beckdawg
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Oct 31, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,731
- Liked Posts:
- 3,726
Get out your deloreans and find Doc Brown because we're going Back..... to the future. So I've had this idea for awhile now. Basically since they started giving a crap about steroid testing I have noticed that offense has dramatically dropped. If you look at the runs/game stat from 1990-2014 the average is 4.62. If you look at the 25 years prior to that, the average is 4.14. In particular, it appears the "steroid era" was 1993-2009 where the average was 4.8 runs per game. In that era, every season was 4.6 runs per game or higher. Prior to that span, the last individual seasons at 4.6 or higher were 1987(4.72) and 1953(4.61). Since 2010, the runs per game have dropped to 4.26 per game. That's a pretty similar number to 80's baseball which was 4.29 per game. If you're interested in the numbers you can find them here. I just pulled them into excel and played with them a bit.
With that in mind, I have began to think about difference in philosophy between 80's baseball and current day philosophies that have carried over post steroid era. The first thing that comes to mind is stolen bases. Teams don't even appear to try anymore. In the 80's, you had 0.77 SB per game. In the steroid era, it dropped to 0.63 per game. There was a thought in either the moneyball book or movie don't remember which that stolen bases were too risky and that you're potentially giving up an out. In other words, unless you're incredibly successful at it that it isn't worth the risk. However, context is important because you're talking about the height of the steroid era with 99/00 being the two highest scoring years since the 30's. As such, the value of running is lessened when teams are scoring without it. Dave Cameron of fangraphs had an article about this that I just stumbled upon while writing this. It's from the start of 2013 where 13/14 have been two of the lowest years in recent memory.
Another area that was talked about during the moneyball book/movie was sac bunts. The idea similarly being you're giving the team a free out. It appears from what I can gather that the saber opinion hasn't changed much and unlike stolen bases isn't as tied to total offense. Most analysis seems to say it's situationally good. Common examples were butting with runners on 1st and 2nd with someone good at bunting and when you have a weak hitter(aka pitcher). However, with your typical hitters it's likely at best a push in terms of chances the runner scores and at worse you don't execute.
HRs since 93 are dramatically up(30%). That has dropped the past 4.5 years post steroid era but it's still up 18% from the 80's. Walks during the steroid era were up a marginal 3%. However, what's interesting is that since the end of that in 2009 they are down about 5% from the 80's which obviously is a big fall off from the steroid era. Strikeouts were up 25% over the steroid era vs the 80's. And the past 4.5 years things have actually got worse. You're talking about a staggering 38% increase from the 80's. As far as on base, as you can expect it rose during the steroid era as teams started to figure out it was important. It averaged .332 during that era vs .323. However, last 4.5 years it's been .320. Given the data, it appears were entering a generation of baseball similar to the 80s. However, that doesn't mean we can't learn from some of the steroid era ideas.
To start with, I think it's important to look at what teams were successful during the 80's to see if we can glean any ideas. The top 10 teams in terms of wins over the 80's were Yankees, Tigers, Royals, Dodgers, Cardinals, Red Sox, Astros, Blue Jays, Mets, and Expos in that order. If we look at team defense, fangraphs puts the Cards, Blue Jays and Tigers 1-3 with the Expos at 10. Royals, Astros and Red Sox were 10-15 and the Yanks, Dodgers, and Mets were 15-20. This sort of makes sense because if you figure less overall runs scoring that then means the importance of one individual run is higher. However, defense appears to have fallen to the wayside since the steroid era. Of the top 10 teams in defense last year, only the reds, braves, dodgers, rays were in the top 10 and none were in the top 5.
If we look at expectations via position these were the averages in the 80's.
