why did Ks increase after 1960?

[welch]

Anybody want to speculate on why there are so many K's in the last couple of season compared to 1960, the last year of the old 8-team leagues?

Possibilities:

- Pitchers are better. Many throw fastballs at 95. I've seen the introduction of the split-fingered fastball -- Mike Scott, mediocre pitcher for the Mets, goes to the Astros and confounds the '86 Mets in the playoffs with with a fastball that drops off a table.  Add the cutter, which breaks the "wrong" way. Old-timers, like Carl Hubbell, and modern players like Warren Spahn, mastered the screw-ball. They threw it by snapping the wrist the opposite way as they snapped a curve ball. The Screwball was a slower pitch than the cutter with less break than a curve, but it broke "the wrong way". The cutter behaves like a super-charged screw-ball. Add the varions on the fastball. A late-50s pitcher was good if he had some "hop" on his fastball. The two-seam and four-seam fast ball cause the ball to break every which way but at nearly fast ball speeds.

- Pitchers must be better, because MLB lowered the mound by about 6 inches after the infamous 1968 season. Look at Bob Gibson's stats that season. In the last ten or fifteen years, MLB has tightened the strike-zone. It used to be from the top of the letters to the knees. Now it's more like bottom of the letters or even belt-high.

- Maybe hitters don't worry about striking out, which, as an SI (?) columnist suggests might come from too many players constantly checking their advanced stats. I think OPS is handy, but it treats a K as no worse than any other out. We have evidence that this isn't accurate: how many rallies died, with runners at 2B and 3B with one or no outs, when batters struck out? A run would have scored if the batter had simply hit a routine fly ball. Yes, a GDP is two outs to only one by K, but many DP's are from bad luck: batter hits sharply at the SS with a runner on 1B. A K shows that the batter could not make contact. That's bad hitting. It used to be that hitters -- other than power hitters -- were expected to draw about as many walks as K's. I think Nick Johnson was the last Nat to do it.

I'm too lazy to read Ted Williams book on hitting, but that was state-of-the-art in the '50s and '60s. Might be useful to compare Ted's book to current hitting manuals. Williams hated strikeouts; what do current hitting instructors think?

[Minty Fresh]

Anybody want to speculate on why there are so many K's in the last couple of season compared to 1960, the last year of the old 8-team leagues?

Possibilities:

- Pitchers are better. Many throw fastballs at 95. I've seen the introduction of the split-fingered fastball -- Mike Scott, mediocre pitcher for the Mets, goes to the Astros and confounds the '86 Mets in the playoffs with with a fastball that drops off a table.  Add the cutter, which breaks the "wrong" way. Old-timers, like Carl Hubbell, and modern players like Warren Spahn, mastered the screw-ball. They threw it by snapping the wrist the opposite way as they snapped a curve ball. The Screwball was a slower pitch than the cutter with less break than a curve, but it broke "the wrong way". The cutter behaves like a super-charged screw-ball. Add the varions on the fastball. A late-50s pitcher was good if he had some "hop" on his fastball. The two-seam and four-seam fast ball cause the ball to break every which way but at nearly fast ball speeds.

- Pitchers must be better, because MLB lowered the mound by about 6 inches after the infamous 1968 season. Look at Bob Gibson's stats that season. In the last ten or fifteen years, MLB has tightened the strike-zone. It used to be from the top of the letters to the knees. Now it's more like bottom of the letters or even belt-high.

- Maybe hitters don't worry about striking out, which, as an SI (?) columnist suggests might come from too many players constantly checking their advanced stats. I think OPS is handy, but it treats a K as no worse than any other out. We have evidence that this isn't accurate: how many rallies died, with runners at 2B and 3B with one or no outs, when batters struck out? A run would have scored if the batter had simply hit a routine fly ball. Yes, a GDP is two outs to only one by K, but many DP's are from bad luck: batter hits sharply at the SS with a runner on 1B. A K shows that the batter could not make contact. That's bad hitting. It used to be that hitters -- other than power hitters -- were expected to draw about as many walks as K's. I think Nick Johnson was the last Nat to do it.

I'm too lazy to read Ted Williams book on hitting, but that was state-of-the-art in the '50s and '60s. Might be useful to compare Ted's book to current hitting manuals. Williams hated strikeouts; what do current hitting instructors think?

Lack of PEDs.

[HalfSmokes]

Anybody want to speculate on why there are so many K's in the last couple of season compared to 1960, the last year of the old 8-team leagues?

