2019 Phillies Season Discussion (part 2)

[julio]

With a 750 OPS in CF the team can live with Haseley there. Whether he can do that consistently is a question. I will say that the juiced balls probably help both Haseley and Kingery as they are the type of 50 power guys that can hit 25 HRs with the new balls when it might have been 15 previously.

Given the issues with the MLB baseball, probably best to look at OPS+, which is normalized to league and season. At this point in 2019, Kingery's OPS+ is 106, Haseley's is 92, Hernandez's is 90.

Kingery and Haseley are young enough that there's potential for improvement - Kingery's 2019 is significantly better than his career (2018-19). Haseley's 2019 is his career. Hernandez, on the other hand, is in decline. His OPS+ peaked in 2017 at 110, and has been in declline since.

[Austinfan]

Don't think the balls are juiced that much, maybe a few feet more carry.

The jump in HRs I think is as much due to the lower seams making the ball hard to grip (look at the struggles of pitchers going from AA to AAA and the new ball) and more hanging breaking balls, self-selection the last few years improving ML ability to hit FBs (forcing pitchers to throw breaking balls) and "launch angle" swing mechanics.

"The scientific committee led by Nathan and funded by MLB issued a report in May 2018. One conclusion: since the start of the 2015 season, the baseballs used by MLB showed a decrease in “drag’’ — which means less air resistance for the ball, which then carries farther."

Full_Report_of_the_Committee_Studying_Home_Run_Rates_in_Major_League_Baseball_052418.pdf

"The new ball—or balls, as the ball has evolved over the past five seasons—has lower seams, a less dense and better-centered core, even smoother leather. The result: Batted baseballs have less drag and are more stable in flight, and therefore go farther than they used to when hit."

This year’s HR/FB rate, 15.3 percent, represents a more than 10 percent increase on the previous high, 13.7 percent, set in 2017, and is more than 60 percent greater than the league wide HR/FB rate of 9.5 in 2014, the last full season played without the juiced ball.

How the Juiced Ball Sparked the Democratization of Dingers in MLB

Notice the decline in HR rate from 1997 to 2014, as pitchers adjusted to the end of the PED era.

If it's just the "juiced ball", how come the jumps have come continually - once the new ball was in play, the jump should have occurred immediately (if the ball is travelling 10 feet longer, it would do so every year). So I think there's a "feedback effect," more HRs means more hitters trying to hit HRs as they discovered they could reach the fences. Lately, we're seeing an increase in 2 seam fastballs (sinkers) as pitching coaches are getting away from trying to avoid contact with high 4 seamers and going for contact that stays in the park.

[bkox]

A few days ago there was some discussion about when was the last time the Phils swept a 5 game series from a team. This was in reference to the Phils upcoming 5 game series against the Nats to close their final road trip of the season.

If memory serves me the last time the Phils ever swept a 5 game series was in August of 1980

The last time the Phillies swept a 5 game series was June 28th-July 1st 2001 against the Marlins:

June 28th: 6-5 and 8-7
June 29th: 5-0
June 30th: 6-4
July 1st: 8-1

Winning pitchers in the series: Robert Person, Omar Daal, Rheal Cormier, Nelson Figueroa, and Bruce Chen.

The series put the Phililies in 1st place. 2 games ahead of the Braves at exactly the half way point of the season. We ended up finishing the year 2 games behind the Braves.

[andyb]

Juiced is just a popular expression. Whether it is seams or improving the quality of manufacturing, the ball carries a lot further. The 58% increase in AAA home runs this year is proof of that.

Whatever you want to call it, they need to deaden the ball to put it back to close to where it used to be. I don't care if baseball did this consciously. They just need to fix it because it has hurt the game. And hitters and pitchers adjusting to the ball make it even worse. Fix it. Don't try to justify or rationalize it.

