SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,987
- Like
- 65,552
The current Sports Illustrated has an article called "Rocket Science" imbedded within an article on the Astros, ("Rocket Science" is on pages 30-31- I couldn't find it on the internet). It notes that the highest percentage of runs given up by home runs in the majors this year, (which I've been keeping track of with the Mets in "Baseball Scoring") is by the Yankees (53.6%) and the Astros (52.5%). They also list the Phillies (50.9%) and the Angles (50.0%), who have been less successful.
In discussing the Astros' pitching staff, which has three aces in Justin Verlander, Gerrit Cole and Zach Greinke, they as "How do you thwart the Big Three? The facile answer from traditionalists would be an echo of "get 'em on get 'em over, get 'em in: Play small ball. Make productive outs. Get the most out of your base runners. That's not going to work against this rotation, which has reduced the opposition to a simple strategy: dingers or bust"...The Yankees set the all-time record if you take away most paths to scoring by reducing walks and balls in play and by turning the balls in play you do allow into outs you'll probably shut down the opposition...The Tigers were one of the worst teams of the 21st century. Yet on August 21st they were able to beat the Verlander 2-1 with two solo shots. If you are the Twins, the Yankees or the Dodgers, that's your model: Keep the Astros in the park, then go deep a couple of times...the traditional wisdom, that scoring in October is about the little things, is completely wrong. You don't beat a great pitcher by stringing together lots of positive events: you best them by scoring as many runs as you can by one swing."
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is: if the Astros or Yankees goal is to limit the other ways you can score and reduce you to just trying to hit home runs, why should you play into their hands by just trying to hit home runs? You are going to maximize the number of runs you score with a home run by putting the ball in play and avoiding strike outs. If you beat Verlander by a run, there's 47.5% chance it wasn't from a home run. And if you are just swinging for home runs, you making it easier to reduce the balls in play and to field the ones you put in play. If you are going to ignore half the game, you are going to make it all that harder to win.
I sent them this letter:
"It always amazes me when two competitors desire the same thing: one of them has got to be wrong. The pitching team wants to get to their bullpen and will remove an effective starter to do it. The batting team also wants to get to their bullpen because the guys they will bring in to pitch are not good enough to start. In your “Rocket Science” article, you note that the teams with the best records give up a high percentage of runs on home runs: they win by stopping you from scoring by other means. The solution? Don’t try to score by other means. Just try for home runs. isn’t that what they want?"
In discussing the Astros' pitching staff, which has three aces in Justin Verlander, Gerrit Cole and Zach Greinke, they as "How do you thwart the Big Three? The facile answer from traditionalists would be an echo of "get 'em on get 'em over, get 'em in: Play small ball. Make productive outs. Get the most out of your base runners. That's not going to work against this rotation, which has reduced the opposition to a simple strategy: dingers or bust"...The Yankees set the all-time record if you take away most paths to scoring by reducing walks and balls in play and by turning the balls in play you do allow into outs you'll probably shut down the opposition...The Tigers were one of the worst teams of the 21st century. Yet on August 21st they were able to beat the Verlander 2-1 with two solo shots. If you are the Twins, the Yankees or the Dodgers, that's your model: Keep the Astros in the park, then go deep a couple of times...the traditional wisdom, that scoring in October is about the little things, is completely wrong. You don't beat a great pitcher by stringing together lots of positive events: you best them by scoring as many runs as you can by one swing."
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is: if the Astros or Yankees goal is to limit the other ways you can score and reduce you to just trying to hit home runs, why should you play into their hands by just trying to hit home runs? You are going to maximize the number of runs you score with a home run by putting the ball in play and avoiding strike outs. If you beat Verlander by a run, there's 47.5% chance it wasn't from a home run. And if you are just swinging for home runs, you making it easier to reduce the balls in play and to field the ones you put in play. If you are going to ignore half the game, you are going to make it all that harder to win.
I sent them this letter:
"It always amazes me when two competitors desire the same thing: one of them has got to be wrong. The pitching team wants to get to their bullpen and will remove an effective starter to do it. The batting team also wants to get to their bullpen because the guys they will bring in to pitch are not good enough to start. In your “Rocket Science” article, you note that the teams with the best records give up a high percentage of runs on home runs: they win by stopping you from scoring by other means. The solution? Don’t try to score by other means. Just try for home runs. isn’t that what they want?"
Last edited:
