is hitting w/RISP...singles are extremely valuable and batting average is very important

a great example this year is Alec Burleson with the Cardinals. He has 100 RBI with just 21 HR's

in his 156 RISP at-bats this season...he has 14 doubles, 37 singles, and only 4 homers -- batting .353 w/RISP

he's not trying to hit 400 ft bombs in run-scoring situations. But analytics doesn't always like or value the singles approach and/or the resulting RBI

---

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to convey.

Crooked numbers are great but with RISP, especially with less than 2 outs, a hitter has to find a way to get those runs home and I'd rather have the guy focusing on trying to hit a line drive in the opposite gap (ie- RC for a righty or LC for a lefty) than have him sell out for that 400' bomb.

Will Clark tells a story of him watching Eddie Murray doing a round of BP and talking about how he was just putting ugly swings on bad pitches over and over. He asked Murray what he was doing and Murray's response was basically that he was putting himself in a situation where there were runners on and less than 2 outs and he had to put the ball in play to either advance the runners or score a run.

That mentality doesn't really exist today. It's not sexy and analytics say it's no good but it's still necessary. I mean, would you rather have a guy selling out for a nuke with a runner on 3rd and 1 out in a tie game or a guy that will do anything it takes to put a ball in play to get that run home?

---

I think this is what it comes down to -- you say analytics say its no good, but it's still necessary.

Why if the data says it's not good do you say it's still necessary?

I agree it has cheapened the strategy and beauty of the game, but the one thing about baseball is there is no shortage of historical data -- and historical data overwhelmingly shows that compromising exit velocity leads to lower run production.

We all remember our little league coach telling us to choke up with 2 strikes and just "put the ball in play". And when hitting the ball to a bunch of kids who are as likely to throw the ball away as to successfully record an out, that made sense.

On the major league level it simply doesn't.

Just rough numbers, but a hard hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out has a run expectancy of ~1.25-1.50.

A weak hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out, depending on the depth of the fielders, is roughly 0.75 run expectancy -- less than the baseline in that situation.

Now when you factor in a runner potentially on 1st (double play possibility) and the value of multi-run innings over valuing just that one run at third... you see why the "just put the ball in play" approach has been abandoned.

The data overwhelmingly tells you to hit the ball hard or walk.

---

To paraphrase Moneyball, "If hitting the ball harder leads to more runs, then why aren't teams scoring more runs?"

I think most everyone understands that when you hit the ball harder, your more likely to get a hit. However, the trade off for swinging harder is more swings and misses. Statistically speaking, it appears that the net effect is 0 at best, because teams aren't scoring more runs.

I would love to see if a team can be successful using the old style of just putting the ball in play, and moving runners. However, I think those days are gone because there just aren't hitters who can do that anymore.

---

Why teams aren't scoring more runs could have three dozen different reasons that have nothing to do with hitting the ball harder.

Look, I enjoy the old style approach, but there's decades of statistics now that make it very clear that hitting the ball hard leads to full season success, not "putting the ball in play".

Pitching is significantly better, fielding is significantly better. This idea that you can go up there and just slap the ball where you want it is just not reality - you'll be a routine ground out most times, a double play candidate much of the time. Maybe you can move a runner from 2nd to 3rd from time to time if you can go oppo effectively. A player that can just hit the ball hard somewhere is going to produce more value than that guy every time.

---

Except I would argue that you don't have the data to argue against what we would call the "old school" approach. There are the old box scores but you don't have any of the other data to plug in such as defensive positioning, exit velos, bat speed, launch angle, etc.

In any sort of analysis you have to have a sufficient control or counter observed under the same conditions. We don't have that today.

Even without the data, I think the eye test tells us that players are bigger and faster and stronger than they were in the 70s and 80s on average.

Obviously some exceptions like Winfield and Eric Davis, but the small ball we remember from that period was partly due to teams having a lot of Otis Nixon, Willie McGee, Brett Butler types on their rosters. Those guys wouldn't even make rosters today.

Whether one style (power vs. small ball) is better or worse than another is kind of subjective, but that players are built to hit the ball harder is pretty clear to me.

No doubt that players are bigger, faster, and stronger. But that doesn't negate my point.

