Major League Baseball Thread

[mcjaco]

Since 1991, the AL has won 11 championships and the NL 6. The AL won 56 WS games and the NL won 37 (.600%).

 

With five less WS titles, the NL would have less wins. That's the way it works. That's kind of a useless stat.

 

The league averages (in hitting/pitching) really doesn't mean a whole lot. The AL obviously has the better hitting stats (avg, OPS, etc) than the NL. The one thing I found interesting, though, is pitching stats. Since 2000, the AL has averaged a 4.48 ERA compared to the NL 4.30 ERA. The AL is only .18 runs more, or a 4.2% increase. If you consider that the AL has a tougher lineup because they have to face an extra hitter, it suggests the AL to have stronger pitching (only a 4.2% higher ERA while they face a 12.5% increase in quality hitters).

 

Except that the all the NL teams have to pitch to a pitcher so, that balances that out. And not all DH's are very good.

 

The AL has had more "dominant" teams than the NL (90+ wins) since 2001 (40-29).

For the wild card, the AL wild card winner has averaged 96.4 wins (.600), the NL wild card winner has averaged 91.3 wins (.560).

 

I'm betting that number is skewed due to the AL East. The Central and West are not good divisions, and with the exception of the Yankees and the BoSox, the East is pretty pathetic (with the last two D Rays seasons).

 

*small sample size. As for hitters, it appears that there really isn't much of a difference between leagues.

 

You said AL hitters are better......

 

I think the DH makes a big difference. The NL team has a clear disadvantage when playing with a DH. That is why I believe the AL has had the edge on interleague matchups (regular and post season). On top of having an extra good hitter on the team, the AL pitcher also have the tougher experience. AL pitchers face the toughest lineups all year, where as NL pitchers get to work with a free out, thus it is more difficult for a NL pitcher to adjust to facing a DH.

 

Most NL teams have one guy that can hit off the bench. So, quite honestly, I don't think NL teams are at a disadvantage with the DH.

[BeemerBoy]

You can be a great hitter, but managing styles, and who surrounds you in the lineup play just as big a factor in your success as plain 'ole natural ability.

[Satchboogie3]

Give me the pitcher hitting any day of the week. I have no interest in seeing a has-been trying to extend their career by hitting a HR or bust.

 

Plus, for the AL manager, there is really not much skill involved compared to the NL. In the AL, if a pitcher is ready to come out, out he goes. In the NL, there is how close to pitch's spot in the line-up, who is on the bench or should they make the double switch.

 

The biggest thing against the NL that most people have is they know nothing about the teams. Yeah people hear about the Cubs and select players, but that is it. With ESPN and various other channels of sports news, all you hear is Yankees or Red Sox. I mean, more people who who Joba Chamberlin is instead of Tim Lincecum, which says a lot.

 

DH is a has-been? Are you serious? DH's tend to be good hitters, it's all they do. Just this year, there were 14 teams with a DH spot. Out of those 14 spots, you had Adam Lind (.305 BA, .932 OPS, 35HR, 114 RBI), David Ortiz (.238 BA, .794, 29 HR, 99 RBI - after 2 months of nothing), Jason Kubel (.300 BA, .907 OPS, 28 HR, 103 RBI), Matsui (.274 BA, .876 OPS, 28 HR, 90 RBI), Travis Hafner (.272BA, .826OPS, 16HR, 49 RBI in 94 games), plus a lot of part time DHers.

 

One of the great things about the DH is that it allows a manager to give guys a rest from playing defense for a game and gives bench players more playing time. As for pitchers hitting well, it's a joke. Pitchers average under .200 BA, but more importantly, have virtually no pop or on-base skills (OBP under .250, SLG under .300).

 

As for strategy, I don't think it makes all that much of a difference. In the AL, you have an extra lineup spot to fill, so there is a lot more variability. It is also just as tough to make pitching changes during the game because you don't have the benefit of auto-outs or facing bench player. It's simply a more difficult game. It's tougher on pitchers, which is what I like. Finally, do people actually enjoy seeing a pitcher at the plate with the bases loaded and 2 outs? It's just too easy on the pitcher.

