Old School Hall of Famers Talk Analytics

[The Chosen One]

Really good read if you're just a fan of baseball. A few quotes in here from some of our own in the Braves family (Sutton, Cox, Chipper)

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...lls-in-trouble

There are some things I do agree with here. Banning shifts is dumb. When teams were doing this to hitters like Bonds and Giambi it was just "strategy" and nobody really complained. Chipper and Brett are right. Guys need to start going the other way and those shifts will start "shifting" back the other way. Sort of a similar conundrum to the NBA with the hack-a-shaq stuff. If big men were just making free throws then teams wouldn't be resorting to the hack-a-shaq cheese.

On the other hand, I found the Astros-Dodgers World Series to be one of the most exciting series I've ever seen. It also I think was like the longest average played game in history for a series. It doesn't help that FOX's commercial breaks were extended for the World Series.

It's ironic that these Hall of Famers are knocking the all or nothing (homerun or strikeout) dig. The owners are who helped build this homerun craze. Parks seem to be getting more hitter friendly. I'm still a little meh that our team, whose foundation was strong pitching, would suddenly make the new park more towards a hitters park (keep in mind i don't have the stats to back it up if it's true, just my own opinion). I loved the dimensions of Turner Field and felt it was the perfect size for a MLB Field. Not too pitcher friendly but not too hitter friendly.

I don't see how you could limit teams to using x amount of relievers per game. Gardenhire's tidbit made no sense. He says "the point of baseball is to get on base". He says if you don't put the ball in play you have no chance to get on base. Isn't that what walks are for? Are the old school guys against walks now? I love walks. Safest way to get on base + Easiest way to get the opposing starting pitcher out of the game quicker. @50PoundHead is this why you said Gardenhire was way in over his head in Minny?

[smootness]

Gardenhire was discussing strikeouts. I think he was saying that if you swing and don't put it in play, you can't get on base.

[Enscheff]

I didn't bother to read the article because it is undoubtedly full of the same old tired cliches we've heard the dinosaurs spout a thousand times.

Most of those cliches are wrong because the dinosaurs don't understand what they are talking about. They don't want to understand what they are talking about because their entire sense of themselves is anchored in being an athlete, not a nerd. Problem is that baseball is run by nerds because nerds are smart, and nerds decide which athletes get to be professional baseball players.

For example, the "strikeouts don't matter" line is one they constantly misunderstand...same with "three true outcomes".

When folks say "strike outs don't matter", they are actually saying strikeouts are almost exactly as valuable (invaluable) as any other out over the course of the season. Sure, in a particular PA, a ground out that scores a run is more valuable than a K. However, a K that avoids a GIDP ground out is more valuable than a grounder.

When all that is wrapped up and calculated, all outs are essentially equal in value, therefore, "strikeouts don't matter". The only thing that matters is how often a player avoids outs, and how much damage a player does when they don't make an out. All the new stats are good (and getting better), but the old OPS stat is still a pretty good and simple evaluation of a player's contributions at the plate.

The "three true outcomes" line means that the vast majority of all PA results are approximately worth a K (any out), a BB (singles and walks), or a HR. It doesn't mean the only things batters need to care about are BBs, K, and HRs...the dinosaurs just can't understand the actual meaning.

[The Chosen One]

Guess you don't love baseball, since you didn't read it.

It's ok to actually read stuff you disagree with from time to time Enscheff. Yes, baseball is currently being run by nerds, but it's interesting to read the perspectives of the legends who helped create the game to get to where it is now.

[VirginiaBrave]

Guess you don't love baseball, since you didn't read it.

It's ok to actually read stuff you disagree with from time to time Enscheff. Yes, baseball is currently being run by nerds, but it's interesting to read the perspectives of the legends who helped create the game to get to where it is now.

I would rather be a guy that has actually played the game who has reached legend status than a legendary nerd that stares at spreadsheets all day.

[Super]

I would rather be a guy that has actually played the game who has reached legend status than a legendary nerd that stares at spreadsheets all day.

that's not really the topic here, tho. yeah, i'd rather be a great baseball player than a great assistant GM.
but that great baseball player from the 70s is very unlikely to be a better talent evaluator than the current guys running baseball teams.
and their opinions on these things tend to be objectively wrong.

[drewdat]

This article doesn't include the views of a recent Braves Hall of Fame broadcaster. Worthless.

[Enscheff]

I would rather be a guy that has actually played the game who has reached legend status than a legendary nerd that stares at spreadsheets all day.

And what are your chances of being a rich baseball player? Your chances of being a rich nerd, like me? What about a nerd who got the degree that made him rich while playing baseball in college?

Both are unattainable for you, so both aren't really worth discussing in your case.

Oh, rich nerds nowadays don't stare at speadsheets anymore...you're ignorant on all fronts...baseball and nerdism.

[bravesfanMatt]

Oh, rich nerds nowadays don't stare at speadsheets anymore...you're ignorant on all fronts...baseball and nerdism.

