*OFFICIAL* 5-7-21 Rodon Dominates Sox into First Place; SOX 3 KC 0

[TDog]

Saying that "a HR is better than a double" (or a single) is not the same as saying "emphasizing power is better than emphasizing contact."

You're right that the run expectancy chart I cited above is an average over all at bats and it won't apply exactly to all situations, but I doubt there is a pitcher in MLB that is so much worse out of the stretch than the windup (or a batter that is so much better with runners on than the bases empty) that you would prefer to leave the runner at 2B instead of have him come home. If there was such a pitcher, he wouldn't be long for the major leagues.

It depends on the pitcher,but there most starters are less effective out of the stretch. Sometimes it doesn't show up statistically because there are hitters will get themselves out regardless, as seen in strikeouts continuing to increase. When Jose Quintana can record 9 strike outs, 1 walk, 6 hits and five earned runs in 3.2 innings, it's obvious that strikeouts are becoming more about hitting failure than pitching success.

There are a lot of starting pitchers who have much better command and control, if not velocity in the windup. Runners on base can also effect a pitchers rhythm. If you fool round with the pitching rules and with this year's minor league experiments, pitchers will face even more challenges pitching with runners on base. It's common for relievers to work out of the stretch with no one on base, and some starters do that too. When you hear announcers talking about managers preferring to bring in certain relievers to start an inning. Often that's because they are different pitchers with runners on base.

And there's no question that base runners can effect defensive alignments.

[ChiTownTrojan]

This is a Jim Kaat argument. And he was the ace starter on a team that hit five home runs in an inning. (I looked it up long ago. Kaat didn't start that day to benefit from the home runs, and Catfish Hunter only gave up the first two.) Part of why Kaat believed, presumably still does, that home runs kill rallies is that he could shake them off. You can tell a lot about a pitcher by the way he pitches to the next hitter after giving up a home run

There isn't any question that home runs are a more efficient way of scoring run, but the statement has no context. If you are playing a pure game of chance, i.e. roulette, it is all about random percentages. You accept losses and bet in a way that attempts to overcome the house bias. There are no decisions to be made except for the placement of the bets. The same is essentially true for craps. But if you move to the blackjack tables, there are ways to play to increase your percentages, and the house benefits from players who are overconfident because in their belief they are gaining an edge when they are not.

Baseball has more human gamesmanship involved. If you're facing a pitcher with a big windup, putting him in the stretch detracts from his advantage. Pitching with runners on base is generally regarded as being more stressful. A runner on first generally opens up a hole on the right side of the infield. (Jimmy Piersall used to talk that when he was doing Sox games, adding a few times that he was not allowed to try to steal second when he got on base for Ted Williams. In ballparks with big outfields, you are spreading out the defense more and opening more holes for hits and extra bases. I have to believe that runners on base affect the extent to which defenses shift for hitters.

I contend that simply looking at power to the exclusion of batting average and strikeouts is a mistake. If hitters are sacrificing (in the metaphorical, not statistical sense) contact for power, and consequently average for power, they are giving up one level of success for what they believe with be a better level of success. Reaching base by putting the ball in play gives the rest of your team an advantage, a greater advantage if others on your team are focused on doing the same. There re people who want to statistically quantify such things, but baseball is more about chaos theory than random distribution. There are no statistical controls or double-blind studies not just because there are so many differences between ballparks and players, but because right now so many teams are buying into the sabermetrics myth.

If you have runners at first and third with one out, infield at double-play depth, runner being held at first, there used to be a desire to "play some first-to-third" for awhile. Granted, you need three singles, perhaps two singles and a sacrifice fly or deep ground out to score three runs. A three-run home run would accomplish that with one swing. If Frank Thomas in his prime is up, the chances are good that his emphasis on power isn't going to kill the rally. If you have a .240 hitter with a high strikeout rate who homers just as often as Frank Thomas in his prime, your chances are better with hitters who are emphasizing contact, especially with the current state of defensive play in MLB.

Saying that "a HR is better than a double" (or a single) is not the same as saying "emphasizing power is better than emphasizing contact."

