Major League Baseball Thread - 2018 Season

[downzy]

The shift is interesting in that it points how few really good batters there are in the league. You would think that most major league batters could adjust and hit it in the opposite direction. But it doesn't seem to be the case. I've been watching EE and Bautista on the Jays attempt to make the adjustment in the last couple of seasons but it's been still slow going.

Part of me agrees with the argument that this problem will take care of itself; that the kids and minor-leaguers will learn to develop their batting skills to include hitting the ball in the opposite field. Unfortunately, that solution might take awhile. In the mean time, the game sucks as a result of the shift. Too many guys who can't beat the shift just try to launch one into the seats as a result. Too many hits that should be base hits end up being outs. All of which kills the momentum of the game.

So i'm a bit torn. On the one hand, banning the shift would help bring back some of the scoring that has left the game over the past 15 years. On the other, the problem will hopefully rectify itself as younger players develop their opposite hitting skills. So I'm not really sure what the solution is in the meantime. I guess just suffer through it and hope players get better at overcoming the defensive measures employed against them.

[bt88]

did they throw him anything outside at any point? If they play the shift then pitch in on the hands, slapping it the other way is pretty difficult.

I think it depends on the player and the situation. Did Tex need to do it at that point? I would think yes you'd want the hitter to go the other way if the situation calls for it. Let's take Ortiz. He's slow on the basepaths so if you start slapping stuff the other way to get on first, someone else basically has to hit an HR or you need 2-3 more batters to get him home. I think the Sox would rather he try to hit with power like he always does. Some players will get their knocks regardless of defense. Ortiz has been facing the shift for years now and it hasn't slowed him down. I wouldnt want a 3-4 power hitter slapping singles a ton, because then that lessens their value to the team.

Also remember the shift is expanding. The pirates and the Rays last year, so I assume the Cubs this year, have multiple shifts. So that lefty shift they use on Tex and Ortiz isnt the only one to be aware of.

[Apollo]

did they throw him anything outside at any point? If they play the shift then pitch in on the hands, slapping it the other way is pretty difficult.

. I wouldnt want a 3-4 power hitter slapping singles a ton, because then that lessens their value to the team.

Also remember the shift is expanding. The pirates and the Rays last year, so I assume the Cubs this year, have multiple shifts. So that lefty shift they use on Tex and Ortiz isnt the only one to be aware of.

Bro, I've got 12 year olds who can hit -or bunt - an inside pitch down the third base line!!!

And it really isn't as simple as pitch location, is it? If you have a lefty up to bat who pulls everything, would you really pitch him inside just to avoid him hitting it to the left side? Wouldn't you be pitching right into the strength of his swing, right into his wheelhouse?

Your 3 and 4 hitters aren't swinging for home runs every pitch. Two years ago Ortiz hit two triples (he usually hits 1-2 a year) - so it's not like he crawls around the bases. And that year he hit 90 singles. Coaches want their players to get hits and to get on base. Ortiz is going to hit 30 homers, but what about the other 570 at bats?

If you were coaching a team, what numbers would you prefer from your number three hitter? 450 batting average and no home runs.......or 285 average and 25 home runs? Most teams want a number 3 hitter that gets hits and gets on base, home runs are just an added bonus. Hits win ball games, not home runs. By saying you don't want your 3/4 hitters to hit singles, because they are too slow to get around the bases, and you only want homers, you are effectively telling your 5/6/7 hitters you don't have faith in them to drive in a run.

And if the shift hasn't "slowed" Ortiz down, then why would teams still do it against him? Are you saying that Ortiz has learned how to beat the shift, but other teams haven't learned this yet?

[Apollo]

The shift is interesting in that it points how few really good batters there are in the league. You would think that most major league batters could adjust and hit it in the opposite direction. But it doesn't seem to be the case. I've been watching EE and Bautista on the Jays attempt to make the adjustment in the last couple of seasons but it's been still slow going.

Part of me agrees with the argument that this problem will take care of itself; that the kids and minor-leaguers will learn to develop their batting skills to include hitting the ball in the opposite field. Unfortunately, that solution might take awhile. In the mean time, the game sucks as a result of the shift. Too many guys who can't beat the shift just try to launch one into the seats as a result. Too many hits that should be base hits end up being outs. All of which kills the momentum of the game.

So i'm a bit torn. On the one hand, banning the shift would help bring back some of the scoring that has left the game over the past 15 years. On the other, the problem will hopefully rectify itself as younger players develop their opposite hitting skills. So I'm not really sure what the solution is in the meantime. I guess just suffer through it and hope players get better at overcoming the defensive measures employed against them.

