The Changing Landscape of Baseball and (maybe) a new Roster Approach

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Dan

So the ideal lineup with BH playing would be:

LF Choo
2b Phillips
1b Votto
RF Bruce
3b Frazier
CF Hamilton
SS Cozart
C Hanigan

How does that grab you?

That looks great, but I think it's either Choo OR Hamitlon, not both. I don't think we'll see both of them with the Reds outside of this september.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Incidentally the biggest steroid abuser of the era, Barry Bonds, only hit 50+ home runs in a season once in his career.

The reason the 60+ HR seasons declined is because opposing teams basically quit pitching to Bonds and McGwire and Sosa. Once pitchers started intentionally walking Bonds at a record pace and pitching around him almost every at-bat it made it very hard for him to hit home runs. He had a .609 OBP with 232 Walks in 2004!

Teams today rarely give a superstar a pitch to drive.

The average player today is bigger than the average player back at the height of the home run bashing steroids era.

So you are of the belief that, ironically, the biggest power hitters of the era just happened to use steroids?

[puca]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

So you are of the belief that, ironically, the biggest power hitters of the era just happened to use steroids?

I'm of the belief that most players were using steroids of one form or another.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by Cooper

I don't think there's anyway that a base stolen in front of Hannigan is worth more than one stolen in front of Votto...how do u make the math work for that? D....oesn't seem possible ....how does the math show that?

I don't know which way it will tip the scales, but it should also be considered that Hanny will be walked/pitched around often with a man on 2nd.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

So you are of the belief that, ironically, the biggest power hitters of the era just happened to use steroids?

I believe that many of the biggest power hitters of the era were taking steroids, and so were many of the rest of the players in the league. I also believe that the height of the steroid era came after scoring levels started declining. If steroids were the reason run scoring was elevated then you would see a direct correlation between run scoring and steroid usage levels -- but the facts prove that correlation is very weak. Baseball Prospectus has written extensively on this subject and they concluded that steroids had only a very small impact on scoring rates if any at all.

You don't have to take steroids to get big and strong. The average player today is taller and weighs more than the average player in the year 2000 when scoring reached it's peak. If size and strength were the major reason for elevated scoring and home run rates then why are those rates lower now even though the players are bigger and stronger?

Most of the players busted for PEDs through the years were not powerful sluggers by any means. Many of the best home run hitters during the Steroids Era were not believed to have taken steroids -- Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Adam Dunn and many more.

I believe steroids were a scourge on baseball and harmed the game a lot and the cheaters should have been punished, but I don't believe steroids had nearly as much impact on the game of baseball as many people do. If we blame steroids for all the higher scoring rates then we will fail to see and appreciate all the sweeping changes that came into baseball over the same period and were the true reasons why the game is so much different today than it was in the last century.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Yes, when Billy Hamilton reaches the big leagues it would make sense to start him out in the 6th or 7th spot in the lineup. If he proves he can get on base at a .350+ rate in the major leagues, then and only then should he be put in the leadoff spot. It is the OBP that determines whether a player is qualified to bat leadoff -- not his speed.

But since Hamilton plays centerfield and is fast I am sure Dusty Baker will have him bat leadoff no matter what his OBP is.

And I agree with you that a stolen base is more valuable in front of Hanigan or Cozart than it is in front of Votto or Bruce.

You've really got stop building OBP opponents like it's 2003. I was saying, assuming Hamilon becomes a .350+ OBP hitter and stolen bases are substantially more valuable in front of Cozart, might it be worth giving up the ideal leadoff hitter in order to take full advantage of his base stealing by batting him 7? I'd lean towards no in our case, but mainly because I don't see anyone else that fits anywhere close to that well into the leadoff spot.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Most of the players busted for PEDs through the years were not powerful sluggers by any means. Many of the best home run hitters during the Steroids Era were not believed to have taken steroids -- Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Adam Dunn and many more.

Nicely written (the whole post). I count 42 times that 50 or more HRs were hit by a player in a single season. Out of those 42 times I am strongly suspicious of 19 being steroid-takers (yes, I have no proof). Names I include are Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Gonzalez, ARod, Ortiz, Thome, Andruw Jones, Anderson, Belle and Vaughn. Left out Bautista and Howard. The first time 50 was reached was 1920. The last time that I count as steroid-suspicious is 2007 and the first time is 1996.

So... the 50 HR mark was reached 21 times in 77 years after the 1st time. Then in the next 12 years it was reached 19 times. It has happened only twice since 2007.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I believe that many of the biggest power hitters of the era were taking steroids, and so were many of the rest of the players in the league. I also believe that the height of the steroid era came after scoring levels started declining. If steroids were the reason run scoring was elevated then you would see a direct correlation between run scoring and steroid usage levels -- but the facts prove that correlation is very weak. Baseball Prospectus has written extensively on this subject and they concluded that steroids had only a very small impact on scoring rates if any at all.

