Is baseball changing?

[Web Jim Edmonds]

Are we entering an age of more focus on defense, and less on power hitting? I think we are. Here are my 2 reasons:

1. The steroid era is over. Or so they tell us. But I can't think of anyone in baseball that could hit 60 homeruns. Maybe Howard, maybe Fielder, but most likely neither of them top 50...ever. Bonds, Sosa, and Big Mac are all gone. It also just feels like, though I haven't looked up the numbers on this, that there were fewer 25-30 HR guys last season than in, say, 2001.

2. Defense is cheaper, and with the economy as it it, that matters. Moneyball made a huge impact on how rosters are made. GMs are out looking for value where other teams missed it. Look, for instance, at the Rays recently. Their bullpen is a reclamation project. Their first baseman was someone that the Tigers gave up on. One of their starters can't dent bread with his fastball. Another was given up on by another organization probably because he threw too many fastballs. On a smaller level, you can even watch Madden position his players in pretty bizarre defensive shapes for each and every batter. It's almost as if they have no "regular" position.

2.5. Last season's league average ERA was down. One year does not constitute a trend, and it had been as low as it was last season in some other seasons in the last 15 years, but I still think it might be something. We'll have to wait another two or three years to find out.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

[topper09er]

First, the steroid era IS over, they do enough random testing now its totally over and has been since 2004 (which is nice that Braun is totally out of it so his career numbers can be looked at in a different light than guys from the 90s). Just because it is does not mean guys cant hit 50 HRs anymore. People have hit 50 HRs without steroids before and it will happen again. I think the only good chances for 50 HRs are Howard (who has already done it) and Pujols (who hit 49 HRs in 143 games in 2006). Prince has already had the best season he will ever have in the majors in '07 and I dont think he will ever repeat that level of perfromance.

 

My main thought on this topic is that I agree and the good teams over the next few years will be the teams that realize this. I think a lot of managers still have the 90s mentality of trying to hit 3-run HRs and that is going to be less common than before and teams that can find other ways to score will be better. I think Macha may on to this a little bit, like when he had Kendall steal in the 8th with 2 outs and Rickie up there because your best chance to score a run with a runner on first and 2 outs is a steal + hit, not 2 straight hits or a HR. I think most teams would have not sent Kendall and thought that they would be more likely to score with 2 hits or a HR which is just not true.

[TooLiveBrew]

First, the steroid era IS over, they do enough random testing now its totally over and has been since 2004

 

MLB still doesn't have an effective test for HGH (at least, last I'd heard). And if the 'steroid era' were over, guys wouldn't still be testing positive.

[JoeHova]

Defense is cheaper, and with the economy as it it, that matters. Moneyball made a huge impact on how rosters are made. GMs are out looking for value where other teams missed it.

 

Yeah, but as soon as defense becomes more recognized as valuable (or rather, that value is more confidently assessed), the price will go up and teams will move on to something else that has become cheaper.

[Ennder]

Fielder may never hit 50 HR again but I don't think he has had his career year either from a pure hitting standpoint. Defense is certainly more important than the past and teams don't seem interested in keeping older guys around as much as before either. The game is getting younger and more athletic in general.

 

A good example of this are all the young CF with starting jobs in the NL while Edmonds sits at home watching soap operas.

[logan82]

I would guess that much of the trend towards younger guys has more to do with cost than defense. I think the defense is just a pleasant benefit. The athletic thing I think has to do with less risk being associated with athletic players. GM's are not as willing to give out big money to bat only or unathletic players. Or older players thought to be at their peak who will decline after the first few years of their contract.

 

I will say that I think the steroid era is over. However, players will always be one step ahead of testers and the players have already moved on to HGH and likely some other stuff we have not yet heard of.

[brewizard]

Baseball, like life, is static.

 

It never changes.

