The Rays

DR3AMR · October 4th, 2008, 06:57 AM

Watching them throughout the season I didn't fully grasp how they were able to win so many games. Take a look at the team stats. The offsense is solid, but nobody hit .300. The pitching is solid, but no starter won 15 games. The bullpen is significantly improved over last year, but it would be hard to argue that its responsible for a 31-win swing over last year.

After seeing them the last two games I figured it out - the offense is constructed completely different than what we've seen from most teams (specifically AL teams) over the past 15 years.

Athletes (speed)
Contact hitters
Lack of reliance on power

The difference between the White Sox and the Rays couldn't be anymore striking. The White Sox are like a late 90s early 00s team with no speed and a bunch of boppers who sit back waiting for the 3-run Homer. Typical steroid-era baseball. Station to station. No pressure on the defense. Boring as hell.

Compare them to the Rays who've got a track team in the outfield. A couple decent boppers in the middle of the line up surrounded by solid contact guys with a leadoff man who consistantly gets on base. Its such a versatile line up. And you can tell how they win - speed and contact.

I think we're going to see a lot more teams moving to this kind of set up. Its certainly cheaper - you don't have to spend $15-18M per player on a bunch of base cloggers who might hit 40 hrs. It reminds me of a lot of the 80s-style teams (Cardinals). As a fan of that style of play, it excites me.

The Rays may or may not get deeper into the post season. But, they're hella fun to watch. And I think they've proven that the dynamics of the game are changing.

They are the future.

Grandstander · October 4th, 2008, 07:39 AM

There are different ways to win in MLB and an anecdotal reliance on two post season games to condemn one of those ways, is devoid of merit. Nothing is more boring than a losing team and to be a winning team means that you must adjust your approach to suit your venue and personnel.

A good microcosm for this lesson in the Oriole-Royals rivaly of the 1970's. They were teams with opposing offensive emphasis, the former the three run bomb sort and the latter the speedy sort. They were the two best AL teams for the duration of that decade and neither would have had much success had they tried to follow the formula used by the other. Memorial Stadium in Baltimore was horseshoe shaped, shallow corners but a deep centerfield. Earl Weaver recognized that in such a place, one needed a speedy centerfielder to cover the immense territory there, but the corner outfielders need not be that swift since the shape of the stadium tended to richochet balls toward center. Thus, centerfield in Baltimore had high velocity guys like Al Bumbry or Paul Blair, while the corner outfield slots could go to slower sluggers such as Ken Singleton, Don Baylor or platoons of Lowenstein/Roenicke who were dead pull hitters capable of parking homeruns into the shallow corners. Memorial Stadium had a huge amount of foul ground which made sequential offense less rewarding, the two walks and a three run homer approach made much more sense.

Royals Stadium was very much the opposite with deep corners but a relatively shallow centerfield. This made for a very wide zone of outfield area to be policed, made more difficult by the extra hard artificial surface which caused balls to bounce and bound rapidly, thus you needed speedy guys to cover it. It also made homeruns hard to come by and thus emphasis had to be placed on a progressive offense featuring one run strategies.

Obvioulsy neither team was right or wrong, both were simply adapting to the realities of their home venue and utilizing it to their advantage. If the Orioles had taken the attitude which you hold, that one style is more pleasing than the other, or it is the coming thing so we should get onboard, they would have suffered greatly in the standings as a consequence.

DR3AMR · October 4th, 2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grandstander

There are different ways to win in MLB and an anecdotal reliance on two post season games to condemn one of those ways, is devoid of merit.

It was over the course of a 162 game season that they proved this approach can work in the big spending AL East - not just two games.

I do agree with you that one approach isn't best for every team in the league though. Its pretty obvious you have to contruct a team that plays to the strengths of your home field.

