Selfish, Contributing, Combination and Weak Hitters

Published over a week ago, but I just got around to reading it today.

Good share. I rarely find bill James insightful these days, but this was really interesting. The payoff is in the last two paragraphs, but you really need to dredge through the first part to fully understand what he’s defining here. Otherwise, I’d say just skip to the end as the groundwork paragraphs weren’t that interesting, but the payoff was well worth plugging through them.

Also has some interesting application in building sim lineups.

Ha, good point about the opening paragraphs. I almost didn't get through them myself.

What we've learned at least in real baseball especially in the last 10-20 years is that the least effective way to score runs is with empty average.
Guys that bat .330 with a .360 OBP and a .400 slugging just don't produce that many runs in today's game. It's simply too hard to string together 4 or 5 hits in the same inning too often with the quality of pitching, defense, and the high number of strikeouts.

Maybe it's the "old man" in me, but I've hated the direction offense is going in for a while now. The feast or famine approach at the plate is not overly entertaining for fans, as much as seeing homers is cool - the payoff just doesn't happen enough. Also, it's maddening when your team just needs a guy on base, or to move a runner up a base, and the hitter is swinging out of his shoes trying to park one. There just seems to be so little discipline anymore. Most hitters 30+ years ago were embarrassed to strike out. Now hitters don't care.

I have no clue why a hitter would rather hit .210 with 35 HRs when he could try to hit .260 and be on base more and involved in more plays on the bases.

I agree. I was a huge baseball fan growing up, bought every Bill James Baseball Abstract, even worked for John Dewan at Stats, Inc. for a stretch. But since the mid-to-late 2000's, I just don't enjoy the game anymore. I always hated the "low-onbase-high-slugging" players like Dave Kingman and thought those guys were overrated. Now, it seems more than half the league are basically Dave Kingman types of hitters.

Sadly, I truly believe analytics may have hurt baseball more than helped it. The discovery of BABIP and how everybody realized that pitchers who have high strikeout rates are better than guys with low strikeout rates. The non-power-hitting high-average/onbase hitters are apparently perceived as not as valuable as the lower-average/onbase power hitters.

It seems to me the best way to counter all of this is to build a team full of high-average good-contact high-OBP batters who can hit to the opposite field (eliminating the defensive shift advantage). Is that kind of offense good enough to beat a team built with guys who only K or hit HRs? Maybe... but until something changes, I just don't really care about modern baseball anymore.

This is all a function of pitchers getting better. Fastball velocity is way up thanks to improved training methods, and it's up without sacrificing command very much.

Also, analyzing historical data shows pitchers get worse the more pitches they throw, and hitters have the advantage the more times they've faced a pitcher in the same game. So starting pitchers stay in for fewer pitches and no longer have to pace themselves to go deeper into the game, they bring their best stuff to every batter. Instead of facing a tired starter in the 6th and 7th inning you're facing a fresh reliever throwing 98 with a nasty slider.

The opener/bullpen game is another innovation making it harder for hitters. Teams used to call up some replacement level guy from the minors to start a game if there wasn't a rested starter available and leave him in for 100+ pitches unless he was getting bombed, now they just use a bunch of major league caliber relievers for 1 to 2 innings each.

I would love to see a team go against the grain and build a lineup around contact hitting, speed, base stealing, hit and runs, etc. It would be really fun to watch, but I'm not sure how well it would work against modern pitching. Maybe it would and I hope someone tries it. The new rules with limited pickoffs and larger bases should encourage someone to try it.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/9/2023 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Maybe it's the "old man" in me, but I've hated the direction offense is going in for a while now. The feast or famine approach at the plate is not overly entertaining for fans, as much as seeing homers is cool - the payoff just doesn't happen enough. Also, it's maddening when your team just needs a guy on base, or to move a runner up a base, and the hitter is swinging out of his shoes trying to park one. There just seems to be so little discipline anymore. Most hitters 30+ years ago were embarrassed to strike out. Now hitters don't care.

I have no clue why a hitter would rather hit .210 with 35 HRs when he could try to hit .260 and be on base more and involved in more plays on the bases.

