10 ms·

>"The increase in frequency and efficiency of defensive shifts. According to FanGraphs, teams are shifting at a rate nearly 10 times greater than six years ago"

>"The increase in frequency and efficiency of defensive shifts. According to FanGraphs, teams are shifting at a rate nearly 10 times greater than six years ago" This should be more prominent and is likely the root cause of guys swinging for homeruns more often. Every hitter will eventually fall into a pattern where they're hitting certain pitches to only a certain part of the field. With the increase in data it's much easier for teams to recognize these patterns and position their fielders to compensate. So if you made your living hitting line drive basehits to shallow left field, halfway through the season every team will pick up on that and place an extra infielder right in your sweet spot. The same hits that got you through college and into the major leagues are now outs. This has been such a huge change that MLB thought about outlawing defensive shifts (I personally enjoy seeing the constant back and forth of strategy between offensive and defense which has always been a part of the major leagues). The obvious solution like the article mentions comes down to "the one ball that can’t be caught is the one that lands in the seats". This is also highly dependent on the type of hitter. If you're Yankee's 6'7" right fielder Aaron Judge then swinging for the fences with a higher launch angle makes perfect sense. However, if you're Dee Gordon, one of the fastest players in the league who weighs about 175lbs, keeping the ball low is probably still going to result in higher batting and slugging percentages. Guys like Bryce Harper who can hit for power and average do seem to be leaning more towards power, which used to only happen later in their career (ex. Barry Bonds). In my observation, it seems like players such as Dee Gordon are slowly becoming obsolete as teams are prefering the long ball to playing "small ball". You certainly don't see as many teams with a true, stereotypical "leadoff guy" these days and many teams seem stacked with guys who would have been labelled "cleanup hitters" 10 years ago.