ETA: Davis and Winfield, while both exceptional athletes were completely different players. Davis played at about 6'2" 165# while Winfield played at 6'6" 220.

The average MLB player is certainly bigger and stronger these days but I don't know that they're any faster on average and I'm not sure you can really go back and judge it effectively. I also don't buy some arguments that players are more skilled today.

Pitchers are throwing harder on average but that's not because the guys in the past weren't capable. It's well documented that the way the pitch speed is measured is different (out of the hand vs. at the plate) which, I believe, is calculated to be a 3-5mph difference on average and starting pitchers were expected to throw a lot more innings so they didn't go max effort on every pitch so a guy might cruise at 90-92 for 7 innings but still have 94-95 in the tank after 120 pitches.

Hitting guys throwing 98 with movement and all the development of tunneling pitches, etc is harder but it's also made even more difficult by the current philosophy of selling out for the crooked number. Go look at the best hitters in the league- when they're truly on a heater they're driving pitches oppo because pitchers are pitching them away in hopes of getting rollovers and weak contact but by driving the ball the other way they see more pitches and more mistakes that they do real damage with.

TarponChaser said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

W said:

---

good points above

analytics struggles with two long-time baseball stat categories: batting average and RBI

(also struggles with the value of singles with respect to run-scoring)

when a batter leads off an inning...walk or single is fine -- OBP is a great stat

when a batter is hitting w/RISP...singles are extremely valuable and batting average is very important

a great example this year is Alec Burleson with the Cardinals. He has 100 RBI with just 21 HR's

in his 156 RISP at-bats this season...he has 14 doubles, 37 singles, and only 4 homers -- batting .353 w/RISP

he's not trying to hit 400 ft bombs in run-scoring situations. But analytics doesn't always like or value the singles approach and/or the resulting RBI

---

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to convey.

Crooked numbers are great but with RISP, especially with less than 2 outs, a hitter has to find a way to get those runs home and I'd rather have the guy focusing on trying to hit a line drive in the opposite gap (ie- RC for a righty or LC for a lefty) than have him sell out for that 400' bomb.

Will Clark tells a story of him watching Eddie Murray doing a round of BP and talking about how he was just putting ugly swings on bad pitches over and over. He asked Murray what he was doing and Murray's response was basically that he was putting himself in a situation where there were runners on and less than 2 outs and he had to put the ball in play to either advance the runners or score a run.

That mentality doesn't really exist today. It's not sexy and analytics say it's no good but it's still necessary. I mean, would you rather have a guy selling out for a nuke with a runner on 3rd and 1 out in a tie game or a guy that will do anything it takes to put a ball in play to get that run home?

---

I think this is what it comes down to -- you say analytics say its no good, but it's still necessary.

Why if the data says it's not good do you say it's still necessary?

I agree it has cheapened the strategy and beauty of the game, but the one thing about baseball is there is no shortage of historical data -- and historical data overwhelmingly shows that compromising exit velocity leads to lower run production.

We all remember our little league coach telling us to choke up with 2 strikes and just "put the ball in play". And when hitting the ball to a bunch of kids who are as likely to throw the ball away as to successfully record an out, that made sense.

On the major league level it simply doesn't.

Just rough numbers, but a hard hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out has a run expectancy of ~1.25-1.50.

A weak hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out, depending on the depth of the fielders, is roughly 0.75 run expectancy -- less than the baseline in that situation.

Now when you factor in a runner potentially on 1st (double play possibility) and the value of multi-run innings over valuing just that one run at third... you see why the "just put the ball in play" approach has been abandoned.

The data overwhelmingly tells you to hit the ball hard or walk.

---

To paraphrase Moneyball, "If hitting the ball harder leads to more runs, then why aren't teams scoring more runs?"

I think most everyone understands that when you hit the ball harder, your more likely to get a hit. However, the trade off for swinging harder is more swings and misses. Statistically speaking, it appears that the net effect is 0 at best, because teams aren't scoring more runs.

I would love to see if a team can be successful using the old style of just putting the ball in play, and moving runners. However, I think those days are gone because there just aren't hitters who can do that anymore.

