2021 Around MLB: Return of the Dead Ball Era

[CATS44]

Let

Pure BS. If you think the shift was used so dramatically or as frequently then you're crazy. They've changed and changed drastically.

And to be honest, I don't really care because I prefer power hitters, but those that think simply bunting or "hitting the ball the other way" is the answer are ignorant.

Lets see now.

MLB is losing fan support. The powers that be are wringing their hands over the lack of action within the game. They are decrying the fact that the act of batting has over whelmingly become a three outcome episode...none of which involves on the field action, except for the occasional bat flip and trot around the bases.

Fans that love to see power hitters above everything else should switch to watching slow pitch softball at their local municipal Park.

MLB recognizes the problem...which it caused itself....and, like most bureaucracies, tries to do anything to fix the problem, except the one obvious thing that WILL fix the problem.

On our game threads there are often complaints that our batters are so bad at situational hitting, but its not the batters fault, because they aren't taught the concepts that allow situational hitting. You can't hit in those situations, if the only focus is on pull side power with lift. Its a lot easier to put the bat on any pitch with a shorter stroke from a leveler swing.

Our batters...and a lot of batters...can't handle a good change up. But the fundamental way to attack a changeup for 100 years was to move up in the box to beat it. When was the last time you saw a batter do that? Instead, they just hack away.

Big leg kicks...big strides...big, long swings. Lots of home runs, lots of Ks, little excitement.

Brantley got criticized when he came up, because he swung flat footed. He is certainly no super star, not gifted with superior strength or speed. But, boy, can he hit a baseball. And Merrifield. And Lemahieu. And Pete Rose.

Yermin Mercedes swings big...until he gets to two strikes. Then he shortens his swing...hits flat footed...eliminates elevation.. His BA when behind in the count is .385....after being down 0-2 it is .429. Those numbers won't last, but he is maximizing his chance by maximizing his ability to hit a baseball. How many batters do you see do that?

JRam has a lot more ability than Mercedes. But he doesn't use it when he is down in the count or is 0-2. What kind of numbers could he put up if he did?

Not one of the above mentioned have anything to do with a shift.

And its not 'ignorant' to point that out....but, perhaps, it could be so to ignore all that.

 

[CATS44]

Banning the shift is rewarding batters for failure and penalizing defenses for being smart.

Want to increase offense via rule change?

Eliminate sliders. Put the top of the strike zone at the waste.

High heat and good, hard sliders defeat launch angles and big swings. Naquin will hit .380 and hit 50 home runs.

 

[Out of the Rafters at the Q]

Sorry Q, I reread it hoping I misunderstood what you said, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I'm not sure I get the straw man accusation either. What I do know is that you stated:

"You are the one who isn't okay with the fact that things haven't changed in response to this, and are advocating change in response to it."

Things have changed, but they have continued to do so since baseball began. The "traditionalist" say they like the game "the way it is", but the game hasn't always been "the way it is". It's an oxymoron. Over the decades changes have been made to keep a balance in the game, and right now it's unbalanced IMO. That's all I'm saying.

Rereading my post, it came across as dickish and that wasn't my intention so I apologize for that. I think this has been one of the better conversations had here in awhile.

No need to apologize. I'll never get offended by tone, and I am well aware of the way I come across at times.

What has changed? The game itself has not changed. There wasn't a rules change to implement the shift. Teams have always placed defenders where they believe they are most effective.

With today's analytics revolution, teams are more able to determine where those defenders should be placed, which is why we see shifted infields and the specific outfield placements we see today.

That is not the core of the game changing. That's the same old game being presented in a different way.

I don't agree with the posters who think that this is just a pendulum swing and hitters will adjust and see a boom. The best a batter can hope for is a return to previous success.

I can even be convinced why offensive improvement is good for the sport. I disagree with it (I'm not sure the offensive output matters) but if I get another "Chicks dig the long ball" commercial out of it, that's fine by me.

 

[sportscoach]

Did you play baseball Coach? If you did, what position and how did you know where to go?

Your assessment is so far off target that it's difficult to know where to begin. I favor putting the ball in play, hitting the ball where it's pitched, and "good swings". Even a well placed bunt has a positive connotation in my view. The problem is that those fundamentals are analytically proven to be less effective in today's "modern" game which is why you don't see them as much as before. Batters have no middle ground to find Coach that I can think of. They are subjugated to how they are pitched. You're not going to pluck an orange from an apple tree, and you're not going to "go the other way" with an inside pitch. You don't "hit the other way when necessary" you hit the other way when given the opportunity. Good practices like "putting the ball in play" are strategically limited by data driven shifting. Baseball has experienced numerous changes over the course of its existence to "balance things" for a lack of a better description. Maybe you're not as traditionalist as you think.