Possibilities:

- Pitchers are better. Many throw fastballs at 95. I've seen the introduction of the split-fingered fastball -- Mike Scott, mediocre pitcher for the Mets, goes to the Astros and confounds the '86 Mets in the playoffs with with a fastball that drops off a table.  Add the cutter, which breaks the "wrong" way. Old-timers, like Carl Hubbell, and modern players like Warren Spahn, mastered the screw-ball. They threw it by snapping the wrist the opposite way as they snapped a curve ball. The Screwball was a slower pitch than the cutter with less break than a curve, but it broke "the wrong way". The cutter behaves like a super-charged screw-ball. Add the varions on the fastball. A late-50s pitcher was good if he had some "hop" on his fastball. The two-seam and four-seam fast ball cause the ball to break every which way but at nearly fast ball speeds.

- Pitchers must be better, because MLB lowered the mound by about 6 inches after the infamous 1968 season. Look at Bob Gibson's stats that season. In the last ten or fifteen years, MLB has tightened the strike-zone. It used to be from the top of the letters to the knees. Now it's more like bottom of the letters or even belt-high.

- Maybe hitters don't worry about striking out, which, as an SI (?) columnist suggests might come from too many players constantly checking their advanced stats. I think OPS is handy, but it treats a K as no worse than any other out. We have evidence that this isn't accurate: how many rallies died, with runners at 2B and 3B with one or no outs, when batters struck out? A run would have scored if the batter had simply hit a routine fly ball. Yes, a GDP is two outs to only one by K, but many DP's are from bad luck: batter hits sharply at the SS with a runner on 1B. A K shows that the batter could not make contact. That's bad hitting. It used to be that hitters -- other than power hitters -- were expected to draw about as many walks as K's. I think Nick Johnson was the last Nat to do it.

I'm too lazy to read Ted Williams book on hitting, but that was state-of-the-art in the '50s and '60s. Might be useful to compare Ted's book to current hitting manuals. Williams hated strikeouts; what do current hitting instructors think?

My worthless theories:

More players rush through the minors,  ie less refined hitters

Walks are valued more players will risk taking a 3-2 pitch

Advanced metrics value extra base hits more than they penalize ks- more players swinging for the fences

[Minty Fresh]

My worthless theories:

More players rush through the minors,  ie less refined hitters

Walks are valued more players will risk taking a 3-2 pitch

Advanced metrics value extra base hits more than they penalize ks- more players swinging for the fences

Also contributing to less CGs by pitchers.

[Optics]

Anybody want to speculate on why there are so many K's in the last couple of season compared to 1960, the last year of the old 8-team leagues?

Possibilities:

- Pitchers are better. Many throw fastballs at 95. I've seen the introduction of the split-fingered fastball -- Mike Scott, mediocre pitcher for the Mets, goes to the Astros and confounds the '86 Mets in the playoffs with with a fastball that drops off a table.  Add the cutter, which breaks the "wrong" way. Old-timers, like Carl Hubbell, and modern players like Warren Spahn, mastered the screw-ball. They threw it by snapping the wrist the opposite way as they snapped a curve ball. The Screwball was a slower pitch than the cutter with less break than a curve, but it broke "the wrong way". The cutter behaves like a super-charged screw-ball. Add the varions on the fastball. A late-50s pitcher was good if he had some "hop" on his fastball. The two-seam and four-seam fast ball cause the ball to break every which way but at nearly fast ball speeds.

- Pitchers must be better, because MLB lowered the mound by about 6 inches after the infamous 1968 season. Look at Bob Gibson's stats that season. In the last ten or fifteen years, MLB has tightened the strike-zone. It used to be from the top of the letters to the knees. Now it's more like bottom of the letters or even belt-high.

- Maybe hitters don't worry about striking out, which, as an SI (?) columnist suggests might come from too many players constantly checking their advanced stats. I think OPS is handy, but it treats a K as no worse than any other out. We have evidence that this isn't accurate: how many rallies died, with runners at 2B and 3B with one or no outs, when batters struck out? A run would have scored if the batter had simply hit a routine fly ball. Yes, a GDP is two outs to only one by K, but many DP's are from bad luck: batter hits sharply at the SS with a runner on 1B. A K shows that the batter could not make contact. That's bad hitting. It used to be that hitters -- other than power hitters -- were expected to draw about as many walks as K's. I think Nick Johnson was the last Nat to do it.