Great post Downzy.

It is sad. I mean, Ted Williams could hit the ball anywhere, regardless of where the pitch location was.

It's just another level of hitting that MLB players should have.

I've coached everywhere from 7 year olds up to 18 year olds and I always have teams that can hit. I'm not genius, by any means. But while 99% of coaches will tell their kids "if it's an inside pitch you turn and pull it, if it's outside you hit it to the opposite field." That develops kids that can only hit one way. I always have a portion of batting practice where kids do the exact opposite. A lefty has to hit 10 balls to the third base side - and he only gets inside pitches to hit. Or a righty needs to hit the ball to the right side to advance the runner over - my kids don't care if they get pounded with inside pitches, they''ll inside out it and hit a grounder to the second baseman - advancing the runner.

We had a game once where the 2nd baseman played about 15 feet deeper than I've ever seen any 2nd baseman play. My first two batters bunted the ball past the pitcher (towards the 2nd baseman) for easy singles. They moved the 2nd baseman in, about 10 feet closer than he should have....and my number three hitter (who bt88 wants hitting home runs) just slapped his first pitch right over the 2nd baseman's head. Three batters, a 1-0 lead and runners on 1st and 3rd.

I just can't believe a professional hitter like Mark Teixeria wouldn't take a guaranteed 4-for-4 day. That would help his average. That would force teams to stop playing the shift against him - which would open up his main hitting zone. So he wins on both accounts. For somebody to say he shouldn't care about singles and should just go for homers....laughable.

[downzy]

Well, that's just the thing. Perhaps Teixeria is just a pull-ball hitter. Up until every team started employing the shirt, he never had to adjust his game while in the majors. The dynamic players will succeed, the one trick ponies will suffer.

[bt88]

Since no one has ever hit .450 ever I think that's an extreme hypothetical

Ortiz is a career .285 hitter who hits around 30 bombs when offense is on the decline as a whole. The shift favors percentages so it may get a few extra outs but when a guy is 43rd all time in OPS he wil still get on. He hasn't beaten the shift totally but he's good enough to excel while it's still in use. The shift simply hasn't been that effective. Moneyball philosophy showed that getting on base is incredibly valuable and Ortiz does it at an impressive clip.

Why haven't MLB teams encouraged these hitters to hit into the open spots then if it's so effective?

Edited April 13, 2015 by bt88

[Apollo]

Yankees on ESPN for the second day in a row. Why?

[ronaldo9]

Something I still can't understand: you're up by two in the eighth with the opposing team's 2-3-4 hitters due up. Why not bring in your best reliever (Chapman in this case) then, instead of the ninth? If you really only want your top reliever to pitch one inning, let him pitch that one and leave the bottom half of the opposing lineup to another reliever in the ninth. I guess it's just some sort of accepted, traditional strategy, but it makes no sense to wait for the "save" opportunity against the lower part of the lineup instead of letting someone like Chapman face the heart of the order an inning earlier.

[downzy]

Nice run for the Royals to start the year. Not sure many would predict they'd be off to a 7-0 start. Guess there's still a lot of gas left from the end of last season.

Jays love 2-1 tonight in their home opener (they've now lost their last 4 straight home openers). Sucks that both of Tampa's runs were scored by walks given up by Dickey. Boring as fuck game. Glad I stayed home

[Apollo]

Something I still can't understand: you're up by two in the eighth with the opposing team's 2-3-4 hitters due up. Why not bring in your best reliever (Chapman in this case) then, instead of the ninth? If you really only want your top reliever to pitch one inning, let him pitch that one and leave the bottom half of the opposing lineup to another reliever in the ninth. I guess it's just some sort of accepted, traditional strategy, but it makes no sense to wait for the "save" opportunity against the lower part of the lineup instead of letting someone like Chapman face the heart of the order an inning earlier.

Just old school mentality.

Baseball, more than any other pro sport, still holds onto doing things the traditional ways.

A lot of it is In how often managers get fired. If a coach brought his closer in for the 8th in your scenario and then another reliever lost the game in the 9th inning, that coach would be crucified in the papers and internet by those who don't really know that much about baseball

[bran]

Well, that's just the thing. Perhaps Teixeria is just a pull-ball hitter. Up until every team started employing the shirt, he never had to adjust his game while in the majors. The dynamic players will succeed, the one trick ponies will suffer.

tex has always been a pull hitter, his spray charts from the early part of his career when he was a .300 hitter were basically the same, the only difference now the shift is taking away singles, but tex, ortiz and other power hitters are there to slug they are there to either hit homeruns, doubles or get on base.

as for the yankees being on espn, its as simple as ratings. love them or hate them the yankees bring in the ratings which espn being a business is what they want. me being a yankee fan i would rather see more of other teams since their is so much awesome talent to see in the MLB, but its a business decision.

