Can anyone hit the #$%&! dang ball.....?

[bleed orange and Black]

6 hours ago, Yossarian said:

Aside from the flacid bats at the plate, we are not doing anything to try to manufacture a run.  We have had situations with Mullins or Mateo at first and have not attempted a steal of second - both are very capable of doing this.  No hit and runs,  no bunt attempts with guys on base.  Nothing at all to put pressure on the defense and speed the game up.  It is very bizarre.  How can the entire team be in an 11- game slump and still not try to manufacture a run.  We need to put the pitcher/ defense in its collective heels.  They are all way too comfortable. 

 

[bleed orange and Black]

In my opinion this lack of hitting all rest on the shoulders of the hitting coach. I  understand the coach is not hitting but I have never seen a team swing and miss with the frequency the entire team is doing now. Some of these guys look like they don't have a clue and it's on the hitting coach to get them to a point where they do have a clue. If nothing else spend an entire batting practice bunting.  At least then they are watching the ball off the bat.

[SteveA]

8 minutes ago, bleed orange and Black said:

In my opinion this lack of hitting all rest on the shoulders of the hitting coach. I  understand the coach is not hitting but I have never seen a team swing and miss with the frequency the entire team is doing now. Some of these guys look like they don't have a clue and it's on the hitting coach to get them to a point where they do have a clue. If nothing else spend an entire batting practice bunting.  At least then they are watching the ball off the bat.

Which hitting coach?   We have a dynamic duo.

[bleed orange and Black]

And that's what makes it twice as bad since neither of them can figure out how to help these guys. 

[OriolesMagic83]

1 hour ago, bleed orange and Black said:

In my opinion this lack of hitting all rest on the shoulders of the hitting coach. I  understand the coach is not hitting but I have never seen a team swing and miss with the frequency the entire team is doing now. Some of these guys look like they don't have a clue and it's on the hitting coach to get them to a point where they do have a clue. If nothing else spend an entire batting practice bunting.  At least then they are watching the ball off the bat.

It's a swing and miss league.  Years ago, it was embarrassing to have 100 K's.  Now 100 K's probably leads most teams for least K's by full time players.  Every year, there is a new record for strike outs. 

[Pushmonkey]

I think this team needs a third hitting coach. 

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

Odor playing over Gutierrez makes little sense. How much longer does Odor get? I just don’t see the point in having him, upside is minimal, no real potential trade value, Infont get it. 

[Tony-OH]

15 hours ago, Frobby said:

I think you’re overplaying the “this is the fault of analytics” card.   A coach is always going to need to factor in many things, and make a split second decision.  Sometimes they misjudge badly.   At best, analytics might give them a very general idea of how aggressive or passive to be.   It’s not like they’re coaching 3B with an iPad in their hand.   

I think they are told to put the runner's on the contact play because analytics says it's the better percentage play. We are seeing it all over baseball. As for being more aggressive, I do think there are a lot of factors involved and sometimes it's a split second decision, but I do think  analytics tell them to err on the side of being aggressive. I'm not saying that's all bad, but getting runners thrown out by 20 feet is not fun to watch. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I think they are told to put the runner's on the contact play because analytics says it's the better percentage play. We are seeing it all over baseball. As for being more aggressive, I do think there are a loof factors involved and sometimes it's a split second decision, but I do think  analytics tell them to err on the side of being aggressive. I'm not saying that's all bad, but getting runners thrown out by 20 feet is not fun to watch. 

Also not fun when you get a guy on third with less than two outs and he doesn't score.

When your team fails it's not fun.

[wildcard]

1 hour ago, NelsonCruuuuuz said:

Odor playing over Gutierrez makes little sense. How much longer does Odor get? I just don’t see the point in having him, upside is minimal, no real potential trade value, Infont get it. 

What you see him throw out that guy at home yesterday?  Nice relay throw.

[Frobby]

38 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

I think they are told to put the runner's on the contact play because analytics says it's the better percentage play. We are seeing it all over baseball. As for being more aggressive, I do think there are a loof factors involved and sometimes it's a split second decision, but I do think  analytics tell them to err on the side of being aggressive. I'm not saying that's all bad, but getting runners thrown out by 20 feet is not fun to watch. 

I agree that “run on contact” has to be decided in advance.   But if analytics are involved, I’m sure they must take into account the speed of the runner and the quality of the next batter.    Those factors are just too obvious to ignore.  

[spiritof66]

19 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Maybe it's time for the fences to be moved back in most stadiums. With launch angles and hitters trying to hit home runs over making contact, I don't see many ways too change that without doing something drastic.

This way legitimate home run hitters will still hit home runs, but other players with less power might be incentivized to go for solid contact over trying to always hit home runs. 

