If you haven't realized it, offense has been going down for the last two years. Last season was the beginning, but this season has really shown a much greater decrease. The number of shutouts in the game is up -- if the current trend holds there will be 338 Shutouts this season. By comparison, in 1999 there were 193 shut outs. Baseball is on track to have its worst offensive season since 1972, which was the year that caused the American League to implement the Designated Hitter.
These are simply the facts -- the question is, why is this the case? Personally, I don't think there is any one reason, and it is difficult to say what reason is having the greatest effect. However, I can still list the contributing factors and why I think they are contributing.
1. The end of the "Steroid Era".
This seems to be the most commonly cited reason for the offensive deflation, and it seems likely that it certainly plays a role. PED testing has become widespread, and players have been suspended who don't conform to these new rules (see: Manny Ramirez). However, while the apparent purification of the game has certainly had an effect, it is difficult to say that it is the only one.
2. Pitchers are getting better.
Of course, it's hard to say this since the statistics that a pitcher has are clearly effected by the caliber of hitting in his day and age, so the main thing that I'm going to use in my discussion of this is the average miles per hour of fastballs for major league hitters, as it is something that is static and is not affected by the pitcher's environment. According to data gathered by Bill James, the average fastball speed the lat few years is as follows:
2006: 90
2007: 90.8
2008: 91.4
2009: 92.5
2010: 93
Obviously there is a trend developing here. You probably could have figured it out without looking at the numbers simply by thinkign about the number of young pitchers who are around right now who throw extremely hard: i.e, David Price, Daniel Bard, Joel Hanrahan, Stephen Strasburg, etc.,
In short, I think the caliber of pitchers right now certainly plays a role in the loss of offense.
3. Failure of hitters to adjust their philosophies
Baseball players today strike out a lot. That's no secret. Personally, I believe it to be a remnant of the so-called "steroid era" in that players did not mind striking out so much because offense was so easy to come by, so an all or nothing approach was efficient. Now, with offense coming at a premium, and players hitting fewer home runs, players have failed to change their strategy. Players are still striking out a lot but are not supplying the power necessary to make their strikeouts worth it. There are of course players who are exceptions to this such as Adam Dunn and Ryan Howard, but there are many other players who should probably change their approach (See: James Loney, Mark Reynolds).
4. More emphasis on defense.
I've talked about the increased emphasis on defense by General Managers on this blog before, this emphasis is a product of General Managers adjusting to the of the steroid era. In general, the fact that more and more General Managers have become more interested in players who can provide solid defense and hit, there are simply more guys on the field who can effectively play both sides of the ball and fewer hulking outfielders and first basemen. This is more certainly a contributing factor to the decrease in offense.
Anyway, that's it for now. Let me know if you have any other ideas as to why offense has decreased.
Showing posts with label PEDs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PEDs. Show all posts
Friday, May 20, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Manny Ramirez Retires
If you haven't heard, Manny Ramirez has announced his retirement. Reports indicate that he failed another PED drug test, and was informed he would need to serve a 100-game suspension, and he told the MLB he was retiring.
The point of this post isn't really to discuss whether or not Manny Ramirez belongs in the Hall of Fame, because it's pretty clear he does -- if you can get past the PED issue. He is one of the best hitting Outfielders of all time, and he is in the top 25 in Homers, RBIs, and Adjusted OPS. It is difficult to argue against Manny Ramirez's Hall of Fame candidacy assuming the voters eventually decide to let PED users in.
The real point here is how Manny retired. First of all, he didn't inform the Rays first that he was retiring -- the MLB Office had to call the Rays and tell them. That alone is kind of disrespectful on Manny's part, and probably does a little more damage to his already questionable reputation. It also leaves the Rays in an undesirable situation, which I will get to later.
The other thing is that he clearly does not have a PR guy looking out for him. Unlike every other potential Hall of Fame player who has used PEDs, Manny Ramirez was essentialy forced to retired because of his drug use. Other PED usersretired essentially under their own power, and played out their careers after they tested positive. Alex Rodriguez, when he retires, will not be immediatley remembered for PEDs (in theory), for instance. Any time Manny Ramirez is discussed, any biography of him that is ever written, people will be forced to note that he retired after a failed drug test because he did not want to serve the 100-game suspension.
