2018 Season MLB Non-Phillies News/Notes Discussion

[julio]

Matt Carpenter makes a good point, that so many players fail to hit any kind of grounder when the other team is conceding a run and playing back, so what makes people think the players can just purposely hit grounders to a specific spot on the field.

What makes fans think like this? Little League experience.

[EastFallowfield]

I couldn't direct balls in LL, unless the goal was to ground out weakly to second.

[julio]

I couldn't direct balls in LL, unless the goal was to ground out weakly to second.

Yes, but you don't believe that major-leaguers should just be able to hit the ball right where they want it, depending on the defensive alignment - do you? So your Little League experience (e.g., that it's hard to do that!) contributes to your current, rational view of this subject.

It's possible that my hypothesis is flawed. On the one hand, those who expect major-leaguers to be omnipotent in this regard may have been dominant Little Leaguers, who could actually do this (assuming that anybody could); alternatively, they may have only been able to do this in their dreams...and they cannot distinguish between dreams and reality?

[andyb]

I do remember hours in the cage with pitches on the outside corner and working to hit line drives the opposite way (instead of weak ground balls).

I imagine major league instruction will evolve to deal with shifts because they are working and every players can't change their launch angle enough to be able to hit enough home runs for the shift to work. Pitchers throwing 4-seam fastballs up in the zone now lead to fewer home runs against the launch angle approach. 4-seamers used to lead to more HRs in the past. Hitters will start to hit the opposite way to beat shifts if they can't hit as many home runs.

[julio]

Hitters will start to hit the opposite way to beat shifts if they can't hit as many home runs.

I think this is likely correct... but I don't know if that's because individual hitters will adapt (or if they really can), or because teams will evolve to be composed of hitters with different skill sets.

[EastFallowfield]

I was agreeing with Carpenter, that it's hard to make contact in MLB, and harder still to direct that contact to a specific part of the field. Obviously if it was easy hitters would be hitting balls like tennis players, away from the fielders who wouldn't know where to stand.

[julio]

I was agreeing with Carpenter, that it's hard to make contact in MLB, and harder still to direct that contact to a specific part of the field. Obviously if it was easy hitters would be hitting balls like tennis players, away from the fielders who wouldn't know where to stand.

Maybe MLB needs to allow the use of tennis racquets as bats...?

[bkeich]

I was agreeing with Carpenter, that it's hard to make contact in MLB, and harder still to direct that contact to a specific part of the field. Obviously if it was easy hitters would be hitting balls like tennis players, away from the fielders who wouldn't know where to stand.

It is funny you say that, because I do remember being taught that. You hold your bat just s little different in your grip and you can (more likely) hit the ball the other way. The looser you hold it, while you give up power, you can often easily direct the ball further to the opposite field just with your normal swing. Obviously you lose significant power, but if there is no one over there sometimes losing power is actually a good thing. Agreed, what i learned was hitting 70mph fastballs not 95mph, but the concept should be the same.

Obviously it is not this simple, but it does seem that directional hitting is a lost skill completely in today's game. I know that it was once an important skill in MLB, but once again the speed of the pitches and break on the ball has changed significantly since then.

[EastFallowfield]

And of course there seem to be an out or three every night that our pitchers get that are into a shift, but they are never recalled and commented on as much as when the opposing player hits a ball to where the fielders used to always be.

[allentown]

And of course there seem to be an out or three every night that our pitchers get that are into a shift, but they are never recalled and commented on as much as when the opposing player hits a ball to where the fielders used to always be.

It's how closers became a thing. We get more upset and remember games lost in the 9th inning, because we expected to win the game. Games are lost in all of the other innings as well. When the game is lost in the first or second inning, we just do something else. The 'that should have been an out, I got him to hit a routine grounder right to where the SS should be' stands out to a pitcher, who then thinks he got another hitter to hit a routine grounder to where the SS actually is. He feels he earned that shift out, but was cheated by a cheap fluke grounder into the vacated SS hole. That's reason enough to try to hit the ball away from the shift. Anything that infuriates the pitcher has to be good.

[BostonRoss]

Hitters apparently had more control about over whee they would hit the ball in days gone by. The hit and run play couldn't have existed otherwise. Was it Wee Willie Keller who could "hit 'em where they ain't"?

The hitters in the article make a couple of good points. Pitchers today are better, and it's harder to choose the direction of a hit. And it's harder to score a runner from first when there are fewer balls put into play, and apparently some (most) hitters recognize this and try to hit doubles or home runs.

While it appears that bunting is not a skill that many hitters have anymore, it's not clear that it is worthwhile for anyone but the weakest hitters to have that skill. If it is true that it's not that worthwhile to get a batter to first base in most situations, and the sacrifice has been debunked as a good strategy in most cases, should hitters waste preparation time learning to bunt better rather than get extra hitting practice?

[allentown]

Hitters apparently had more control about over whee they would hit the ball in days gone by.

That's probably true. The game has changed a lot. Pitchers are better and pitch to strike out batters as opposed to pitchers like Robin Roberts who pitched 300 innings a season, pitched every 4 days, and did so by pitching to contact in slow burn fashion. The game values walks and HRs more than it did in many years. When a Galvis can whack 20 HRs in a season, you know something has changed. I doubt the sluggers of days gone by, think Killebrew not the all-around, all-time super-stars like Mays and Aaron, could hit the ball where they ain't. The hit-and-run has been eclipsed. If baseball had as its major stat 'percentage of productive outs, which advance a runner', and paid guys largely upon this stat, then players would be able to bunt and possibly hit the ball where they ain't or at least to a spot that advanced a runner. That is not what baseball pays for, so it's a low priority all around.

