Baseball has a problem, but it isn’t the one you might be thinking. It isn’t home runs or strikeouts. It’s former players continuously dogging the game, remaining purposely ignorant and refusing to adapt. If you’re an avid reader of baseball articles (of course you are, that’s why you’re here) you may have already seen the Bleacher Report piece written by Scott Miller (found here) detailing multiple Hall of Fame players continuing their assault on the current state of Major League Baseball. While I won’t go point for point with the piece, which you should really read after this piece, I’ll give you a quick recap: “Too many strikeouts. No more hit and runs. Pitch counts. Too many relievers. No bunts. The sky is falling and the world is ending.” Sadly, this is all too commonplace. Greats of the game, ambassadors with real influence over the viewing public, continue to harass and harangue the game because it isn’t what they remember.
Everyone has their opinion, but the doom and gloom spouted by those who came before seems rather perplexing. These are some of the greatest players the game has seen. These are supposed to be the men with the most knowledge about the game. Yet their constant negativity sounds more like something you’d find in the comments section of a social media post and not from the mouths of the game’s elites. The stunning part of this seems to be the complete disdain shown for any statistical data. Blatantly ignoring statistical data out of stubbornness seems woefully shortsighted. There’s no doubt that baseball philosophy has shifted in direction. The question is WHY the game has shifted. Many of these former players err on the side of player selfishness, blaming analytics and not accepting that other variables have changed. The real question is WHY we are seeing these changes.
Before diving in to the meat and potatoes of my explanation, I asked my fellow OFR colleagues their thoughts as to why certain aspects are changing.
Why The Rise In Three True Outcomes?
Philip: Pitcher velocity and the ability to use the top of the strike zone have made it harder to get hits. You’re going to need a lot of hits if advancing runners on singles at the expense of outs is going to pay off. Also, sinkers and defensive shifts have forced hitters to move towards elevating the ball more often.
Chris Jervis: “Three True Outcomes” is on the rise because of three things.
- A walk is not an out. That is a hitter’s primary job; not to make an out. While not as good as a hit, walks do serve to run up pitch counts and force a change by the opposing manager, while also not being outs and keeping the line moving.
- Hitters are much more apt to let pitchers nibble, rather than make bad contact. As much as everyone wants to point to the 2014-15 Royals as evidence that any contact is best, there is more evidence to disprove that philosophy. So batters tend to guess a specific pitch/location, and pass when it isn’t there, which leads to more pitchers’ counts and more strikeouts.
- The biggest factor in scoring runs (behind OBP) is slugging/ISO. Since the best of hitters are only successful 30% of the time, hitters try to maximize each plate appearance. Still, small ball CAN work with the correct lineup. Teams like the 2015 Royals, or the 80’s Cardinals can make a run with that philosophy in the short term, but long term it is much harder to sustain due to things like shifts and BABIP.
Andy Harris: Because better athletes playing better defense and better pitchers throwing with insane combinations of velocity and movement have caused batters to change their approach. Because it is much harder to get hits overall, the better strategy to score runs in most cases is to hit the ball as hard as possible, as often as possible.
Matt Chrietzberg: The demise of small ball can also be tied to teams discovering that stolen bases are an inefficient use of baserunners. The days of 80-100 SB guys are gone. Through 8/20, there are only 13 players with more than 20 SBs, and none with more than 32. Hence, more reliance on power and elevation to score runs.
Brent Blackwell: With relievers pitching a higher percentage of innings and batters understanding swing path more than ever, batters are taking more all-or-nothing approaches on pitches that are generally much faster than previous generations. Stands to reason that the “all” or “nothing” outcomes will outsize the shrinking middle class of outcomes.
Micah Smith: I’ll just say it’s the cycle we’re in. Also, it may be due in part to the change in pitching. Guys aren’t just throwing harder; they’re also more specialized. So there are probably more pitchers than hitters, which means less pieces to mix and match off the bench. Lastly, as pitching gets better, the probability of successful bunts or stolen bases drops in relation.