Anyway, that's really it for discussing Manny himself, but the other question here is how the Rays will deal with him leaving. If my understanding of contracts is correct, if a player retires, the otherwise "guaranteed" contract is no longer guaranteed, so at least the frugal Rays are off the hook for the majority of Manny's two million dollar salary. The real issue is that early season trends really seemed to indicate that Manny Ramirez was going to be their full time DH for the most part, somewhere Manny probably could have excelled in the long run (he did start the season rather slow). Manny started at DH for every game he was with the Rays and not dealing with his "family problems" which in retrospect may have dealt with the PED issue. He also got the same amount of at-bats as starters did during Spring Training. So the Rays plan this season was for Manny to get around 450 at-bats, and be a presence in their line-up. Now they don't have that because of Manny's indiscretion, and it is hard to see where they will go from here given that they don't have a huge presence of great power-hitting prospects in their system who are ready to go.
In general, I am sure the Tampa Bay Rays front office is not happy with the way their plan has been dismantled tihs season between Evan Longoria's injury and Manny Ramirez's retirement.
The point of this post isn't really to discuss whether or not Manny Ramirez belongs in the Hall of Fame, because it's pretty clear he does -- if you can get past the PED issue. He is one of the best hitting Outfielders of all time, and he is in the top 25 in Homers, RBIs, and Adjusted OPS. It is difficult to argue against Manny Ramirez's Hall of Fame candidacy assuming the voters eventually decide to let PED users in.
The real point here is how Manny retired. First of all, he didn't inform the Rays first that he was retiring -- the MLB Office had to call the Rays and tell them. That alone is kind of disrespectful on Manny's part, and probably does a little more damage to his already questionable reputation. It also leaves the Rays in an undesirable situation, which I will get to later.
The other thing is that he clearly does not have a PR guy looking out for him. Unlike every other potential Hall of Fame player who has used PEDs, Manny Ramirez was essentialy forced to retired because of his drug use. Other PED usersretired essentially under their own power, and played out their careers after they tested positive. Alex Rodriguez, when he retires, will not be immediatley remembered for PEDs (in theory), for instance. Any time Manny Ramirez is discussed, any biography of him that is ever written, people will be forced to note that he retired after a failed drug test because he did not want to serve the 100-game suspension.
Anyway, that's really it for discussing Manny himself, but the other question here is how the Rays will deal with him leaving. If my understanding of contracts is correct, if a player retires, the otherwise "guaranteed" contract is no longer guaranteed, so at least the frugal Rays are off the hook for the majority of Manny's two million dollar salary. The real issue is that early season trends really seemed to indicate that Manny Ramirez was going to be their full time DH for the most part, somewhere Manny probably could have excelled in the long run (he did start the season rather slow). Manny started at DH for every game he was with the Rays and not dealing with his "family problems" which in retrospect may have dealt with the PED issue. He also got the same amount of at-bats as starters did during Spring Training. So the Rays plan this season was for Manny to get around 450 at-bats, and be a presence in their line-up. Now they don't have that because of Manny's indiscretion, and it is hard to see where they will go from here given that they don't have a huge presence of great power-hitting prospects in their system who are ready to go.
In general, I am sure the Tampa Bay Rays front office is not happy with the way their plan has been dismantled tihs season between Evan Longoria's injury and Manny Ramirez's retirement.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
The Bonds Trial Begins
Most of you probably already know that the Barry Bonds perjury trail is starting today. Most pundits feel it is fairly likely that Bonds is indicted on perjury charges, and I tend to agree with them. If so, the ramifications of the trial on baseball will be great. However, I will save that post for after his is actually indicted.
This post is more specifically about whether Barry Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame. In the past, I posted a poll about PEDs on my blog, and the overwhelming sentiment was not to allow guys who are connected to PEDs into the Hall of Fame. While I saw the virtues of both sides of the argument, at the time I argued against most guys attached to PEDs into the Hall of Fame. However, in the last year or so I have had a change of heart -- to some degree in that I believe many of the players who owned up to their steroid use, and have managed to pass many tests since they became instituted, may belong in the Hall of Fame if their numbers dictate it.