[bkeich]

While it appears that bunting is not a skill that many hitters have anymore, it's not clear that it is worthwhile for anyone but the weakest hitters to have that skill. If it is true that it's not that worthwhile to get a batter to first base in most situations, and the sacrifice has been debunked as a good strategy in most cases, should hitters waste preparation time learning to bunt better rather than get extra hitting practice?

But Bunting has another use, the threat of the bunt. You can get more hits by forcing the 3B in closer to the hitter. I think guys with above average speed or better should all have the ability to bunt, Hernandez uses it well and they have to respect him or he will simply take 1B (especially when hitting LH. Kingery would also be a good guy to get better at this (I have seem him try it a few times). Really any LH hitter should, especially ones that are getting shffted on alot as they can force the 3B to play somewhere other than in the shift.

Mike Schmidt use to regularly bunt when he was in a slump, it was a way to pick up an easy single and it kept the 3B honest, and as he was a RH pull hitter, having the 3B not play deep also got him a few hits that way.

I think the sacrifice bunt was over used in the old "book" but it still has use. It isnt a bad play in some circumstances and one minor, but nice part of it is I assume the rate of errors is much higher on bunt plays, pitchers make alot of throwing errors, 2nd baseman tend to be awful at getting bad throws (they have a long run and cant get set well) and when there is a throwing error on a bunt it is often multiple bases. That is a minor part of it, but it also should be factored in.

[flyers19rw]

The game has changed a lot.

And its not all good for the offense. OBP is the lowest that it's been in 25 years aside from 2014. Strikeouts are the highest that they've been in 25 years. BA and hits are the lowest that they've been in 25 years. Runs are the sixth lowest that they've been over the same time span. Meanwhile the length of the games grows.

[bkeich]

And its not all good for the offense. OBP is the lowest that it's been in 25 years aside from 2014. Strikeouts are the highest that they've been in 25 years. BA and hits are the lowest that they've been in 25 years. Runs are the sixth lowest that they've been over the same time span. Meanwhile the length of the games grows.

Pitchers are ahead. By continuing to use more and more "fresh" pitchers and less use of tired pitchers, along with the simple fact that velocity and "stuff" has increased, catchers are now better at framing, etc. I suspect we will continue to see all of these things change until either the ball is re-juiced or some structural change happens again (mound lowering, etc.).

It would be sacrilege, but I honestly suspect in the next 10 years the mound will move back a few feet. As safety takes a bigger and bigger role in the games changes, some pitcher is going to get badly hurt and there will be an outcry to move the back 2-3 feet. That will greatly change the game I suspect.

[phillychuck]

I think the game will change some in the next decade, but I think that the change will be in the strike zone (making it a bit smaller) and how strikes are called (umpires will have an automated assist, like tennis linesmen, an earpiece that beeps on strikes). That will effectively shrink the strike zone a bit and help the offense without taking away the primacy of the umpire (he doesn't have to call beeps strikes, it's just an assist). We may see a rule that there have to be 2 infielders on each side of second base when the pitch is made to stop over-shifting (I would personally like to see this rule).

[tom81]

Shrink the strike zone and you will get more walks and a longer game, that is not the direction they want to take the game. I think it more likely that they expand the strike zone in combination of moving the mound back. This should lead to more hitting, less walks and maybe a shorter and more fun game.

I could also see them implementing a rule requiring a relief pitcher entering an inning throw to more than one batter in that inning to speed up the game.

I hope they don't implement a rule that there has to be 2 infielders on each side of second base when the pitch is made. I like the freedom to shift to try to add more strategy to the game.

[phillychuck]

I wouldn't mind a 1-reliever change per inning rule. Something to diminish pitching changes each inning. That will speed the game up and help the offense a little bit.

[Lucky_Beagle]

Speeding up the game could easily be done by limiting time btw innings...how many people watch the commercials anyways? Many use the time to go to the kitchen, bathroom etc. Place adds on the screen during the inning...a quick blurb btw batters etc or split screen ad and first batter of an inning...I know I would hate to watch it, but I would see more of the ad than when its btw innnings.
Allow a relief pitcher 2 pitches from the mound. He should be prepared in the bullpen and ready to go. A pinch runner doesn't get to say wait I want to run from first to second 3 times to warm my legs as I am going to be stealing.
Have a review decision in one minute or else the call on the field stands as it wasn't an obvious wrong call.

[flyers19rw]

Shrink the strike zone and you will get more walks and a longer game, that is not the direction they want to take the game.

I agree that to go in that direction wouldn't help the game.
The main grumble that I hear from phans right now is that the game has become all strikeouts and walks with way too little hitting contact. IIRC, when we had the era of the "dead ball" in the 60's, lowering the mound made an impact in decreasing the velocity of pitches. That might be enough to get more offense back into the game.
My response to the shift is for batters to go the other way or bunt the one IF on a non shifted side silly. If hitters can learn to hit with a launch angle swing, they can be taught to hit to the opposite side. They've done that in the past.
Perhaps the best way to deal with the number of relief pitchers used in the game is to take them away from the managers. Mandate the 25 day roster to no more than 10 pitchers and cut back on the number of times pitchers can be sent down and recalled from the minors so that managers get punished for overusing relievers. Perhaps putting a minimum on how long a pitcher has to stay on the 25 man roster once they are called up would help.