bryanbuckley 9y ago
Does it suggest that leadoff guys will be cheaper in the future? The next moneyball trend will be fast guys who can accurately place hits?
- Lukeas14 9y ago
  Possibly. My guess is that only the exceptionally good leadoff guys will make it to a team, making them more expensive. Other teams might rather have a slugger hitting first than an average fast guy. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
  - saghm 9y ago
    > Other teams might rather have a slugger hitting first than an average fast guy. I remember seeing a Red Sox-Blue Jays game at Fenway Park last year where the Blue Jays had Jose Bautista hitting first, which definitely fits this description.
    - rpeden 9y ago
      If I remember correctly, that was actually Bautista's idea when the team was in a slump. The manager decided to give it a try, and the team started winning so Bautista saw quite a few games batting leadoff.
      - saghm 9y ago
        That's really cool! Honestly, it seemed really weird to me at first, but I guess if you don't have a tradional leadoff type guy, putting someone who gets on a base a lot is the next best thing, and Bautista certainly walks a lot.
- adventured 9y ago
  Fast guys that can place hits have always been extremely rare (and will always be), even when they were considered a lot more valuable. There may be ten guys in the last 50 years that could do that at a high level, consistently, for a career.
  - paulcole 9y ago
    Ichiro, Clemente, Rose who else? Gwynn (who was small and fast in the beginning of his career)? Henderson had a lot of pop and wasn't notably fast. Edgar Martinez had no speed at all but could hit for an insane average.
- pgodzin 9y ago
  There's been a trend recently to put high OBP bats at leadoff regardless of their speed (see Kyle Schwarber)
  - jjuel 9y ago
    And Schwarber as leadoff was a horrendous failure. See his .162 avg and .289 obp this year.
    - pgodzin 9y ago
      Sure this year he has been terrible. But he was also the leadoff hitter much of the year he was healthy on the WS-winning Cubs last year. Other examples are Carlos Santana, George Springer, etc http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/79308/leadoff-hitter-revolution-is-bringing-slow-power-guys-up-front http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/79308/leadoff-h...
    - spike021 9y ago
      Yet he's still in the top 5 for the All Star pick; meh.
      - pgodzin 9y ago
        All Star voting doesn't mean anything other than popularity
        spike021 9y ago
        Exactly. That then means actual performance doesn't matter to many fans, which is unfortunate considering how interesting this kind of data is and how players use it to improve their game.
        pgodzin 9y ago
        Of course performance matters, just not for voting for a meaningless game (that was stupidly given meaning). Schwarber isn't going to be suddenly become thrilled with how well his season is going just because he finishes fifth in ASG voting.
pgodzin 9y ago
I think speed will still be valuable as stolen bases continue to decrease across the league, as long as those hitters can still get on base at a .320+ clip. But speed is what makes players who can do it all, like Altuve, MVP candidates now.
- adventured 9y ago
  I see no evidence that speed is meaningful re recent MVPs. Harper, Trout, Stanton, Bryant, Donaldson, Cabrera, Posey, Josh Hamilton, Pujols, Votto, Pedroia, Ryan Howard, Morneau, Mauer - none of them are defined by speed. Trout has stolen a few bases, but he's not particularly fast. The actual results indicate it's quite the opposite, MVP hitters have been on the slower side. Power very clearly matters more than speed. What nearly all the last 20 MVP hitters have in common is substantial power production, while being on the slow side.
  - pgodzin 9y ago
    Sorry, didn't mean it was necessarily reflected in MVP voting from the old guard of writers, more in modern sabermetrics. Trout for example, a perennial 30/30+ candidate, his speed, baserunning and defensive play are a big part of what makes him such a generational player.
  - oso2k 9y ago
    Like you mention, that's only been a trend in the last 25 years or so. Prior to that, there was some pride is in being a 30/30, 20/50, 40/20, 50/20 and more rarely, a 40/40 player. All of which could get one easily recognized as an MVP. Furthermore, the trend to long ball vs. small ball is that long ball is seen as offensive strategy that has no defense. And I think McGwire and especially Bonds, Sosa had a lot to do with it. Bonds and Sosa came up as solid candidates for 30/30 seasons. Bonds did do a few seasons of 20/50 before he almost entire switched to long ball. And when you could have players that could guarantee a homerun every 10-20 ABs, it's easy to see why long ball is seen as feasible. What's sad that Bonds was an incredibly talented hitter before he went down his long ball route. I mean, he still hit for a high average, slugging percentage, and OBP. But he used to be able to hit the situation, go the other way to avoid a double situation, and he always had an eye for walks. What was incredible to watch was that he overnight (at least it felt that way) cause teams to simply intentionally walk him 50% of the time. In the 40s-60s and into the 70s maybe, hitters were more balanced. I think of sluggers like Williams, Mays, Mantle, Yaz, Kilebrew, Foster, McCovey, Kingman, etc. The introduction of the forkball, splitter, and changeup in the late 70s and 80s had a lot to do with the down turn in power. Hitter's technologically behind so to speak. In today's baseball, there's almost no room for a more balanced hitter like Gwynn, Boggs, Rose, Carew. Guys who only got 50-60 RBIs, a dozen or two homeruns, stole 15 bases, but who could bat for .350 in a given year and over 200 hits. It used to be taught, speed has no off days. That doesn't seem to be true anymore.
nissimk 9y ago
It is awesome how the tactics keep changing to respond to strategic changes. There will also be a shift towards training to hit towards both sides of the infield. Not everyone can be a power hitter, and classic baseball includes a lot of "small-ball" hitting. The increase in power hitting is also cyclical in baseball. Remember last time it dropped it was due to changes in drug testing policies and procedures which may also be a cat and mouse game. I found this: http://www.highheatstats.com/2013/01/reliving-the-hits-how-hit-distribution-has-changed-in-mlb-history/ http://www.highheatstats.com/2013/01/reliving-the-hits-how-h...
spike021 9y ago
Brandon Belt gets shifted all the time and it's been interesting to see how/when he beats the shift. Sometimes there will be a huge opening, which would allow him to hit toward the opposite field.
- Lukeas14 9y ago
  Usually a team will pitch to the shift though. Ex. if the shift is to the left side on a right handed batter they're not going to throw him a fastball on the outside corner. And it's much harder to take an inside pitch to the opposite field. Then again, a good hitter will recognize this, set up for the inside pitch, and launch it over the fence.
- aidenn0 9y ago
  More than once, David Ortiz reached on a bunt in the shift. (For those unaware, he's a large man who is not known for his speed). It was arguably a net loss to have him bunt though, as a medium chance of a single might not make up for the loss of the extra-bases he would hit for otherwise.
diogenescynic 9y ago
At the same time, the teams who shift are the teams who lose the most often. Obviously this is correlation, not causation, but it does make me doubt the efficacy of the shift.* *I'm on my phone so I can't find the source for this at the moment, but did see it in an article in the last few months.