However, despite his amazing numbers, I still don't believe that Barry Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame, and that is something that can be argued whether or not he had used steroids. The fact that he lied to a grand jury itself is likely enough to keep Bonds out of the Hall of Fame. It does not matter that the trial is about steroids -- if the trial had been about any other matter, Bonds' potential indictment would threaten his Hall of Fame chances. If Pete Rose, the all time hits leader, can be kept out of the Hall of Fame when he was not even indicted for any crimes, it seems likely to me that many HoF voters will keep the Home Run King out of the HoF with the same morality rules.
Another major difference between Bonds and other players such as Alex Rodriguez (who never had an official positive test) is that Bonds actually failed an MLB drug test, though he tested positive for amphetmaines and not for steroids. This means that Barry Bonds is actually on record with the MLB as having failed a drug test, something many other players who are connected to PEDs have not done.
Anyway, my basic argument here is that of all of the MLB players from the Steroid Era connected to the period -- Bonds is perhaps the least likely player with Hall of Fame numbers to get into the Hall of Fame, despite being the best player of the era. Again, it will depend on whether or not he is indicted for perjury, but this seems entirely probable.
This post is more specifically about whether Barry Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame. In the past, I posted a poll about PEDs on my blog, and the overwhelming sentiment was not to allow guys who are connected to PEDs into the Hall of Fame. While I saw the virtues of both sides of the argument, at the time I argued against most guys attached to PEDs into the Hall of Fame. However, in the last year or so I have had a change of heart -- to some degree in that I believe many of the players who owned up to their steroid use, and have managed to pass many tests since they became instituted, may belong in the Hall of Fame if their numbers dictate it.
However, despite his amazing numbers, I still don't believe that Barry Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame, and that is something that can be argued whether or not he had used steroids. The fact that he lied to a grand jury itself is likely enough to keep Bonds out of the Hall of Fame. It does not matter that the trial is about steroids -- if the trial had been about any other matter, Bonds' potential indictment would threaten his Hall of Fame chances. If Pete Rose, the all time hits leader, can be kept out of the Hall of Fame when he was not even indicted for any crimes, it seems likely to me that many HoF voters will keep the Home Run King out of the HoF with the same morality rules.
Another major difference between Bonds and other players such as Alex Rodriguez (who never had an official positive test) is that Bonds actually failed an MLB drug test, though he tested positive for amphetmaines and not for steroids. This means that Barry Bonds is actually on record with the MLB as having failed a drug test, something many other players who are connected to PEDs have not done.
Anyway, my basic argument here is that of all of the MLB players from the Steroid Era connected to the period -- Bonds is perhaps the least likely player with Hall of Fame numbers to get into the Hall of Fame, despite being the best player of the era. Again, it will depend on whether or not he is indicted for perjury, but this seems entirely probable.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Poll Results and Comments
Hey everyone, sorry for the infrequency of posts last week, my last semester of undergrad is coming to a close and is of course ending with a massive work load, so I haven't had as much free time as I would like to.
But anyway, here are the results from last weeks poll:
If you were a Hall of Fame voter, would peformance-enhancing drug allegations effect your voting "yes" on guys like Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire?
Yes, I wouldn't vote for them. 8 (61%)
No, I would vote for them based on their numbers. 2 (15%)
I am waiting to see how many other players from their generation turn out to be involved with PEDs to make a decision. 3 (23%)
Obviously, the overwhelming sentiment of the readers of this blog is to not let anyone who is associated with PEDs into the Hall of Fame. I can certainly see people's points in regard to this, especially because various things written about the Hall of Fame talk about how the players in it have upheld the integrity of the game. Certainly people who have done things to improve their numbers that were outside of the rules of baseball go against this. The problem is that the monitoring of steroids during that period were pretty horrible, and a lot of people would argue no actual rules were broken, especially those who used androtestosterone, which was not a banned substane according to the MLB.