 

Also, I want to make it clear that BA isn't a very useful stat. When you say "they hit a HR or bust", it sounds like you don't understand where run-value comes from. OPS is the most useful stat to go by. Players like Adam Dunn get a lot of crap because of their low BA and high strikeout total, yet they are FAR more valuable hitters than a lot of guys with high batting averages.

 

For instance, Jack Cust in 2008 hit .231, yet he had a .375 OBP, an .851 OPS, 33 HR, 77 RBI, 111 BB in only 481 AB. You may laugh at him, but he is a more valuable hitter than someone who hits .330, but doesn't get on base as often or have as high an OPS.

[ParkTrips]

^ I dunno, its give or take. Either way, the 9th hitter on a team isn't going to be the one the fans want to see in a bases loaded situation, but I guarantee you the pitcher will get a bigger applause than that weak 2nd basemen if they were to both produce 2-run singles (and that AL 9th hitter won't be given as much slack when it comes to not coming through)

[BeemerBoy]

One of the great things about the DH is that it allows a manager to give guys a rest from playing defense for a game and gives bench players more playing time.

 

Yes, because playing defense in baseball is pretty darn strenuous.

 

 

Finally, do people actually enjoy seeing a pitcher at the plate with the bases loaded and 2 outs?

 

Yes. If he wants a W on his record, then contribute on both sides.

 

As for pitchers hitting well, it's a joke. Pitchers average under .200 BA, but more importantly, have virtually no pop or on-base skills (OBP under .250, SLG under .300).

 

Many will argue that executing a well-placed bunt to advance runners involves more skill than taking a huge cut at a 92mph fastball. Hitting for power and average do not encapsulate the game of baseball. Stats are overrated sometimes.

 

An NL pitcher who can lay down a good consistent sacrifice bunt can be just as important as an AL DH.

[ebl]

I apologize for a very off-topic comment, but would someone edit the "Post You're Thoughts" to the more correct "Post Your Thoughts"? That has bugged me from the start of the topic.

 

And though I'm not a Yankees fan, I hope they take the Series. It's a nice way to end the first season in their new park.

 

Eric

[Satchboogie3]

Many will argue that executing a well-placed bunt to advance runners involves more skill than taking a huge cut at a 92mph fastball. Hitting for power and average do not encapsulate the game of baseball. Stats are overrated.

 

If bunting to advance runners is more skillful than trying to hit a fastball, then why bunt? The fact is that most pitchers can't hit. Also, I'm not buying the "Oh, but it's good strategy, you get to see small ball". Plenty of AL teams use a lot of small ball in their play.

 

A pitcher bunts with runners on and less than 2 outs because they simply can't produce runs often enough (when swinging) to overcome the times they make outs.

 

I'd also like to see exactly who thinks a bunt is more skillful than hitting a 92mph fastball well enough to produce extra base hits. That's absurd.

[mcjaco]

I'd also like to see exactly who thinks a bunt is more skillful than hitting a 92mph fastball well enough to produce extra base hits. That's absurd.

 

As someone whose been playing for 30 years. I do.

 

That's the problem with stats nerds. They think the game is easier than it is.

[Satchboogie3]

I'd also like to see exactly who thinks a bunt is more skillful than hitting a 92mph fastball well enough to produce extra base hits. That's absurd.

 

As someone whose been playing for 30 years. I do.

 

That's the problem with stats nerds. They think the game is easier than it is.

 

Again I beg the question, if bunting requires more skill, then why do pitchers bunt? Heck, a lot people say hitting a 90+ fastball is the hardest thing to do in all of sports.

 

Lets just discuss this in a bit of detail. Bunting doesn't really require great mechanics, its all in how/where you hold the bat, the angle of the bat, and where you meet the ball. Your stance, power distribution, etc doesn't really matter. It's fairly easy (compared to hitting) because you let the ball come to you. When you are hitting, you are attacking the ball.

 

Hitting requires a lot more mechanics (and they are more important). Every little motion is greatly amplified when you are violently swing a bat (as hard and quick as possible) at the ball. Just being able to generate the power is difficult, you have to make sure you are using your full body (feet, legs, hip, etc) to generate power. On top of all of the mechanics, timing is extremely important. Remember, you aren't letting the ball come to you, you are attacking it. It is a LOT harder to "square" up on the ball when you are attacking it vs. letting it come to you.