I'm too lazy to read Ted Williams book on hitting, but that was state-of-the-art in the '50s and '60s. Might be useful to compare Ted's book to current hitting manuals. Williams hated strikeouts; what do current hitting instructors think?

You're spot on.

Not only are Pitchers better, but there are a lot more really good ones. I mean it seems like every team has one or two really good pitchers now. Back in the day there might have been like a dozen or so good pitchers in all of MLB, now it feels like there are 2-3x that much. I think teams are investing a lot more in pitching.

And yeah, Ks aren't the death knell they used to be. Nowadays I think a hitter would rather strike out taking 8 pitches than ground out taking only 2 or 3. It's all about driving up pitch counts and getting on base, which will result in more Ks as well.


Oh yeah I have a question, why the freak does Ryan Zimmerman stand so far off the plate? I mean he's basically giving away strikes to the outside corner, he always swings and whiffs at them. I feel like he'd produce so much more if he stood a little bit closer. Nobody pitches inside to Zimm anyway, so I'm not sure what the deal is, but it's really frustrating knowing that every P is gonna attack the outside zone against Zimm and he'll miss it everytime.

[Lintyfresh85]

Oh yeah I have a question, why the freak does Ryan Zimmerman stand so far off the plate? I mean he's basically giving away strikes to the outside corner, he always swings and whiffs at them. I feel like he'd produce so much more if he stood a little bit closer. Nobody pitches inside to Zimm anyway, so I'm not sure what the deal is, but it's really frustrating knowing that every P is gonna attack the outside zone against Zimm and he'll miss it everytime.

Why mess with success? Unless you somehow think Zimmerman isn't a successful hitter.

[imref]

Anybody want to speculate on why there are so many K's in the last couple of season compared to 1960, the last year of the old 8-team leagues?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[welch]

"And yeah, Ks aren't the death knell they used to be. Nowadays I think a hitter would rather strike out taking 8 pitches than ground out taking only 2 or 3. It's all about driving up pitch counts and getting on base, which will result in more Ks as well."

Maybe K's should be the mark of a bad hitter. Driving up a pitch-count does not score runs; a K neither scores ("The purpose of the game is to win by scoring more runs...") nor advances runners.  A pitch count is not even as valuable as getting close in horseshoes.

[MorseTheHorse]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9404316/mlb-players-striking-record-pace

ESPN reads WNFF

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I love it.

you have this:

"The high striKeout rate is due to the high chase rate. Hitters are so determined to get a hit, they can't see the forest for a walk," Maddon said. "You have to take a walk, but so many guys are chasing balls out of the striKe zone. They're not missing fastballs over the middle of the plate. They're missing elevated fastballs. They are chasing breaking balls, sliders, out of the striKe zone. I mean, chasing truly bad pitches that are out of the striKe zone."

Then this:

And yet there is another school of thought -- that hitters today are being too patient. Frank Robinson said, "I've never seen so many belt-high fastballs taken right down the middle on the first pitch. That might be the only pitch you get to hit."


...
in a stretch that began in early April and ran into late May, Nationals catcher Kurt Suzuki went 114 consecutive plate appearances without swinging at the first pitch.



"I think we have to be more aggressive as hitters," John Baker said. "The common theory, the Billy Beane Theory, the theory used by the Red Sox and Yankees, was to work a deep count, be patient and get the starting pitcher out of the game. But I think in today's climate, you have to be more aggressive or you're going to striKe out more often. We faced Jordan Zimmerman of the Nationals recently. We beat him, 2-1. He pitched eight innings and threw 85 pitches. We all went up there hacking, looking for the first fastball that we saw. Our thinking was, 'If he gets ahead in the count, there's a good chance we're going to striKe out.' "

So, is it swinging aggessively at bad pitches or not being aggressive enough and letting good stuff go by?

[welch]

I love it.

you have this:
Then this:
So, is it swinging aggessively at bad pitches or not being aggressive enough and letting good stuff go by?

Rogers Hornsby: "Get a good ball to hit". In more detail, Hornsby meant: (1) Know the strike zone exactly, right down to the inch. (2) Know what part of the zone you can hit. That's your pitch. (3) Hit your pitch.

Ted Williams adds that about 50% of hitting is guessing correctly what the pitcher will throw and where. Williams always considered what the pitcher threw well, plus what the pitcher had thrown before to him or to other hitters, and in what situations. If a pitcher got him out with a certain pitch, Williams would look for that pitch next time.