It's also important to note that the official election rules for the Hall of Fame don't actually say anything regarding players who do something against the rules of baseball, but then again, it also doesn't say anything about certain types of numbers a guy would have to put up to be put into the Hall. Really, it's all just based on what the electors think, and I don't think there will ever be a rule that says guys who have been attatched to steroids can't be elected. If the electors change their mind about steroids (obviously they have a negative view of them right now because McGuire hasn't been able to get into the Hall) as a whole, guys who have been connected to steroids will get in. The only way guys like that can't be voted on for the Hall of Fame is if they are banned from baseball like Joe Jackson or Pete Rose (and Pete Rose is a whole other blog topic).
I was a little shocked to see so few say they would vote for them based on their numbers, although as I said, I certainly understand the sentiment. There are a fairly large number of baseball writers, such as Buster Olney and Peter Gammons, who try and distance themselves as much as possible from any emotional response they feel in looking at a player's career, and vote for them based purely on their numbers. Both of those men have voted for Mark McGuire every year he has been elligble.
I also thinks it reasonable to have voted that you would have to wait to see how many players turn out to be involved with PEDs. It would be pretty debilitating if guys like Derek Jeter and Albert Pujols turned out to be involved with them. And what about guys who are already in, like Cal Ripken, Jr.? I'm not saying I suspect either of these guys have been involved with them, I'd just like to point out that there was also a time where guys like Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez were believed to be rare great players from the era who never used steroids. That all blew up last year.
Anyway, like last week (and it will be like this every week now) a new poll is up, so vote away!
Also, I'll hopefully be better about blog posts this week.
But anyway, here are the results from last weeks poll:
If you were a Hall of Fame voter, would peformance-enhancing drug allegations effect your voting "yes" on guys like Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire?
Yes, I wouldn't vote for them. 8 (61%)
No, I would vote for them based on their numbers. 2 (15%)
I am waiting to see how many other players from their generation turn out to be involved with PEDs to make a decision. 3 (23%)
Obviously, the overwhelming sentiment of the readers of this blog is to not let anyone who is associated with PEDs into the Hall of Fame. I can certainly see people's points in regard to this, especially because various things written about the Hall of Fame talk about how the players in it have upheld the integrity of the game. Certainly people who have done things to improve their numbers that were outside of the rules of baseball go against this. The problem is that the monitoring of steroids during that period were pretty horrible, and a lot of people would argue no actual rules were broken, especially those who used androtestosterone, which was not a banned substane according to the MLB.
It's also important to note that the official election rules for the Hall of Fame don't actually say anything regarding players who do something against the rules of baseball, but then again, it also doesn't say anything about certain types of numbers a guy would have to put up to be put into the Hall. Really, it's all just based on what the electors think, and I don't think there will ever be a rule that says guys who have been attatched to steroids can't be elected. If the electors change their mind about steroids (obviously they have a negative view of them right now because McGuire hasn't been able to get into the Hall) as a whole, guys who have been connected to steroids will get in. The only way guys like that can't be voted on for the Hall of Fame is if they are banned from baseball like Joe Jackson or Pete Rose (and Pete Rose is a whole other blog topic).
I was a little shocked to see so few say they would vote for them based on their numbers, although as I said, I certainly understand the sentiment. There are a fairly large number of baseball writers, such as Buster Olney and Peter Gammons, who try and distance themselves as much as possible from any emotional response they feel in looking at a player's career, and vote for them based purely on their numbers. Both of those men have voted for Mark McGuire every year he has been elligble.
I also thinks it reasonable to have voted that you would have to wait to see how many players turn out to be involved with PEDs. It would be pretty debilitating if guys like Derek Jeter and Albert Pujols turned out to be involved with them. And what about guys who are already in, like Cal Ripken, Jr.? I'm not saying I suspect either of these guys have been involved with them, I'd just like to point out that there was also a time where guys like Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez were believed to be rare great players from the era who never used steroids. That all blew up last year.
Anyway, like last week (and it will be like this every week now) a new poll is up, so vote away!
Also, I'll hopefully be better about blog posts this week.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
A couple interesting decisions by the MLB
The MLB Disciplinary Committee guys have done a couple interesting things this week. They have some things in common two. Both involve pitchers who are on the disabled list, and both involve suspensions. That's kind of where the similarities end, though.