The ironic, almost funny aspect to this entire conversation is that I don't know if I even have a stance on the subject. It can remain the same or change. It really doesn't matter to me. What is apparent to me is that if changes aren't made then what "traditionalists" hold dear will disappear like a fart in the wind. "Traditionalists" bitch about the lack of bunting, good swings, and going the other way, but seem to either lack the understanding as to why that is happening or are in complete denial. Something else that comes to my tiny little mind concerning you "traditionalists" is what period of baseball is "traditional" to you? Before bat size regulations or after? Before the mound was lowered or after? Prior to called strikes or after? Before or after ball size regulations?

Yet Yandy Diaz hits inside pitches the other way all the time... other elite contact hitters do it as well...

Putting the ball in play is usually hitting the ball where it is pitched and I see a lot of great hitters hit the ball low and outside the other way easily. The issue is the fact players will pull outside pitches into the shift while if they waited back a bit longer and went the other way then they would have had a bigger chance to get a hit with the shift on.

I guess what I am trying to say, is players focus on pulling way too much and don't change approaches with 2 strikes in a sense. My comment about Cobb was the fact he knew how to situational hit and did a good job of it. He also knew how to change his approach to hit more HRs which he did one season and he even admitted regretting it since his avg and other stats went down in his mind.

I guess I want players to learn how to hit like Cobb first, the bat control, hitting the other way, situational hitting etc then add in the HR swing when the ball is their zone. They don't feel like they are being taught that anymore and I think that's what everyone who is more traditionalist isnt happy about. Fundamentals of hitting people don't feel like are being taught anymore like it was in the past. Miller, Freeman, Clement all fit into the guys who were taught the old ways of hitting just like Merrifield was in a sense.

And I played baseball until I messed up my back, I usually played 1B (at above average defensively, I may have been good enough with the glove to play college, but my bat was so-so) but I was solid at 3B, I was a backup catcher and to be honest, either 1B or 2B at the end of the day is where I would have ended up. I found out later I had a physical condition which ending me playing any sport at the end of the day... *Sighs*

 

[Derek]

If hitting like Ty Cobb was easy, he wouldn’t be a hall of famer.

Saying guys should learn to hit like Cobb would be like me telling my team of 6’2 basketball players they need to learn how dunk like LeBron.

 

[sportscoach]

If hitting like Ty Cobb was easy, he wouldn’t be a hall of famer.

Saying guys should learn to hit like Cobb would be like me telling my team of 6’2 basketball players they need to learn how dunk like LeBron.

Not my point either... I guess I am saying they need the fundamentals of knowing situational baseball, hitting the other way, taking pitches etc first before learning how to hit the HR, but it feels like it's straight to HR/power swing...

 

[Derek]

Not my point either... I guess I am saying they need the fundamentals of knowing situational baseball, hitting the other way, taking pitches etc first before learning how to hit the HR, but it feels like it's straight to HR/power swing...

I can assure you that’s not the case

 

[sportscoach]

I can assure you that’s not the case

Then why do so many players pull the ball even in the minors? I know I am probably going a bit overboard in a sense, but it does feel like the bat to ball skills aren't as great as they used to be as a whole...

 

[Derek]

Then why do so many players pull the ball even in the minors? I know I am probably going a bit overboard in a sense, but it does feel like the bat to ball skills aren't as great as they used to be as a whole...

I can assure you that bat skills are being taught more than ever. Especially at the younger levels.

Hitting is also tougher than its ever been with the way pitchers have embraced technology in their training in recent years. 95+ mph with movement used to be rare. Now it’s common.

 

[WhoAzcue]

If you're not paid to hit opposite field singles, you won't do it, simple as that. You can't beat shifts if you aren't willing to take what's given you. If all you want to do is pull the ball to access your power, that's the approach you will take. I don't know why this is so hard of a concept. Good hitters change their approach according to count and game situation; bad hitters continue to do the same thing regardless, because they feel in the end, they are rewarded for it. It's really pretty simple. Shifts wouldn't work as well if players weren't predictable. And most players are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Did you see the trivia statistic on the game the other day? Who had the most hits in the majors in the 90's? I'll give you a second to think....