My View of Baseball’s Problem
There is no doubt that there are significant changes in today’s game. Baseball is on pace to finish the season with more strikeouts than hits for the first time ever, anathema to many of the game’s faithful. Shifting on defense has gone from a rarity to commonplace. Stolen bases and bunts are largely things of the past. Rarely do you see pitchers go more than five or six innings nowadays, managers reticent to allow a pitcher to face the same lineup for a third time through. Instead, managers have turned to using multiple specialists out of the bullpen more and more frequently. The game has moved towards a “three true outcomes” type of game, where strikeouts, walks, and home runs have accounted for over 30% of all outcomes. Should this trend last through the end of the season, it will be only the 7th season in baseball’s history to do so according to Elias Sports Bureau. Looking at recent evidence though, it’s little wonder that the game has shifted the way it has.
If you’re even a casual viewer you’ve undoubtedly heard former players and broadcasters lament players hitting into the shift. They seem to speak ad nauseam about how in their day, they just would’ve laid down a bunt, or pushed it the other way. Sounds easy enough. So why don’t current players follow their advice? Because that mindset is horribly oversimplified in today’s game. Back in the days of Joe Simpson, of Goose Gossage, of Pete Rose, and of many other detractors, 95 mph was a rarity. Back in 2002, four pitchers in total averaged 95 mph or better. Fast forward to 2018 and 14 starting pitchers have averaged 95 or better. The average speed of all pitches from 2002-2018 has risen almost 4 mph in total. It isn’t just about speed though. There’s only so hard the human body can consistently throw an object without their shoulder exploding, after all.
Even though pitchers are throwing fastballs significantly harder than in previous years, they’re throwing it significantly less. In 2002 pitchers threw a fastball 64.4% of the time. 2018 has seen that number drop almost 15% from the 2002 figure, down to 55.1% of pitches thrown. The recipients? Sliders and cutters. in 2002, sliders across the league average 80.4 mph and were thrown 12.1% of the time. Fangraphs, which I am using for this piece, didn’t start counting cutters until the 2004 season, which saw cutters average 86 mph and thrown only 1% of the time. In 2018 those numbers have skyrocketed. Sliders are thrown 16.7% of the time, clocking in at 84.2 mph on average. Cutters? Up all the way to 5.7% and 88.6 mph respectively.Those numbers don’t seem like much on their own, but viewed in the span of an entire season quickly add up. So what is the significance of these numbers?
Sliders and cutters are both horizontal based movement pitches. Movement is the key component in all of this. Movement is the number one component for a successful pitcher. It alters swing paths and makes professional hitters look like amateurs. The reason pitchers like Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine were so devastating wasn’t their velocity; it was their movement. More specifically, it’s horizontal movement in particular that is devastating today’s hitters. Since 2007, pitchers have tightened up sliders from an average of 2.8 inches of vertical drop to a measly .9 inches. Conversely, horizontal movement has held steady despite a 4 mph increase in velocity. This is important in relation to the “why don’t they bunt” question. Simply put, it’s much easier to adjust up and down, rather than side to side.
The other main contention, why hitters don’t simply push against the shift, is just as easy to explain. There are multiple factors working against such an approach. If a pitcher knows he has a heavy pull shift on, he pitches accordingly. This means more pitches located on the inside portion of the plate. Pitchers are professionals too, they know where to put the ball. Looking at 3 examples of hitters going opposite field:
- Player A: .314/.307/.534
- Player B: .224/.221/.308
- Player C: .309/.303/.469
The players mentioned above? Mike Trout, Mookie Betts, and Jose Altuve. Three of the best pure hitters in baseball. All substantially worse when hitting to the opposite field. Tell me again that hitting oppo is beneficial. Need more evidence? The following gifs are straight from Rob Friedman aka the pitching ninja. Go check Rob Friedman’s twitter page for more. (seriously, click the link).