The first is The 50-day suspension of Edinson Volquez for violating MLB's drug-use policy. While overall this isn't all that interesting, and might just speak to the fact that PEDs are still an issue, there are a number of things that do make this interesting. The first is Edinson Volquez's excuse, which was that "he received a prescription in the Dominican Republic as part of his treatment to start a family with his wife", according to the linked article. In some ways it's kind of humorous that he would make this excuse, and of course, it may also be the truth. Either way, I think the MLB needs to monitor things in the Dominican Republic a lot better. If no one has noticed, a lot of the recent guys to be attatched to PEDs (Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, DAvid Ortiz, and now Volquez) have spent considerable time in the Dominican Republic, with Rodriguez and Ortiz both claiming that their positives must have come from something they got in the Dominican. The MLB is heavily involved in the Dominican, and could very easily do something to clean up the drug trade there.
Any way, this is also interesting because the MLB is being nice and letting Volquez serve his suspension while he is already on the DL. By the time the suspension is up, he will just barely be ready to pitch again. Essentially (as that article notes) he is just losing some money. Personally, I think that if you are on the DL those suspensions should not be applied, and the next case in some ways indicates that that's how these things usually work.
The second interesting thing that the MLB has done is the overturning of Cliff Lee's 5-day suspension. During Spring Training Lee was told he would be suspended for 5 games once the season started because he ALMOST hit a guy during a game. First of all, it's a freaking Spring Training game. A few years ago there was a flat out fight during Spring Training, and I'm fairly sure no one was suspended. Second, he didn't even hit him, nor had he even received a warning ealrier in the game. He also was not thrown from the game. In general, the suspension was completely ridiculous. Despite this, when MLB rescinded the suspension, they didn't acknowledge that it was egregious, they simply said that Lee's physical problems at the time (recovering from surgery, and an abdominal strain) were understandable reasons for him to almost hit someone in a game. Basically, the MLB is trying to save face for their ridiculous punishment. What makes this interesting, is that right now Cliff Lee (like Volquez) is also on the DL, but would have had to serve his suspension the moment he came off of it, causing him to miss a start. How is that fair at all? How about some consistency MLB.
What are your thoughts on these issues?
The first is The 50-day suspension of Edinson Volquez for violating MLB's drug-use policy. While overall this isn't all that interesting, and might just speak to the fact that PEDs are still an issue, there are a number of things that do make this interesting. The first is Edinson Volquez's excuse, which was that "he received a prescription in the Dominican Republic as part of his treatment to start a family with his wife", according to the linked article. In some ways it's kind of humorous that he would make this excuse, and of course, it may also be the truth. Either way, I think the MLB needs to monitor things in the Dominican Republic a lot better. If no one has noticed, a lot of the recent guys to be attatched to PEDs (Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, DAvid Ortiz, and now Volquez) have spent considerable time in the Dominican Republic, with Rodriguez and Ortiz both claiming that their positives must have come from something they got in the Dominican. The MLB is heavily involved in the Dominican, and could very easily do something to clean up the drug trade there.
Any way, this is also interesting because the MLB is being nice and letting Volquez serve his suspension while he is already on the DL. By the time the suspension is up, he will just barely be ready to pitch again. Essentially (as that article notes) he is just losing some money. Personally, I think that if you are on the DL those suspensions should not be applied, and the next case in some ways indicates that that's how these things usually work.
The second interesting thing that the MLB has done is the overturning of Cliff Lee's 5-day suspension. During Spring Training Lee was told he would be suspended for 5 games once the season started because he ALMOST hit a guy during a game. First of all, it's a freaking Spring Training game. A few years ago there was a flat out fight during Spring Training, and I'm fairly sure no one was suspended. Second, he didn't even hit him, nor had he even received a warning ealrier in the game. He also was not thrown from the game. In general, the suspension was completely ridiculous. Despite this, when MLB rescinded the suspension, they didn't acknowledge that it was egregious, they simply said that Lee's physical problems at the time (recovering from surgery, and an abdominal strain) were understandable reasons for him to almost hit someone in a game. Basically, the MLB is trying to save face for their ridiculous punishment. What makes this interesting, is that right now Cliff Lee (like Volquez) is also on the DL, but would have had to serve his suspension the moment he came off of it, causing him to miss a start. How is that fair at all? How about some consistency MLB.
What are your thoughts on these issues?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)