Why power hitting is over-rated

Big Train · 08-25-2002, 12:20 PM

I don't understand why some GMs in baseball put such an emphasis on power hitting. There is alot of evidence that simply having alot of sluggers doesn't help a team win much. The Rockies have been to the playoffs once in their history The Rangers with all their power can't come close to the other more balanced teams in the AL West. On the other side you have the teams who win alot, The Yankees have alot of power this year but in 1998 they didn't hit alot of homers and that perhaps the best team in the current dynasty. You have the Braves, Mariners, As and Diamondbacks and also the Twins this year, all teams with average or below average power and those teams win while Sosa can't keep the Cubs out of the bottom off their division.

I think the D-Backs have put a pretty good model for how to build a winner. If I was building a team I'd start with a really dominant pitcher, that way you have a good chance of winning 1 out of 5 at least, surround him with inning eaters, consistent pitchers who aren't flashy but get the job done (Woody Williams would be a good example), get good contact hitters with good on base percentage and some guys with speed get good defence especially up the middle and a good closer and at least one good set-up guy. It's also important to build up a good farm system both to save money on free agents and for trades.

Once the team wa a serious pennant contender I'd go after a second dominant starter, one of the best in the league, I'd give up whatever it took to get him in trade or free agency because having two or three great pitchers really helps in the playoffs.

Compare the fate of the D-backs who did alot of the things above with the Devil Rays who went out and got alot of aging sluggers.... Some people argue that getting a slugger on a bad team will increase fan interest, this is a bad argument. 40 even 50 homers is nothing to get excited about in the present era and the nocvelty of having a big slugger on a team that wins 60 or 70 games will wear off fast. Fans will support a team that wins and winning teams are almost always built around good pitching.

H I Mcdonough · 08-25-2002, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Train
I think the D-Backs have put a pretty good model for how to build a winner.

I agree with you on most of your post, but don't forget the incredible debt they have ammassed (sp-?) while putting this team together.

Do they even have a farm system?

JAttractive · 08-25-2002, 02:14 PM

A lot of studies show power hitters do provide greater production but I think it is a case of too much of a good thing is bad.

First of all power hitters are generally large and bulky and are not always the best defensive players as a result. Also their production is lowered if they don't have anyone on base to knock in when they do hit a homerun... so having good OBP guys ahead of them increases their value.

Finally they also tend to cost a lot of money demanding high salaries. This may actually be the key problem as this straps teams by having to cut costs elsewhere (pitching often times). Having poor pitching is a recipe for disaster, plain and simple.

As a Blue Jay fan I always look back at their two World Series teams (and the runs leading up to them) as being perfect examples of how to build a play-off winner. The players changed but they had a couple dominant starters and relievers and backed them up with average-types which they could use sparingly during the playoffs. They had amazing defense in key positions (Devon White, Roberto Alomar etc.) and a great complimentary string of hitters (Alomar-Molitor-Carter-Olerud being the best of them). There was always the threat of a homerun but no real bomber that would have blown the teams salary into the next stratosphere and prevented them from making key trades/acquisitions (ie. for Cone,Henderson, Molitor, Winfield etc.).

Of course salaries weren't as badly out of whack back then either.

Jason Moyer · 08-25-2002, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Train
The Rockies have been to the playoffs once in their history The Rangers with all their power can't come close to the other more balanced teams in the AL West. On the other side you have the teams who win alot, The Yankees have alot of power this year but in 1998 they didn't hit alot of homers and that perhaps the best team in the current dynasty. You have the Braves, Mariners, As and Diamondbacks and also the Twins this year, all teams with average or below average power and those teams win while Sosa can't keep the Cubs out of the bottom off their division.

Park factors anyone?

Jason

lynchjm24 · 08-25-2002, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Moyer

Park factors anyone?

Jason

I wasn't even going to bother with this, but it's pretty obvious that while Colorado has no clue .... it's not like they don't win because they have 'home run hitters'. They just happen to lose, and Coors turns anyone with any power into a 'home run hitter'. See Roberto Alomar's 2 fly ball home runs this weekend. Those were leaving breathing park factor homeruns.

