Comments on: Offensive Evolution (Part 1)

By: Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive » Offensive Evolution (Part 2)

Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive » Offensive Evolution (Part 2) — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:54:26 +0000

[...] in Part 1, we saw that the fraction of qualified batting seasons with an OPS+ below 70 has gotten generally [...]

By: Frank Clingenpeel

Frank Clingenpeel — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:29 +0000

Is there a way to calculate the effect of changing ballpark distances on this? I ask, because I would think that even shortstops have less demand on them with the closer fences and better-designed parks, as opposed to fields where the outfield distances were greater, and the general condition of the fields was less consistent.

By: birtelcom

birtelcom — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:26:38 +0000

My guess as to why shortstops tend to be more competitive as hitter these days is that with the increasing frequency of Ks, BBs and HRs, and the relative decline of the frequency and importance of balls in play, the relative importance of shortstop defense has declined. It's still important, of course, but less so than it used to be. As the relative importance of shortstop defense has declined, scouts and GMs are more likely to choose a SS who can walk and hit homers even if that means compromising a bit on the defensive side. As Bill James has pointed out, over the decades bats have gotten thinner-hnadled and lighter and thus easier to whip around, increasing the number of homers and Ks, and reducing balls in play. Indirectly that same development probably encourages more offense at shortstop.

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:30:11 +0000

Birtelcom, good point. Actually I wrote a detailed post on this a couple of years ago. It shows tOPS+ split out by position and shows how much less variation there is these days than years ago.

This is a good post, folks, check it out:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/921

By: birtelcom

birtelcom — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:47:22 +0000

Perhaps a less confusing and more focused way to get to at least part of the trend Andy is identifying is to point out that, with just a couple of minutes of spot checking on b-ref's league batting splits, I see that the tOPS+ for all NL shortstops was 96 in 2009, 92 in 1989, 85 in 1979 and 77 in 1969. I only checked those few years, and a more comprehensive review would be needed to say anything definitive, but just those few data points seem to show a very emphatic trend that I think Andy is trying to show.

By: Frank Clingenpeel

Frank Clingenpeel — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:26:16 +0000

Jim, I likewise agree with you.

And, among those "outliers", we have forgotten a rather significant one -- the Mechanical Man, Charlie Gehringer. A true five-tool player.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:15:28 +0000

Not to be on the defensive but I was simply pointing out that there were statistical outliers, such as Wager and Hornsby who didn't fit the mold.

By: Frank Clingenpeel

Frank Clingenpeel — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:32:27 +0000

No, I was not contending with Andy's original poit. What I was saying was that, rather than an abrupt revolution in which we suddenly got offensive-minded Middlers {I'll still employ the term}, the move to getting offence from the middle infield was an Evolutionary {not REvolutionary} event, taking a few decades to come to fruition; a development, rather than a sudden occurance.

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:22:35 +0000

Matt, you're right, but I don't think people are arguing with my original post that way, exactly. Keep in mind that what I wrote above was intentionally oversimplified for the sake of writing a readable blog post. I could go on and on and on for 5 pages if you prefer...

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:19:17 +0000

I think some people here are missing the point. The point isn't that there were never people who could hit at these "non-hitting" positions, but rather that there used to be a sizeable number of people who couldn't hit at these "non-hitting" positions. So coming up with examples of people who could hit at these positions doesn't disprove Andy's point at all.