I’d say discipline is higher than ever as I think the problem with MLB is not with the low OBP, high strikeout sluggers, but every PA being 5-6 pitches minimum. Watching old games, I’ve noticed a lot more batters swinging at the first pitch, and AB’s being mostly 3 pitches long.

Sure baseball is most exciting with a runner on base, more notably, in scoring position, and we need more Luis Arraez type hitters, but I don’t think the issue is discipline, there might be too much discipline as batters wait til two strikes for “their pitch”. There’s too much inaction.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/9/2023 11:47:00 AM (view original):
Maybe it's the "old man" in me, but I've hated the direction offense is going in for a while now. The feast or famine approach at the plate is not overly entertaining for fans, as much as seeing homers is cool - the payoff just doesn't happen enough. Also, it's maddening when your team just needs a guy on base, or to move a runner up a base, and the hitter is swinging out of his shoes trying to park one. There just seems to be so little discipline anymore. Most hitters 30+ years ago were embarrassed to strike out. Now hitters don't care.

I have no clue why a hitter would rather hit .210 with 35 HRs when he could try to hit .260 and be on base more and involved in more plays on the bases.

Two parts resonated with me in your post. First is I may have a bit of "old man' in me too. The second is while seeing homers is cool; it seemed a lot cooler when they weren't happening so frequently. To my way of looking at things, I was more appreciative of the long ball when it seemed rare and was more of a statement during a game. It was a source of some pride for a "slugger" to have a low K count. Today's batters don't seem embarrassed to strike out. Still enjoy a long rally of hits, walks, a HBP every so often, maybe a stolen base leading to a few runs. But that's the old man in me. My wish is I appreciated the Cardinals/Royals style of ball back in the 1980s, but I didn't like either of those teams much.

I'm of the old man view, too. The game just isn't the same game I grew up with, and I'm not one to embrace the shift. The game is quickly turning into HR Derby, and before long I see it becoming exaclty that. No defenders, just a BB, out, or HR. Anything not a BB or HR is an out.

Of course, this entire article resonates with guys like me on a "See!! I told ya so!" level, but the issue is the game isn't really baseball anymore, it's entertainment. Players are entertainers, and owners want to entertain today's fan so they come to games and buy stuff. But today's fan doesn't really care about baseball; they care about updating their social media to say they were at a game. They care to look up from their work emails on their phone just long enough to snap a selfie with HR fireworks going off in the background.

So when you or I or Bill James talk about a player's value, we have to remember value is subjective. There's old school statistical value, like James discusses here, and there's "butts-in-seats" value that owners look at. Unfortunately, everything about the game is trending toward the "selfish" player (to use James's term), because selfish accomplishments are what put butts in seats these days.

In my humble opinion, baseball is committing slow suicide by embracing this approach. If it continues down this path, the I have doubts the game will continue to thrive. Not that it will fold, as large scale sporting events will always hold social value, but the game will no longer be one of cultivating generation-spanning fans that care deeply about the game the way those of on this site do.

First of all, many thanks fatguyrd for posting the article and crazystengel for bringing it to our attention.

I am another old guy, and like redwingscup I did not much like 1980s Cards and Royals, but now yearn for a team like those. Maybe the 2023 rules changes will lead to a correction.

I do tthink the 2022 Cleveland Guardians ( they rename the team the Blues) deserve notice and credit: they did gave a team that, at least relative to other teams today, was a contact-vased offense with a good defense. They should have beaten the Yankees, much as I love my team in the Bronx, who epitomized the all or nothing offense of recent years.

is anyone else struck by the fact that whereas THE great offensive insight in the age of sabermetrics was OBP, that OBP has fallen?

I agree that the use of abd training of piwatchers and hitters today is largely to blame, as a Marxist I feel obligated to also mention the material base at work: players' salaries go a long way to answering the question "why would players prefer to hit .220 with 30 homers instead of .260 with getting on base more often to help their team?" Certainly the teams SHOULD reward action that helps the team, but even front offices, maybe ESPECIALLY front offices, have been trained to look at individual accomplishments in isolation which is the methodological individualism at the heart of sabermetrics and its Achilles heel. In an age free agency, players look for what is eye-opening, and batting average no longer is.