Just merely pointing out that the Rays rely on athletes who happen to play baseball and that speed/contact is making a comeback while power is becoming more and more cost prohibitive for the majority of teams.

jtur88 · October 4th, 2008, 05:56 PM

It has long disappointed me how baseball completly ignores the value of speed. The Herzog Cardinals in the mid-80's were really the last team that relied on speed, and it was amazingly successful. The really beautiful thing about speed is that it is cheap---you can go on the market and get speecy player sor a quarter of the salary of power hitters. It broke my heart when those Cardinals went and got McGwire, and moved the fences in to bandbox dimensions.

If I were building a ball club, I'd put the fences about 400 down the lines and 450 to center, fill my outfield with 5-million-dollar antelopes who can steal 75 bases, and dare the slugging 20-million-dollar bar-league visitors to try to hit balls over their heads. If my guys can pop between them, they'll roll into inside-the-park homer territory.

Grandstander · October 4th, 2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtur88

It has long disappointed me how baseball completly ignores the value of speed. The Herzog Cardinals in the mid-80's were really the last team that relied on speed, and it was amazingly successful. .

Herzog was fond of saying that speed was the only baseball talent which counted on both offense and defense, and that speed never slumps. I believe that he was actually reacting intelligently to circumstance, the two Missouri parks which served as his home venues were the same....artificial turf palaces where homeruns totals were low. Those places did not reward sluggers but were terrific for the Willie Wilsons and Willie Magees. Wilson use to chop down on the ball, get a high bouncer off the hard surface and with his speed, easily beat it out. If you can do that, why not do that?

If Herzog had been hired by the Orioles or Cubs, I'm confident that he was intelligent enough to recognize that power was at a greater premium in those venues and would have built an Earl Weaver style offense. If he had been hired by the Yankees he would have been shopping for left handed sluggers.

I like it that there are both types of offenses out there and would not wish to see an all speed or all slugging league. It's cool when opposites meet, such as the Brewers-Cardinals in '82 or the Dodgers-Yankees in '63.

Of course I guess it makes the managing pretty easy if your roster is flooded with players who are both fast and powerful like the Reds of the '70's, they had everything covered.

Nat · October 6th, 2008, 04:36 AM

Grandstander, you also noticed how Billy Beane subtley switched over to defense, speed & batting average after he realised the walk & a HR offense left the A's limited & predictable (even in a park with much foul territory). Of course, either philosophy only works as well as the players who attempt to carry it out...

Grandstander · October 6th, 2008, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nat

Grandstander, you also noticed how Billy Beane subtley switched over to defense, speed & batting average after he realised the walk & a HR offense left the A's limited & predictable (even in a park with much foul territory). Of course, either philosophy only works as well as the players who attempt to carry it out...

No, I had not noticed. If the last two seasons are supposed to be indicative of some new and improved offense based on speed and batting average, then Beane clearly failed with this approach. This realization on Beane's part is I suspect, something that you have imagined. The players that Beane assembled turned out to be not so great at any style of offense, so I see no evidence that Beane now rejects the efficiency of the walks and homers approach. I see a GM who was unable to afford the players that would make such an offense work. Do you think that if Adam Dunn was affordable, Beane would reject him on the grounds you outline above?

What I do see, and have been seeing for a couple of seasons, is that the A's are taking a spin our wheels until we get our new stadium approach. Neither Haren, Harden nor Swisher represented any severe contract burden, yet all were sent packing. That told me that the club wasn't really serious about being competitve for the next few years.

