Today, the yesteryear true leadoff man of the Dodgers, Maury Wills, would either be a bench player or wouldn't even be on a roster. After all, he had a career OPS of .661.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
NewMexicoLobo
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:53 am
-
Bobster21
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
163D2F153D20313B3714373A37580 wrote: Today, the yesteryear true leadoff man of the Dodgers, Maury Wills, would either be a bench player or wouldn't even be on a roster. After all, he had a career OPS of .661.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
-
GreenWeenie
- Posts: 4012
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 3:47 pm
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
Am I wrong? I've heard by guys in the game that today, they value OBP quite a bit.
They want guys like Maury Wills who keep inning moving along.
They want guys like Maury Wills who keep inning moving along.
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
1A373A2B2C3D2A6A69580 wrote: Today, the yesteryear true leadoff man of the Dodgers, Maury Wills, would either be a bench player or wouldn't even be on a roster. After all, he had a career OPS of .661.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
IIRC, OPS is an invention of Tom Boswell, the former Washington Post sports writer. I like to look at these separately too. When Wills played a 333 oba wasn't bad, now I want players to get 350 or higher and have slugging over 400 unless oba is very high.
Colin Moran's oba is only 5 or 6 points less than Wills, but with Moran's low slugging percentage he becomes just an average hitter. Since he doesn't bring a glove or base running to the table he is overall below average which is why he only got a cheap contract for 2022.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
IIRC, OPS is an invention of Tom Boswell, the former Washington Post sports writer. I like to look at these separately too. When Wills played a 333 oba wasn't bad, now I want players to get 350 or higher and have slugging over 400 unless oba is very high.
Colin Moran's oba is only 5 or 6 points less than Wills, but with Moran's low slugging percentage he becomes just an average hitter. Since he doesn't bring a glove or base running to the table he is overall below average which is why he only got a cheap contract for 2022.
-
Bobster21
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
7A4F5858536A58585354583D0 wrote: Am I wrong? I've heard by guys in the game that today, they value OBP quite a bit.
They want guys like Maury Wills who keep inning moving along.
I hope so. That was the whole moneyball philosophy. That's why I find OPS useless. The OBP and SLG stats seen independently tell a lot about a player. But the very popular OPS stat tells little more than the SLG stat.
They want guys like Maury Wills who keep inning moving along.
I hope so. That was the whole moneyball philosophy. That's why I find OPS useless. The OBP and SLG stats seen independently tell a lot about a player. But the very popular OPS stat tells little more than the SLG stat.
-
Bobster21
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
587E7F687E6E1D0 wrote: Today, the yesteryear true leadoff man of the Dodgers, Maury Wills, would either be a bench player or wouldn't even be on a roster. After all, he had a career OPS of .661.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
IIRC, OPS is an invention of Tom Boswell, the former Washington Post sports writer. I like to look at these separately too. When Wills played a 333 oba wasn't bad, now I want players to get 350 or higher and have slugging over 400 unless oba is very high.
Colin Moran's oba is only 5 or 6 points less than Wills, but with Moran's low slugging percentage he becomes just an average hitter. Since he doesn't bring a glove or base running to the table he is overall below average which is why he only got a cheap contract for 2022.
In Wills' first 4 full season his OBP ranged between .342 and .355. And he was almost always above the league average OBP. His career OBP vs the Pirates was .368. That was his best against any opponent.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
IIRC, OPS is an invention of Tom Boswell, the former Washington Post sports writer. I like to look at these separately too. When Wills played a 333 oba wasn't bad, now I want players to get 350 or higher and have slugging over 400 unless oba is very high.
Colin Moran's oba is only 5 or 6 points less than Wills, but with Moran's low slugging percentage he becomes just an average hitter. Since he doesn't bring a glove or base running to the table he is overall below average which is why he only got a cheap contract for 2022.
In Wills' first 4 full season his OBP ranged between .342 and .355. And he was almost always above the league average OBP. His career OBP vs the Pirates was .368. That was his best against any opponent.
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
4C616C7D7A6B7C3C3F0E0 wrote: Today, the yesteryear true leadoff man of the Dodgers, Maury Wills, would either be a bench player or wouldn't even be on a roster. After all, he had a career OPS of .661.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
IIRC, OPS is an invention of Tom Boswell, the former Washington Post sports writer. I like to look at these separately too. When Wills played a 333 oba wasn't bad, now I want players to get 350 or higher and have slugging over 400 unless oba is very high.
Colin Moran's oba is only 5 or 6 points less than Wills, but with Moran's low slugging percentage he becomes just an average hitter. Since he doesn't bring a glove or base running to the table he is overall below average which is why he only got a cheap contract for 2022.
In Wills' first 4 full season his OBP ranged between .342 and .355. And he was almost always above the league average OBP. His career OBP vs the Pirates was .368. That was his best against any opponent.
