General Managers on the Current Run-Scoring Environment: Thoughts from Phoenix
There is no disputing that offense is down. Teams are scoring fewer runs and hitting fewer balls over fences. Strikeouts numbers have grown precipitously. Some of the reasons behind those changes are clear. Others are more speculative. The bottom line is that the offensive environment isn’t what it was as recently as a handful of years ago.
The downturn begs two questions: 1. Is this an irreversible trend (barring rule changes), or is it simply a cyclical dip? 2. How does it impact roster-building decisions?
With the GM meetings taking place in Phoenix this week – yes, the weather was pristine – I decided to ask those very questions to a cross section of the decision makers. Not surprisingly, opinions varied.
Let’s start with the first of the two questions: Trend or Cycle?
Rick Hahn, Chicago White Sox: “There are elements like the strike zone and the velocity we’re seeing out of pitchers. Those have had a dampening effect. Defensive shifts have conceivably brought down the offensive effectiveness of some players. So, there are some tangible reasons to point to, but I do think part of it is just the cyclical nature of the game.”
Chris Antonetti, Cleveland Indians: “I’m not sure how far into it we are, but I think there are a number of different factors that have impacted the offensive environment in baseball. I don’t think it’s just a blip on the radar. I don’t necessarily see that dynamic changing if we don’t consider measures to maybe make some adjustments.”
Terry Ryan, Minnesota Twins: “No I don’t (think it is an irreversible trend). In fact, I absolutely don’t. Pitching is better, and sometimes you go through streaks where there just aren’t that many hitters coming up, or people producing on the offensive side of the game. I think that will correct itself.”
Doug Melvin, Milwaukee Brewers: “You have to be careful to make sure the cycles of offense and pitching are really that – a cyclical thing. There are probably some things affecting it a little bit, like bullpens and match-ups. The schedule is still a grind. There were also some good-quality hitters hurt over the course of this year – guys like Joey Votto – which affects offense. It could bounce back.”
Dave Dombrowski, Detroit Tigers: “That’s a great question and I’m not sure I know the answer. In my estimation, the game is probably going to look at that topic. Right now, unless some things change, I think run production will continue to be down. I don’t think it will go down much more, but the trend will stay down from an offensive perspective.”
Michael Hill, Miami Marlins: “We evaluate trends, but I would say it’s more pitcher-driven than anything. It’s pitcher driven with power arms in rotations and power arms in bullpens. Who knows what that will mean long term?”
——
The second question — does the trend/cycle impact decisions-making? — also resulted in mixed views. GMs are typically coy when it comes to anything related to player-acquisition, but a few of them offered interesting perspectives.
Farhan Zaidi, Los Angeles Dodgers: “Just when you think you’ve identified a trend, it seems like things go the other way. It’s really just about building the most-balanced team. It’s not like we’re going to think to ourselves, ‘This team had success with guys who steal a lot of bases, so let’s go that way.’ We learn every season there’s more than one way to skin a cat. I don’t think we’re going to be overly dogmatic in our approach.”
Mike Rizzo, Washington Nationals: “I think you build a team depending on a lot of factors – talent level at the big-league level, talent level on the minor-league side, who’s coming up, the type of ballpark you play in, what the division looks like. All of those ingredients go into how you build a roster. We’re going to approach this season no different than any other.”
Neal Huntington, Pittsburgh Pirates: “Players in their mid 30s are players in their mid 30s. Very rarely do they suddenly get better, as happened with some in the 1990s and 2000s. Depth is important. You look at what Kansas City and Baltimore have done, having deep and talented rosters. They can rest players and not have a huge drop off. Youth and depth are absolutely crucial to roster building as we go forward.”
John Mozeliak, St. Louis Cardinals: “Your most knee-jerk reaction is to adjust to what you need now. You look at your offensive projections and how that’s going to translate into wins. But when you start thinking more long term, guys with a 1.000 OPS are rare. Our 2004 team had three – Edmonds, Pujols and Rolen – and those days seem so foreign. One thing you might start to see is a little bit more small ball and speed back in the game, teams trying to figure out a way to manufacture runs.”