 

Honus Wagner is playing third base for the Pirates.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Honus_Wagner_%28crop%29.JPG

[rluzinski]

Steroid testing has certainly changed the game but offensive production has been pretty consistent for year:

 

YEAR: BA/OBP/SLG/OPS

2000: .270/.345/.437/.782

2001: .264/.332/.426/.758

2002: .261/.331/.417/.748

2003: .264/.332/.422/.754

2004: .266/.335/.428/.763

2005: .264/.330/.419/.749

2006: .269/.336/.432/.768

2007: .268/.336/.422/.758

2008: .264/.333/.416/.749

 

I think someone will hit 60 HRS again but nothing like the 90's.

2009: .263/.340/.422/.762

[endaround]

It will likely happen the next time there is two bouts of expansion, one of the main causes of home run booms. If there is an end to the "steroid era," it won't be hitters that will really show it, it will be the breaking down of pitchers.

[Patrick425]

TooLiveBrew[/b]]First, the steroid era IS over, they do enough random testing now its totally over and has been since 2004

 

MLB still doesn't have an effective test for HGH (at least, last I'd heard). And if the 'steroid era' were over, guys wouldn't still be testing positive.

Just because a player here and there tests positive once in a while doesn't mean it's an "era". I think the 'steroid era' was when just about everyone was doing it and baseball seemed to be looking the other way. I'm guessing that yes, you are going to still have the player here and there that will try to get that 'edge'. My hope, however naive it may be, is that most players have seen what those who have been caught have gone through and that there is a general pact among the players that even if they can get away with it that it's no longer acceptable, nor is it the norm to use PEDs.

[FVBrewerFan]

In a word, no. The fact that the "steroid era" is over puts even more of a premium on power. Plus, many of the new parks are power friendly. If anything, teams may be putting more value on middle infield defense but I don't know how we verify that with real evidence.

 

As far as the youth movement goes, again, I don't see much difference. Certain teams have always had low salaries, which is achieved through youth. Other teams like the Yankees and Red Sox will buy any veteran they can.

[LetsGoBrewCrew]

I wouldn't say baseball is changing, I'd more put it as a changing of the guard. We are so used to the Maddux's, Glavine's, Sosa's, Griffey's and Bond's of the world and now it's changing to Braun, Grienke, Lincecum, Howard, and Longoria. Maybe managers aren't looking to hit as many 3 run bombs anymore, but when Billy stepped to the plate in Hou, I bet Macha was thinking, "How sweet would it be in Billy went yard right here?" The homeruns will be hit, the web gems will still happen, its baseball. The only part thats changing is how far the baseball is flying. Bonds used to crush homeruns, steroids or not, the ball was a home run, just it went a lot farther. Sure he got some cheap home runs because of the 'roids, but thats not what I'm getting at. The only era thats changing, imo, is who is playing the game. The household names are starting to retire and the new kids on the block are taking over.

[joepepsi]

Baseball's about making adjustments; whether is pitch by pitch, hitter to hitter, at bat to at bat, game to game, season to season. Frankly, I always thought the "hitters" era had more to do with expansion, the dilution of pitching through expansion and increased size in staffs, and a dozen or so extraordinarily talented power hitters who may or may not have benefitted from steroids.

 

I think we've seen a greater focus on developing pitching in the 5-10 years. Questec may have expanded the strike zone as well. There seems to be more parity today than in the 90's. Moneyball seems to have shown teams how to build on a budget. After the 1994 strike many teams just quit trying, preferring to take the revenue sharing payouts and pocket the cash. Today, with the possible exception of the Nationals, every other team seems to be more invested in developing winning organizations.

[TooLiveBrew]

My hope, however naive it may be, is that most players have seen what those who have been caught have gone through and that there is a general pact among the players that even if they can get away with it that it's no longer acceptable, nor is it the norm to use PEDs.

 

Well I do think that is being naive... I really don't mean that in a malicious way. I just think it's wishful thinking to speculate that these guys have somehow learned their collective lesson. The financial difference between being an adequate player v. a good/great one is enough to make many, many people set aside morals... especially when other players are leaving you in the dust with the competitive advantages of utilizing PEDs.