MLB could alter strike zone as response to declining offense
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Eh, the only one of the ground ball pitchers they have long term is Miley, and if the spike in his strikeout rate is real, he has value beyond working low in the zone. If they extend Porcello, same thing. He's young and is just an all around good pitcher. Plus, there wouldn't be any changes before the 2016 season so even if the league alters the zone, they will get a year out of attacking the lower part of the zone. And that's beyond the benefits of avoiding fly balls in Fenway, regardless of whether they are getting some kind of general advantage with pitchers low in the zone.
The decisions being made have value beyond that one point.
The decisions being made have value beyond that one point.
For recent years, the pitch sequence field in Retrosheet's Event Files includes a marker for blocked pitches. I went through the data for the 2014 season and found the MLB average was approximately 0.083 blocks per plate appearance. Boston's average was about 0.067 (Butler: 0.072/Vazquez and Pierzynski: 0.069/Ross: 0.061).
Vazquez is the only catcher left on the Red Sox from that list but he was below average in blocking pitches (also giving up 8 PB while playing less than one-third of the entire season behind the plate, which but him behind six teams and tied with 3 in passed balls). With the Red Sox concentrating on ground ball pitchers it seems likely that there may be more pitches to be blocked, so it will be interesting to see if Vazquez improves that part of his game.
Incidentally, Blake Swihart had no passed balls in the EL or IL last season while catching about twice as many games as Vazquez. Unfortunately, there is no data available (to me) on his pitches blocked.
Addded: Ryan Hanigan blocked balls well in 2104: approximately 0.101 per PA while only allowing only 1 PB in 603.2 innings.
Vazquez is the only catcher left on the Red Sox from that list but he was below average in blocking pitches (also giving up 8 PB while playing less than one-third of the entire season behind the plate, which but him behind six teams and tied with 3 in passed balls). With the Red Sox concentrating on ground ball pitchers it seems likely that there may be more pitches to be blocked, so it will be interesting to see if Vazquez improves that part of his game.
Incidentally, Blake Swihart had no passed balls in the EL or IL last season while catching about twice as many games as Vazquez. Unfortunately, there is no data available (to me) on his pitches blocked.
Addded: Ryan Hanigan blocked balls well in 2104: approximately 0.101 per PA while only allowing only 1 PB in 603.2 innings.
hhmmm... are those numbers significant? This strikes me as something that is based more on opportunity - like RBIs - and therefore may not be meaningful on an individual level.
i.e,. if for some reason, whenever Vazquez was catching, pitchers never threw the ball in the dirt, then he'd have 0 blocks/PA. But that shouldn't be an indictment of his blocking abilities. I think something like blocks/pitch in dirt is a more useful stat than blocks/PA.
Also, not sure if the sample size for a partial season is statistically significant for something like this.
i.e,. if for some reason, whenever Vazquez was catching, pitchers never threw the ball in the dirt, then he'd have 0 blocks/PA. But that shouldn't be an indictment of his blocking abilities. I think something like blocks/pitch in dirt is a more useful stat than blocks/PA.
Also, not sure if the sample size for a partial season is statistically significant for something like this.
I could count the pitches he saw but that is work. There were 1926 batters "facing" Vazquez. According to bb-ref, there were 355658 pitches thrown in 92350 PA in the AL in 2014, which is approximately 3.85 pitches/PA, so we are talking (on average) about 7400 pitches caught by Vazquez. Is that a small sample size?
Vazquez looked prone to passed balls last year because he was so committed to framing the pitch. At least to my eyes, it appeared that he wasn't giving himself enough time to block a pitch in the dirt in hopes he could still spear it.
Jnai said:
And what does that say about Vazquez and the other Red Sox catchers in regard to blocking? Is it significantly different than what I posted or is there some similarity?
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I do wonder to what extent sinker ballers should be concerned by this. I understand it seems obvious, but it really the case that they would be the most affected by a slightly higher strike zone? Is the value of the sinker that it looks like a strike (but it's not), so hitters are chasing, or is it that it's a strike that is difficult to hit? Can't the sinker still sink just as effectively in a slightly higher strike zone?
Harold Reynolds (I know, I know), made an interesting point on the Host Stove today, saying that raising the strike zone would be unfair to lefthanded hitters, because their natural swing is down and up, so they have a propensity to hit low strikes. (Of course, right before that he whined that "guys are taking too many pitches!!", and said that was one of the main reasons offense was down..)
I would think that the value to a sinker baller is that a lower strike zone forces hitters to swing at lower pitches more often and lower pitches are harder to generate solid contact against. It might not have a huge impact on strikeout rates, but it could have a significant impact on how often they induce weak grounders.
Wouldn't a more prudent course of action be to more accurately represent what is the current strike zone rather than radically change it? If batters consistently know what is a strike and what isn't, offense will increase.
The technology is there. Use it.
The technology is there. Use it.
I think they should juice the ball rather than alter the strike zone.
That would result in a more old school style of play where players swing more freely and put the ball in play more often. BABIP would go up because fasters balls are more likely to make it out of the infield. The effect would be increasing the reward of swinging the bat. Strikeouts and walks would go down. Games would get faster and it would be more interesting for fans. Who wants to watch a guy strike out 180 times a year?
Just my $0.02 and I'm sure there are good arguments to the contrary.
That would result in a more old school style of play where players swing more freely and put the ball in play more often. BABIP would go up because fasters balls are more likely to make it out of the infield. The effect would be increasing the reward of swinging the bat. Strikeouts and walks would go down. Games would get faster and it would be more interesting for fans. Who wants to watch a guy strike out 180 times a year?
Just my $0.02 and I'm sure there are good arguments to the contrary.