[axlslash]

Don't look now, but the Bryantless Cubs have taken over first. Granted it's early, but a fine start for a team that shouldn't go anywhere. Fine by me!

[bt88]

Something I still can't understand: you're up by two in the eighth with the opposing team's 2-3-4 hitters due up. Why not bring in your best reliever (Chapman in this case) then, instead of the ninth? If you really only want your top reliever to pitch one inning, let him pitch that one and leave the bottom half of the opposing lineup to another reliever in the ninth. I guess it's just some sort of accepted, traditional strategy, but it makes no sense to wait for the "save" opportunity against the lower part of the lineup instead of letting someone like Chapman face the heart of the order an inning earlier.

Just old school mentality.

Baseball, more than any other pro sport, still holds onto doing things the traditional ways.

A lot of it is In how often managers get fired. If a coach brought his closer in for the 8th in your scenario and then another reliever lost the game in the 9th inning, that coach would be crucified in the papers and internet by those who don't really know that much about baseball

Sabermatricians say you should bring in your closer in during the most high leverage situations. When the Red Sox won in 2013, Koji came in for 4-5 out saves on the reg. I think it's a huge divide now between the old school and new school mentality. Same with more shifting and hitting your best hitter 2nd in the line up. Those are all new ideas that some managers are using, some are choosing to ignore

What you're describing is the exact situation of going for it on 4th and short in the NFL. The stats totally back up doing it, but coaches are stuck in the "this is the way we always do it" mode.

[Apollo]

Something I still can't understand: you're up by two in the eighth with the opposing team's 2-3-4 hitters due up. Why not bring in your best reliever (Chapman in this case) then, instead of the ninth? If you really only want your top reliever to pitch one inning, let him pitch that one and leave the bottom half of the opposing lineup to another reliever in the ninth. I guess it's just some sort of accepted, traditional strategy, but it makes no sense to wait for the "save" opportunity against the lower part of the lineup instead of letting someone like Chapman face the heart of the order an inning earlier.

Just old school mentality.

Baseball, more than any other pro sport, still holds onto doing things the traditional ways.

A lot of it is In how often managers get fired. If a coach brought his closer in for the 8th in your scenario and then another reliever lost the game in the 9th inning, that coach would be crucified in the papers and internet by those who don't really know that much about baseball

Sabermatricians say you should bring in your closer in during the most high leverage situations. When the Red Sox won in 2013, Koji came in for 4-5 out saves on the reg. I think it's a huge divide now between the old school and new school mentality. Same with more shifting and hitting your best hitter 2nd in the line up. Those are all new ideas that some managers are using, some are choosing to ignore

What you're describing is the exact situation of going for it on 4th and short in the NFL. The stats totally back up doing it, but coaches are stuck in the "this is the way we always do it" mode.

Just like when Bellicheck did it a couple years ago and got crucified by media and fans when the Pats didn't convert. The hate was even more idiotic because the Pats were ALSO trying to avoid giving the ball back to Peyton Manning for a final drive. It was the most logical and percentage wise the most obvious move to make. But Bill got roasted by it.

I think coaches know this - that's why a lot don't adjust.

It is pretty sad.

In the old days closers would pitch 2-3 innings! Now we got speciality guys who only pitch to one batter!

In the Mariners game last night the announcers were praising Seattle for not using a set closer. Said it gave the coach sooooo many more options because he didn't have to stick to the formula of saving his closer for the 9th, and he could use any pitcher he wanted for any spot he wanted. They all said what a great thing it was.

Then the next inning one announcer says "so which one of these guys is going to win the closer's roll?"

It's like he completely forgot their entire conversation and just went back to old school thinking

[bt88]

That's pretty dead on. It's ingrained in people's heads. At least we've come further than Joe Morgan. baby steps.

I think baseball will move faster on this than football will. The Reds were hitting Zack Cosart #2 last year and the year before, now Votto, their best hitter, is hitting 2 and there's a ton of data which shows hitting your best guy #2 is the right play. Im a little surprised Mike Scioscia is doing it given how old school he is, but maybe when you have a player like Trout your hand is forced

[downzy]

In the Mariners game last night the announcers were praising Seattle for not using a set closer. Said it gave the coach sooooo many more options because he didn't have to stick to the formula of saving his closer for the 9th, and he could use any pitcher he wanted for any spot he wanted. They all said what a great thing it was.