I think Hornsby's advice fits: too many hitters don't seem to know a good pitch to hit. Sometimes they swing wildly at bad pitches and sometimes, maybe on purpose, they ignore a hittable pitch.

[welch]

Oh, the other 50%? Williams says: don't let anybody change your style, unless there's something fundamentally wrong. Ty Cobb, Hank Greenberg, Joe Dimaggio, Stan Musial, and Williams all had a different stance, and all were successful.

(Maybe Espinosa changed his style when he got to the majors? He said something about always trying to pull the ball, which sounds like he thought he would need to hit for power.)

[CALSGR8]

My theory is more scouting and possibly more players going to college.  Kids gotninspired by their heroes and started playing in organized sports earlier.  When did Little League , Babe Ruth League andnDixie league come into being.

[welch]

My theory is more scouting and possibly more players going to college.  Kids gotninspired by their heroes and started playing in organized sports earlier.  When did Little League , Babe Ruth League andnDixie league come into being.

In the '50s. I played Boys Club baseball from 5th grade through 10th grade, by which time I had hurt my arm. Could hit, run, and field, but had to float the ball from the OF. Before, I had thrown a line right to he catcher. Even threw a kid out at 1B on a hard line single to LF. I was charging, and the first hop bounced about waist high. Showing off.

I think the easiest feature to spot is the movement on the fastball today. Used to be fastball, changeup, curve, and slider. Now starting pitchers throw a cutter and a two-seam and four-seam fast ball.

Pitchers have more variety, so it's harder for a batter to guess, even though the zone is smaller and the pitcher throws fro a ten inch hill, rather than a 15 inch hill. 

[mimontero88]

Oh yeah I have a question, why the freak does Ryan Zimmerman stand so far off the plate? I mean he's basically giving away strikes to the outside corner, he always swings and whiffs at them. I feel like he'd produce so much more if he stood a little bit closer. Nobody pitches inside to Zimm anyway, so I'm not sure what the deal is, but it's really frustrating knowing that every P is gonna attack the outside zone against Zimm and he'll miss it everytime.

Ryan Zimmerman has quite literally made his living going the other way on pitches to the outside corner.  He stands so far off the plate because he is most comfortable in his swing when he can fully extend his arms which makes him more comfortable on pitches inside on the black than he would be if he stood closer to the plate.  He doesn't lose coverage over the outside of the plate and, in fact, that's the last place you want to pitch to a healthy Ryan Zimmerman.  If you had a nickel for every time he's taken one of those pitches and put it right in the gap between the 2B and 1B you would be rich.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Oh, the other 50%? Williams says: don't let anybody change your style, unless there's something fundamentally wrong. Ty Cobb, Hank Greenberg, Joe Dimaggio, Stan Musial, and Williams all had a different stance, and all were successful.

(Maybe Espinosa changed his style when he got to the majors? He said something about always trying to pull the ball, which sounds like he thought he would need to hit for power.)

Welch - this is what Espinosa and his hitting coach in Syracuse are saying. His style changed in the Majors and became more pull conscious. 

It's so easy for me to rant about plate discipline and swinging at strikes and not at balls.  If it were so easy . . .  That said, I don't think there are very many hitters on the Nationals who have come out of the system with better than a 2:1 K/BB ratio.   I'm a bit different from you in that I can tolerate up to 20% K per plate appearance as long as the BB% is over 10%.  But at some point, if you are undisciplined and swing at balls when you have 0 or one strike, it is fatal. (BTW - I said 0 or 1 strike because I'm not talking about expanding the zone when you have 2 strikes.  I'm not wild about it, but I've gotten used to hitters who have very good eyes).

One of the things I don't quite get about the idea is that "a K is just another out" that seems to have come out of sabermetrics is that, when you evaluate a pitcher, the same people will tell you that K rate is huge in defense independent pitching analysis.  I recognize that historically, a K lowers your expected runs about the same as a fly out or a groundout (a little bit more, but it is a pretty trivial difference).  I wonder if those numbers are influenced by the number of Ks in the game during different eras.  Does a K have more of an effect in a high K era, where it is less likely the next guy will make contact?  Is a K worse in a line up full of guys with worse than a 2:1 K:BB ratio?

[mitlen]

Players can't hit  ...  the pool is diluted.

[mitlen]

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9404316/mlb-players-striking-record-pace

ESPN reads WNFF

...  or welch is Tim Kurkjian

[Terpfan76]

Barry Bonds evidently studied Hornsby and Williams advice in between hgh cycles... Wonder if he could coach?? Probably to big an jerk.