Rick Hahn, Chicago White Sox: “You’re always having conversations about staying ahead of where offense, defense, and pitching are going. You want to be on the cutting edge, whether it’s acquiring undervalued players or players you can project to play a greater role based on their ability or the environment you’re going to drop them into. The conversations haven’t changed much, but the targets have altered in recent years. I think athleticism and the ability to contribute both offensively and defensively has become more important.”
Dave Dombrowski, Detroit Tigers: “You have to be cognizant of everything that’s taking place at a particular time. You analyze, and you have to decide how you’re going to use that information when building a club. Power is diminished, but how much more are you going to pay for somebody based on that lack of power? Where does that fit in with your philosophy of making contact? There’s just so much that goes into it.”
——
Look for more from this week’s GM meetings in my upcoming Sunday Notes column.
David Laurila grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and now writes about baseball from his home in Cambridge, Mass. He authored the Prospectus Q&A series at Baseball Prospectus from December 2006-May 2011 before being claimed off waivers by FanGraphs. He can be followed on Twitter @DavidLaurilaQA.
Lower the mound.
Also: enforce the rule that pitchers need to keep one foot on the rubber and adjust the strike zone.
The strike zone’s been growing at the lower edge for years, with no rule change to cause this.
No one keeps their back foot on the rubber as long as they’re supposed to.
yeah stopping the expanding strike zone would certainly help offense. I think we’re in a good balancing spot tho. It’s good to have these adjustment periods every decade or so bc it causes strategic adjustments to occur like those discussed above. For example, contact hitters are now a premium commodity with so few power hitters in the game. It may take a while before the market pays them according to their value but that will happen.
This sort of adjustment keeps the game fresh.
or just do what the Mets do – keep bringing in the fences until you get the power result you want.
>No one keeps their back foot on the rubber as long as they’re supposed to.
Because no one can. And no one ever has.
I’m actually tremendous at keeping my foot on the rubber. It’s the whole “throwing a pitch” thing that I really can’t do that well…
In the year of the TommyJohnSurgery, Doug Melvin thinks offense is down because Joey Votto got hurt?
Juice the ball a bit. There’s a long and storied precedent for juicing the ball to adjust to the level of offense. Not a 1987 insanity type juicing. But in the current environment of mass produced baseballs and sophisticated computer modeling i find it hard to believe that baseballs couldn’t be juiced by, say, %4-%5.
Also the strike zone needs to be adjusted.
We all know that strikeouts aren’t significantly worse for run production than any other out.
But they ARE worse for entertainment value. Casual fans are important. And aside from watching a few rare pitchers who are strikeout artists watching a game with a bunch of strikeouts is boring.
I’m not a casual fan and it bores me.
Long games can get boring, well pitched games are short. There is always a trade off. Most fans are intrigued by a close, well paced game.
I agree. People want more offense, but a 10-7 games takes forever. Lots of pitching changes, long innings, etc. I think enforcing the real strike zone and keeping hitters in the box will go a long way.
This is a good idea for the most part.
However, there is one worrisome problem with it. Lately, it seems more pitchers are getting hurt by line drive comebackers (perhaps I’m wrong and it’s just a fluke). I would imagine this has to do with harder throwing pitchers and hitters who are chosen based on advanced batted ball data that selects for hard contact.
If we have the ball coming off the bat even harder, we might increase the likelihood of a dead pitcher. Shrinking the strike zone might just be safer.
I need to add that the key is to decide whether you are going to be honest or not about it
I always vote for honesty. And looking at what happened in the KBO this year and 1987 over here it’s clear that people know when they are being lied to.
Just come out and say.