 

I understand (and agree) that there is skill and mechanics to bunting, but calling it more skillful and harder than a good swing is ridiculous. Heck, the best hitters practice in the cage all the time, yet they still can easily get into a funk if just one little problem arises (mechanics, timing, hand eye coordination, etc).

[monsterfan99]

For players switching leagues, I'll post their AL vs NL stats.

 

Brady Penny (BOS: 5.61 ERA, SFG: 2.59 ERA)*

John Smoltz (BOS: 8.32 ERA, 7.4 SO/9, STL: 4.26 ERA, 9.5 SO/9)*

 

These two both have a lot to do with how awful John Farrell is as a pitching coach. Also, with Smoltz, he went to the best pitching coach in the history of the game (Dave Duncann) whom Smoltz said was a key to how well he did.

 

As for strategy, I don't think it makes all that much of a difference. In the AL, you have an extra lineup spot to fill, so there is a lot more variability. It is also just as tough to make pitching changes during the game because you don't have the benefit of auto-outs or facing bench player. It's simply a more difficult game. It's tougher on pitchers, which is what I like. Finally, do people actually enjoy seeing a pitcher at the plate with the bases loaded and 2 outs? It's just too easy on the pitcher.

 

In the NL, if it is a tied game in the top of the 7th in a 0-0 game, do you leave the pitcher to hit or pull him for a batter to score? In the AL, there would be no question. Tell me the equal strategy there.

 

Also, I want to make it clear that BA isn't a very useful stat. When you say "they hit a HR or bust", it sounds like you don't understand where run-value comes from. OPS is the most useful stat to go by. Players like Adam Dunn get a lot of crap because of their low BA and high strikeout total, yet they are FAR more valuable hitters than a lot of guys with high batting averages.

 

For instance, Jack Cust in 2008 hit .231, yet he had a .375 OBP, an .851 OPS, 33 HR, 77 RBI, 111 BB in only 481 AB. You may laugh at him, but he is a more valuable hitter than someone who hits .330, but doesn't get on base as often or have as high an OPS.

 

OPS is a worthless stat by itself, as most are. It simply rewards HRs and punishes players for hitting singles. Look at Chone Figgins.

 

Figgins had an OBP of .395, which was 7th in the AL and and 17th over all. He had 114 runs scored, 2nd in the AL & 3rd overall along with 42 steals, top 10 in baseball. However, because his SLG was .393, that would leave him with a OPS of .789. This is good enough for 48th in the AL between Adam Jones and Marco Suctaro.

 

With OPS, Figgins was punished for trading power for walks and base running. Hell, with OPS, David Ortiz did better then Figgins. This is despite the fact Figgins was better then Ortiz in every category except 2B (only trailed by 5,) HR & RBI.

[mcjaco]

I'd also like to see exactly who thinks a bunt is more skillful than hitting a 92mph fastball well enough to produce extra base hits. That's absurd.

 

As someone whose been playing for 30 years. I do.

 

That's the problem with stats nerds. They think the game is easier than it is.

 

Again I beg the question, if bunting requires more skill, then why do pitchers bunt? Heck, a lot people say hitting a 90+ fastball is the hardest thing to do in all of sports.

 

Lets just discuss this in a bit of detail. Bunting doesn't really require great mechanics, its all in how/where you hold the bat, the angle of the bat, and where you meet the ball. Your stance, power distribution, etc doesn't really matter. It's fairly easy (compared to hitting) because you let the ball come to you. When you are hitting, you are attacking the ball.

 

Hitting requires a lot more mechanics (and they are more important). Every little motion is greatly amplified when you are violently swing a bat (as hard and quick as possible) at the ball. Just being able to generate the power is difficult, you have to make sure you are using your full body (feet, legs, hip, etc) to generate power. On top of all of the mechanics, timing is extremely important. Remember, you aren't letting the ball come to you, you are attacking it. It is a LOT harder to "square" up on the ball when you are attacking it vs. letting it come to you.