[TigerFan]

Players can't hit  ...  the pool is diluted.

The pool is clearly diluted but what I don't get is the pitching pool should be equally diluted right? 

[mitlen]

The pool is clearly diluted but what I don't get is the pitching pool should be equally diluted right? 

Makes sense  ...   

[welch]

Welch - this is what Espinosa and his hitting coach in Syracuse are saying. His style changed in the Majors and became more pull conscious. 

It's so easy for me to rant about plate discipline and swinging at strikes and not at balls.  If it were so easy . . .  That said, I don't think there are very many hitters on the Nationals who have come out of the system with better than a 2:1 K/BB ratio.   I'm a bit different from you in that I can tolerate up to 20% K per plate appearance as long as the BB% is over 10%.  But at some point, if you are undisciplined and swing at balls when you have 0 or one strike, it is fatal. (BTW - I said 0 or 1 strike because I'm not talking about expanding the zone when you have 2 strikes.  I'm not wild about it, but I've gotten used to hitters who have very good eyes).

One of the things I don't quite get about the idea is that "a K is just another out" that seems to have come out of sabermetrics is that, when you evaluate a pitcher, the same people will tell you that K rate is huge in defense independent pitching analysis.  I recognize that historically, a K lowers your expected runs about the same as a fly out or a groundout (a little bit more, but it is a pretty trivial difference).  I wonder if those numbers are influenced by the number of Ks in the game during different eras.  Does a K have more of an effect in a high K era, where it is less likely the next guy will make contact?  Is a K worse in a line up full of guys with worse than a 2:1 K:BB ratio?

When I have some time, I might go through the K-rate in 1968 compared to today. Why '68? That was the year that pitchers were so overwhelming that MLB lowered the mound from 15 to 10 inches, and owners began to think about what became the DH. The year Bob Gibson had about a 1.10 ERA.

One extra thought about why so many K's now: people are bigger and athletes are stronger. When I was a teenager, "the word" was that lifting weights made you "muscle-bound"...not limber enough to swing, stretch, throw. Maybe we see more pitchers throwing 95 + because they are just taller and stronger than pitchers 40 or 50 years ago?

So one side of the explanation is that pitchers throw harder and command more pitches.

The other side might be that more batters are looking to "go yard"?

An enduring memory of the K and run-scoring. Gooden's rookie season, he loads the bases with nobody out, and then strikes out the next three guys. It used to be almost sure that with a runner on third and no outs he'd score...sac fly or something.

[mitlen]

When I have some time, I might go through the K-rate in 1968 compared to today. Why '68? That was the year that pitchers were so overwhelming that MLB lowered the mound from 15 to 10 inches, and owners began to think about what became the DH. The year Bob Gibson had about a 1.10 ERA.

One extra thought about why so many K's now: people are bigger and athletes are stronger. When I was a teenager, "the word" was that lifting weights made you "muscle-bound"...not limber enough to swing, stretch, throw. Maybe we see more pitchers throwing 95 + because they are just taller and stronger than pitchers 40 or 50 years ago?

So one side of the explanation is that pitchers throw harder and command more pitches.

The other side might be that more batters are looking to "go yard"?

An enduring memory of the K and run-scoring. Gooden's rookie season, he loads the bases with nobody out, and then strikes out the next three guys. It used to be almost sure that with a runner on third and no outs he'd score...sac fly or something.

Batters see more (different) pitches and see more pitchers in the course of a game.   I don't remember "situational" pitchers when I was young (mindfact).

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I think the dilution of the talent pool has been more of an issue for starting pitching than hitting.  I think the rise of the reliever, especially the lefty power reliever, has a lot to do with K rates.

[welch]

Batters see more (different) pitches and see more pitchers in the course of a game.   I don't remember "situational" pitchers when I was young (mindfact).

I haven't thought about dilution of the talent pool, but Mitlen is right about "situational" pitchers...and since we both cheered for the 1960 Pirates, we can't be that far off in age. Until Sparky Anderson and the mid-70's Reds, pitchers were expected to aim for complete game wins. The 20-win season was the mark. People thought Anderson was crazy because he would pull starters early. Who pitched for the Reds other than Don Gullet and Pat Zachry?

Maybe a good baseline would be the 1957 and 1968 Nats. The '57 team won about 55 games, and one of their few good hitters -- Pete Runnels -- had a bad year.