forums

Offense in College Baseball

scane

scane

Redshirt Freshman
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
13,753
All that’s missing is that beautiful ping. I’m curious as to theories when there is ostensibly no significant change other than fewer players getting drafted, and I don’t think that explains nearly all of it.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
We’re midpack in the ACC offensively with numbers that are virtually identical to our 2019 offense that was widely regarded as being very good. It’s crazy how much college baseball has changed in just a few years.
 
They’ve had to improve the bats again. BBCOR in its first few years was terrible. Home runs were hard to come by
 
Advertisement
WanderFranco said:
It’s this. The home run or nothing mentality has invaded all levels of baseball.
Click to expand...
You may not like the aesthetics (I sure don't) but it's hard to disagree with the math. The most efficient way to score the most runs is to hit the most homeruns.

Same as with the 3 pointer in basketball and the HUNH/Spread offense in football.
 
Ajcane8 said:
You may not like the aesthetics (I sure don't) but it's hard to disagree with the math. The most efficient way to score the most runs is to hit the most homeruns.

Same as with the 3 pointer in basketball and the HUNH/Spread offense in football.
Click to expand...

No one disagreed with the math. But it makes for a bad fan experience. At the MLB level, fewer people are watching because it's boring to watch 25 strikeouts while a dude can't put the ball in play to score a runner from 3rd and one out.
 
Advertisement
Ajcane8 said:
You may not like the aesthetics (I sure don't) but it's hard to disagree with the math. The most efficient way to score the most runs is to hit the most homeruns.

Same as with the 3 pointer in basketball and the HUNH/Spread offense in football.
Click to expand...
The problem, though, is that EVERY guy thinks he is a home run hitter. So while you're trying to hit it 600 feet, you're actually batting .210 and not helping your team with your six home runs.
 
Ajcane8 said:
You may not like the aesthetics (I sure don't) but it's hard to disagree with the math. The most efficient way to score the most runs is to hit the most homeruns.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, there is a stronger correlation between OBP and runs scored than there is between home runs and runs scored in MLB over the last 40 years. Same is true for doubles.
 
WanderFranco said:
No one disagreed with the math. But it makes for a bad fan experience. At the MLB level, fewer people are watching because it's boring to watch 25 strikeouts while a dude can't put the ball in play to score a runner from 3rd and one out.
Click to expand...
As was stated, I agree re "fan experience." But unless the ball is deadened or every major league team pulls a Camden Yards - at the major league level, the benefits (of the "homerun or nothing mentality") will continue to outweigh the risks.

WanderFranco said:
Interestingly, there is a stronger correlation between OBP and runs scored than there is between home runs and runs scored in MLB over the last 40 years. Same is true for doubles.
Click to expand...

Okay - now do the last 8? 10? (you know, around the time when "launch angle" became a talking point). I did 2021, and the results were... mixed. Houston scored the most runs, had the highest obp and only the 9th most homers - point wander. Tampa scored the second most runs, hit the 5th most homers but had only the 11th best obp - point AJ. There are a few other outliers, both ways, but most of the time the 3 tracked pretty evenly.

Again, I agree with the tenet - get on base more, score more runs. I always thought that was the math the HYP nerds who have infiltrated every front office were using, but it seems like something has changed. I guess it comes down to whether it is easier (or more efficient) to teach a player to hit for more power or to get on base more? The people with the money (most of them, anyway) seem to have made their decision. As was told to me (by one of those HYP nerds in a front office) - if you're only going to get one hit in an inning, it better be a homerun.
 
Ajcane8 said:
As was stated, I agree re "fan experience." But unless the ball is deadened or every major league team pulls a Camden Yards - at the major league level, the benefits (of the "homerun or nothing mentality") will continue to outweigh the risks.



