Skip to content

So far, offense is offensive

Apr 12, 2012, 10:30 AM EDT

Limp Bat

This post from High Heat Stas came out yesterday so it doesn’t account for the Rockies’ little conga line around the basepaths against the Giants last night. But at least through Tuesday night the offense has been putrid across the league.

And while this requires a giant, flashing neon sign reading “Small Sample Size,” HHS is comparing the first week of the season of this year to the first week or so of last year, so don’t cry apples/oranges.

We’re just in a continued offensive decline. It happens.

  1. dondada10 - Apr 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

    That’s the most phallic picture I’ve ever seen on a baseball blog. Well done.

    • itsacurse - Apr 12, 2012 at 10:42 AM

      You have obviously not seen the photo of the Texas Rangers Nelson Cruz Boomstick Hot Dog.

      • dondada10 - Apr 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM

        That might actually be a sign of the apocalypse. I’m flipping through Revelations right now.

  2. js20011041 - Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

    I can’t tell whether that guys needs more viagra or less enzyte.

  3. redguy12588 - Apr 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM

    This is all the Pirates fault. They have 9 runs in 5 games, and had an outburst of 5 runs(!) in one game.

    So that’s 4 runs in 4 games.

    I want to kill myself watching this team.

    • js20011041 - Apr 12, 2012 at 10:51 AM

      Hey! No talking about baseball. This is the flacid penis thread.

    • Ben - Apr 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM

      Don’t forget the Twins. Ugh. 12 runs. League average so far is 24.

    • cleverbob - Apr 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

      I guess the Twins fall under the flaccid penis category…

      • js20011041 - Apr 12, 2012 at 11:15 AM

        That sounds about right.

  4. Utley's Hair - Apr 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM

    Wait…I thought it was just the Phightins…?!?!?

    • cltjump - Apr 12, 2012 at 11:47 AM

      Let me introduce you to the Atlanta Braves…….

  5. deathmonkey41 - Apr 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM

    Too bad we still don’t have those small ballparks, weak pitching, and tighter-would balls that made offense through the 90’s more prevelant.

    • Kevin S. - Apr 12, 2012 at 12:28 PM

      Well, they loosened the balls back up once offense became a PR nightmare because of the alleged association with steroids, most of the newest parks have been rather large, more emphasis has been placed on defensively-oriented players once teams realized that just because we couldn’t measure defense as well as offense doesn’t mean it’s not important. But hey, go ahead and insinuate that it’s because baseball has *finally* excised the scourge of “PE”Ds.

      • deathmonkey41 - Apr 12, 2012 at 5:22 PM

        1.) Do you have any documentation from the manufacturers of baseballs that they changed the way the core was wound or anything was changed with the way they were assembled? From everything I’ve heard, those companies denied ever changing the balls.

        2.) What new ballparks- outside of the Mets stadium- built since 2004-05, have been significantly larger in size?

        3.) Really?

      • Kevin S. - Apr 12, 2012 at 10:06 PM

        1) MLB has indeed denied tinkering with the composition of the ball, although people have taken balls from before and after the offense spike of the mid-nineties and compared them, finding that the balls used during the offensive explosion were indeed tighter.

        2) Petco Park opened in ’04. Comerica opened in 2000. Coors Field went to the humidor in ’02. AT&T Park opened in ’00. Target Field opened in 2010. And Citi Field opened in ’09. I know it’s inconvenient for you to include the entire decade, but newer, larger parks have been part of the overall downward trend. No, Comerica and AT&T didn’t do it all by themselves at the start of the decade, but they certainly have helped overall. I find it curious that you seem to have no problem assuming that a gradual buildup in the usage of PEDs caused a massive one-time jump in offensive levels, but take issue with the notion that a gradual shift to larger ballparks couldn’t have been the reason for offense falling abruptly off that level (hint, the falloff didn’t lineup with testing, either).

        3) Presuming the pendulum swinging back to defensive emphasis, yes, really. Do you think a team like the Yankees would have ever let somebody like Brett Gardner play a traditional power position ten years ago? The market inefficiency was to move toward bat-first guys at traditional defense-first positions, not the other way around. The As got the book written about them, but the smart teams were all looking at advanced stats for ways to find undervalued players, and all they could quantify at the time was offense.

      • stex52 - Apr 12, 2012 at 11:38 PM

        I don’t know that we have a lot of data for your analysis, but I like the drift. That was always my problem with moneyball and the reason why the A’s never did well in the playoffs. All those fat, slow, patient hitters had to match up against guys who were just as good at the plate but also were fast and could catch the ball.

        I just added a few of my own generalizations, but I hope you are right. I like the complete game. As defensive metrics improve, I think that will be vindicated.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. C. Correa (2554)
  2. G. Stanton (2516)
  3. H. Ramirez (2499)
  4. G. Springer (2489)
  5. B. Crawford (2312)
  1. M. Teixeira (2290)
  2. H. Pence (2219)
  3. J. Baez (2210)
  4. J. Hamilton (2167)
  5. Y. Puig (2113)