I have always wondered why OBA (as offense in general) was so low in the 1960's, just another indicator that pitching was too dominant leading to the mound being lowered?
Expansion seemed to have diluted pitching but it was still more of a blip.
1966 was first year I got into baseball but still didn't see a lot of stats other than the list in Sunday's paper.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
IIRC, OPS is an invention of Tom Boswell, the former Washington Post sports writer. I like to look at these separately too. When Wills played a 333 oba wasn't bad, now I want players to get 350 or higher and have slugging over 400 unless oba is very high.
Colin Moran's oba is only 5 or 6 points less than Wills, but with Moran's low slugging percentage he becomes just an average hitter. Since he doesn't bring a glove or base running to the table he is overall below average which is why he only got a cheap contract for 2022.
In Wills' first 4 full season his OBP ranged between .342 and .355. And he was almost always above the league average OBP. His career OBP vs the Pirates was .368. That was his best against any opponent.
I have always wondered why OBA (as offense in general) was so low in the 1960's, just another indicator that pitching was too dominant leading to the mound being lowered?
Expansion seemed to have diluted pitching but it was still more of a blip.
1966 was first year I got into baseball but still didn't see a lot of stats other than the list in Sunday's paper.
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
406D60717667703033020 wrote: Today, the yesteryear true leadoff man of the Dodgers, Maury Wills, would either be a bench player or wouldn't even be on a roster. After all, he had a career OPS of .661.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
Excellent post. I’ve felt this since I first heard of OPS. All players aren’t the same. Some guys have little power yet are on-base machines. There’s still a need in baseball for guys like that because the ultimate objective of each at bat is to get on base to score a run.
I still think the quintessential tablesetter should have a place in today's game, and not because I'm an old guy.
That's why I think OPS is a worthless stat. It's the sum of a number in which a perfect score is 1.000 (because you can only reach base safely 1 time per AB) and a number in which a perfect score is 4.00 (because you could get as many as 4 bases on a hit). With rare exception, SLG will always be a significantly higher number than OBP. So OPS simply ranks players who hit for power higher than those who reach base more frequently. We already have SLG to rate power and OBP to rate getting on base. OPS simply prioritizes one over the other because of the math. Last year Adam Frazier was 11th in the NL with an OBP of .368. But he only hit 5 HRs. He was only 47th in SLG. And because OPS is so heavily weighted toward SLG, his 11th best OBP only got him as high as 35th in OPS.
Maury Wills was above the league average in OBP every year he played except his rookie season and final season. But he wasn't a HR hitter or even a gap hitter. He hit only 20 career HRs and never hit more than 19 doubles in a season. But with 586 SBs, every time he singled or walked, he was a threat to get to 2B. Wills got on base and got himself into scoring position despite lacking power. He was in the top 7 in runs in the NL three times and in the top 20 seven times. He was an excellent table setter. So much so that he was the NL MVP in 1962 and a 5 time All-Star. But SLG is always a much higher proportion of OPS than is OBP.
You have to look at SLG and OBP separately to get a feel for the kind of offense a player provides. OPS and SLG go hand in hand. OBP is the poor stepchild of OPS. OPS generally tells us nothing we can't get from SLG because the OBP portion of OPS (with base 1) is too minimal a number to offset the SLG part of the equation (with base 4). I've never understood how MLB thinks you can add 2 completely unrelated totals, one of which measures 4 times what the other measures and get a reliable combination of 2 different facets of the game.
Excellent post. I’ve felt this since I first heard of OPS. All players aren’t the same. Some guys have little power yet are on-base machines. There’s still a need in baseball for guys like that because the ultimate objective of each at bat is to get on base to score a run.
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
The sense I have is that baseball is evolving toward Home Run Derby. They keep taking strategy from the game and devaluing the skills of defense (saving runs) and getting on base so someone can have one of those two- or three-run homes they like so much. Maybe the three-run homer of the future will be one goes over 400 projected feet (a grand-slam will be one that makes the river in less than three bounces).
-
2drfischer@gmail.c
I can remember when a good tablesetter was valued .....
57554F495F3A0 wrote: The sense I have is that baseball is evolving toward Home Run Derby. They keep taking strategy from the game and devaluing the skills of defense (saving runs) and getting on base so someone can have one of those two- or three-run homes they like so much. Maybe the three-run homer of the future will be one goes over 400 projected feet (a grand-slam will be one that makes the river in less than three bounces).
I’ve found all of these HRs to be boring. I watch a summary of the previous day’s highlights on MLB each morning and the bulk of what they show is HRs. Where’s the thrill in watching a guy trot around the bases? It’s like watching a basketball player shoot a free throw. It doesn’t take long for me to lose interest.
I’ve found all of these HRs to be boring. I watch a summary of the previous day’s highlights on MLB each morning and the bulk of what they show is HRs. Where’s the thrill in watching a guy trot around the bases? It’s like watching a basketball player shoot a free throw. It doesn’t take long for me to lose interest.