"Billy Hamilton and other really fast guys"

[westofyou]

Yes we never knew that not making outs was an important task back then

Until the Internet we just laid around the cave and pondered why baseball was so difficult ti figure out

[_Sir_Charles_]

Yeah, I don't get the hesitation by some here of having Hamilton stealing bases in front of Votto. First off, it means Billy's on base. That in itself is a positive thing. Second, he'll cause all sorts of havoc on the pitchers/catchers attention towards the batter. Third, if Votto gets walked...okay, just another guy on base. It's not like it's a certainty that Votto was going to get a hit there anyway. Fourth, Votto's not hitting second and he's not unprotected in the 3rd hole. It's far from a guarantee that he'll get walked. That #2 hole hitter can still reach base, move Hamilton over, drive Billy in, etc. It's not all on Votto.

Bottom line for me, getting a speedster on the basepaths is a GOOD thing...regardless of where it is in the order. And he's got a green light in my book until he proves he doesn't deserve it.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Yes we never knew that not making outs was an important task back then

Until the Internet we just laid around the cave and pondered why baseball was so difficult ti figure out

How about: The game was managed differently and the "non-out" wasn't valued as much as it is today? Teams have cut down on steal attempts and sac-bunts (though not as much) in order to try and play for more than one run.

[Roy Tucker]

Makes you wonder what the game will be like in 20-30 years.

Baseball is like sex, every generation think they discovered it and the old fogies that came before them had no idea.

[dougdirt]

So baseball isn't going about things differently today when it comes to things like OBP and how they try to score runs than 30 years ago?

[Roy Tucker]

Sure. But how the game is played today isn't how it will be played in 30 years. Some other tactics, strategies, skills, *something*, will come along. How the game is now isn't how it's always going to be.

[kaldaniels]

I was just wondering if the OBP "wave" will trickle down to the little leagues. What if one of the next generation of kids is brought up knowing the importance of a walk. When I played it was just try to hit the ball as hard as you can. It would be interesting to see what the major leagues would be like if all the players had been brought up enlightened about getting on base.

[OGB]

Can we put to rest the notion that once Billy is facing major league outfielders, that he'll be scoring from first on singles with any regularity?

[757690]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I think it is. Today, we know that OBP is king. In the 70's and 80's we didn't. Outs weren't valued the same way then as they are now. Also, runs were actually more important then (lower run scoring environment, making each run more valuable) than they are now, so the risk was perhaps a little more worth it.

Runs scoring is almost identical these days to the 70's and 80's. From 1977-1987, the NL averaged 4.12 runs a game. The past two years have averages 4.17.

Teams have valued OBP and walks as long as I remember. Maybe the casual fan didn't understand or appreciate it, but players who got on base have always been greatly desired. I guess we have more precise ways of measuring it these days, but getting on base has always been highly valued in MLB, at least in my lifetime.

[757690]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

I was just wondering if the OBP "wave" will trickle down to the little leagues. What if one of the next generation of kids is brought up knowing the importance of a walk. When I played it was just try to hit the ball as hard as you can. It would be interesting to see what the major leagues would be like if all the players had been brought up enlightened about getting on base.

From mu recollection, in little league, walks were always highly desired and appreciated, probably more so than in the majors, since that was the one way low talent player such as myself could make themselves useful.

Probably the two chants heard most from a little league or high school dugout:

"Good eye!"

"Walks as good as a hit!"

I really don't buy this notion that we now understand that walks are good. We always have, imo.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

Sure. But how the game is played today isn't how it will be played in 30 years. Some other tactics, strategies, skills, *something*, will come along. How the game is now isn't how it's always going to be.

Yep, back then the fields were larger, the grass was fake and the game was much faster when the ball was in play, games were more dependent on fleeter players and home runs were not as plentiful as today yes... but walks were as common (1969 1/9.77ab - 2012 1/11.23ab) meanwhile K's were 1/5.8ab and now are every 4.3ab)

The game changes, it ebbs and flows, the bat hits the ball less these days then ever before... there is no revolution about getting on base in baseball, FC Lane wrote articles about OB% 100 years ago.

No generation has the call on when the game will stop evolving, take Buck Showalter's POV concerning the fake to 3rd rule being banned, he thinks it will change the game and he might be right.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/b...ff-rule-021713

“Relief pitchers are really squawking about it,” Showalter said. “I chuckle when these announcers always say, ‘Oh, that never catches anybody. Why do they ever do it?’ The things that keeps from happening were huge. These guys sit up there and say, ‘Why are they doing that?’ It shuts down the first and third. A right-handed pitcher had to have that move. Otherwise, you’re giving up 90 feet all the time.”

