Imagine you had a high draft pick, and the best players available were a high school catcher and a 20 year old college 2B. Your scouting budget for both is $14.

The 2B is a sure bet to reach 90-95 power, and he's got good (~80 projected) base-stealing and contact ratings tha he'll probably reach. He'll be a
decent defender, aside from arm strength. But his splits are underwhelming - no more than 60/70 vL/vR. Durability will be in the high 70s.

The catcher doesn't have as much power, only projected to the mid 70s. And his contact rating will top out in the low 60s. But he is a lefty and could reach 90+ vR (though he'd need to add about 30 points to ge there). He should be a plus defender with a PC of 80-90 and a good arm. Also, he's projected to add 35 points of durability, which would put him near 90. Not sure if he can actually reach that.


Which would you pick?

Sorry. Meant to post this in hardball dynasty. Please disregard.

speaking of baseball...

did you hear someone in MLB has floated the idea that we need to discuss SHRINKING the strike zone by a few inches?

Quite possibly the worst idea i ever heard.  the strikezone absolutely needs to be BIGGER. or at least as big as the rule book says.
make them swing the bats, man,  its really that simple.

Posted by oldave on 3/1/2014 3:58:00 PM (view original):
speaking of baseball...

did you hear someone in MLB has floated the idea that we need to discuss SHRINKING the strike zone by a few inches?

Quite possibly the worst idea i ever heard.  the strikezone absolutely needs to be BIGGER. or at least as big as the rule book says.
make them swing the bats, man,  its really that simple.

Doesn't make any sense, especially considering the measures MLB has taken to try and shorten games.  Smaller strike zone means more balls, walks, and longer games.

Let the cameras and computers call balls and strikes.  Strap buzzers to the home plate ump's hands to let him know which one to put up.  Standardize before you tinker.

Except, expanding the strike zone means less offense, fewer runs and poorer tv ratings. There is a reason the zone is as small as it is. If it wasn't, McGwire, Sosa and Bonds wouldn't have had the seasons they had, with or without the steroids.

I think by expanding the strike zone, you're allowing pitchers to get ahead of the count. In addition, the hitters won't have a chance with an expanded strike zone. Sure, it would make baseball more competitive, closer games, but much less offense. There wouldn't be a team in the league that would bat above .250.

You actually get more hitting by shrinking the strike zone, because eventually the pitcher needs to throw it down the middle of the plate.

but also,  wiz,  as strike zone gets smaller, smart hitters leave the bat on thier shoulder waaaay more often.  
obviiously that results in far more BBs, but, maybe,  just maybe, it also actually leads to more strikeouts!    

with a bigger strikezone smart hitters would not be waiting to get ahead in the count or working a walk (unless pitcher is really wild or really picking at corners)  put the ball in play more means defense becomes more important.  i am not convinced that  batting avgs would plummet as you suggest.  on base percentage would plummet... thats for sure. and tthere would be fewer hrs.   but i dont think it would result in more Ks like you might think at first glance because hitters would learn to swing earlier in the count and put it in play.  and there is no question that the pace of games would quicken and that to me would be a real good thing.

of course,  alot of this would hinge on how big of a change you were making.  

but if you make the doggone thing any smaller... youre gonna lose me.  

Posted by oldave on 3/2/2014 12:50:00 AM (view original):
but also,  wiz,  as strike zone gets smaller, smart hitters leave the bat on thier shoulder waaaay more often.  
obviiously that results in far more BBs, but, maybe,  just maybe, it also actually leads to more strikeouts!    

with a bigger strikezone smart hitters would not be waiting to get ahead in the count or working a walk (unless pitcher is really wild or really picking at corners)  put the ball in play more means defense becomes more important.  i am not convinced that  batting avgs would plummet as you suggest.  on base percentage would plummet... thats for sure. and tthere would be fewer hrs.   but i dont think it would result in more Ks like you might think at first glance because hitters would learn to swing earlier in the count and put it in play.  and there is no question that the pace of games would quicken and that to me would be a real good thing.

of course,  alot of this would hinge on how big of a change you were making.  

but if you make the doggone thing any smaller... youre gonna lose me.  

I usually categoize the strike zone into 9 smaller boxes within the strike zone, like a tic tac toe board. I think if you look at the hitting charts, a very good majority aren't able to hit the low outside strike pitch. Although, it's different for each hitter the "hot zone" are the 5's, middle of the strike zone, assuming you number the zones 1-9, starting from top left and working your way down. I think by shrinking the strike zone, you should expect more pitches down the middle of the plate, IMHO. Yes, it will most definitely lead to more walks, without question, you are correct.  You are also correct that especially the weaker hitters will look to get on via walk.

I think with the pitchers mentality, or at least what they are taught, the last thing you want to do is to allow a walk, even at the risk of throwing it down the middle of the plate and allowing a solo home run.

If it's true that they are planning on shrinking the strike zone, again IMHO, I feel like the offensive numbers will take a huge jump. It's mostly because you are looking for the ball in a specific location, shrinking the strike zone encourages that more so.

Posted by arcticlegend on 3/1/2014 10:58:00 AM (view original):
Imagine you had a high draft pick, and the best players available were a high school catcher and a 20 year old college 2B. Your scouting budget for both is $14.

The 2B is a sure bet to reach 90-95 power, and he's got good (~80 projected) base-stealing and contact ratings tha he'll probably reach. He'll be a
decent defender, aside from arm strength. But his splits are underwhelming - no more than 60/70 vL/vR. Durability will be in the high 70s.

The catcher doesn't have as much power, only projected to the mid 70s. And his contact rating will top out in the low 60s. But he is a lefty and could reach 90+ vR (though he'd need to add about 30 points to ge there). He should be a plus defender with a PC of 80-90 and a good arm. Also, he's projected to add 35 points of durability, which would put him near 90. Not sure if he can actually reach that.


Which would you pick?

Catcher. 

However, at the major league level, I wonder how much of it is "waiting for your pitch to hit" vs "looking for a walk". I think there is a huge difference there. Little League players "look for a walk", unless you're the Oakland A's, 95% of the MLB players are "waiting for their pitch". I will admit, I don't have any specific studies to verify this, so I could be wrong here.

Read Moneyball.

i didnt say "weak" hitters would walk more...  i said "smart" hitters.  

i doubt that bonds  was looking for walks.  
actually, ill take that a step farther and say that with a smaller strike zone, eveyrone would walk more,,, except for stupid hitters.  

great book joe,, one of my favorites.

The brilliance of Moneyball is beane' s ability to find the undervalued players.

In HD right now, I think those players are guys with WE under 25 and guards with low speed.

WE below 25 is HD suicide

Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/2/2014 11:02:00 AM (view original):
The brilliance of Moneyball is beane' s ability to find the undervalued players.

In HD right now, I think those players are guys with WE under 25 and guards with low speed.

guards with low speed.

What do you mean by low speed? Are you using them at traditional guard pos? Starters or significant contributors?