Then the next inning one announcer says "so which one of these guys is going to win the closer's roll?"

It's like he completely forgot their entire conversation and just went back to old school thinking

Most television commentators for baseball are terrible. I get that it's a challenge trying to find stuff to talk about for three straight hours, but there are few that do it right. Most of them just point out the obvious or make the same point five times a game, and then repeat that same point game-in, game out.

In Toronto, we have Buck Martinez and Pat Tabler calling Jays games. Martinez isn't a bad play-by-play guy, but Tabler is just brutal. Every f'n game he makes the same point eight times: the Jays batting lineup is so strong that opposing pitchers can't get just pitch around one batter. It's like clockwork every time Bautista and EE come to the plate. It drives me nuts.

In my opinion, the colour commentator is a useless job. They almost add nothing of value. If I were producing a MLB game I'd have only the play-by-play guy calling the game by himself. Otherwise, replace the colour commentator with a stand-up comedian who knows the game. Most ex-baseball players aren't funny and have only so many stories from their playing days that they're "analysis" grows old after a month or two. I'd rather have another guy in the booth that will make it entertaining and rip into players/spectators/coaching calls. Have another broadcaster be a net-postive to the viewing experience versus the train wreck that most televised games have now.

[bt88]

I thought this was relevant given our recent discussions on modern vs old school thinking. Batting the pitcher 8th. Good idea?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=26045

I don't mind the idea of getting someone on base before the line up flips over. As the article states, the advantage is minimal but it costs you nothing. It seems to be picking up as a philosophy too

[magisme]

Most television commentators for baseball are terrible. I get that it's a challenge trying to find stuff to talk about for three straight hours, but there are few that do it right.

That's the problem. Ever since the colossal sports disaster that is Joe Buck, announcers have decided that their job is to talk for 3-4 hours. That is not their job. Their job is (or at least it should be, imo) facilitating an enjoyable baseball watching experience. I subscribe to the MLB package and I swear it gets worse every year. All of them should be forced to listen to Vin Scully on repeat until they figure it out. Scully gets it. Tell me the inning, count, score and how many out. Tell me who's up to bat. Maybe tell me when he was drafted, and from where. Keep it simple, keep it minimal. Let the sights and sounds of the game speak for themselves.

[downzy]

Most television commentators for baseball are terrible. I get that it's a challenge trying to find stuff to talk about for three straight hours, but there are few that do it right.

That's the problem. Ever since the colossal sports disaster that is Joe Buck, announcers have decided that their job is to talk for 3-4 hours. That is not their job. Their job is (or at least it should be, imo) facilitating an enjoyable baseball watching experience. I subscribe to the MLB package and I swear it gets worse every year. All of them should be forced to listen to Vin Scully on repeat until they figure it out. Scully gets it. Tell me the inning, count, score and how many out. Tell me who's up to bat. Maybe tell me when he was drafted, and from where. Keep it simple, keep it minimal. Let the sights and sounds of the game speak for themselves.

I do agree that if there's something truly interesting to contribute, then fine. Take up some dead air by explaining why an umpire decided to make a certain call as it pertains to the rules. Or explain why the pitcher just balked (most fans, including myself, are fairly clueless as to what actually constitutes a balk). Or if there's a pitching change and they can't go to commercial, then talk about how other teams or the rest of the league is doing. Provide valuable content rather than just trying to fill up dead air with whatever dumb ass thought pops in their head. But talking about the merits of the shift while actual play is occurring is terrible. Conducting interviews with people don't care about while the game is being played is terrible. Trying to be funny and then laughing at your own jokes before anyone else does is infuriating. You're right, there's enough audio coming from the field that we don't need two dipshits waxing and waning on whatever random idea they have at the moment.

[Apollo]

I thought this was relevant given our recent discussions on modern vs old school thinking. Batting the pitcher 8th. Good idea?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=26045

I don't mind the idea of getting someone on base before the line up flips over. As the article states, the advantage is minimal but it costs you nothing. It seems to be picking up as a philosophy too

If my number 9 hitter ever got on base with two outs, I ALWAYS 100% of the time had him attempt to steal second and third base. That would never work in the MLB or even college level. But at high school age and lower - especially the lower ages you get - forcing the catcher to make a throw is always a good thing and often led to errors. Especially when the other team knew what we were going to do - just them expecting it and thinking about it too much would often cause over throws or dropped balls.

I hated my lead off hitter coming up with two outs. If he gets out - which is 60-65% of the time - then you've lost your top table setter for the meat of the order. I'd much rather give up that out to end the inning and have my lead off hitter start the next inning fresh with no outs.