[flyers19rw]

If the ball is “deadened” back to what it was several seasons ago, wouldn’t that be the end of the three outcomes type of baseball that we’re seeing today? That might be the best move for the game to make. The game has been turned into an adulterated form of home run derby and been damaged by it.
The three outcomes style of ball has diminished fan interest in the sport. It has led to long and boring games. Contact and situational hitting have gone missing and along with it a lot of the strategy that used to make the game more interesting. When strikeouts outpace hits there is a problem.

[zambonir]

I don't think the ball would have that big an impact on the three outcomes. Even a lot of the home run boom that was ascribed to steroids wasn't because of steroids (among other things, it's the ballparks, which are still small, and the players, who are still more powerful athletes even without the extra boost). It wasn't that long ago that people were lamenting the fact that runs were way down, too (thus the conspiracy theories). And the rise in strikeouts is a 20-year trend.

Thing is, the analytics that favor home runs (and accept strikeouts) wouldn't change that much; the difference is you now have 30 general managers who all believe in it, instead of just the occasional Earl Weaver or Charlie Manuel vs. the occasional Whitey Herzog. Even if there were fewer home runs I don't think the math that says it's better to play for a big inning than for one run, and the math that says don't give up outs, would change. The pitchers with crazy strikeout stuff also aren't going anywhere, and neither is the value of walks.

Not sure how you can legislate it. If you do something to depress home runs offense will go down. On the other hand if you do something to depress strikeouts offense will go up. And the new rules for next year (regarding relief pitchers) will surely lead to more home runs, as an overmatched reliever has to stay in when he's bad or has a bad match-up.

[Austinfan]

Joe Morgan and Mike Schmidt were "3 outcome" players - both are in the HOF.

I think it's less the "juiced" ball than the difficulty of gripping and getting spin with lower seams.
I expect a minor adjustment, slightly raising the seams, with a slight increase in drag and easier grips for pitchers.
And then the new ball will gradually be used at all levels, making it easier to promote pitchers.

The three outcome strategy has already started counter-strategies which will continue:
1) emphasis on high 4 seamers
2) renewed use of 2 seamers
3) command pitchers increasing in value relative to velocity pitchers - balls in the center of the plate are too easy to drive.

Improving the "grip-ability" of baseballs will also make breaking ball pitchers more valuable.
Weak contact will increase in value relative to Ks, because these pitchers can go deeper into games.

[bkox]

Joe Morgan and Mike Schmidt were "3 outcome" players - both are in the HOF.

First... these 2 are very different players. Schmidt was 39.1% of his PAs were K, BB or HR. Morgan only 27,7%. For reference, Hank Aaron was 25.3. Babe Ruth was 38.6%

But it doesnt matter that these players are in the hall.. the point is the entire league has shifted towards what made these players special. in 1980 is was only 22.6%. In 2008 it increased to 28.8%. But in 2019 its 34.1% You dont want the entire league doing what Schmidt or Morgan did. Baseball is more fun when its balanced.

That said I dont want to see baseball go back to where it was a few years ago when it seemed every other night there was a no hitter going into the 7th inning somewhere in baseball.

Changing the ball isnt going to change the players mentalities. A lot of players started going for launch angle to beat the shift. Figuring if im going to bat 220 because of the shift, I might as well try to just jack it out. Kill the shift and then you might see players trying to get hits again.

[andyb]

Deadening the ball will lessen the home run bonus for hitting over the shift. Not all of it, but some.

[flyers19rw]

I don’t think that deadening the ball is the answer. Raising the stitches on it so that pitchers can do better with their breaking balls is what I favor. As for beating the shift with launch angle swinging, it can also be defeated by going to the opposite field. Good hitters can do that. Can you see what a batter like Rod Carew would have hit if teams used the shift against him?

[julio]

Can you see what a batter like Rod Carew would have hit if teams used the shift against him?

But of course, teams wouldn't shift against a hitter who uses all fields. The shift isn't a pro-active defensive strategy - it's a response, a reaction to hitters who have a demonstrated tendency to NOT use the whole field, but (typically) to pull everything. If a given hitter hits ground balls and line drives to the right side some 90% of the time, it only makes sense to defend against that. If the hitter cannot adjust... well, it's no different than a hitter who cannot adjust to sliders low and away. He's out. If he's out too much, he's out of work, and the club finds a hitter who can adjust.