“All of the greatest and must popular eras in the history of our game have one thing in common. High levels of offense. Some of the least popular eras share a dramatically low run scoring environment. Banal is something to enjoy and fans enjoy a BALANCED game. We feel in the last four years the game has become unbalanced. We have a long history of doing everything in our power to react and adjust to imbalance in the game. From equipment changes, to field specifications, to rule changes. We are going to continue that by slightly adjusting the ball to get the game back in balance and adjust to the changing realities of bullpen usage, pitcher velocity and defensive strategy.”
Problem solved.
But that just isn’t so. The most watched World Series was the 1978 series between the Yankees and Dodgers. It is followed closely by the 1980 World Series. Both seasons had run-scoring environments similar to today’s. At the peak of the so-called steroid era, TV ratings for the World Series were poor compared to the 1980s and early 1990s, when offense wasn’t great. Even in 1998, on the heels of Sosa and McGwire, a season in which people like Bob Costas are fond of claiming was the year that the fans came back to baseball (this is a complete fallacy), and the New York friggin’ Yankees were in the WS, ratings sucked.
I don’t think you can use World Series TV ratings to make your argument. Back in 78 & 80, the vast majority of Americans only had access to 5 television stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and your local UHF channel). Given this paucity of choice, it’s no wonder the WS had a large number of eyeballs on it. You’re going to have to re-calibrate for most people having a huge number of channels to choose from these days.
So many channels is one of the reasons nobody watches the Super Bowl anymore.
Bring in fence at the corners more, and in dead pull areas in left and right. Like 300′ to 315′ down the lines… 350′ in dead pull areas. Push back the fences in the “gaps.” Instead of 375′ and 385’… go 395′ or just under 400.’ Bring in center field in to a more uniform 400′.
The most exciting play in baseball is the “inside the park” grand slam home run. To watch all those guys running is worth the price of admission and is exhilarating to the fans. The game needs to be adjusted in this area as this kind of play was commonplace in the very early history of the game. To do this perhaps effectually, the gaps need to be farther than even dead center… about 410-425′. You can adjust this to bring back this exciting, but seldom ever seen facet anymore of the game. While football has its most exciting plays, like a kick-off runback for a TD… baseball now lacks such. The brute power of “power-pitching” needs a counter-balance like speed again when the 60’s and the 80’s had “speed” teams to balance out the offenses. An example of this was Joe Morgan. He was not only a 30HR threat but a 50SB threat as well.
One other idea, is to limit defensive shifts by demarcation of defense zones. This may seem extreme, but it will bring a uniform scheme to the game. Right now, seeing the third baseman playing behind second base or the immediate left of it is not recognizable to the traditional fan. It suggests some kind of unfairness when the shortstop is the only defender on the left side.
Lowering the pitcher’s mound is a not a positive idea in my estimation. It only punishes the pitchers who have made all the adjustments.
We should tear down all MLB stadia and build new ones in the likeness of the Vet, Three Rivers, old Busch, ad nauseam?
Well, I was thinking that old stadiums like:
Forbes Field; the Polo Grounds; the old Yankee Stadium; Milwaukee County Stadium; and the Kansas City Municipal might be interesting for some clubs to re-institute in the sense that the extra ground to cover in the outfield would lend to more hits, and extra base hits. More hits, more runs. The Polo Grounds look pretty interesting. There, you had plays like the Willie Mays incredible running catch of Vic Wertz’ 420′ (or more, Announcer Jack Brickhouse thought was 460’…at any rate a prodigious catch) drive at the warning track. If you look on Wikipedia, such a memorable moment has its own entry.
But the descriptions that I gave above… shorter fences in the “pull” areas would be:
Shibe Park or the old Tiger Stadium. Shibe Park was home to the Phillies and the Athletics. Its dimensions were:
Left field line: 334′
Left Center gap: 358′
Dead Center field: 447′
Right center gap: 355′
Right field line: 329′
In my description above, I would shorten the lines to ‘310… the pull areas the same as the “gaps” above, the “pull area” being extending about 50′-75′ or so from the lines, and the gaps extended and leave Center field the way it is, or extend it some to 460′-475.’ The gaps to 400.’ The Polo Ground gaps were 440’+.
