What if OBP is an effect, not a cause? Topic

I am watching the Yankees-Mets game on MLB TV and granted I have not watched a huge number of games the past few years, so am sort of catching up on contemporary baseball.

BUT...considering these are two first place teams, I am stunned by how low batting averages are on both teams - a stark reminder of the post-steroid offensive reality. A lot of .228 and .234 and .197 averages on both teams, very little power on the Mets, a team that won 11 straight. 

MORE to the point, OBPs are low too. Many players with OBPs lower than .300 - we are talking mid to late 1960s levels of OBP, when presumably the importance of getting on base was unrecognized outside of Earl Weaver. 

But then I got to thinking - well, those 1960s batters struck out a lot. Then I got to thinking, but they struck out a little less than the 1990s steroid HR hitters did. 

Then I put 2 and 2 and 2 together to get - 7?

What if this is what has happened: instead of OBP being higher mainly because players and managers and GMs have read Bill James or whatever, OBP was higher because pitchers in the steroid era were more careful and throwing more pitches, leading to more walks, which, along with inflated PED-based averages, meant higher OBP. In other words, what if OBP rates were an effect of the higher HR rates instead and not of smarter baseball?

This might explain the low OBPs of the 1960s - the high K rates of hitters then may not have been due to free swinging as in the 90s but simply to dominant pitchers who threw strikes because they did not fear HRs or even hitting much. So hitters tried to hit the ball, could not risk taking pitches against pitchers that threw strikes because they feared nothing (Bob Gibson-Don Drysdale era), and Ks were high and BBs and OBP low. 

In the 90s and early 2000s OBP was high because HRs were high and Ks were high because batters swung for the seats given the high probability of hitting it over the fence, and pitchers walked more guys because walks were better than homers. 

So high OBP may still really be a relatively rare phenomenon of players that specialize in it with patient hitting, and inflated OBP an effect of high HR rates. And we are seeing lower OBPs because since hitters again can't hit much, pitchers don't need to walk them as much. 

After all, if the OBP hypothesis were right all the way (I still think it is partly right, but now begin to think it over-rated), then EVEN with the lower averages and home runs post-PEDs we should still see relatively high runs scored rates in games because OBP is what matters and all even weak batters need to do is be patient at the plate and we have now had more than a decade of teaching that. Result: OBP alone does not do it as it was never an independent variable after all, and so runs scored are down because HRs are down, driving down OBP with them. 

Whatcha all think?
4/25/2015 6:21 PM
By the way, the last play of the game (Mets 8, Yankees 2, ugh) was an appeal play. Everyone stood around, while umpires looked into a magic 8 ball before they could know if the game was over or not. Very exciting that, maybe less than Mazeroski's or Kirk Gibson's HR, but really stimulating, plus i see how everyone standing around when the game is over to find out if it is over helps with the plan of cutting game time down to size. Sheesh !

But I digress, please debate the OBP issue above, not this minor gripe over the latest atrocity to visit the sacred diamond. 
4/25/2015 6:57 PM
i think the free swinging of the post steroids era has alot to do with now it seems that strikeouts are just accepted by everyone in team managements from owner to GM to managers but do you think that in the 60's when  a pitcher was allowed to brush back hitters had anything to do with the high strikeout rates? i t just don't think pitching is better now sure there is more 95MPH guys in the pens but i think guys just swing at everything nowadays.  What pinotfan described in another thread about trout's AB is not the norm.  And i saw that disgusting end to the mets game also was that really necessary in a 8-2 ballgame
4/25/2015 8:10 PM
I do think the toleration for brushback pitches contributed to the strikeout rates as well. I think pitchers being able to brush hitters back and also the raising of the mound after 1961 meant a balance of power in favor of pitchers. That meant fewer walks in part because pitchers did not feel a need to be so careful - HRs were at natural levels minus some due to the advantage of pitchers, so they walked fewer and batters may also have known pitchers threw more strikes, so they swung more freely, again contributing to lower walk numbers and therefore lower OBP. 

The 1990s instead was driven by the threat and the greater chance to hit a long ball - batters swung freely this time because three strikeouts and one 3-run homer was a good day (Adam Dunn), and pitchers walked more batters because of the danger of the long ball from first through 9th in the batting order.  So, higher OBP. 