---

Why teams aren't scoring more runs could have three dozen different reasons that have nothing to do with hitting the ball harder.

Look, I enjoy the old style approach, but there's decades of statistics now that make it very clear that hitting the ball hard leads to full season success, not "putting the ball in play".

Pitching is significantly better, fielding is significantly better. This idea that you can go up there and just slap the ball where you want it is just not reality - you'll be a routine ground out most times, a double play candidate much of the time. Maybe you can move a runner from 2nd to 3rd from time to time if you can go oppo effectively. A player that can just hit the ball hard somewhere is going to produce more value than that guy every time.

---

Except I would argue that you don't have the data to argue against what we would call the "old school" approach. There are the old box scores but you don't have any of the other data to plug in such as defensive positioning, exit velos, bat speed, launch angle, etc.

In any sort of analysis you have to have a sufficient control or counter observed under the same conditions. We don't have that today.

---

We have run production from hard hit balls vs non-hard hit balls... and it's pretty darn clear.

I guess I'm wondering - are you thinking that there'd be more "slap hits" if players were trying to do that instead of swinging hard, or you just think that moving runner from 2nd->3rd or from 3rd->home with "put in play" at-bats will increase overall run production?

Proposition Joe said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

W said:

---

good points above

analytics struggles with two long-time baseball stat categories: batting average and RBI

(also struggles with the value of singles with respect to run-scoring)

when a batter leads off an inning...walk or single is fine -- OBP is a great stat

when a batter is hitting w/RISP...singles are extremely valuable and batting average is very important

a great example this year is Alec Burleson with the Cardinals. He has 100 RBI with just 21 HR's

in his 156 RISP at-bats this season...he has 14 doubles, 37 singles, and only 4 homers -- batting .353 w/RISP

he's not trying to hit 400 ft bombs in run-scoring situations. But analytics doesn't always like or value the singles approach and/or the resulting RBI

---

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to convey.

Crooked numbers are great but with RISP, especially with less than 2 outs, a hitter has to find a way to get those runs home and I'd rather have the guy focusing on trying to hit a line drive in the opposite gap (ie- RC for a righty or LC for a lefty) than have him sell out for that 400' bomb.

Will Clark tells a story of him watching Eddie Murray doing a round of BP and talking about how he was just putting ugly swings on bad pitches over and over. He asked Murray what he was doing and Murray's response was basically that he was putting himself in a situation where there were runners on and less than 2 outs and he had to put the ball in play to either advance the runners or score a run.

That mentality doesn't really exist today. It's not sexy and analytics say it's no good but it's still necessary. I mean, would you rather have a guy selling out for a nuke with a runner on 3rd and 1 out in a tie game or a guy that will do anything it takes to put a ball in play to get that run home?

---

I think this is what it comes down to -- you say analytics say its no good, but it's still necessary.

Why if the data says it's not good do you say it's still necessary?

I agree it has cheapened the strategy and beauty of the game, but the one thing about baseball is there is no shortage of historical data -- and historical data overwhelmingly shows that compromising exit velocity leads to lower run production.

We all remember our little league coach telling us to choke up with 2 strikes and just "put the ball in play". And when hitting the ball to a bunch of kids who are as likely to throw the ball away as to successfully record an out, that made sense.

On the major league level it simply doesn't.

Just rough numbers, but a hard hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out has a run expectancy of ~1.25-1.50.

A weak hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out, depending on the depth of the fielders, is roughly 0.75 run expectancy -- less than the baseline in that situation.

Now when you factor in a runner potentially on 1st (double play possibility) and the value of multi-run innings over valuing just that one run at third... you see why the "just put the ball in play" approach has been abandoned.

The data overwhelmingly tells you to hit the ball hard or walk.

---

To paraphrase Moneyball, "If hitting the ball harder leads to more runs, then why aren't teams scoring more runs?"

I think most everyone understands that when you hit the ball harder, your more likely to get a hit. However, the trade off for swinging harder is more swings and misses. Statistically speaking, it appears that the net effect is 0 at best, because teams aren't scoring more runs.

I would love to see if a team can be successful using the old style of just putting the ball in play, and moving runners. However, I think those days are gone because there just aren't hitters who can do that anymore.