Moreover - the shift doesn't affect a hitter's control of the strike zone. If a given hitter is able to work the count, and work walks a decent % of the time, no shift is going to prevent that.

Shifts are most effective against hitters who put lots of ball in play on the ground, predominantly on one side of the field. So employing shifts means that hitters with that profile are less valuable - even if they're hitting long home runs occasionally.

The effect of the tighter seams - less tendency of pitches to break - is perhaps more a problem, since it may be unbalancing the game in favor of hitters in general. If that's the case, though, there are several time-honored solutions, in addition to adjusting the ball manufacture to raise the seams a bit: the mound could be raised again; the strike zone could be expanded (or should I say, the defined strike zone per the rule book could be enforced?).

None of this will bring back "small ball," for those that pine for that, though. If what you really want is more ground balls going through infields, more runners on base, etc., then you need to force players to play in sub-optimal defensive positions (ban shifts), or perhaps find a way to speed up the infields.

Thinking about it, I wonder how much of the longing for the "good old days" when more grounders got through the infield is really an artifact of the fact that many of us grew up in the era of plastic infield grass (with concrete underneath), which tended to be faster. I mean, we all know that what most of us see as "right," as the way things "should be," is whatever way those things were when we were in our formative years. That's just normal human behavior.

[andyb]

I don’t think that deadening the ball is the answer. Raising the stitches on it so that pitchers can do better with their breaking balls is what I favor. As for beating the shift with launch angle swinging, it can also be defeated by going to the opposite field. Good hitters can do that. Can you see what a batter like Rod Carew would have hit if teams used the shift against him?

Deadening the ball is just a substitute for making it carry like it did 5 years ago. I don't really care about how they do it. Not sure I totally buy the seams argument either since pitchers are generating really good spin rates and the reasons behind the ball's carry are multiple.

However far the ball carried 5 years ago needs to be the goal for the ball. MLB is sophisticated. They can figure out a way to do this fairly. I am guessing they did not change the manufacturing standards of the current ball, but I am also guessing they approved of it and maybe did not realize the changes they had wrought.

When I say the bonus for hitting the ball is lessened if the ball carries 15 feet less, I am increasing the incentive for hitters to beat the shift by going the other way. Right now the reward of a possible home run is too great. We need to lessen that.

Is this going to get rid of 3-outcome baseball? No. But it might lessen it a bit. 3-outcome baseball rose because there was a good sabermetric case for it (remember Ken Phelps?). It was a good thing in that it taught hitters to learn the strike zone and that the reward for home runs was worth getting a few more strikeouts. Now the reward is too great. The approach will still work for players with legit home run power (like Harper and Hoskins). But guys with less power (Cesar, Segura, Kingery) probably will need to work the whole field more.

Bottom line is the changes in the game the past 5 years have led to longer, more boring games. More home runs is not necessarily more exciting when everyone hits 20 by default. The length of games on TV is a huge problem that no pitch clock will fully solve.

[andyb]

Shifts are most effective against hitters who put lots of ball in play on the ground, predominantly on one side of the field. So employing shifts means that hitters with that profile are less valuable - even if they're hitting long home runs occasionally.

But don't you think that players would have an incentive to hit around the shift if home runs were harder to hit? Hitters changed their approach because of the ease of hitting home runs. If home runs are harder it is pretty safe to assume they will change their approach in some way.

[zambonir]

Thinking about it, I wonder how much of the longing for the "good old days" when more grounders got through the infield is really an artifact of the fact that many of us grew up in the era of plastic infield grass (with concrete underneath), which tended to be faster. I mean, we all know that what most of us see as "right," as the way things "should be," is whatever way those things were when we were in our formative years. That's just normal human behavior.

I posted this before, it argues that we miss the kind of baseball that was best played in places like the Vet.

Should We Always Deride the Donut?