bryanbuckley 9y ago

Does it suggest that leadoff guys will be cheaper in the future? The next moneyball trend will be fast guys who can accurately place hits?

Lukeas14 9y ago
Possibly. My guess is that only the exceptionally good leadoff guys will make it to a team, making them more expensive. Other teams might rather have a slugger hitting first than an average fast guy. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
- saghm 9y ago
  > Other teams might rather have a slugger hitting first than an average fast guy. I remember seeing a Red Sox-Blue Jays game at Fenway Park last year where the Blue Jays had Jose Bautista hitting first, which definitely fits this description.
  - rpeden 9y ago
    If I remember correctly, that was actually Bautista's idea when the team was in a slump. The manager decided to give it a try, and the team started winning so Bautista saw quite a few games batting leadoff.
    - saghm 9y ago
      That's really cool! Honestly, it seemed really weird to me at first, but I guess if you don't have a tradional leadoff type guy, putting someone who gets on a base a lot is the next best thing, and Bautista certainly walks a lot.
adventured 9y ago
Fast guys that can place hits have always been extremely rare (and will always be), even when they were considered a lot more valuable. There may be ten guys in the last 50 years that could do that at a high level, consistently, for a career.
- paulcole 9y ago
  Ichiro, Clemente, Rose who else? Gwynn (who was small and fast in the beginning of his career)? Henderson had a lot of pop and wasn't notably fast. Edgar Martinez had no speed at all but could hit for an insane average.
pgodzin 9y ago
There's been a trend recently to put high OBP bats at leadoff regardless of their speed (see Kyle Schwarber)
- jjuel 9y ago
  And Schwarber as leadoff was a horrendous failure. See his .162 avg and .289 obp this year.
  - pgodzin 9y ago
    Sure this year he has been terrible. But he was also the leadoff hitter much of the year he was healthy on the WS-winning Cubs last year. Other examples are Carlos Santana, George Springer, etc http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/79308/leadoff-hitter-revolution-is-bringing-slow-power-guys-up-front http://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/79308/leadoff-h...
  - spike021 9y ago
    Yet he's still in the top 5 for the All Star pick; meh.
    - pgodzin 9y ago
      All Star voting doesn't mean anything other than popularity
      - spike021 9y ago
        Exactly. That then means actual performance doesn't matter to many fans, which is unfortunate considering how interesting this kind of data is and how players use it to improve their game.
        pgodzin 9y ago
        Of course performance matters, just not for voting for a meaningless game (that was stupidly given meaning). Schwarber isn't going to be suddenly become thrilled with how well his season is going just because he finishes fifth in ASG voting.

pgodzin 9y ago

I think speed will still be valuable as stolen bases continue to decrease across the league, as long as those hitters can still get on base at a .320+ clip. But speed is what makes players who can do it all, like Altuve, MVP candidates now.