 

I understand (and agree) that there is skill and mechanics to bunting, but calling it more skillful and harder than a good swing is ridiculous. Heck, the best hitters practice in the cage all the time, yet they still can easily get into a funk if just one little problem arises (mechanics, timing, hand eye coordination, etc).

 

You're giving me a lecture of mechanics???? I am dead serious, I have been playing baseball for 30 years. I still play. I've played against, minor leaguers, ex-pros, Division A college players. Bunting requires just as much skill and "mechanics" as hitting.

 

Get in a cage that's throwing at 90 mph, and see if you can lay down a perfect bunt.

[ParkTrips]

As someone whose been playing for 30 years. I do.

I agree. As to why bunt instead of swing away when it requires more skill?... Its more reliable. Even an all-star batter is going to get out 2/3 of the time, why not at least take the out and safely move the runner over?

 

Heck, a lot people say hitting a 90+ fastball is the hardest thing to do in all of sports.

Those people are nuts to think a fastball with a fairly predictable trajectory is easier than going up there and trying to hit pitches with 14" of break. In a batting cage? yeah, duh, the faster you crank the wheel the harder it will be to come around. But once you get adjusted to the speed, you can hit 120mph pitches. It will sting like hell with an aluminum bat, but the speed isn't super hard to deal with at all.

[BeemerBoy]

There is nothing more enjoyable than watching a well executed squeeze play in a pressure situation.

 

And to further drive home the point, when it came to the climactic scene in one of the best baseball movies ever (albiet a comedy), what did the writers turn to? The typical walk off homer in dramatic fashion? No......it was a bunt.

 

Your honor, the defense rests.

[Satchboogie3]

As someone whose been playing for 30 years. I do.

I agree. As to why bunt instead of swing away when it requires more skill?... Its more reliable. Even an all-star batter is going to get out 2/3 of the time, why not at least take the out and safely move the runner over?

 

Heck, a lot people say hitting a 90+ fastball is the hardest thing to do in all of sports.

Those people are nuts to think a fastball with a fairly predictable trajectory is easier than going up there and trying to hit pitches with 14" of break. In a batting cage? yeah, duh, the faster you crank the wheel the harder it will be to come around. But once you get adjusted to the speed, you can hit 120mph pitches. It will sting like hell with an aluminum bat, but the speed isn't super hard to deal with at all.

 

Hitting a 90+ mph fastball isn't hard because of the trajectory, it's difficult because of the timing. It's extremely hard to get around fast enough to make contact. Do you honestly think there isn't a correlation between a guy like Papelbon, who pumps 95mph fastball after fastball, and an extremely high strikeout rate? The best hitters on the planet have trouble hitting well placed 95 mph fastballs, even when they are looking for it.

 

And I'm not just talking about hitting a fastball, I'm just talking about hitting. Do you honestly think it is easier to get a hit off a Pedro Martinez (in his prime) than a bunt? That's insane. Making good contact at the major league level is incredibly difficult. Timing is one of the big reasons to that, as you said. Hitting a nasty curveball at 70 mph still isn't as difficult as hitting a 95 mph fastball... if you know it's coming. Breaking pitches are effective because they keep you off balance.

 

I mean, heck, statistics alone prove my point. What is the batting average or slugging against that top pitchers in the majors allow? It's not that high. In his career, Pedro averaged giving up 18 HRs per 162 game season, or 1 HR ever 47.7 batters. His career average batting against is .214, with .276 OBP and .337 SLG. What do you think is harder, getting a hit off a guy who only allows a .214 BA against, getting a HR when you have about a 1 in 48 (~2%) chance of success, or getting a bunt down?

 

This is absurd. There is a reason why players who suck at hitting, bunt, while those that can hit, don't bunt.

 

The other thing you have to realize is that bunt because it has a higher success rate does NOT automatically mean it gives you the better chance to score runs in the long run. Swinging away when you have less than 2 outs and 2 runners on will often lead to more runs scored than bunting them over into scoring position. You don't bunt because it increases your chance of scoring, you bunt because you have a guy at the plate who can't hit. Derek Jeter has faced tons of scenarios where other hitters might bunt, but Jeter doesn't (rare rare occasion he might). Why?, because he can hit.