Big Train · 08-26-2002, 12:50 AM

>I wasn't even going to bother with this, but it's pretty obvious >that while Colorado has no clue .... it's not like they don't win >because they have 'home run hitters'.

Yeah, I know Colorado is a special case. Just to clarify, I wasn't saying "teams who have home run hitters don't win" just that home run hitting is not as important to winning as other factors (pitching,defence/on base percentage etc.). If power was as valuable as some people seem to think it is than the Rockies would have a huge advantage playing half their games in that park. In fact as you pointed out, the opposite is true

Jason Moyer · 08-26-2002, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Train
If power was as valuable as some people seem to think it is than the Rockies would have a huge advantage playing half their games in that park. In fact as you pointed out, the opposite is true

It's not important because their opponents have the same advantage they do. If the Dodgers or Giants put up the raw power numbers that the Rockies do, they'd be sitting 20 games ahead of the rest of the division. It's all relative.

The Rockies lose because they have this misconception that their offense is good. It's not remotely good. Their best hitters, Walker and Helton, would both be .275 hitters with 25 HR's on any other team, and worse than that playing in Dodger stadium or Pac Bell.

If the Rockies had someone like Barry Bonds or, dare I say, Gary Sheffield, they'd be hitting 60 to 70 HR's year in and year out. The Rockies haven't had a legitimate power hitter on their team in the entire history of the franchise. Larry Walker's career high in HR before joining the Rockies was 29, and he was 28 years old when they picked him up. His career high in Colorado is 49, or just 6-7 more than Pat Burrell is going to hit this year in Philadelphia.

Todd Helton is fortunate in that he hasn't played outside of Colorado yet. Trade him to the Dodgers or the Mets and suddenly everyone would see him for what he is - a .270 hitter with 15-20 HR power. See also: Vinny Castilla.

Jason

lynchjm24 · 08-26-2002, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Moyer

It's not important because their opponents have the same advantage they do. If the Dodgers or Giants put up the raw power numbers that the Rockies do, they'd be sitting 20 games ahead of the rest of the division. It's all relative.

The Rockies lose because they have this misconception that their offense is good. It's not remotely good. Their best hitters, Walker and Helton, would both be .275 hitters with 25 HR's on any other team, and worse than that playing in Dodger stadium or Pac Bell.

If the Rockies had someone like Barry Bonds or, dare I say, Gary Sheffield, they'd be hitting 60 to 70 HR's year in and year out. The Rockies haven't had a legitimate power hitter on their team in the entire history of the franchise. Larry Walker's career high in HR before joining the Rockies was 29, and he was 28 years old when they picked him up. His career high in Colorado is 49, or just 6-7 more than Pat Burrell is going to hit this year in Philadelphia.

Todd Helton is fortunate in that he hasn't played outside of Colorado yet. Trade him to the Dodgers or the Mets and suddenly everyone would see him for what he is - a .270 hitter with 15-20 HR power. See also: Vinny Castilla.

Jason

Colorado is really such a special case. I don't know if anyone can figure a way out for them to win consistently.

Pitchers can't pitch there, hitters can't do anything away from home, and a good number of players don't play well after they leave the Rockies. This on top of the fact they are in a super-competitive division where even San Diego has a pretty good GM and a new ballpark coming. I know McMorris has been trying to find his way into the Central Division - but I don't see any way that can happen realistically.

Where does it leave them? In serious trouble at least. It's hard to tell if they have been mismanaged, or if the park makes it impossible to build a winner.

It might be the toughest job in the league. An idiot for an owner, and a park that nearly makes it impossible to assign value to what you have, on top of the fact that free agent pitchers want no part of signing with you after the Kile, Hampton, Neagle disasters.

OilCanBoyd · 08-26-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Moyer

Todd Helton is fortunate in that he hasn't played outside of Colorado yet. Trade him to the Dodgers or the Mets and suddenly everyone would see him for what he is - a .270 hitter with 15-20 HR power.

