350 replies to this topic

[Russ]

To add, we don't know p/pa historically but strikeouts are at an all time high, so we can make a reasonable guess that hitters are seeing more 2 strike counts. That's good enough for me to say p/pa are likely at an all time high as well.

[mweb08]

The current level of offense is a bit too low for my tastes.  Late 90s was too high.

 

I'll take about a 4.75 R/G offense.  That's roughly what the numbers were from 2007-2009 in the AL.  2010-2012 it dropped to ~4.45, which was ok.  2013 it was 4.3 and last year was under 4.2.  I'd like it back to at least the 2010-2012 levels and maybe the late 00s.

 

I like it when the benchmark for a good SP is a sub-4.00 ERA and a good hitter is an 800+ OPS.  Not sure exactly what run level that corresponds to, or if the two numbers really coincide, but I like those as my target points.

 

Agree with this. Would prefer more scoring, but not crazy high as we have seen plenty of.

[RShack]

I like good baseball, I don't care how many runs are involved...

 

The main problem I have with "increasing the offense" is that I sometimes think it's code for more dingers.  I'm against baseball that is just about the dingers... except when the O's hit them....

[Mike in STL]

Anyone know what the margin of victory was in the mid 90s? I feel like when you boost offense you get more 8-4, 7-2 type games then you do the 3-2, 2-1 variety.

Feel like in the tighter games, managers have to "manage" situations more and we have one of the, if not the best right here in BMore. I love the late game chess match.

[Mike in STL]

Oh yeah....and everyone that hates the new commish.....I heard the other day he grew up a Yankees fan. So let the conspiracy theories begin.

[SammyBirdland]

If we're going to mess with the umps, let's work on "identify" before "alter".

[BSLChrisStoner]

Grantland: Frame Jobs

http://grantland.com...nnis-eckersley/

[RShack]

Very cool...

 

One thing that's instructive is the early part of the article when they're talking about the history of stat-guys laughing at the idea of C's D-goodness just because their numbers couldn't see it... that's something to remember, just in general...

[DJ MC]

Very cool...

 

One thing that's instructive is the early part of the article when they're talking about the history of stat-guys laughing at the idea of C's D-goodness just because their numbers couldn't see it... that's something to remember, just in general...

 

They weren't laughing at the idea of the importance of catcher defense. They were laughing at people who followed Nichols' Law to the letter without any foundation for that belief.

 

Once that foundation showed up, that went away. Exactly how it's supposed to work.

[RShack]

They weren't laughing at the idea of the importance of catcher defense. They were laughing at people who followed Nichols' Law to the letter without any foundation for that belief.

 

Once that foundation showed up, that went away. Exactly how it's supposed to work.

 

Accepting then rejecting is part of progress.  Progress is fine and good.  

 

What's not fine and good is assuming that something doesn't exist just because current numbers can't see it.  There was a lot of that happening then, and there's a lot of that happening now.  Am just saying people should look back and learn about the dangers of that, that's all.  Doing that is better than getting humbled by retrospect.

[BSLChrisStoner]

NBC Sports / Hardball Talk: Yes, we hate your team and your favorite player. Every single one of them.