 

Finally, even if bunting was more difficult than hitting, it would only hurt your argument. If bunting didn't have a great success rate, it would make it even less effective at producing runs. If a hit is easier to get than a bunt, why bunt? Makes no sense. Putting the ball in play via a swing obviously leads to more runs produces (and that's not debatable, that's fact) than putting a well placed bunt into play. Even if they were equal difficulty, it would make sense to bunt unless the player at the plate didn't have a chance in hell at getting a hit.

 

The object in baseball is to score runs. It doesn't matter how, just that you get runs. A lineup with good hitters will always score more runs than a lineup of hitters who need to bunt and play small ball to scrap together runs. You don't bunt because it's more effective or better than hitting, you bunt because you don't have the personel to be successful hitting.

[Hercules]

^ Jeter attempted a sac bunt the other night. He struck out after 3 unsuccessful attempts. I guess he should have swung away. Oh no, wait, that is harder than bunting.

[Satchboogie3]

http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archives/2008/04/bunting_is_bad_1.html

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2009/6/1/895218/on-the-subject-of-bunting

Good reads on why bunting is rarely the correct choice. The point of offense is to score runs. The most valuable way to do that is to NOT make outs, so why give up outs to produce runs? Doesn't make sense, and the math RARELY backs it up. The only real time to bunt is in the perfect situation in a game where you are down by 1 run and it's a must win game. Other than that, the only time you should bunt is if you have a pitcher up or a fast guy who can drag bunt for a base hit.

[BeemerBoy]

Okay, first, I think we'd all like to see some proof that you've even stepped into a batters box just once in your life. I'm trying not to be rude here, but you're continuing to come off as the typical stat-spewing armchair athlete. Just sayin'.

 

Now to dissect the rest.

 

 

Hitting a 90+ mph fastball isn't hard because of the trajectory, it's difficult because of the timing. It's extremely hard to get around fast enough to make contact.

Not if that's in your everyday job description......which is what major leaguers are, um, trained to do.

 

 

Do you honestly think there isn't a correlation between a guy like Papelbon, who pumps 95mph fastball after fastball, and an extremely high strikeout rate? The best hitters on the planet have trouble hitting well placed 95 mph fastballs, even when they are looking for it.

 

The reason today's "fireball" closers are typically more effective is because they sit on their a$$ for 8 innings while the opposing lineup has 3 or 4 at bats against what is usually several different pitchers with different styles over the course of the game. And not that baseball is all that strenuous to begin with, but players *can* get tired by the ninth inning, and catching up with 95+mph heat is obviously slightly more difficult at that point.

 

 

And I'm not just talking about hitting a fastball, I'm just talking about hitting. Do you honestly think it is easier to get a hit off a Pedro Martinez (in his prime) than a bunt? That's insane.

 

Wait, so are the batters tipped off as to when a certain pitch will come while they stand in with the intention to bunt? You make it sound like it's tee ball whenever someone bunts.

 

What do you think is harder, getting a hit off a guy who only allows a .214 BA against, getting a HR when you have about a 1 in 48 (~2%) chance of success, or getting a bunt down?

 

Again, we're talking about consistently laying down a successful, well executed bunt. Yes, most big leaguers can stand in the box and put the bat on the ball for a bunt. But most can't do it effectively. That's the point.

 

The only real time to bunt is in the perfect situation in a game where you are down by 1 run and it's a must win game.

 

Being down a run is the perfect situation?

 

Other than that, the only time you should bunt is if you have a pitcher up or a fast guy who can drag bunt for a base hit.

 

Unless you're facing a Papelbon, who is throwing at a superhuman, unhittable 95mph, right?

 

This is absurd.

 

Well, you got one thing right. You're inching closer to the Mendoza line.

[ParkTrips]

Hitting a 90+ mph fastball isn't hard because of the trajectory, it's difficult because of the timing. It's extremely hard to get around fast enough to make contact.

No, its not. Go to a batting cage. The major leaguers earn their money on placement, control, and movement. Not speed.

 

Do you honestly think there isn't a correlation between a guy like Papelbon, who pumps 95mph fastball after fastball, and an extremely high strikeout rate?

c'mon... almost all closers have high k/9 stats. Most batters only face a closer 4 or 5 times in the course of a season, unlike starters which a batter can face 4 times in a game.