This might deflate homeruns somewhat…but it should increase the average of batted balls dropping in. “Gap” hitters would be rewarded with potentially more extra-base hits. If defenders bunched the gaps, then the same hitters could adjust to pulling the ball down the lines to the shorter dimensions for home runs. There appears to be more opportunities for triples, and the inside-the-park homerun, which in my opinion, is the most exciting play in baseball.
A innovative team could then change its payroll emphasis and outlook by procuring “gap” hitters and “speed” guys to play half their games in such a home park. The Cardinals, in the 1980’s, did this successfully.
Small market teams cannot compete as well as large market teams attributable to market disparities. Not every team can afford $240+/$300+ million contracts to power hitters, like to a Stanton or a Pujols.
A Willie McGee-type player, who fit the mold of what I am proposing, never broke anyone’s bank. He could hit for power at times, or the gaps, more regularly. He could run down most balls in spacious outfields with his speed. Meanwhile, you would not have to also expend millions and millions of dollars in “power” pitchers to deflate the power of opposing teams. “Pitch to contact,” sinkerballers, and off-speed type pitchers would be preferable and much cheaper.
The idea that teams can keep revenue streams consistent in the current American economy and beyond its immediate future is going to require innovative thinking.
If you think so of this is extreme, maybe. But baseball has always been a game of innovation. Just think, at one time, Shibe Park’s dead center dimension was 509′. K.C. Municipal was unbelievably, 559′ in dead center. If you got past the center fielder in those parks…you might be in the dugout by the time the infield got the ball back in.
I like your idea of deepening the outfield gaps. Maybe not to the same extent, but making non-HR extra base hits more common would be entertaining.
I think the defensive shifts are just one of those cyclical things. Over the next few years, baseball will just select more for contact hitters who can take the ball to all fields, (or just bunt) to help nix the shifts. My guess is that game theory will take care of this one.
Call me old fashioned, but the best answer is to draft and develop better hitters. Every other proposal monkeys with the integrity and stability of the game. They are all reactionary. Even in the height of the so-called steroid era, 2002 and 2005 had a virtually identical run scoring environment as 2009. So this is a very recent trend. We aren’t anywhere near the depths of 1972, and I say we never will get there.
The only drastic measure I would support is having the NL adopt the DH rule. And I would support that not only because it would inject some offense into the game, but, more importantly, it would balance the leagues. It makes no sense to have two vastly different rules between the leagues, particularly when we have regular-season interleague play.
Give me a break regarding “integrity of the game”. Baseball, like all sports, is a contrived competition. If the goal is to get more people to watch the games, then make the rules whatever you want them to be to achieve just that.
The problem with your “old fashioned” theory is that their just aren’t nearly as many quality hitters to draft and develop as there once was. From the draft, to the minors, to the majors the supply of quality pitchers is greater than the amount of quality hitters
It seems like most GMs believe this is cyclical, I’d have to agree with them. It will probably continue this way for the next several years.
I think baseball instituted some things to help ‘guide’ the perception that the PED induced offense was curbed, and that starts with the strike zone being enlarged (in comparison to how it has been called for years…and yet more in-line with where it should have been all along per the book). Also, defensive shifts are certainly affecting things giving the illusion pitching is better when, in general, teams are just being smarter on defense.
Bill James did a study and showed the shift has knocked off about 1 BABIP. Its way overstated as a reason for offense going down
Am I the only one that’s totally fine with the level of offense?
I’d take anything from santorumforpresident with a grain of salt.
The name is meant to be ironic. If I was really a Santorum believer, my comment would’ve been:
“God intended for offense to decline. Who are we to question it?”
I also like how it subtly implies that you are totally fine with that which causes offense
No. We’re closer to real baseball than we were between 1994 and 2007.
I would like to see fewer strike outs, and a reduction in Ks would correct the imbalance. The game had a better balance in 1993 and 2010 than it does now or did when guys where hitting 60+ homers.
Not only am I fine with the level of offense, I’m fine with how long games take as well.