Okay - now do the last 8? 10? (you know, around the time when "launch angle" became a talking point). I did 2021, and the results were... mixed. Houston scored the most runs, had the highest obp and only the 9th most homers - point wander. Tampa scored the second most runs, hit the 5th most homers but had only the 11th best obp - point AJ. There are a few other outliers, both ways, but most of the time the 3 tracked pretty evenly.

Again, I agree with the tenet - get on base more, score more runs. I always thought that was the math the HYP nerds who have infiltrated every front office were using, but it seems like something has changed. I guess it comes down to whether it is easier (or more efficient) to teach a player to hit for more power or to get on base more? The people with the money (most of them, anyway) seem to have made their decision. As was told to me (by one of those HYP nerds in a front office) - if you're only going to get one hit in an inning, it better be a homerun.
Click to expand...
I think it's unfair to only look at the last 8-10 years since everyone has the same philosophy. That's like having 30 NFL teams run the veer and then when a veer team wins the Super Bowl, "see, the veer works". I purposely included the last 40 years in order to include different mindsets. When teams hit .89 home runs per game (1993) they scored 4.6 runs. When they hit 1.22 home runs per game (2021), they scored 4.53 runs.

I agree with your last paragraph that front-office guys are demanding it. I wonder if some of it has to do with the short attention spans of youth and feeling the need to get their attention. The high school players I know don't watch games, but they love highlights. And the RBI ground out to second doesn't make it onto Tiktok.:zczkqmritjdsoaq.jpg:

Great discussion though!
 
Advertisement
WanderFranco said:
No one disagreed with the math. But it makes for a bad fan experience. At the MLB level, fewer people are watching because it's boring to watch 25 strikeouts while a dude can't put the ball in play to score a runner from 3rd and one out.
Click to expand...



You must watch a lot of Astros games!!



GO CANES!!!!
 
Advertisement
WanderFranco said:
I think it's unfair to only look at the last 8-10 years since everyone has the same philosophy. That's like having 30 NFL teams run the veer and then when a veer team wins the Super Bowl, "see, the veer works". I purposely included the last 40 years in order to include different mindsets. When teams hit .89 home runs per game (1993) they scored 4.6 runs. When they hit 1.22 home runs per game (2021), they scored 4.53 runs.

I agree with your last paragraph that front-office guys are demanding it. I wonder if some of it has to do with the short attention spans of youth and feeling the need to get their attention. The high school players I know don't watch games, but they love highlights. And the RBI ground out to second doesn't make it onto Tiktok.:zczkqmritjdsoaq.jpg:

Great discussion though!
Click to expand...
I appreciate the banter.

So, the math, at the most macro level, still shows - fewer base runners = fewer runs. That sort of ignores the “efficiency” aspect of my first “math” point, though.

The problem is, with the way pitching is outpacing hitting (nearly every reliever in the majors throws +95, that wasn’t true in 1993) it’s becoming difficult to get on base, let alone string together 3 hits in an inning - which makes my buddy’s statement (“if you only get 1 hit…”) much harder to scoff at. 4 bases on 1 swing is definitely the most efficient way to score. If someone can manage to draw a walk prior to that one swing, all the better.

In college, even at the acc/sec level, the pitching isn’t nearly as talented or specialized as it is in the bigs. There might be one guy, maybe two, on a college staff that has big league ability - as opposed to all 13 arms on even the worst major league team. Therefore you should be able to get 3/4 hits in an inning multiple times a night, and the all or nothing approach doesn’t seem quite as necessary. Alas, “3,479 more home runs. In 854 fewer games” so, what do I know?
 
Bats are light years better than they have been, that’s not new this year though. That’s been happening since the late 2010s. They lowered the seams on the ball a handful of years ago too and it didn’t make much of a difference. I’m leaning toward juiced balls over the past two years. It’s the only other option.
 
I think college baseball should just go the wood bat route. Yeah it’s more expensive but with the NIL money making college more a de facto farm system, maybe the MLB would be interested subsidizing some of the cost.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top