adventured 9y ago
I see no evidence that speed is meaningful re recent MVPs. Harper, Trout, Stanton, Bryant, Donaldson, Cabrera, Posey, Josh Hamilton, Pujols, Votto, Pedroia, Ryan Howard, Morneau, Mauer - none of them are defined by speed. Trout has stolen a few bases, but he's not particularly fast. The actual results indicate it's quite the opposite, MVP hitters have been on the slower side. Power very clearly matters more than speed. What nearly all the last 20 MVP hitters have in common is substantial power production, while being on the slow side.
- pgodzin 9y ago
  Sorry, didn't mean it was necessarily reflected in MVP voting from the old guard of writers, more in modern sabermetrics. Trout for example, a perennial 30/30+ candidate, his speed, baserunning and defensive play are a big part of what makes him such a generational player.
- oso2k 9y ago
  Like you mention, that's only been a trend in the last 25 years or so. Prior to that, there was some pride is in being a 30/30, 20/50, 40/20, 50/20 and more rarely, a 40/40 player. All of which could get one easily recognized as an MVP. Furthermore, the trend to long ball vs. small ball is that long ball is seen as offensive strategy that has no defense. And I think McGwire and especially Bonds, Sosa had a lot to do with it. Bonds and Sosa came up as solid candidates for 30/30 seasons. Bonds did do a few seasons of 20/50 before he almost entire switched to long ball. And when you could have players that could guarantee a homerun every 10-20 ABs, it's easy to see why long ball is seen as feasible. What's sad that Bonds was an incredibly talented hitter before he went down his long ball route. I mean, he still hit for a high average, slugging percentage, and OBP. But he used to be able to hit the situation, go the other way to avoid a double situation, and he always had an eye for walks. What was incredible to watch was that he overnight (at least it felt that way) cause teams to simply intentionally walk him 50% of the time. In the 40s-60s and into the 70s maybe, hitters were more balanced. I think of sluggers like Williams, Mays, Mantle, Yaz, Kilebrew, Foster, McCovey, Kingman, etc. The introduction of the forkball, splitter, and changeup in the late 70s and 80s had a lot to do with the down turn in power. Hitter's technologically behind so to speak. In today's baseball, there's almost no room for a more balanced hitter like Gwynn, Boggs, Rose, Carew. Guys who only got 50-60 RBIs, a dozen or two homeruns, stole 15 bases, but who could bat for .350 in a given year and over 200 hits. It used to be taught, speed has no off days. That doesn't seem to be true anymore.

nissimk 9y ago

It is awesome how the tactics keep changing to respond to strategic changes. There will also be a shift towards training to hit towards both sides of the infield. Not everyone can be a power hitter, and classic baseball includes a lot of "small-ball" hitting. The increase in power hitting is also cyclical in baseball. Remember last time it dropped it was due to changes in drug testing policies and procedures which may also be a cat and mouse game. I found this: http://www.highheatstats.com/2013/01/reliving-the-hits-how-hit-distribution-has-changed-in-mlb-history/ http://www.highheatstats.com/2013/01/reliving-the-hits-how-h...

spike021 9y ago

Brandon Belt gets shifted all the time and it's been interesting to see how/when he beats the shift. Sometimes there will be a huge opening, which would allow him to hit toward the opposite field.

Lukeas14 9y ago
Usually a team will pitch to the shift though. Ex. if the shift is to the left side on a right handed batter they're not going to throw him a fastball on the outside corner. And it's much harder to take an inside pitch to the opposite field. Then again, a good hitter will recognize this, set up for the inside pitch, and launch it over the fence.
aidenn0 9y ago
More than once, David Ortiz reached on a bunt in the shift. (For those unaware, he's a large man who is not known for his speed). It was arguably a net loss to have him bunt though, as a medium chance of a single might not make up for the loss of the extra-bases he would hit for otherwise.

diogenescynic 9y ago

At the same time, the teams who shift are the teams who lose the most often. Obviously this is correlation, not causation, but it does make me doubt the efficacy of the shift.* *I'm on my phone so I can't find the source for this at the moment, but did see it in an article in the last few months.