If this hypothesis, admittedly idiosyncratic explanation of things, has some truth, then instead of OBP being an effective strategy for run production and success, it is instead a dependent variable, an effect, not a cause and so cannot really be taught or made into an alternative way to score runs, since it is largely the result of HR levels, which in turn are the result of pitcher-batter balance of power (raised mound in the 1960s, PEDs in the 1990s).

If so, then the idea that bunting, stealing, hit and run, are counter-productive may be true only for the high home run era of the 1990s, and not applicable to low OBP/HR eras when it can't be assumed that the next batter has as good a chance to end up on base or hit one out of the park as not and so should not waste their time bunting or have the bat taken out of their hands by the running game etc. 

If this in turn were to turn out to be true, even if only in part, then the low run production may not only be the end of steroids - after all while low, run production WAS higher in the 1960s and 1970s  than in the last 3-4 years - but be the application of an offensive strategy, learned only toward the end of the steroid era of high OBP instead of averages, the inside game and so on, which was applicable to that era because a batter at the plate was potentially more valuable than moving a runner over by running or bunting."The owl of Minerva take wing at dusk" wrote Hegel (he played third base for the Cubs in 19th century) meaning generals always plan for the last war, or rather human understanding always comes after  the situation in which it could have best been applied. This may be the case today, and a return to classic baseball strategy, and a rejection of "Moneyball" techniques of station-to-station baseball may be in order. 
4/26/2015 8:45 AM
I wasn't around for the 60s. I grew up watching 80s to early 90s baseball in the heyday of my heroes like Oddibe McDowell and Pete Incaviglia and Nolan (first the Stros and then Rangers versions). So that's what I've always seen pure baseball as, because it can't be more pure than when you're 5-11 years old and playing little league and in the street at all times of the day. What I most remember from 80s ball was the fact that the players themselves held several things in high regard. The .300 average, 30/30 seasons, stealing 80+ bases and moving the runner over. Pitchers pitched to contact because there was defense behind them that would bail them out.

Think of the dynamics of players during this time...Rickey, Ozzie, Tony Gwynn, Eric Davis, Rock Raines, Kirby Puckett, Coleman, Glenn Davis, INKY - they were very different players than players of today. They weren't up there to work counts, they were up there to hit...meaning putting the ball in play. A single was good to them because they were going to wreak havoc on the basepaths once there. Or the guy behind them was going to put the ball in play and they were going first to third. Or they were more than willing to hit the ball the other way (which is nearly non-existent now - hence all the shifting).

The pitching was different too...aside from Nolan and jack Morris and a few others, pitchers got by on deception and pitching to contact. They didn't ruetinely blaze pitch after pitch by hitters...especially not at the knees. Pitchers pitched up in the zone far more frequently than they do now by my recollection, and they did so at 89-92 more often than not. They relied on great defense behind them and "scattering hits". A double play ball was their best friend, not the K.

Managers also changed. They were willing to hit and run and let the baserunners go, not worry about the percentages. Even a CS was important because it made the pitcher think about the runner and not fully concentrate on the hitter, and maybe meaning a better pitch to hit. Managers also let the pitchers "work through trouble" whereas now it "insta-pull" for the bullpen guy who is perhaps better than the starter or other bullpen guy. 

To me, it just seems like a different game the past few years and perhaps the influence of the late 90s/early 2000s are still impacting our game. During that time, they needed a way to miss bats, as the ball was launching everywhere. So they started walking guys and finally groomed the fireballers that are racking up Ks now. Meanwhile, the hitters are stuck with the mentality that they're being paid to hit HRs, and are whiffing like mad. What's worse is that the "a BB is as good as hit" mentality is now causing so many 0-2 counts when pitches are taken that the hitters just can't recover, especially since they don't own a "defensive swing." Their 0-2 swing is the same as their 2-0 swing...

All of it has lead to the pitchers having the upper hand. But this year we've already seen some changes. The rash of errors in the first few weeks of season was a dominant storyline, and shows that if hitters are willing to just put the ball in play, than good things can happen for them. We've seen a few more bunts against the shift and even some dead pull hitters going the opposite way. I think the hitters are starting to adjust as they have needed to. My prediction is that in the next few years, the game will look more like 80s ball and to me, that's a good thing for the game.
4/26/2015 9:57 AM
What if OBP is an effect, not a cause? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.