C - .247/.312/.370 with 10-15 homers, 0-5 SB, 8.3%/13.8% bb/k rate and a 89 wRC+
1B - .270/.342/.419 with 15-20 homers, 5-10 SB, 9.7%/12.6% bb/k rate and a 110 wRC+
2B - .260/.323/.355 with 5-10 homers, 15-20 SB, 8.2%/11.3% bb/k rate and a 90 wRC+
SS - .251/.305/.343 with 5-10 homers, 10-15 SB, 6.9%/12.0% bb/k rate and a 80 wRC+
3B - .262/.328/.398 with 10-15 homers, 5-10 SB, 8.6%/13.2% bb/k rate and a 101 wRC+
RF - .266/.330/.419 with 15-20 homers, 10-15 SB,8.6%/15.3% bb/k rate and a 107 wRC+
CF - .266/.329/.396 with 10-15 homers, 25-30 SB, 8.3%/14.5% bb/k rate and a 101 wRC+
LF - .268/.334/.407 with 10-15 homers, 15-20 SB, 8.8%/14.3% bb/k rate and a 106 wRC+
That compares to these numbers from 2010-2014
C - .247/.315/.389 with 15-20 homers, 0-5 SB, 8.4%/19.7% bb/k rate and a 93 wRC+
1B - .258/.335/.436 with 20-25 homers, 0-5 SB, 9.9%/20.4% bb/k rate and a 111 wRC+
2B - .256/.317/.375 with 10-15 homers, 10-15 SB, 7.4%/16.5% bb/k rate and a 90 wRC+
SS - .255/.310/.369 with 10-15 homers, 10-15 SB, 6.9%/16.3% bb/k rate and a 86 wRC+
3B - .258/.319/.403 with 15-20 homers, 5-10 SB, 7.7%/18.6% bb/k rate and a 97 wRC+
RF - .261/.328/.422 with 15-20 homers, 10-15 SB, 8.4%/20.1% bb/k rate and a 105 wRC+
CF - .262/.326/.403 with 10-15 homers, 20-25 SB, 8.0%/20.1% bb/k rate and a 100 wRC+
LF - .255/.322/.409 with 15-20 homers, 10-15 SB, 8.1%/20.1% bb/k rate and a 100 wRC+
You have to be careful when you start drawing conclusions about this data. Just quickly looking at it you see a substantially lower average and a high K rate and you could easily suggest that they aren't focusing enough on players with good contact/eye. One reason that's a risky assumption is teams didn't use defensive shifts nearly as much in the 80's and they've proven to be particularly effective. As for the k rate, teams employ a much more specialized bullpen than they did in the 80's. This is my guess at at least one thing that's happening there. 2010-14 relievers now have a 8.18 k/9 vs 5.85 for the 80's relievers. That being said, if we also look at starters you're talking about 7.04 k/9 for the 2010-14 group vs 5.15 for the 80's starters. So, given that and the fact that homers are up you're likely talking about the possibility of sacrificing some contact for power. One thing I find particularly strange though is the difference between the two LF's. I would have expected more offense out of current day LF's(wRC+) given they tend to throw out hitters who aren't great defensively. There also unsurprisingly seems to be a larger focus on offensive SS. That's probably eating into the 3B pool of players some hence the drop there. Catcher also seems to have a bigger focus on offense.
What's scary for me as a cubs fan though is when you start talking about where the talent in this system lies. Alcantara is the only major prospect with elite SB potential. Almora is the only one that appears to have elite defense. The K rate of someone like Baez and Bryant is a worry but even in the 80's there were super star level talents like Strawberry, Bo Jackson, Fred McGriff and Jack Clark with 20%+ k rate. Hell, Jackson had a career 32.0% k rate. On the plus side Schwarber and Rizzo are already low k-rate guys and Rizzo does have good defense.
Some might suggest the game has changed but I'm honestly not sure it has now that offense is dropping. I haven't really seen any specific things from a metric standpoint talking about the difference between the better contact approach of the 80's and the power approach of present day. You'd essentially have to calculate the value of a homer vs someone being on base slightly more often. And frankly, while I understand the fundamentals of statistics that's well above my pay grade. I tend to believe that people will eventually start trying new things and then they will rediscover old strategies that worked in the past. We see this all the time in the NFL where the 3-4 and the 4-3 go through phases of dominance until the game catches up. I would argue the market inefficiency today is speed and defense. And when we start talking about market inefficiency I always look at the A's to see what they are doing because frankly Beane is often the smartest guy in the room. If we look at their UZR/150 since 2010, they only have 4 players in the negative(Jed Lowrie, Coco Crisp, Jemile Weeks, and Brandon Moss). Incidentally, he traded away Weeks. Other than Crisp they haven't added much in the way of speed however.