You're right that the run expectancy chart I cited above is an average over all at bats and it won't apply exactly to all situations, but I doubt there is a pitcher in MLB that is so much worse out of the stretch than the windup (or a batter that is so much better with runners on than the bases empty) that you would prefer to leave the runner at 2B instead of have him come home. If there was such a pitcher, he wouldn't be long for the major leagues.

[TDog]

It is not silly. A home run completely clears the bases and take a ton of pressure off the Pitcher who can then be more effective. A double that clears the bases keeps the pressure on the Hurler.

This is a Jim Kaat argument. And he was the ace starter on a team that hit five home runs in an inning. (I looked it up long ago. Kaat didn't start that day to benefit from the home runs, and Catfish Hunter only gave up the first two.) Part of why Kaat believed, presumably still does, that home runs kill rallies is that he could shake them off. You can tell a lot about a pitcher by the way he pitches to the next hitter after giving up a home run

There isn't any question that home runs are a more efficient way of scoring run, but the statement has no context. If you are playing a pure game of chance, i.e. roulette, it is all about random percentages. You accept losses and bet in a way that attempts to overcome the house bias. There are no decisions to be made except for the placement of the bets. The same is essentially true for craps. But if you move to the blackjack tables, there are ways to play to increase your percentages, and the house benefits from players who are overconfident because in their belief they are gaining an edge when they are not.

Baseball has more human gamesmanship involved. If you're facing a pitcher with a big windup, putting him in the stretch detracts from his advantage. Pitching with runners on base is generally regarded as being more stressful. A runner on first generally opens up a hole on the right side of the infield. (Jimmy Piersall used to talk that when he was doing Sox games, adding a few times that he was not allowed to try to steal second when he got on base for Ted Williams. In ballparks with big outfields, you are spreading out the defense more and opening more holes for hits and extra bases. I have to believe that runners on base affect the extent to which defenses shift for hitters.

I contend that simply looking at power to the exclusion of batting average and strikeouts is a mistake. If hitters are sacrificing (in the metaphorical, not statistical sense) contact for power, and consequently average for power, they are giving up one level of success for what they believe with be a better level of success. Reaching base by putting the ball in play gives the rest of your team an advantage, a greater advantage if others on your team are focused on doing the same. There re people who want to statistically quantify such things, but baseball is more about chaos theory than random distribution. There are no statistical controls or double-blind studies not just because there are so many differences between ballparks and players, but because right now so many teams are buying into the sabermetrics myth.

If you have runners at first and third with one out, infield at double-play depth, runner being held at first, there used to be a desire to "play some first-to-third" for awhile. Granted, you need three singles, perhaps two singles and a sacrifice fly or deep ground out to score three runs. A three-run home run would accomplish that with one swing. If Frank Thomas in his prime is up, the chances are good that his emphasis on power isn't going to kill the rally. If you have a .240 hitter with a high strikeout rate who homers just as often as Frank Thomas in his prime, your chances are better with hitters who are emphasizing contact, especially with the current state of defensive play in MLB.

[ChiTownTrojan]

It is not silly. A home run completely clears the bases and take a ton of pressure off the Pitcher who can then be more effective. A double that clears the bases keeps the pressure on the Hurler.

This is empirically proven to be false. Look at a run expectancy chart, which shows the average number of run scored in an inning, based on every starting scenario (number of runners on base and number of outs).

https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/re24/

The benefit of the HR depends on the scenario, but let’s consider the simple scenario with no outs and nobody on. A double puts you in a situation with a run expectancy of 1.068 for the inning, a HR plates a run and leaves you with .461 for the rest of the inning (1.461 total).

Adjust for the scenario as you will, but there is no situation where a HR isn’t the best outcome.

[Lipman 1]

Leading the league in OBP is a good step in trying to overcome the lack of power.
The Angels and Sox have each scored 155 runs, but the Angels have 74 more total bases. I don't know if that means the Sox are lucky or the Angels are unlucky or the Sox are just "clutch."

Talking about "power", OBP and such. This story on NBC Sports Chicago reveals some very bizarre splits on the Sox, just strange:

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/wh...run-1st-inning

[voodoochile]

It is not silly. A home run completely clears the bases and take a ton of pressure off the Pitcher who can then be more effective. A double that clears the bases keeps the pressure on the Hurler.

