Colton Cowser 2024

[spleen1015]

Does it really matter?

[Sports Guy]

Just now, Pickles said:

He swung at a breaking ball that was a borderline strike.

That's the definition of a pitcher's pitch.

He was ahead in the count and had no strikes.

Why was he swinging at a pitcher's pitch with no strikes?  That's not a good decision.

I don't think I'm being dramatic.  I've stated over and over again it was a borderline strike.

@RZNJ If this is just about semantics, then yeah, ok, atrocious is too strong of a word.

It was a poor at bat and a poor decision, but it worked out well for him.

I mean, it was definitely a strike. Nothing borderline about it. It was clearly in the zone according to the MASN box.  Do agree it was more of a pitchers pitch though.

And yes, you are being overdramatic. Calling it a poor at bat is over the top.

I think it’s fair to call the swing decision questionable but that doesn’t mean it’s poor or atrocious. 

I also like that he went with the pitch instead of just rolling it over and hitting a weak grounder to first (even if that would have advanced the runner).  But it was the right approach with the pitch that was thrown.

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Not every hitter has the same "hot zones".  Based off of no where near enough data it appears that's a pitch he can handle.

And it was a strike.

If he can handle it so well, why'd he quib a dribbler down the line at about 55 mph?

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

I mean, it was definitely a strike. Nothing borderline about it. It was clearly in the zone according to the MASN box.  Do agree it was more of a pitchers pitch though.

And yes, you are being overdramatic. Calling it a poor at bat is over the top.

I think it’s fair to call the swing decision questionable but that doesn’t mean it’s poor or atrocious. 

I also like that he went with the pitch instead of just rolling it over and hitting a weak grounder to first (even if that would have advanced the runner).  But it was the right approach with the pitch that was thrown.

Well, I don't think he meant to hit it to the left side either.  That was not intentional imo.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Pickles said:

If he can handle it so well, why'd he quib a dribbler down the line at about 55 mph?

Because they aren't perfect?

I've seen guys miss hanging sinkers, middle-middle fastball, cookie curveballs, it's part of the game.

Did you see the first homerun Gunnar had this season?

Was that a bad swing decision on a 3-2 count?

[Sports Guy]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Well, I don't think he meant to hit it to the left side either.  That was not intentional imo.

lol ok.  
 

So now not only are you being over the top, you are also claiming that you know his intention. 
 

As I said, this is a little bat sh!t crazy.

[Pickles]

Just now, Can_of_corn said:

Because they aren't perfect?

I've seen guys miss hanging sinkers, middle-middle fastball, cookie curveballs, it's part of the game.

Did you see the first homerun Gunnar had this season?

Was that a bad swing decision on a 3-2 count?

No, because it was clearly a ball he could drive, as evidenced by him hitting it 410 feet.

I actually think the reason I might be on an island here is I don't think he intentionally hit that ball the other way.  I think he pulled off it and quibbed it.

If I thought he'd had gone with the pitch intentionally, hitting against the shift, as some seem to, then I'd be a lot better with the swing.

[Pickles]

4 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

lol ok.  
 

So now not only are you being over the top, you are also claiming that you know his intention. 
 

As I said, this is a little bat sh!t crazy.

You can watch the swing and you can tell he is not trying to hit the ball to the opposite field.  He clearly pulls off of it.

That's isn't reading his mind.  That's watching his swing mechanics.  

What's bat shit crazy is watching that hit, and going, "Yup.  That's what he meant to do.  Just how he drew it up.  55 mph cue ball 3 inches out of the reach of the 3rd baseman."

Edited April 3 by Pickles

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

No, because it was clearly a ball he could drive, as evidenced by him hitting it 410 feet.

I actually think the reason I might be on an island here is I don't think he intentionally hit that ball the other way.  I think he pulled off it and quibbed it.

If I thought he'd had gone with the pitch intentionally, hitting against the shift, as some seem to, then I'd be a lot better with the swing.

Let’s say you are right. Let’s say it was “an accident”.

It still likely would have been a productive at bat, as he would have likely rolled over on it and grounded to the right side. It would have been one of those “give yourself up” at bats you see so often.

Either way, not a poor or atrocious at bat.  Questionable swing decision?  Sure.  Productive at bat?  Absolutely.

[Sports Guy]

1 minute ago, Pickles said:

You can watch the swing and you can tell he is not trying to hit the ball to the opposite field.  He clearly pulls off of it.

That's isn't reading his mind.  That's watching his swing mechanics.  

But you don’t know his intention.  

[RZNJ]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Well, I don't think he meant to hit it to the left side either.  That was not intentional imo.

Perhaps he was trying to do what Jim Palmer wanted and didn’t execute.   When a player thinks they have to hit the ball to one side of the field it makes them a less effective hitter.   They start trying to force things like taking an outer zone off speed pitch and trying to pull it.  I’m not sure if that’s what happened or not.  When I see the replay it looks like his swing was geared to LF but he was too early on the pitch and cued it off the end of the bat.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Pickles said:

No, because it was clearly a ball he could drive, as evidenced by him hitting it 410 feet.

I actually think the reason I might be on an island here is I don't think he intentionally hit that ball the other way.  I think he pulled off it and quibbed it.

If I thought he'd had gone with the pitch intentionally, hitting against the shift, as some seem to, then I'd be a lot better with the swing.

So if Gunnar's swing had been incrementally different and he'd hit into an out you would still be happy with the swing decision?

Just because a player can drive a certain pitch doesn't mean it's a guarantee they will every time they try.

Like I said, I've seen hundred of guys miss cookies over the decades.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Sports Guy said:

But you don’t know his intention.  

Well, let's say his intentions were to hit the ball hard and to the right side.  Would you agree that was likely his intention as he's waiting for the pitch to come in?

Is that batshit crazy to assume?

Because if we assume that, then he swung at about the worst pitch imaginable (that's still a strike) in order to accomplish that, while being in a count where he didn't need to swing at all.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

So if Gunnar's swing had been incrementally different and he'd hit into an out you would still be happy with the swing decision?

Just because a player can drive a certain pitch doesn't mean it's a guarantee they will every time they try.

Like I said, I've seen hundred of guys miss cookies over the decades.

If he had hit the ball hard and at someone, I'd have been fine with it.  Remember, I'm the one arguing process here, not results.

 

[Pickles]

BTW, as an aside to all, I enjoy these discussions and debates infinitely more than all the off-season bs.

It's much better to have actual baseball to discuss.