You don't have to take steroids to get big and strong. The average player today is taller and weighs more than the average player in the year 2000 when scoring reached it's peak. If size and strength were the major reason for elevated scoring and home run rates then why are those rates lower now even though the players are bigger and stronger?

Most of the players busted for PEDs through the years were not powerful sluggers by any means. Many of the best home run hitters during the Steroids Era were not believed to have taken steroids -- Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Adam Dunn and many more.

I believe steroids were a scourge on baseball and harmed the game a lot and the cheaters should have been punished, but I don't believe steroids had nearly as much impact on the game of baseball as many people do. If we blame steroids for all the higher scoring rates then we will fail to see and appreciate all the sweeping changes that came into baseball over the same period and were the true reasons why the game is so much different today than it was in the last century.

In the macro, I think people care a lot less about higher scoring rates than the singular stat spikes we saw in the era.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

I don't know which way it will tip the scales, but it should also be considered that Hanny will be walked/pitched around often with a man on 2nd.

I didn't think about that. You can mitigate the negative aspect of a CS by hitting him in front of Hanigan, but I guess that also sets up a lot of filled bases for Cueto and Latos to squander. Sort of limits the upside of a successful steal too. (trying to divert this discussion away from another 55 page steroid debate)

[Plus Plus]

Originally Posted by klw

So the stat line you quoted reminded me of the late 70's Pirate, Omar Moreno

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...orenom01.shtml
He only had a WAR above 2 twice and never above 3. Is the thought that we should recompute WAR to take into account the influence of Speed via intangibles?

That's a really interesting point. I can see a lot of similarities between the Hamilton and Moreno. However, my point was more about roster construction as the way that runs are scored in MLB changes and less about specific players or how WAR would be changed. Furthermore, the landscape of MLB has changed to the point where league leaders in SB are around the 50 steal mark, whereas in 1979 Moreno's 97 steals put him second in MLB. ~100 steals is more valuable in 2013 simply by scarcity principles alone.

Additionally, it is important to understand that WAR is an ever-changing beast and that it (obviously) wasn't around in 1979. Another interesting thought is how WAR might appear today if it was developed 20 years earlier than it was, and maybe a metric from that era directly translated into a statistical analysis of its time rather than one from a generation later.

As we gain more information about the sport and what correlates to what, I think that speed, given the era that we are currently in, might be a more valuable tool than others and that folks who are average with plus speed might be a more desirable part than folks who are average with plus power.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

As we gain more information about the sport and what correlates to what, I think that speed, given the era that we are currently in, might be a more valuable tool than others and that folks who are average with plus speed might be a more desirable part than folks who are average with plus power.

The realization that defense isn't just a cute tool held by utility infielders is playing a part in this too IMO. A speed player is often killing two birds with one stone by also using that to be a plus defender. Not that power and defense are mutually exclusive activities at all, but the speed tool almost always has defensive benefits attached to it. I can't wait to see how some of the numbers account for Hamilton in center field. If his reads catch up to his tools, it'll just be laughable how much ground he covers out there.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Superdude

I didn't think about that. You can mitigate the negative aspect of a CS by hitting him in front of Hanigan, but I guess that also sets up a lot of filled bases for Cueto and Latos to squander. Sort of limits the upside of a successful steal too. (trying to divert this discussion away from another 55 page steroid debate)

If Hamilton can run his way over to third base with the pitcher at the plate with less than two outs then maybe even the pitchers can bring him home. Just hit the ball anywhere except back to the pitcher and he scores.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

If Hamilton can run his way over to third base with the pitcher at the plate with less than two outs then maybe even the pitchers can bring him home. Just hit the ball anywhere except back to the pitcher and he scores.

I can't wait to see Billy in a real MLB game. Cause until then, I won't be convinced he can just magically make his way to third base. I really hope he can do so, of course.

And I swear I'm not knocking you at all, it's just that we won't know for sure how his speed will play until he is actually in the bigs.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

If Hamilton can run his way over to third base with the pitcher at the plate with less than two outs then maybe even the pitchers can bring him home. Just hit the ball anywhere except back to the pitcher and he scores.

I guess we've got enough decent hitting pitchers now to where it might work. I figure we have plenty in the top half of the order to pound out runs in bunches. It'd be nice if Hamilton was the sparkplug to scratch out a few runs from the bottom, especially against tougher pitchers that can put a clamp on those big innings.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

I can't wait to see Billy in a real MLB game. Cause until then, I won't be convinced he can just magically make his way to third base. I really hope he can do so, of course.

And I swear I'm not knocking you at all, it's just that we won't know for sure how his speed will play until he is actually in the bigs.

Oh I agree. I am definitely in the "let's wait and see" camp when it comes to Billy Hamilton. I am not a fan of speedy, slap-hitting players in general. I prefer sluggers. Hamilton will have to prove his value to me. It is interesting to discuss all the ways that his speed could factor in to the game. As Plus Plus has described, some of that value may not be adequately factored into his WAR score.