 

This is absurd. There is a reason why players who suck at hitting, bunt, while those that can hit, don't bunt.

Yeah, ask Ichiro and Juan Pierre. Those guys can't hit for crap, that's why they drop down bunts to get on base.

 

The other thing you have to realize is that bunt because it has a higher success rate does NOT automatically mean it gives you the better chance to score runs in the long run. Swinging away when you have less than 2 outs and 2 runners on will often lead to more runs scored than bunting them over into scoring position. You don't bunt because it increases your chance of scoring, you bunt because you have a guy at the plate who can't hit.

Managers bunt because they know the odds.

 

A runner on 1st won't score on a single. A runner on 2nd has a much better advantage of scoring (hence the term runner in scoring position)

 

Swinging away with a runner on first brings a double play into play. The chances of grounding into a double play in this scenario is approximately 20%[*]. Bunting him over only costs one out, drastically reduces the chances of a double play, and gets the runner within a base hit of a run.

 

 

Bunting is totally situational, I'm not suggesting it be done every time someone gets on base, but its an effective way to produce runs. In playoff baseball time, that's pretty critical when you're only seeing a team's top 3 pitchers

[Hercules]

In the 2006 NLCS, there were runners at first and second for the Mets. The pitchers slot came up in the batting order. Willie Randolph had 2 options - send up a hurt Cliff Floyd to swing away, or send Tom Glavine to the plate, one of the best bunting pitchers of all time, from off the bench. Hitting Glavine pretty much ensured that 2 runners would be in scoring position. This would have given a hot Jose Reyes an opportunity to drive in the winning runs. It also would have taken away the potential for the double play, so even if Reyes made an out Paul Lo Duca would have had a shot at it. Randolph went with Floyd, who struck out. Reyes hit a line drive out to the outfield. Lo Duca walked. Beltran struck out with the bat on his shoulder.

 

Would that not have been a good time to drop down a bunt?

[BeemerBoy]

Your Red Sox are up one run on the Yanks in the bottom of the 8th. Ellsbury leads off with a walk. Pedroia lays down a bunt to advance a fast runner to second, and in scoring position, and in the process allows Youk to come up and hit without a potential double play. Now, the pitcher has to be concerned with the RISP, and the heart of the lineup at the plate.

 

Sounds like a good scenario to up the odds of a potential insurance run for Paps to work with in the ninth should someone miraculously make contact with his "unhittable" 95mph fastball and put it over the monstah, no?

[mcjaco]

Bill James and his armchair followers can go F themselves. There's more to the game than stats.

 

Moneyball was one of the worst things to happen to the casual baseball fan. Now we have all these schmucks that think everything can be determined by obscure stats, say like someone posting in here.

 

Next time you go to a MLB game for batting practice, watch to see what each hitter starts off with. Bunting twice before swinging.

 

And for the timing argument, if you don't recall getting into the bunting crouch, takes up more time than your stance. That's time being used while the pitcher is winding up, then you have to get the bat in front of the plate, determine the speed, the location, and angle the bat and hope that you get the ball to go in the direction you need it to go.

 

Yeah. That's real easy.

 

Satch, as a mod, I'm getting really tired of the constant sports related trolling that seems to occur whenever you post. Aggressive posting is becoming your norm. Cool it.

[Satchboogie3]

Your Red Sox are up one run on the Yanks in the bottom of the 8th. Ellsbury leads off with a walk. Pedroia lays down a bunt to advance a fast runner to second, and in scoring position, and in the process allows Youk to come up and hit without a potential double play. Now, the pitcher has to be concerned with the RISP, and the heart of the lineup at the plate.

 

Sounds like a good scenario to up the odds of a potential insurance run for Paps to work with in the ninth should someone miraculously make contact with his "unhittable" 95mph fastball and put it over the monstah, no?

 

The problem with this is that I'd rather take my chances with Pedroia hitting. Pedroia is a good hitter and again, the less outs you make, the greater your chances of scoring. The problem with bunting to score 1 run is that you generally only score 1 run, it doesn't lend itself to big innings. Its better to swing away and sometimes have a big inning, sometimes have a 1 run inning, and sometimes not get anything.