---

Why teams aren't scoring more runs could have three dozen different reasons that have nothing to do with hitting the ball harder.

Look, I enjoy the old style approach, but there's decades of statistics now that make it very clear that hitting the ball hard leads to full season success, not "putting the ball in play".

Pitching is significantly better, fielding is significantly better. This idea that you can go up there and just slap the ball where you want it is just not reality - you'll be a routine ground out most times, a double play candidate much of the time. Maybe you can move a runner from 2nd to 3rd from time to time if you can go oppo effectively. A player that can just hit the ball hard somewhere is going to produce more value than that guy every time.

---

Except I would argue that you don't have the data to argue against what we would call the "old school" approach. There are the old box scores but you don't have any of the other data to plug in such as defensive positioning, exit velos, bat speed, launch angle, etc.

In any sort of analysis you have to have a sufficient control or counter observed under the same conditions. We don't have that today.

---

We have run production from hard hit balls vs non-hard hit balls... and it's pretty darn clear.

I guess I'm wondering - are you thinking that there'd be more "slap hits" if players were trying to do that instead of swinging hard, or you just think that moving runner from 2nd->3rd or from 3rd->home with "put in play" at-bats will increase overall run production?

---

Where is the historical data of "hard hit" vs not? How was that quantified before the Statcast era? And it's also true that selling out for the nuke hollows out the middle- you get harder contact but fewer occurrences and more weak contact from rollovers and pop ups.

In other words, you get plenty of 95-100mph exit velos but more 65mph too.

It's not even slap hits it having the goal of shooting an oppo line drive and situational "slap hits" (think Ichiro) if that's what you want to call it.

Like I said before, if I absolutely have to get 1 run home with RISP I want the guy with the high BA but maybe less power (Arraez) over the low average/high power (Schwarber).

Something I heard from a Tim Kirkjain podcast this morning and think it is relevant to take into consideration in this conversation

James Wood, at age 23, has faced more (different/unique) pitchers than Ted Williams did in his entire career.

AgRyan04 said:

---

Something I heard from a Tim Kirkjain podcast this morning and think it is relevant to take into consideration in this conversation

James Wood, at age 23, has faced more (different/unique) pitchers than Ted Williams did in his entire career.

---

There is definitely that aspect.

Makes me wonder if it wouldn't be more effective to try to play small ball?

If it was more effective, why wouldn't people be doing it? I promise it's easier to find a quick player who can punt that it is to find someone who hits bombs.

Farmer1906 said:

---

If it was more effective, why wouldn't people be doing it? I promise it's easier to find a quick player who can punt that it is to find someone who hits bombs.

---

Same reason football coaches get locked into bad play calling patterns. It's a herd mentality and they lack the wherewithal to adjust.

TarponChaser said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

W said:

---

good points above

analytics struggles with two long-time baseball stat categories: batting average and RBI

(also struggles with the value of singles with respect to run-scoring)

when a batter leads off an inning...walk or single is fine -- OBP is a great stat

when a batter is hitting w/RISP...singles are extremely valuable and batting average is very important

a great example this year is Alec Burleson with the Cardinals. He has 100 RBI with just 21 HR's

in his 156 RISP at-bats this season...he has 14 doubles, 37 singles, and only 4 homers -- batting .353 w/RISP

he's not trying to hit 400 ft bombs in run-scoring situations. But analytics doesn't always like or value the singles approach and/or the resulting RBI

---

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to convey.

Crooked numbers are great but with RISP, especially with less than 2 outs, a hitter has to find a way to get those runs home and I'd rather have the guy focusing on trying to hit a line drive in the opposite gap (ie- RC for a righty or LC for a lefty) than have him sell out for that 400' bomb.

Will Clark tells a story of him watching Eddie Murray doing a round of BP and talking about how he was just putting ugly swings on bad pitches over and over. He asked Murray what he was doing and Murray's response was basically that he was putting himself in a situation where there were runners on and less than 2 outs and he had to put the ball in play to either advance the runners or score a run.

That mentality doesn't really exist today. It's not sexy and analytics say it's no good but it's still necessary. I mean, would you rather have a guy selling out for a nuke with a runner on 3rd and 1 out in a tie game or a guy that will do anything it takes to put a ball in play to get that run home?

