Jump to content

six-hopper

All or Nothing works

Recommended Posts

The Mariners lead the Majors in Runs Scored and Home Runs.  And also in batting Strikeouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2019 at 10:42 PM, cruzer1 said:

That didn't last long.

So I'll try, try again:

The Mariners still lead the Majors in Runs Scored, Home Runs, and Batting Strikeouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

So I'll try, try again:

The Mariners still lead the Majors in Runs Scored, Home Runs, and Batting Strikeouts.

Is this unusual?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not.  It just emphasizes that what is currently in vogue in baseball -- hitting lots of home runs and not worrying about striking out a lot -- is in vogue because it works.  Much of the analytical crowd has apparently concluded that overall that is the formula for maximizing run-scoring.  And what the Mariners are doing is just some empirical evidence of that. 

Whether it is good for the game as a spectator sport is certainly open to question.  But if the focus is on doing what it takes to win rather than on doing what it takes to make the game aesthetically pleasing, for many if not all teams this is seemingly the current way to go.  

By the way, the team with the fewest strikeouts is the Angels, but they are well down the list in Home Runs and Runs Scored and are in fourth place in the AL West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

Probably not.  It just emphasizes that what is currently in vogue in baseball -- hitting lots of home runs and not worrying about striking out a lot -- is in vogue because it works.  Much of the analytical crowd has apparently concluded that overall that is the formula for maximizing run-scoring.  And what the Mariners are doing is just some empirical evidence of that. 

Whether it is good for the game as a spectator sport is certainly open to question.  But if the focus is on doing what it takes to win rather than on doing what it takes to make the game aesthetically pleasing, for many if not all teams this is seemingly the current way to go.  

Valenti was railing the other day that analytics is ruining the major sports because the Rockets took 50 threes in a game because the numbers say that is how to win, but it's a horrible game to watch. But the problem is not the numbers, it the the rules and the set up. I'm going to do my broken record thing here but the strategy the Mariners are using would probably not be a winning one if the ball had an average COR about 2.5% less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equipment does change the game.  Look at what happened in tennis when the high-tech composite and graphite and unobtainium rackets came along -- guys suddenly serving 140 miles an hour and women well over 100, and making it a whole lot more difficult to return a serve effectively if at all.  Or when footballs became more streamlined and spiral-friendly, and opened up the passing game.  Defense in baseball became a whole lot better when gloves that close, with big webbing and pockets, replaced the earlier ones.  

And, of course, rules changes are big, too.  The expansion of the strike zone before the 1963 season led to the second Dead Ball Era.  Clamping down on steroids caused baseball offense to plummet again starting in the early 2000s.  The football rules allowing receivers to run around the field untouched dramatically altered the sport. And, as you mentioned, the three-point shot fundamentally changed the game of basketball.  You have to have only two-thirds the shooting percentage with three-pointers that you do inside the arc to break even, and it is a lot easier to get an open shot on the perimeter than inside.  So the mid-range shot has fallen far out of favor.  The high-percentage shot or dunk right at the basket and the three-pointer are the "efficient" ways to score.  The analytics say that the jumper inside the arc -- with a lower percentage of success than close to the basket but still worth only two points if it's made -- is like the sacrifice bunt or the stolen-base attempt  in baseball:  too much loss or risk, not enough reward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a pretty strong correlation between home runs and runs scored.  Just eyeballing it, there appears to be no correlation (neither positive nor negative) with strikeouts.  There is a pretty strong correlation between batting average and runs though.  

I really question how much steroids had to do with the increase in home runs during the so called steroid era.  It probably had something to do with it, but I think it had more to do with adding four expansion teams in a short period of time. Expansion always dilutes pitching more than hitting.   I also suspect the brief decrease in home runs between then and now may have been due to a deader ball.  They feared the game's image had been tarnished and they wanted to make it look like they had cleaned it up.    

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

There is a pretty strong correlation between home runs and runs scored.  Just eyeballing it, there appears to be no correlation (neither positive nor negative) with strikeouts.  There is a pretty strong correlation between batting average and runs though.  

 

The next question that comes to mind is to segment the data by period and test whether the correlation between HRs and runs scored has become stronger. As I write that it occurs that correlation is probably just same thing as the % of runs scores as a result of HRs, which is probably easier to get to on a per year basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, six-hopper said:

Equipment does change the game. ...

What I fear the most for baseball is that the league makes changes to 'fix' problems they see in the form of results they don't like, while not actually understanding the real causes of the symptoms they don't like. Baseball operates on the most delicately balanced set of conditions of any sport and I don't think it would be very hard to mess it up pretty badly if the league starts hacking at stuff with the kind of total ignorance they have reliably showed in the past. The effort to limit pitching changes being to me a great example. It seems to me the question you have to ask is why are pitchers under so much stress? Until you have some level of understanding of the answer to that question you are being dangerously foolish to start making more rules about how they can and can't be used. Mangers aren't making those pitching changes for their own entertainment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...