Yes yes and teams never fail with the bases loaded and nobody out.

However the part that I was referring to as silly was the Twinkies stats. How'd that team do in the playoffs?

[Dumpjerry]

Sorry, that's silly and anecdotal. Power is the single most reliable way to generate runs. One example from baseball history doesn't make it a good way to build a team and just last night the Sox came back and scored another run in the same inning after the single home run they hit.

It is not silly. A home run completely clears the bases and take a ton of pressure off the Pitcher who can then be more effective. A double that clears the bases keeps the pressure on the Hurler.

[voodoochile]

In 2010, the Twins won the division with 94 wins.

The team hit only 142 home runs that year. 19th in MLB.

Home runs are sexy rally killers.

Sorry, that's silly and anecdotal. Power is the single most reliable way to generate runs. One example from baseball history doesn't make it a good way to build a team and just last night the Sox came back and scored another run in the same inning after the single home run they hit.

[Dumpjerry]

In 2010, the Twins won the division with 94 wins.

The team hit only 142 home runs that year. 19th in MLB.

Home runs are sexy rally killers.

[Tragg]

Leading the league in OBP is a good step in trying to overcome the lack of power.
The Angels and Sox have each scored 155 runs, but the Angels have 74 more total bases. I don't know if that means the Sox are lucky or the Angels are unlucky or the Sox are just "clutch."

[longtimefan]

....I thought that was supposed to be impossible, that home runs were the be all and end all of offense in 2021.

I understand your point. It is just like pitchers have to throw 98mph to be any good. People seem to forget players who hit a single with the bases loaded or a double with men on 2nd and 3rd. Key hits are what is important. I'm sure we all agree on that. But of course, no one would turndown a HR.

[Frater Perdurabo]

Infield defense is over the top good and the starters haven't given up a run since last Sunday. That'll do it...

Agreed. Tim Anderson has really improved his fielding to where he is a complete 5-tool player. Right now he has generated 1.1 WAR in just 22 games. If he can avoid another trip to the IL and continue to producing at this level (and he’s shown he’s capable of both more power and a higher average), he could put up a 7+ WAR season, which would challenge Luke Appling’s 7.3 WAR 1936 for best season by a Sox shortstop.

[voodoochile]

We’re now at +47 in run differential, which is 10 better than the Giants.

Our differential is built primarily on our run prevention. We (108) are second only to the Mets (102) in MLB in run prevention (and we are also second to the Mets in earned runs); we are ninth (155) in runs scored.

Also, while we don’t have as many wins as the other first place teams, no team has fewer than our 13 losses.

Infield defense is over the top good and the starters haven't given up a run since last Sunday. That'll do it...

[Frater Perdurabo]

And yet, last in the AL in home runs at 26, with Oakland and the Yankees at 44. I thought that was supposed to be impossible, that home runs were the be all and end all of offense in 2021.

We’re now at +47 in run differential, which is 10 better than the Giants.

Our differential is built primarily on our run prevention. We (108) are second only to the Mets (102) in MLB in run prevention (and we are also second to the Mets in earned runs); we are ninth (155) in runs scored.

Also, while we don’t have as many wins as the other first place teams, no team has fewer than our 13 losses.

[blurry]

And yet, last in the AL in home runs at 26, with Oakland and the Yankees at 44. I thought that was supposed to be impossible, that home runs were the be all and end all of offense in 2021.

Overall home runs are actually way down league-wide from the last couple of years. I bet the deadening of the ball has had somewhat of an impact of homeruns becoming warning-track outs. Pitching has also changed completely too; players are throwing harder than ever because most of them only pitch 1-2 innings at a time. Emphasis on defense is higher than it's been in a long while. So now the 3 true outcomes approach probably isn't going to work any longer and we'll see even higher K-rates for a bit until hitters can make adjustments.

Personally I think it's pretty telling that we're in first place while being last in the AL in home runs. The sluggers haven't even heated up yet and they will. It really stinks that 2 of our best players are out because this is a team that's built to run away with this division.