I’m fine with the level of this level of offense however I’d prefer to see the rule book strike zone called. We’ve had the pitchfx data for some now to see how the strike zone is actually called so why does MLB continue to allow it to expand low?
This I would be fine with. I just don’t see the merit in making huge changes like lowering the mound or changing the way the ball is designed.
My guess is the strike zone was always a little bit expanded on the low side, long before pitch trax. Having umped little league baseball, the low pitch is the most difficult to see if its in the zone or not, especially if the catcher is moving around.
That said, I’d much rather see technology impede on the ole’ ballgame by using it to call balls and strikes than seeing more of these ridiculous delays on challenges.
But since pitch trax, it has gotten worse each year. It keeps getting lower. This year was wore than last which was worse than the one before. That is the thing that MLB needs to step in and correct. I believe shifting, scouting, and more accurately valuing defense has contributed, and that’s all good. But MLB needs to fix the umps increasingly calling strikes that are too low.
Bat diameter got smaller, strike zones got bigger, and hitters haven’t had the training advances that program pitchers have had the last several years. Quickest adjustment for offense would be tighter strike zones.
I thought the strike zone was way too small a decade or two ago. Pitcher basically had to throw it in the wheelhouse to get a call, unless he was an established star. It’s not perfect now, but it’s better. I’d like to see technology handle the ball and strike calls.
Not sure the world wants more walks in their baseball. Maybe they should go back to the shoetops-shoulders strike zone of the glory days. That would generate more action than shrinking it. Shrinking the strike zone will produce more walks and a more boring game.
more pitches, longer games
The current level of offense is just fine, but not the WAY the runs are being scored. PEDs are largely out of the game now, but the same players from that era are still playing, and playing the same way they did back then.
It was okay for your leadoff or 8-hitter to K 150 times a year, because he was hitting 20+ HRs. Now he’s not. Even the young players came up in the minors during the PED era, are swinging big, and missing most of the time. Players are trying to draw walks, which is great, except players without great strike zone management are doing it, and taking strikes, and striking out instead of walking.
This run environment may get worse (lower), but it will go back up, once MLB is populated by more players being proactive hitters and not solely swinging for the fences. Ks and BBs will go down gradually, while BAs and SBs will increase. Teams will score more runs, the ball will be put in play a helluva lot more, and even if the games take just as long, they will seem shorter – due to the increase in actual action.
I don’t know the timetable of all this, but it will be gradual and slow, but it will happen.
Would love to see a post just analyzing the effect of this new era of specialization and high velocity bullpen arms. What is the difference in offense from the 7th inning and beyond from 2000 to 2011 and from 2012 to 2014? Is there a statistically significant difference between that difference and the difference in innings 1-6 from the same time period?
Bullpens have evolved and I don’t see that changing. This could help solve the question.
There are several factors at play. Most people focus on the strike zone or PED’s, and I personally think the former plays more of a role. Less is known about the impact of having lower density bats for new entries to the 40 man roster since 2010 under MLB rules.
Another possibility is the weakening or reduction of the talent pool for US players. Since the 90’s fewer kids have been playing baseball, as baseball fields are replaced by soccer fields and basketball courts. Also, you have escalating tuitions which means athletes have to choose the sport which offers the best scholarships, or else leave college heavily in debt. In addition, you have minor league pay still at depression level levels, with players not on the 40 man roster making less money than they would at McDonalds (5-10 K per year) and tough living conditions in the lower minors. Taken together, top athletes choose basketball or football, or just going into the workforce except for the top picks who get decent bonuses (albeit lower than before). In MLB, it used to be many stars came from the later rounds, but many of the better players, especially college players are now unsignable at the latter rounds now, and never even get drafted since the scouts know this.
Its much harder to hit a ball than throw one, so the reduction in the talent pool in the US is most visible from an offense POV, since weak hitters make even mediocre pitchers look like All Stars.
Has anybody done any work on examining the role of defense? As defense is better quantified and the eye test is used less, I could see offense declining.