Jump to content

Dusty Wants Reds to Swing Away


ON BASE %

Recommended Posts

The Reds knew what they were getting. Wonder how long until they acquire Neifi and Deivi to show Dunn and Votto how to swing the bat like a man?

Well, they did sign Corey Patterson. And they already had Alex Gonzalez. Those two should suffice. But maybe we can trade them Gibbons and Payton to help out with their new philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of this on-base percentage is taking away the aggressiveness of some young kids

Ahh, Dusty you devil! You finally figured out the major flaw in young, inexperienced ballplayers. They're just not AGGRESSIVE enough!

Bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did someone actually bother to read the article?

If so, what do you disagree with?

This-

Dusty Baker gets ripped by stat-loving baseball fans because he doesn't think the game revolves around on-base percentage.

That is not to say he doesn't think on-base percentage is important.

It's just that he'd rather see his hitters hit, particularly in RBI situations.

"A lot of this on-base percentage is taking away the aggressiveness of some young kids," he said. "Most of the time you've got to put handcuffs on a young guy to keep him from swinging. (The young players are) playing good, real good. I'd like to see them more aggressive.

"I really, really hate the called third strike. I hate that. You're guessing and you ain't ready to hit."

That is exactly the same things I say to my little league team. I don't like called third strikes either. I want them to be aggressive, too. Telling batters to be aggessive does not mean to swing at bad pitches. That (aggressive) is the mindset I want my kids taking to the plate.

I don't tell my hitters to be passive and look for a walk. Nor to I tell my pitchers to try and nibble. I want my pitchers to be aggressive too.

Adam Dunn seems to agree with him.

Dunn says aggressiveness isn't something Baker has to preach to him.

"He doesn't have to tell me," Dunn said. "I know I (need to be aggressive). It's hard for me to swing at that first pitch. But that may be the best one I get."

Sometimes it isn't a question of aggressiveness or patience. It's being smart at the plate. A case in point came Thursday.

Dunn came up in the first inning of the Reds' 12-8 victory over the New York Yankees with the bases loaded. He punched an outside pitch to left field for an RBI single. It's the second time he's done that this spring.

"Sometimes it's better not to try to get all of them in and get one in at a time," Dunn said. "If I try to yank that pitch, I end up grounding out to second. That doesn't do anyone any good."

Sorry for the interruption.

Back to the regularly scheduled Baker bash! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did someone actually bother to read the article?

If so, what do you disagree with?

This-

That is exactly the same things I say to my little league team. I don't like called third strikes either. I want them to be aggressive, too. Telling batters to be aggessive does not mean to swing at bad pitches. That (aggressive) is the mindset I want my kids taking to the plate.

I don't tell my hitters to be passive and look for a walk. Nor to I tell my pitchers to try and nibble. I want my pitchers to be aggressive too.

Adam Dunn seems to agree with him.

Sorry for the interruption.

Back to the regularly scheduled Baker bash! :P

Called third strikes are perfectly fine if they're part of an overall strategy of only swinging at pitches you can tattoo. I wouldn't teach kids that strikeouts are so awful that you need to swing at anything close to avoid them. An out's an out, and I wouldn't want anyone to get into the habit of hacking at stuff they can't handle just to be sure they make outs the "right" way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read the article, and I don't disagree with not taking called third strikes as a strategy. Nor do I disagree with swinging at your pitch when you get it. In fact, I don't really disagree with anything Baker says in there at all. I just like to make fun of Dusty Baker. :D

In all seriousness, while I can't disagree with what he's saying, there's sort of an implication (supported by his past history) in what he's saying that I do have to disagree with, which is swing the dang bat and put the ball in play all the time, because walks are selfish and stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Called third strikes are perfectly fine if they're part of an overall strategy of only swinging at pitches you can tattoo. I wouldn't teach kids that strikeouts are so awful that you need to swing at anything close to avoid them. An out's an out, and I wouldn't want anyone to get into the habit of hacking at stuff they can't handle just to be sure they make outs the "right" way.

That is an awful strategy. Not all outs are created equally.

All kids have pitches in certain locations that will be called strikes that they can't "tattoo". But, if they can put them in play- good things can happen.

Putting the ball in play allows runners to advance and puts pressure on the fielders to make a play.

And, at the little league level- a MAJOR variable is the "quality" of ball/strike umpiring. If you arent prepared to swing at pitches close- be prepared for a long, demoralizing season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Called third strikes are perfectly fine if they're part of an overall strategy of only swinging at pitches you can tattoo. I wouldn't teach kids that strikeouts are so awful that you need to swing at anything close to avoid them. An out's an out, and I wouldn't want anyone to get into the habit of hacking at stuff they can't handle just to be sure they make outs the "right" way.

I generally agree with you, but this is going too far, I think. When you have two strikes you should be avoiding the K at all costs unless there is the possibility of hitting into a double play, in which case a K is better than a feeble grounder. If there are two strikes and the pitch is close, you need to swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an awful strategy. Not all outs are created equally.

All kids have pitches in certain locations that will be called strikes that they can't "tattoo". But, if they can put them in play- good things can happen.

Putting the ball in play allows runners to advance and puts pressure on the fielders to make a play.

And, at the little league level- a MAJOR variable is the "quality" of ball/strike umpiring. If you arent prepared to swing at pitches close- be prepared for a long, demoralizing season.

Maybe in Little League this is fine, when umps are terrible and fielders worse. But in any kind of a quality league swinging at junk to avoid Ks is a terrible strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally agree with you, but this is going too far, I think. When you have two strikes you should be avoiding the K at all costs unless there is the possibility of hitting into a double play, in which case a K is better than a feeble grounder. If there are two strikes and the pitch is close, you need to swing.

Double plays and weak ground balls are a huge factor. Rob Deer used to ground into a good, consistent three double plays a year even though he was Geronimo Gil fast. Jack Cust has grounded into 9 DPs in 600+ PAs while someone like Cal, who made more contact, used to ground into 20+ a year. Jason Giambi hasn't grounded into 10 DPs in a year since '02. Russell Branyan, Mark Bellhorn, and Ryan Howard have career GIDP numbers that aren't far from a good season from Cal or Jim Rice (who started to make a lot more contact as he aged, and grounded into 30+ DPs a year).

The difference between 10 GIDPs and 30 in 600 PAs is effectively 30 points of OBP. And it's even more damaging than a single out because almost all of those killed an inning by themselves.

And we haven't even talked about he cost in walks from swinging at likely balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...