Here’s why: With runners at first and third, a pitcher is in the stretch. For a right-hander, that means his right foot is on the rubber. Before the rule change, when he picked up his left foot, he had three options — a pickoff to third base, a fake pickoff to third base, or a pitch to home plate.

For the runner at first base, the possibility of a fake pickoff to third would keep him at an honest lead. He couldn’t take off at the pitcher’s first movement, because the pitcher could pivot and pick him off a split-second later.

Not anymore.

Now, the right-handed pitcher has only two options after he picks up his left leg — a pickoff to third base or a pitch to home plate. Either involves the pitcher actually throwing the ball. So, if the runner at first base has decent speed, he should be able to make it from first to second in the time it would take the defensive team to throw the ball from the mound, to third, to second.

The situation would most often come into play when there are fewer than two outs. That’s because the offensive team, in many instances, would be happy to trade an out for a run; the runner on third can steal home if the catcher throws to the shortstop or second baseman in order to nab the runner attempting to steal from first base.

The upshot: Runners at first base will enjoy a strategic advantage they didn’t have in years past, turning average runners into legitimate threats to cause mayhem — if not stealing second, then acting as a decoy to score the runner from third. MLB games could see some of the first-and-third hijinks normally associated with the teenage PONY or Senior leagues.

Little rule changes have that affect, tighter seams, higher mound, umps chest protector in the suit or out of the suit, night games, plane travel, double headers, no double headers, wool uniforms, double knits, DH, larger rosters, smaller rosters, horsehide, cowhide, humidor, White Sox moldy closet.

The game is outside any bubble we fans create for it, it's a giant living and breathing organism.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by 757690

From mu recollection, in little league, walks were always highly desired and appreciated, probably more so than in the majors, since that was the one way low talent player such as myself could make themselves useful.

Probably the two chants heard most from a little league or high school dugout:

"Good eye!"

"Walks as good as a hit!"

I really don't buy this notion that we now understand that walks are good. We always have, imo.

This is gonna sound really mean but please don't take it that way. But where I played (and this all depends on where you played I'm sure) those sort of chants were most commonly directed at kids who weren't on the track to baseball sucess, present company included. The one's who had a shot to advance past amateur often went to the plate with the goal of "doing" something, not "passively" taking a walk.

[757690]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

This is gonna sound really mean but please don't take it that way. But where I played (and this all depends on where you played I'm sure) those sort of chants were most commonly directed at kids who weren't on the track to baseball sucess, present company included. The one's who had a shot to advance past amateur often went to the plate with the goal of "doing" something, not "passively" taking a walk.

Lol, definitely not offended. I absolutely was one of those kids who weren't on the track to baseball success, as was most of my teammates. However, those that appeared to be on that track to baseball success, were usually the ones starting those chants. At the very least, they had to hear them from the coaches and players all game long, even if they weren't aimed at them.

Point is, players at all levels that I played in understood the importance of taking a walk, and getting on base. Funny story, I remember one guy I played with at the college level, who had a propensity of getting on base via the error, and kept lobbying to include reaching via error in his OBP. This is was back in the 80's.

[scott91575]

I can't believe anyone is actually saying they don't want someone stealing a base in front of Votto. The likelihood of scoring from second base is around twice as much as first base. I don't care if Babe Ruth is at the plate or Bob Uecker, you cannot make up that percentage increase. As long as the person stealing has a success rate of 70% or more (actually less than that, but I will just say 70%), from a statistics standpoint, the likelihood of scoring is improved by a significant amount. The amount of runs scored jumps dramatically with 2 men on base (in other words, Votto gets walked). As long as the hitter behind Votto is not awful, it's a win for the Reds.

On top of that, if you look at Votto's stats he has almost as many RBI's with a man on second than a man on first, yet he has around twice as many at bats with a man on first. As for Hamilton being super fast, I would take Ryan Hanigan in a race to home if he starts at second base vs. Hamilton starting at first. A guy on second base is so much better than first it's not even really a debate.

With all that said, it all comes down to his ability to get on base. That should determine his place in the order.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

So baseball isn't going about things differently today when it comes to things like OBP and how they try to score runs than 30 years ago?

It has changed but is not the only reason for the reduction in speed players. Playing surface played a major role. Stealing bases on astro turf was a major advantage vs grass. In 1982, 38% of the stadiums had artificial turf (50% of NL teams had artificial turf, and of course there was no interleague play...which led to the belief that AL teams played for the 3 run homer while NL teams were based on stealing bases). Today, it's 7% and Tropicana Field has all dirt base paths. This is probably the greatest factor in the lower emphasis on speed players.