This is probably a lot to digest so I'm gonna cut this post here. In the next one I'm going to take a look at guys who I think may be under valued.
With that in mind, I have began to think about difference in philosophy between 80's baseball and current day philosophies that have carried over post steroid era. The first thing that comes to mind is stolen bases. Teams don't even appear to try anymore. In the 80's, you had 0.77 SB per game. In the steroid era, it dropped to 0.63 per game. There was a thought in either the moneyball book or movie don't remember which that stolen bases were too risky and that you're potentially giving up an out. In other words, unless you're incredibly successful at it that it isn't worth the risk. However, context is important because you're talking about the height of the steroid era with 99/00 being the two highest scoring years since the 30's. As such, the value of running is lessened when teams are scoring without it. Dave Cameron of fangraphs had an article about this that I just stumbled upon while writing this. It's from the start of 2013 where 13/14 have been two of the lowest years in recent memory.
Another area that was talked about during the moneyball book/movie was sac bunts. The idea similarly being you're giving the team a free out. It appears from what I can gather that the saber opinion hasn't changed much and unlike stolen bases isn't as tied to total offense. Most analysis seems to say it's situationally good. Common examples were butting with runners on 1st and 2nd with someone good at bunting and when you have a weak hitter(aka pitcher). However, with your typical hitters it's likely at best a push in terms of chances the runner scores and at worse you don't execute.
HRs since 93 are dramatically up(30%). That has dropped the past 4.5 years post steroid era but it's still up 18% from the 80's. Walks during the steroid era were up a marginal 3%. However, what's interesting is that since the end of that in 2009 they are down about 5% from the 80's which obviously is a big fall off from the steroid era. Strikeouts were up 25% over the steroid era vs the 80's. And the past 4.5 years things have actually got worse. You're talking about a staggering 38% increase from the 80's. As far as on base, as you can expect it rose during the steroid era as teams started to figure out it was important. It averaged .332 during that era vs .323. However, last 4.5 years it's been .320. Given the data, it appears were entering a generation of baseball similar to the 80s. However, that doesn't mean we can't learn from some of the steroid era ideas.
To start with, I think it's important to look at what teams were successful during the 80's to see if we can glean any ideas. The top 10 teams in terms of wins over the 80's were Yankees, Tigers, Royals, Dodgers, Cardinals, Red Sox, Astros, Blue Jays, Mets, and Expos in that order. If we look at team defense, fangraphs puts the Cards, Blue Jays and Tigers 1-3 with the Expos at 10. Royals, Astros and Red Sox were 10-15 and the Yanks, Dodgers, and Mets were 15-20. This sort of makes sense because if you figure less overall runs scoring that then means the importance of one individual run is higher. However, defense appears to have fallen to the wayside since the steroid era. Of the top 10 teams in defense last year, only the reds, braves, dodgers, rays were in the top 10 and none were in the top 5.
If we look at expectations via position these were the averages in the 80's.