I don't think it's a bad move at the pro level. Most pitchers still hit between 100-and-200, so they can get the occasional hit. And often time they just need to lay a bunt down or NOT hit into a double play. If your 8 hole guy is hitting 240 and your pitchers are hitting 150 - I think switching them around is a great idea. Another thing that strategy does is keeps your pitcher off the base bath for your big hitters (IE: less running for your pitcher).

Most television commentators for baseball are terrible. I get that it's a challenge trying to find stuff to talk about for three straight hours, but there are few that do it right.

That's the problem. Ever since the colossal sports disaster that is Joe Buck, announcers have decided that their job is to talk for 3-4 hours. That is not their job. Their job is (or at least it should be, imo) facilitating an enjoyable baseball watching experience. I subscribe to the MLB package and I swear it gets worse every year. All of them should be forced to listen to Vin Scully on repeat until they figure it out. Scully gets it. Tell me the inning, count, score and how many out. Tell me who's up to bat. Maybe tell me when he was drafted, and from where. Keep it simple, keep it minimal. Let the sights and sounds of the game speak for themselves.

I do agree that if there's something truly interesting to contribute, then fine. Take up some dead air by explaining why an umpire decided to make a certain call as it pertains to the rules. Or explain why the pitcher just balked (most fans, including myself, are fairly clueless as to what actually constitutes a balk). Or if there's a pitching change and they can't go to commercial, then talk about how other teams or the rest of the league is doing. Provide valuable content rather than just trying to fill up dead air with whatever dumb ass thought pops in their head. But talking about the merits of the shift while actual play is occurring is terrible. Conducting interviews with people don't care about while the game is being played is terrible. Trying to be funny and then laughing at your own jokes before anyone else does is infuriating. You're right, there's enough audio coming from the field that we don't need two dipshits waxing and waning on whatever random idea they have at the moment.

I've done a lot of baseball announcing on the radio and I would MUCH rather - 100% of the time - do it alone than with somebody else in the booth with me.

[axlslash]

For people who spend so much time talking basic stats, sports fans' resistance to advanced stats, sabermetrics, etc. really dumbfounds me. Whether it's puck possession and shot attempt stats in hockey or strategy-based stats in baseball and football, denying the importance of these proven stats is like denying climate change. It might make you feel better, but science says you're wrong. Look at the A's winning streak, the Theo Epstein Red Sox, either Marlins championship team, or any other example. When you play for basic stats like home runs, you get high price tags and high risks. You play the sabermetrics, you get lower price tags and safer returns.

[DirtyDeeds]

Most television commentators for baseball are terrible. I get that it's a challenge trying to find stuff to talk about for three straight hours, but there are few that do it right.

That's the problem. Ever since the colossal sports disaster that is Joe Buck, announcers have decided that their job is to talk for 3-4 hours. That is not their job. Their job is (or at least it should be, imo) facilitating an enjoyable baseball watching experience. I subscribe to the MLB package and I swear it gets worse every year. All of them should be forced to listen to Vin Scully on repeat until they figure it out. Scully gets it. Tell me the inning, count, score and how many out. Tell me who's up to bat. Maybe tell me when he was drafted, and from where. Keep it simple, keep it minimal. Let the sights and sounds of the game speak for themselves.

I give this post a standing ovation.

[DirtyDeeds]

For people who spend so much time talking basic stats, sports fans' resistance to advanced stats, sabermetrics, etc. really dumbfounds me. Whether it's puck possession and shot attempt stats in hockey or strategy-based stats in baseball and football, denying the importance of these proven stats is like denying climate change. It might make you feel better, but science says you're wrong. Look at the A's winning streak, the Theo Epstein Red Sox, either Marlins championship team, or any other example. When you play for basic stats like home runs, you get high price tags and high risks. You play the sabermetrics, you get lower price tags and safer returns.

As a fan I have mixed feelings about sabermetrics. I don't deny that the data is useful and leads to successful play in the regular season, but it basically comes down to this for me:

teams that play sabermetrics play winning, boring baseball. Teams that don't are more interesting to watch. It brings up the question of how much my entertainment is worth for me. Would I prefer to watch my team win in a consistent, boring pattern, or maybe not win, but play in such a way that is interesting? Basically sabermetrics tells you that all of baseballs most exciting plays should never be done.

[bran]

man so far in the early part of this season defensive play has been absolutely brutal.

Edited April 15, 2015 by bran

[magisme]

I rely on sabermetrics almost exclusively when evaluating players and in-game managerial decisions. Unfortunately most sabermetricians are arrogant, condescending cunts, so it's taking longer to catch on than it should.