I don't know if this is a good idea or not because 100 MPH relievers are not going away even with larger ballparks. 

Elite athletes in all sports have gotten bigger, stronger and faster over time. You can't change the fact that more pitchers can throw the ball really hard; you have a choice between letting that increase continue to change baseball and adapting the game in ways that will preserve or enhance things you want to encourage in baseball. 

Those changes might seem "drastic" in that they would change things about baseball most of us have lived with years (in my case, well over 60). But I wouldn't call a change from 60 feet 6 inches to 62 feet "drastic," in that I don't think I'd notice the change (as I would if the change were to, say, 75 feet). In any event, you can't avoid changes in the game. You can let them occur organically, or if you don't like those organic changes you can alter the rules to make the game better. Most if not all sports have to confront the increased the effects of increased size, speed and strength of elite players. Basketball and football frequently have altered their rules to deal with those changes. Baseball has not. I don't know why baseball has been different, but I strongly suspect that it's because baseball team owners and baseball fans tend to be more conservative and traditional about aspects of the game that are regarded as sacred cows and because baseball has long lacked strong, competent leadership. 

While you can't stop the increased number of pitchers who can throw really hard (or, as pitchers get taller, the increase in velocity at the plate as the distance from release to home shrinks), you can do things to undo or diminish the increase in strikeouts from  those changes. here are a few:  

• Move the pitching rubber back
• Limit the number of pitchers used in a game
• Reduce the number of pitchers on a roster
• Lower the mound
• Enact and enforce time limits on pitchers
• Require the pitcher to release the ball from behind a line
• Institute an electronic strike zone

I've left off some things, like requiring thicker bats and calling a batter out after, say, three two-strike fouls, whose effect on strikeouts would be less certain. And there are probably dozens of additional possibilities that I have heard and am forgetting , or haven't heard about. 

The impact of these sorts of changes would have to be experimented with in the context of major-league quality players; you can't assess their likely impact on major leaguers based on trials in AA or independent leagues. MLB so far has lacked the collective will to consider seriously changes that would alter the pitcher-batter confrontation, regardless of whether they might improve the game. But it's a mistake to say that baseball has a choice between keeping the game the same and tweaking the rules. Rather, as we've seen over the past few decades, the choice is between accepting changes that have occurred and will occur if baseball does nothing, and making proactive changes that might make the game better -- faster, more action-packed, with more fielding plays and base-running, the way some of us remember it.

[SilverRocket]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I agree that “run on contact” has to be decided in advance.   But if analytics are involved, I’m sure they must take into account the speed of the runner and the quality of the next batter.    Those factors are just too obvious to ignore.  

I would be surprised it doesn't take that into account.

I think it's right to run on contact with 1 out most of the time. They're getting an out no matter what, so the difference is just whether you have a runner on 1st vs 3rd. That only matters if the next batter hits specifically a single (if he hits a double then the runner likely scores from 1st with 2 outs anyways). It's just one of those that looks worse than it is because the fail rate is high, but cost is low (you're not giving up an out) and the reward is high.

This is different from sending Mancini on the fly ball the other day; that was really bad because they gave up an out.

[NelsonCruuuuuz]

4 hours ago, wildcard said:

What you see him throw out that guy at home yesterday?  Nice relay throw.

It’s nothing personal, just thinking Urias should be playing there and maybe give Nevin a look at 3b. Might help the offense. 

[DrungoHazewood]

On 4/20/2022 at 2:03 PM, Moose Milligan said:

Yeah, baseball is in a pickle.

Looking back on it, it seems logical that baseball would have been reduced to this but I'm not sure where the game goes from here.  The game needs less strikeouts and more balls in play.  I'm not sure how they accomplish that without starting to mess with sacred things like moving the mound back.  I'm not a purist but I think 60 feet 6 inches is one thing you don't change.  

I miss base stealing, doubles, triples, etc.  The game needs more action.  100 mph relievers were a novelty back in the day, they're a dime a dozen now.  

I don't know how you cut down on strikeouts without moving the mound back. 

Well, I guess there are less direct ways like limiting teams to seven or eight pitchers on the roster and strictly limiting callups and demotions to the minors.  But I'm not sure there's any appetite for that, since limiting to 13 pitchers was not wildly popular.

Or (and you knew this was coming) you could just revert to 1860s rules, which banned overhand and most sidearm pitching and forced pitchers to keep a stiff arm and both feet on the ground while delivering the ball.  In the early 1870s there were about 0.75 strikeouts per game.

It seems a lot more straightforward and less controversial to just set the pitcher's plate at 63' 6".  When they moved the pitching distance back in 1893 strikeouts fell by about 30%.