C - .247/.312/.370 with 10-15 homers, 0-5 SB, 8.3%/13.8% bb/k rate and a 89 wRC+
1B - .270/.342/.419 with 15-20 homers, 5-10 SB, 9.7%/12.6% bb/k rate and a 110 wRC+
2B - .260/.323/.355 with 5-10 homers, 15-20 SB, 8.2%/11.3% bb/k rate and a 90 wRC+
SS - .251/.305/.343 with 5-10 homers, 10-15 SB, 6.9%/12.0% bb/k rate and a 80 wRC+
3B - .262/.328/.398 with 10-15 homers, 5-10 SB, 8.6%/13.2% bb/k rate and a 101 wRC+
RF - .266/.330/.419 with 15-20 homers, 10-15 SB,8.6%/15.3% bb/k rate and a 107 wRC+
CF - .266/.329/.396 with 10-15 homers, 25-30 SB, 8.3%/14.5% bb/k rate and a 101 wRC+
LF - .268/.334/.407 with 10-15 homers, 15-20 SB, 8.8%/14.3% bb/k rate and a 106 wRC+
That compares to these numbers from 2010-2014
C - .247/.315/.389 with 15-20 homers, 0-5 SB, 8.4%/19.7% bb/k rate and a 93 wRC+
1B - .258/.335/.436 with 20-25 homers, 0-5 SB, 9.9%/20.4% bb/k rate and a 111 wRC+
2B - .256/.317/.375 with 10-15 homers, 10-15 SB, 7.4%/16.5% bb/k rate and a 90 wRC+
SS - .255/.310/.369 with 10-15 homers, 10-15 SB, 6.9%/16.3% bb/k rate and a 86 wRC+
3B - .258/.319/.403 with 15-20 homers, 5-10 SB, 7.7%/18.6% bb/k rate and a 97 wRC+
RF - .261/.328/.422 with 15-20 homers, 10-15 SB, 8.4%/20.1% bb/k rate and a 105 wRC+
CF - .262/.326/.403 with 10-15 homers, 20-25 SB, 8.0%/20.1% bb/k rate and a 100 wRC+
LF - .255/.322/.409 with 15-20 homers, 10-15 SB, 8.1%/20.1% bb/k rate and a 100 wRC+
You have to be careful when you start drawing conclusions about this data. Just quickly looking at it you see a substantially lower average and a high K rate and you could easily suggest that they aren't focusing enough on players with good contact/eye. One reason that's a risky assumption is teams didn't use defensive shifts nearly as much in the 80's and they've proven to be particularly effective. As for the k rate, teams employ a much more specialized bullpen than they did in the 80's. This is my guess at at least one thing that's happening there. 2010-14 relievers now have a 8.18 k/9 vs 5.85 for the 80's relievers. That being said, if we also look at starters you're talking about 7.04 k/9 for the 2010-14 group vs 5.15 for the 80's starters. So, given that and the fact that homers are up you're likely talking about the possibility of sacrificing some contact for power. One thing I find particularly strange though is the difference between the two LF's. I would have expected more offense out of current day LF's(wRC+) given they tend to throw out hitters who aren't great defensively. There also unsurprisingly seems to be a larger focus on offensive SS. That's probably eating into the 3B pool of players some hence the drop there. Catcher also seems to have a bigger focus on offense.
What's scary for me as a cubs fan though is when you start talking about where the talent in this system lies. Alcantara is the only major prospect with elite SB potential. Almora is the only one that appears to have elite defense. The K rate of someone like Baez and Bryant is a worry but even in the 80's there were super star level talents like Strawberry, Bo Jackson, Fred McGriff and Jack Clark with 20%+ k rate. Hell, Jackson had a career 32.0% k rate. On the plus side Schwarber and Rizzo are already low k-rate guys and Rizzo does have good defense.
Some might suggest the game has changed but I'm honestly not sure it has now that offense is dropping. I haven't really seen any specific things from a metric standpoint talking about the difference between the better contact approach of the 80's and the power approach of present day. You'd essentially have to calculate the value of a homer vs someone being on base slightly more often. And frankly, while I understand the fundamentals of statistics that's well above my pay grade. I tend to believe that people will eventually start trying new things and then they will rediscover old strategies that worked in the past. We see this all the time in the NFL where the 3-4 and the 4-3 go through phases of dominance until the game catches up. I would argue the market inefficiency today is speed and defense. And when we start talking about market inefficiency I always look at the A's to see what they are doing because frankly Beane is often the smartest guy in the room. If we look at their UZR/150 since 2010, they only have 4 players in the negative(Jed Lowrie, Coco Crisp, Jemile Weeks, and Brandon Moss). Incidentally, he traded away Weeks. Other than Crisp they haven't added much in the way of speed however.
This is probably a lot to digest so I'm gonna cut this post here. In the next one I'm going to take a look at guys who I think may be under valued.