That is right. We stare in our neighbors window all day wondering how to get a girl like your stupid jock neighbor has.

[VirginiaBrave]

And what are your chances of being a rich baseball player? Your chances of being a rich nerd, like me? What about a nerd who got the degree that made him rich while playing baseball in college?

Both are unattainable for you, so both aren't really worth discussing in your case.

Oh, rich nerds nowadays don't stare at speadsheets anymore...you're ignorant on all fronts...baseball and nerdism.

Thank you lol

[thewupk]

I would rather be a guy that has actually played the game who has reached legend status than a legendary nerd that stares at spreadsheets all day.

Sure. The money and prestige goes a long way. Still doesn't mean they are correct.

[zitothebrave]

There are some things I do agree with here. Banning shifts is dumb. When teams were doing this to hitters like Bonds and Giambi it was just "strategy" and nobody really complained. Chipper and Brett are right. Guys need to start going the other way and those shifts will start "shifting" back the other way. Sort of a similar conundrum to the NBA with the hack-a-shaq stuff. If big men were just making free throws then teams wouldn't be resorting to the hack-a-shaq cheese.

**** Bonds and Giambi.

Ted Williams had a shift put on him in the 40s and 50s. And he basically said **** your shift and hit into it a lot harder.

[smootness]

**** Bonds and Giambi.

Ted Williams had a shift put on him in the 40s and 50s. And he basically said **** your shift and hit into it a lot harder.

...and then realized it was indeed hurting him and tried to adjust. He has said it took as many as 15 points off his career average.

[zitothebrave]

...and then realized it was indeed hurting him and tried to adjust. He has said it took as many as 15 points off his career average.

Half true. He may have believed that after some time. But he didn't believe it at the time of writing the Science of Hitting. And he didn't believe it as a player. If a pitcher hit him inside with a fastball he wouldn't try and hit it the other way because of the shift. Because it's counterproductive. That being said, if someone threw something outside to him he wouldn't try to pull it either. Williams was a fantastic hitter.

[smootness]

Half true. He may have believed that after some time. But he didn't believe it at the time of writing the Science of Hitting. And he didn't believe it as a player. If a pitcher hit him inside with a fastball he wouldn't try and hit it the other way because of the shift. Because it's counterproductive. That being said, if someone threw something outside to him he wouldn't try to pull it either. Williams was a fantastic hitter.

From The Science of Hitting:

"I liked the bat so much I started the season with it, and right away I was getting
hits into the spaces they opened for me in left field when they used that tough shift.
I wasn’t getting around quite as fast with the heavier bat, but against the shift it
was perfect."

...and...

"When I had such a hard time with Boudreau’s shift, and ones like it that sprung
up in 1947 and afterward, I survived by learning to hit to left field. Everybody was
saying—and the Boston writers were writing—that I wasn’t trying to hit to left, that
I was too stubborn, that all I cared about was ramming the ball into the teeth of
that shift, getting base hits in spite of it. The fact was, I was having a hard time
learning to hit to left. It wasn’t because I didn’t get any advice. Of that I got a
truckload.

Ty Cobb wrote me a two-page letter, outlining how he would do it. We met at
Yankee Stadium during the 1947 World Series, and he took me around behind a
telephone booth and we talked. He said, “Oh, boy, Ted, if they had ever pulled that
stuff on me, that drastic shift . . . ,” and his mouth was watering, seeing in his
mind’s eye the immortal Ty Cobb lashing the ball into that open range in left field.

Well, Cobb was more of a push hitter, a slap hitter. He choked up two inches from
the bottom and held the bat with his hands four inches apart. He stood close to the
plate, his hands forward. He had great ability to push the ball, to lash hits all
around. He was a great athlete, maybe the greatest, but he was a completely
different animal from me, and his words were like Greek.

The arc of my swing was much greater than Cobb’s What he said would apply to
guys more his type, guys who choked up on the bat more and pushed the ball
around. That wasn’t in me. I was down, with a longer stroke, a greater arc.

When I beat the shift, I did it by taking my stance a little farther from the plate,
striding slightly more into the pitch—but concentrating on getting on top of the ball
and pushing it. A push swing, an inside-out swing, fully extended, the hands ahead
of the fat part of the bat. This produced contact at 90 degrees or more from the
direction of the pitch, and sent the ball to the left of the pitcher’s box, away from
the shift. Almost like hitting pepper."

[zitothebrave]

From The Science of Hitting:

"I hated to be early on a pitch because everything is wrong then—I wasn’t waiting,
I was probably fooled, I was too far in front to hit the ball with authority. If I was
behind a little, it didn’t hurt as much because if you are quick with the bat—and I
preach quickness—you’ll do all right. Hit in back of that 15 degrees from
perpendicular, however, and you probably will not have enough bat speed or length
of stroke built up to hit with authority. "

THat's an important preceder to WIlliams's piece. He never really changed what kind of hitter he was.