---

I think this is what it comes down to -- you say analytics say its no good, but it's still necessary.

Why if the data says it's not good do you say it's still necessary?

I agree it has cheapened the strategy and beauty of the game, but the one thing about baseball is there is no shortage of historical data -- and historical data overwhelmingly shows that compromising exit velocity leads to lower run production.

We all remember our little league coach telling us to choke up with 2 strikes and just "put the ball in play". And when hitting the ball to a bunch of kids who are as likely to throw the ball away as to successfully record an out, that made sense.

On the major league level it simply doesn't.

Just rough numbers, but a hard hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out has a run expectancy of ~1.25-1.50.

A weak hit ball with a runner on 3rd and 1 out, depending on the depth of the fielders, is roughly 0.75 run expectancy -- less than the baseline in that situation.

Now when you factor in a runner potentially on 1st (double play possibility) and the value of multi-run innings over valuing just that one run at third... you see why the "just put the ball in play" approach has been abandoned.

The data overwhelmingly tells you to hit the ball hard or walk.

---

To paraphrase Moneyball, "If hitting the ball harder leads to more runs, then why aren't teams scoring more runs?"

I think most everyone understands that when you hit the ball harder, your more likely to get a hit. However, the trade off for swinging harder is more swings and misses. Statistically speaking, it appears that the net effect is 0 at best, because teams aren't scoring more runs.

I would love to see if a team can be successful using the old style of just putting the ball in play, and moving runners. However, I think those days are gone because there just aren't hitters who can do that anymore.

---

Why teams aren't scoring more runs could have three dozen different reasons that have nothing to do with hitting the ball harder.

Look, I enjoy the old style approach, but there's decades of statistics now that make it very clear that hitting the ball hard leads to full season success, not "putting the ball in play".

Pitching is significantly better, fielding is significantly better. This idea that you can go up there and just slap the ball where you want it is just not reality - you'll be a routine ground out most times, a double play candidate much of the time. Maybe you can move a runner from 2nd to 3rd from time to time if you can go oppo effectively. A player that can just hit the ball hard somewhere is going to produce more value than that guy every time.

---

Except I would argue that you don't have the data to argue against what we would call the "old school" approach. There are the old box scores but you don't have any of the other data to plug in such as defensive positioning, exit velos, bat speed, launch angle, etc.

In any sort of analysis you have to have a sufficient control or counter observed under the same conditions. We don't have that today.

---

We have run production from hard hit balls vs non-hard hit balls... and it's pretty darn clear.

I guess I'm wondering - are you thinking that there'd be more "slap hits" if players were trying to do that instead of swinging hard, or you just think that moving runner from 2nd->3rd or from 3rd->home with "put in play" at-bats will increase overall run production?

---

Where is the historical data of "hard hit" vs not? How was that quantified before the Statcast era? And it's also true that selling out for the nuke hollows out the middle- you get harder contact but fewer occurrences and more weak contact from rollovers and pop ups.

In other words, you get plenty of 95-100mph exit velos but more 65mph too.

It's not even slap hits it having the goal of shooting an oppo line drive and situational "slap hits" (think Ichiro) if that's what you want to call it.

Like I said before, if I absolutely have to get 1 run home with RISP I want the guy with the high BA but maybe less power (Arraez) over the low average/high power (Schwarber).

---

So you question whether hard hit balls historically were hits at a higher clip than non hard hit balls?

And then say guys need to play more like Ichiro?

How many guys you think could be Ichiro if they just tried harder?

As for who you'd rather have up needing to get 1 run home with a RISP late in the game -- of course you'd prefer the guy who is statistically more likely to get a hit than the masher. I don't think there's anyone in the game that would disagree with you.

Hell, guy on 3rd and you have to get him home, you'd love a guy who is an elite squeeze bunter.

That doesn't mean you're going to win a lot of games with a team full of elite squeeze bunters.

Playing for 1 run is a key part of baseball. But historical box scores will show you that playing for more than 1 run is a lot more important.

No, I'm saying how do we know what balls were hard hit or not before the StatCast era when every exit velo is tracked.