It was Mark Grace. Mark freakin' Grace. Do you think that guy would have been affected by shifts? Hell no. He was too unpredictable and too smart of a hitter. What I wouldn't give for a Mark Grace on this Cleveland Indians team. And no one would have thought of him as a "star."

 

[sportscoach]

If you're not paid to hit opposite field singles, you won't do it, simple as that. You can't beat shifts if you aren't willing to take what's given you. If all you want to do is pull the ball to access your power, that's the approach you will take. I don't know why this is so hard of a concept. Good hitters change their approach according to count and game situation; bad hitters continue to do the same thing regardless, because they feel in the end, they are rewarded for it. It's really pretty simple. Shifts wouldn't work as well if players weren't predictable. And most players are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Did you see the trivia statistic on the game the other day? Who had the most hits in the majors in the 90's? I'll give you a second to think....


It was Mark Grace. Mark freakin' Grace. Do you think that guy would have been affected by shifts? Hell no. He was too unpredictable and too smart of a hitter. What I wouldn't give for a Mark Grace on this Cleveland Indians team. And no one would have thought of him as a "star."

He also had almost twice as many BBs as SOs as well by the end of his career as well. His WAR was exceptional since he didn't hit HRs and didn't have a high slg%, he just hit....

 

[Derek]

Teams wouldn’t shift on Mark Grace, it’s that simple.

Guys like him still exist, they’re just rare because Mark Grace was really really good.

 

[jup]

If you're not paid to hit opposite field singles, you won't do it, simple as that. You can't beat shifts if you aren't willing to take what's given you. If all you want to do is pull the ball to access your power, that's the approach you will take. I don't know why this is so hard of a concept. Good hitters change their approach according to count and game situation; bad hitters continue to do the same thing regardless, because they feel in the end, they are rewarded for it. It's really pretty simple. Shifts wouldn't work as well if players weren't predictable. And most players are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Did you see the trivia statistic on the game the other day? Who had the most hits in the majors in the 90's? I'll give you a second to think....


It was Mark Grace. Mark freakin' Grace. Do you think that guy would have been affected by shifts? Hell no. He was too unpredictable and too smart of a hitter. What I wouldn't give for a Mark Grace on this Cleveland Indians team. And no one would have thought of him as a "star."

Hitters contracts aren't based on opposite field singles, they go where the money is, and that is XBH which most often equates to pull side power. $$$s drive the market and your best hitters know it. That is why your best hitters still pull the ball into the shift, because the times they don't get out are the stats that drive contracts.

Not much different than pitchers. Pitchers get paid on their ability to miss bats. No one signs big time contracts because they are great at getting the ball put into play. So they work on getting Ks.

As long as teams continue to value the outcomes they are getting, players will continue to hone their skills to produce them.

 

[CDAV45]

If hitting like Ty Cobb was easy, he wouldn’t be a hall of famer.

Saying guys should learn to hit like Cobb would be like me telling my team of 6’2 basketball players they need to learn how dunk like LeBron.

The Ty Cobb in his MVP season of 1911 probably wouldn't be much of anything today. It's not even comparable and it's assinine to even attempt to. Players today are recruited the world over, train like never before, and have technological tools never had in prior times. Players are bigger, stronger, and faster. We're not talking about a bunch of white guys from America that have normal jobs in the offseason. That's not to take anything away from his accomplishments of the time, but it's just not comparable IMO.

Even if Cobb were as good today as he was during his time, I find it unrealistic to expect hitters in general to hit like the best of all time.

Coach, Yandy Diaz doesn't hit inside pitches the other way "all the time". Again, you even refer to him as an "elite contact hitter". He hits the ball where it's pitched and because he has elite contact skills he is able to capitalize on pitchers' mistakes more frequently than most. I view Brantley and our own Owen Miller in the same light. Truth is, their skills are not common place. It's like saying "why didn't the hitters of Babe Ruth's time hit like him".

 

[WhoAzcue]

Truth is, their skills are not common place. It's like saying "why didn't the hitters of Babe Ruth's time hit like him".

Nonsense. In one paragraph you talk about players and their physicality being better than ever before, but now the skills aren't "common place." The skills are not commonplace because they are not valued. You want to beat shifts, you work at it. You don't, then you won't. It's up to players and organizations to beat shifts, not changing the rules to enforce something people refuse to do.

If there's a new inefficiency that shifting has created, good organizations will exploit it.