October 4th, 2008, 06:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
DR3AMR Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 6,194	The Rays Watching them throughout the season I didn't fully grasp how they were able to win so many games. Take a look at the team stats. The offsense is solid, but nobody hit .300. The pitching is solid, but no starter won 15 games. The bullpen is significantly improved over last year, but it would be hard to argue that its responsible for a 31-win swing over last year. After seeing them the last two games I figured it out - the offense is constructed completely different than what we've seen from most teams (specifically AL teams) over the past 15 years. Athletes (speed) Contact hitters Lack of reliance on power The difference between the White Sox and the Rays couldn't be anymore striking. The White Sox are like a late 90s early 00s team with no speed and a bunch of boppers who sit back waiting for the 3-run Homer. Typical steroid-era baseball. Station to station. No pressure on the defense. Boring as hell. Compare them to the Rays who've got a track team in the outfield. A couple decent boppers in the middle of the line up surrounded by solid contact guys with a leadoff man who consistantly gets on base. Its such a versatile line up. And you can tell how they win - speed and contact. I think we're going to see a lot more teams moving to this kind of set up. Its certainly cheaper - you don't have to spend $15-18M per player on a bunch of base cloggers who might hit 40 hrs. It reminds me of a lot of the 80s-style teams (Cardinals). As a fan of that style of play, it excites me. The Rays may or may not get deeper into the post season. But, they're hella fun to watch. And I think they've proven that the dynamics of the game are changing. They are the future. __________________ Gingrich/Petraeus 2012

October 4th, 2008, 05:56 PM	#4 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,857	It has long disappointed me how baseball completly ignores the value of speed. The Herzog Cardinals in the mid-80's were really the last team that relied on speed, and it was amazingly successful. The really beautiful thing about speed is that it is cheap---you can go on the market and get speecy player sor a quarter of the salary of power hitters. It broke my heart when those Cardinals went and got McGwire, and moved the fences in to bandbox dimensions. If I were building a ball club, I'd put the fences about 400 down the lines and 450 to center, fill my outfield with 5-million-dollar antelopes who can steal 75 bases, and dare the slugging 20-million-dollar bar-league visitors to try to hit balls over their heads. If my guys can pop between them, they'll roll into inside-the-park homer territory. __________________ ------------------ When people ask what I hope to see before I die, I answer that I've already seen too much.

October 6th, 2008, 04:36 AM	#6 (permalink)
Nat Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,351	Grandstander, you also noticed how Billy Beane subtley switched over to defense, speed & batting average after he realised the walk & a HR offense left the A's limited & predictable (even in a park with much foul territory). Of course, either philosophy only works as well as the players who attempt to carry it out... __________________ Greatest moment of the 2008 election: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/...ef8de914_o.jpg

October 4th, 2008, 07:39 AM	#2 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 6,611	There are different ways to win in MLB and an anecdotal reliance on two post season games to condemn one of those ways, is devoid of merit. Nothing is more boring than a losing team and to be a winning team means that you must adjust your approach to suit your venue and personnel. A good microcosm for this lesson in the Oriole-Royals rivaly of the 1970's. They were teams with opposing offensive emphasis, the former the three run bomb sort and the latter the speedy sort. They were the two best AL teams for the duration of that decade and neither would have had much success had they tried to follow the formula used by the other. Memorial Stadium in Baltimore was horseshoe shaped, shallow corners but a deep centerfield. Earl Weaver recognized that in such a place, one needed a speedy centerfielder to cover the immense territory there, but the corner outfielders need not be that swift since the shape of the stadium tended to richochet balls toward center. Thus, centerfield in Baltimore had high velocity guys like Al Bumbry or Paul Blair, while the corner outfield slots could go to slower sluggers such as Ken Singleton, Don Baylor or platoons of Lowenstein/Roenicke who were dead pull hitters capable of parking homeruns into the shallow corners. Memorial Stadium had a huge amount of foul ground which made sequential offense less rewarding, the two walks and a three run homer approach made much more sense. Royals Stadium was very much the opposite with deep corners but a relatively shallow centerfield. This made for a very wide zone of outfield area to be policed, made more difficult by the extra hard artificial surface which caused balls to bounce and bound rapidly, thus you needed speedy guys to cover it. It also made homeruns hard to come by and thus emphasis had to be placed on a progressive offense featuring one run strategies. Obvioulsy neither team was right or wrong, both were simply adapting to the realities of their home venue and utilizing it to their advantage. If the Orioles had taken the attitude which you hold, that one style is more pleasing than the other, or it is the coming thing so we should get onboard, they would have suffered greatly in the standings as a consequence.