The fact of the matter is that pitchers are throwing harder, while simultaneously getting more movement on their pitches. Shockingly enough, this makes it harder to specifically target a particular portion of the field to attack. Stuff wise, pitchers are better than they’ve ever been. Hitters recognize this and realize that every at bat is crucial. There’s a reason why the best teams in the league also lead the league in home runs. It’s also why, if you check the leaderboards for team strikeouts, you’ll find those same teams at the top. Rather than continuously disparage the game, maybe these former players should on learning why hitters are attacking the way they are. Maybe it’s time for the old guard to adapt to today’s game.
It’s what this game is built on after all.
maybe the old guard did not get paid 280 mil for a 4 year contract and strike out close to 200 times and bat .250 and avg maybe 25 homeruns and may 95 rbi and maybe walk 75 times and like me think these guys are pampered and will sit out a game with a tummy ache or a hangnail. They get paid way to much. . i remember one of the first million dollar contracts. it was Dale Murphy and he wanted to turn it down not because it was not enough but he felt it was to much but Ted Turner insisted on it. No one is worth what they are getting paid these days for the super stars.
No one has gotten paid 280 million on a 4 year contract. That’s hyperbolic and nowhere near the point. Rather than being upset about how much money these players make (especially since it isnt YOUR money), maybe you should be more annoyed that stars back then weren’t compensated the way they should have been.
Btw, just to in form you, Dale Murphy (who I am a huge fan of and believe should undoubtedly be in the HOF) averaged .265 with 22 HR 70 RBI and 97 k’s a season over his 18 years.
Or, perhaps, you could take a look at attendance figures and understand that the longtime fans tend to agree with the “old, out-of-touch stars.”
It’s not his money — but it is his money. If fans start staying home in droves because we would rather watch a stolen base or a hit and run instead of watching a guy strike out for the 150th time in a season or a parade of relief pitchers then the owners might start paying less attention to the stat geeks.
The game might be “better played” now but it’s become like watching stat-o-matic. At some point, the fans pockets will start to dictate what sort of game we want to watch.
Until then, dismissing critics of “stat geeks” is no different than dismissing those who insist RBIs and pitching wins are still important.
The game will evolve — and, at some point — the players and the owners will start paying attention to the fans’ interests.
You should hope it comes soon enough to save your job as an analyst instead of taking umbrage at those who disagree with you.
Just a thought.
It’s not about people who disagree with me. It’s about these influential people purposefully misleading viewers. Constantly mocking the statistical data is just plain foolish. Most of the analytics these guys are mocking aren’t new. They’re proven to work. Theres a reason why the best teams in baseball are also the ones with the best analytics departments.
No one is saying you have to dig into all the stats or enjoy the new style of the game. But when you’re in a high position of influence, and you purportedly want baseball to continue to grow, said person shouldn’t be out and about trashing the game simply because it isnt played the same way it was in his day.
As far as my job as an analyst: I’ll be around for a long, long time. Dont you worry about me. But thanks anyway for reading, discourse is always welcome
If I may disagree. It is not old-timers stubborn ignorance to analytics. You are correct, the game has changed. The old-timers point is that this version isn’t as good.
And my retort would be: this is natural progression. Players as a whole are vastly more athletic, much more quickly ready for the game, and much more knowledgable of their strengths and weaknesses. It’s much harder to get a hit in today’s game, so it’s much more imperative to get the most out of every at bat. Baseball is cyclical. In the coming years it will swing back towards the other way.
As for the older guard: theres a way to say “I preferred the style in my day over the style today” without sounding needlessly vindictive and blatantly ignorant. Take launch angle for example: they mock and bash launch angle for being a trendy, useless new stat. It isnt. Launch angle has been talked about forever. Ted Williams, who nearly all of these guys idolize, wrote about it in “The Art of Hitting”