 

As for bunting, I found the evidence I've been looking for. THE MAJOR LEAGUE SUCCESS RATE OF BUNTING (for sacrifice) is UPWARDS of 85%. 85% of ALL sacrifice bunting in the major leagues are successful. Here is the study right here:

http://www.actasports.com/sow.php?id=163

 

The MLB bunting success rate is almost TRIPLE the league OBP and you're trying to tell me it's more difficult and skillful than hitting?

 

Just because you have played baseball your whole life does NOT mean you understand what it takes to play at the highest level. I'm not talking about high school baseball, I'm talking about competing against the best in the world, it's not the same thing.

 

About your comment on "That is their job, to hit a FB", you do realize it takes great college hitters YEARS to become good MLB hitters, if they ever make it at all. Most college guys spend years in the minors and even after that, it generally takes more than a year in the bigs to become successful. We are talking about some of the best college baseball players who still need years and years of work to be able to compete in the majors.

 

As for Bill James and Money Ball, you are seeing PROOF that it is the correct approach across the league. That preaches that the most important thing for an offense to do is NOT make outs, ie, high OBP is far more valuable than just batting average.

 

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but statistics and math are important in everything. I agree that you shouldn't just use one stat as a be all, but when you look at a lot of good stats and analysis, it becomes extremely useful. There is only so much you can infer by watching the game, you simply have to do an analysis beyond what you see to be able to get a better understanding of what is actually going on.

 

Anyways, the greatest baseball minds and owners/mangers/coaches believe that statistics and analysis are extremely important to building great baseball teams and playing most efficiently. Do you seriously believe they are all wrong and that math lies?

[monsterfan99]

^ There is a great book you should read. It is called How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff. Written in 1954, it still applies to this day.

 

And I ask you this, how many titles has Billy Bean won? Also, where is the team now? Their success couldn't have been because of their young staff, who have done nothing since leading to steroids talk, pitching in a extreme pitcher's park. Since 2006, the team has been under .500 and won a grand total of 1 playoff series in the years in the playoffs.

 

Also, look at the results of Game 1 of the 2003 ALDS between Oakland and Boston. Look at how the game ended and tell me bunting should never be picked over swinging.

[Satchboogie3]

^ There is a great book you should read. It is called How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff. Written in 1954, it still applies to this day.

 

And I ask you this, how many titles has Billy Bean won? Also, where is the team now? Their success couldn't have been because of their young staff, who have done nothing since leading to steroids talk, pitching in a extreme pitcher's park. Since 2006, the team has been under .500 and won a grand total of 1 playoff series in the years in the playoffs.

 

Also, look at the results of Game 1 of the 2003 ALDS between Oakland and Boston. Look at how the game ended and tell me bunting should never be picked over swinging.

 

Where did I ever say you should never bunt? I said it is often incorrect to bunt, BUT there are certain situations where you can. I specifically said a must win game. Anyways, in respect to that actual play, it was a pretty good play given the situation (and how the defense was playing), however I'm not sure it was the correct play to make. Just because some does or doesn't work out doesn't mean it was the right move to make. You could point out hundreds of examples where a bunt worked or didn't work, but it's pointless. All that matters is what play gives you the greatest chance to win. That's it.

 

As for the moneyball approach, Billy Bean isn't the only guy in baseball to use it, most GMs have adopted it. Teams with a higher OBP tend to score more runs. There is a high correlation, much much higher than a correlation to batting average or anything else. Anyways, do you really think 1 teams success of 4 seasons is a smart sample size to go on? I don't.

 

If you actually look at WHY Oakland hasn't had much success over the last 4 years, you will see it's because A. They aren't spending money and B. they actually aren't following a money ball approach effectively. Their teams don't get on base enough (bottom of the AL in OBP) to drive in runs and they have let their pitchers go over the years.

 

My point is simply that statistic, math, analysis, etc should play a big role in how you think about baseball and what decisions you make.

[BeemerBoy]

My point is simply that statistic, math, analysis, etc should play a big role in how you think about baseball and what decisions you make.

 

By your rationale, why do I get the feeling anybody who ever went into a slump would be benched for the remainder of the season?