Responding to changed field conditions—think: larger ballparks plus Astroturf—baseball became a game of speed to a degree it hadn’t been in decades. As SABR’s John McMurray found, there were more stolen bases than home runs in 1976, the year the A’s stole a still-record 341 bags. The trend continued. In 1985, the Cardinals stole 314. In 1987, 3,585 bases were stolen, more than in any other season.

_Cumulative ERAs across baseball averaged 3.72 from 1969-1990. Hits averaged 8.75 per game across the same time span. Home runs were hit at a clip of 0.78 per game from 1969-1990. From 2012 through the present season, there has been an average of 1.1 homers per game. These statistical comparisons are meaningless, except for the fact that many of the prognosticating class who have embraced the nostalgic trappings of the faux-retro ballpark are the same chatterers who bemoan the “three true outcomes” of the game played today. The dynamism they are pining for is the game of the concrete donut.

[allentown]

Which is why the really extreme nostalgia factor in baseball makes no sense. The game has been deliberately changed, rather drastically, multiple times since I started following it. I agree with you about fans' (and sadly announcers and beat writers' deciding that the baseball which they first understood is the 'right way to play the game'). Teams are playing chess, while fans and media are stuck on checkers. Some teams are much better at chess than others. We seem to be beginners at chess -- as in someone in the organization decides that HRs are now what counts so we should look for guys like that, but our scouting practice brings back too many very costly guys with only batting practice power).

[schillingfan]

FWIW, the Phillies are stealing bases at an awesome rate. Something like 2 f 22 since August 15. I didn’t really watch baseball until I moved to Pennsylvania in 1983. So I don’t have a childhood “let’s make baseball great again” fantasy. The length of games doesn’t bother me either at home or the ballpark for different reasons. I multitask at home and can DVR other things, so it doesn’t matter. At the park, it’s the experience, not necessarily the game and people leave early.

As a fan I like watching good pitching and home runs with guys on base are exciting. What I really hate watching and get bored by is when our hitters get a guy on base and then strike out or pop-up. It’s frustrating, because it feels like it happens again and again -undoubtedly this is selective perception. Give me a mix of action. It’s hard with a game that’s mostly offensive failure,knowing how to make it more interesting. But imagine a football game where everything was either three and out or long touchdown passes. Yuck.

[flyers19rw]

Baseball is a funny game. Players bring different skill sets to it. At times, some are successful and at others, not as much. It seems to me that if an opponent is stacking their defense to one side of the field, the more sensible action would be to go the other way and hit to the opposite field. Now the dominant hitting reaction is to go long ball and try to go over it. The result is more HRs but lots more Ks to the point where there are more Ks than hits in a game.
Perhaps today’s players aren’t good enough at the plate to be able to hit to the opposite field. Perhaps they’re just coached to go long ball and live with the consequences. (We saw that specifically with Ryan Howard who could hit for a bit of average and was hitting best when he drove the ball to left center.) The point above by Andy is well taken in that certain players are long hitters and urging others, who aren’t naturally that strong, to do that is detrimental to their performance.
We’ve had our moments in the game where Earl Weaver’s long ball game dominated only to be replaced by Tony LaRusso’s get on, move them along, knock them in style of play. It seems to me that the game is best when it’s not one style or the other but when a team does both as the situation calls. Right now I think that the stat heads need to really analyze what’s going on in the game to determine its effect on hitting, pitching, player longevity, length of game and fan support. An interesting aside, at least to me, was a comment made by an acquaintance to the effect that MLB loves the HRs because of its relationship to betting. IDK if he had a point there or not.

[allentown]

If you're being coached to get loft on your swing, it may be tough to hit a ground ball on order to a particular side of field.

[Lawman]

If memory serves me the last time the Phils ever swept a 5 game series was in August of 1980

I believe the Phillies swept a 5 game series in the 2008 or 2009 season - or somewhere thereabouts - against the....Mets (don't hold me to that).

[fish]

I believe the Phillies swept a 5 game series in the 2008 or 2009 season - or somewhere thereabouts - against the....Mets (don't hold me to that).

The google says they've done it 2 times- against the Marlins in 2001 and against the Mets in 1982.