Perfect Cain!!!

Baseball games are awesome when they are close. Whether it's 15-14 or 1-0, as long as it's close the whole way, it's fine with me.

But 5-0 or 15-5 is equally unwatchable.

 

This.

 

5-2 where the winning team scores four in the first four innings is the worst. No shutout, no blowout, no big innings, no real hope of a comeback.

 

Worst is flipping on the game like 20 minutes in, and it's like 5-1 in the second inning.

 

That's a good point. If I had to choose between 2-1 and 10-9, I'd pick 2-1. Also, I agree that it's better when it's just the two starters going head-to-head.

 

High strikeouts are largely a product of the new thinking -- use the Moneyball umbrella or call it advanced metrics or refined scouting or whatever. But two things have happened:

1) Strikeouts for a hitter are no longer looked at as a bad thing and contact is not in and of itself a good thing. An out is an out is an out. At the risk of taking Manky seriously, his Russell Branyan example is not far off -- and guys like Mark Reynolds and Adam Dunn show that.

2) Strikeouts for a pitcher have become the most prominent (and often sole) defining trait for scouts. That and a very tall and big-bodied guy who can throw hard. You're just not seeing as much of the crafty kid who just gets guys out in scratch-your-head fashion. If he's small and he just happens to carry a below-3.00 ERA through every level of the minors, it doesn't necessarily mean he'll get a ticket to the majors because there is an assumption that he won't get so lucky on the groundballs and that the flyballs will eventually leave the yard at a higher rate. But a 6-foot-2, 195-pound high school pitcher (or slightly larger college pitcher) who can throw 85-90 mph will be on every scout's radar even if he isn't very good.

 

You're a big believer in BABIP.

So wouldn't you concede that this manner of scouting a pitcher is pretty sound? I suppose there have been groundball pitchers who have sustained success without striking out a lot of guys, but most of the "crafty" guys come back to earth eventually. Hard sometimes. (Brian Bannister is a recent example.)

 

Move the fences back. The mentality of a lot of hitters is to go for the home run. Moving the fences changes that mentality and forces them to swing for contact and not power. Batting averages will go up and fewer no hitters will be thrown.

 

I think there is research out there that it is mostly due to bullpen specialization rather than hitter approach. Can't remember where I read it, but it was fairly convincing. Would like to see K rates of starters and relievers side by side.

 

Yeah, I can't say I have a huge problem with it. Just commenting on where things have gone and how they got there.

I grew up watching/laughing at Rob Deer. In today's game nobody would be laughing.

 

There's not much room for batting average to go up. It's been pretty consistent throughout major league history.

With eight major-league quality fielders out there, there's really a limit to what percentage of balls you can get by them, no matter how much you shorten your stroke and try for line drives. And as fielders get more athletic and fielding charts become more sophisticated, it's only getting worse.

For my money, advanced fielding charts are why we'll never see another .400 hitter. It's easier to hit 'em where they ain't when they ain't where they should be.

 

It definitely still drives some fans crazy though. I have a friend who is a die-hard Reds fan who will not hesitate to tell me that Adam Dunn "sucked" for the Reds. Before everything else, I think that there were some Cubs fans - and this is just anecdotal, from personal interactions - who never fully embraced Sammy Sosa, even as he was putting up .300 and 65 home runs lines, because he "strikes out too much."