Jason

i do not agree with that.
did you actually calculated his stats with the ballpark-factors?

he will loose power and therefore some average (fly outs instead of homeruns), but a .330 lifetime hitter should do better than .270 in other ballparks at home.

i would think he could still hit around .300 because of his very good BB/K-ratio (409 / 383 lifetime up to date).

and LA is just the opposite to COL.
do you think that a .270 15-20 HR hitter from LA is an .290 20-30 HR hitter in most other ballparks?

so he will be a near .300 hitter with 20 HR in a decent hitter-park?

OK, this is not written in stone, just wanted to know if there are other opinions.

greetings

i had not the time to check some interesting ratings about helton from James, but will do so if needed.

08-25-2002, 12:20 PM	#1
Big Train Major Leagues Join Date: May 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 402	Why power hitting is over-rated I don't understand why some GMs in baseball put such an emphasis on power hitting. There is alot of evidence that simply having alot of sluggers doesn't help a team win much. The Rockies have been to the playoffs once in their history The Rangers with all their power can't come close to the other more balanced teams in the AL West. On the other side you have the teams who win alot, The Yankees have alot of power this year but in 1998 they didn't hit alot of homers and that perhaps the best team in the current dynasty. You have the Braves, Mariners, As and Diamondbacks and also the Twins this year, all teams with average or below average power and those teams win while Sosa can't keep the Cubs out of the bottom off their division. I think the D-Backs have put a pretty good model for how to build a winner. If I was building a team I'd start with a really dominant pitcher, that way you have a good chance of winning 1 out of 5 at least, surround him with inning eaters, consistent pitchers who aren't flashy but get the job done (Woody Williams would be a good example), get good contact hitters with good on base percentage and some guys with speed get good defence especially up the middle and a good closer and at least one good set-up guy. It's also important to build up a good farm system both to save money on free agents and for trades. Once the team wa a serious pennant contender I'd go after a second dominant starter, one of the best in the league, I'd give up whatever it took to get him in trade or free agency because having two or three great pitchers really helps in the playoffs. Compare the fate of the D-backs who did alot of the things above with the Devil Rays who went out and got alot of aging sluggers.... Some people argue that getting a slugger on a bad team will increase fan interest, this is a bad argument. 40 even 50 homers is nothing to get excited about in the present era and the nocvelty of having a big slugger on a team that wins 60 or 70 games will wear off fast. Fans will support a team that wins and winning teams are almost always built around good pitching. Last edited by Big Train; 08-25-2002 at 12:27 PM.

08-25-2002, 02:14 PM	#3
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,144	A lot of studies show power hitters do provide greater production but I think it is a case of too much of a good thing is bad. First of all power hitters are generally large and bulky and are not always the best defensive players as a result. Also their production is lowered if they don't have anyone on base to knock in when they do hit a homerun... so having good OBP guys ahead of them increases their value. Finally they also tend to cost a lot of money demanding high salaries. This may actually be the key problem as this straps teams by having to cut costs elsewhere (pitching often times). Having poor pitching is a recipe for disaster, plain and simple. As a Blue Jay fan I always look back at their two World Series teams (and the runs leading up to them) as being perfect examples of how to build a play-off winner. The players changed but they had a couple dominant starters and relievers and backed them up with average-types which they could use sparingly during the playoffs. They had amazing defense in key positions (Devon White, Roberto Alomar etc.) and a great complimentary string of hitters (Alomar-Molitor-Carter-Olerud being the best of them). There was always the threat of a homerun but no real bomber that would have blown the teams salary into the next stratosphere and prevented them from making key trades/acquisitions (ie. for Cone,Henderson, Molitor, Winfield etc.). Of course salaries weren't as badly out of whack back then either.

08-26-2002, 12:50 AM	#6
Big Train Major Leagues Join Date: May 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 402	>I wasn't even going to bother with this, but it's pretty obvious >that while Colorado has no clue .... it's not like they don't win >because they have 'home run hitters'. Yeah, I know Colorado is a special case. Just to clarify, I wasn't saying "teams who have home run hitters don't win" just that home run hitting is not as important to winning as other factors (pitching,defence/on base percentage etc.). If power was as valuable as some people seem to think it is than the Rockies would have a huge advantage playing half their games in that park. In fact as you pointed out, the opposite is true