MLB 2020

[Tangram]

Here's why I think starting extra innings with a guy on second is stupid. The Yankees beat the Orioles this afternoon in 10. Hunter Harvey threw a wild pitch and gave up a fly-out and took the loss. I'm happy my team won, but this is dumb. Any other inning it would have been one out with nobody on base.

I'm also not a fan of the 7-inning double-headers, but that's more understandable this season, since there are so many of them. Typically, there aren't enough double-headers to make that much of a difference.

But the extra inning rule is just too much.

Agree with you on both points. What's next, hit off a batting tee after 3 extra innings?

[NogbadTheBad]

The shift has been used since the 1920s. It's just being abused now. That being said, a guy who's getting paid $15 million per season can learn how to hit the other way, too.

Agree 100%

[Jerjo]

I love the way these extreme shifts throw some players off. If you can't tap a grounder to the opposite field when you have runners in scoring position, that's your problem and you need to take some extra BP.

[polmico]

Agree 100%

It does sound like common sense, right? Hit it where they ain't. But I think there's more to it than that.

Hitting the other way is difficult. And in its difficulty, it doesn't really cater to the hitter's strength (most hitters heavily shifted against are power pull hitters). I watch a lot of Freddie Freeman at bats (Braves at bats in general), and Freeman is pretty good at hitting the other way, but he doesn't generate much power that way. If he's successful, he must practice hitting the other way, right? He must train his process for that product? Here's what he said about it:

“ 'I’m trying to hit a liner to the shortstop,' admitted Freeman about his batting-practice routine. He agreed that, if he did exactly what he was practicing, he’d produce an out every time. When there are batters like Yonder Alonso attributing some of their newfound success to just trying to hit the ball over the infield — instead of through it — Freeman’s strategy even sounds behind the times. There’s a mechanical reason why that strategy helps, though. For one, staying up the middle means a batted ball will remain more 'true.' Balls hit to the power alleys won’t have that side spin that converts the ball’s energy into lateral movement. That appears to be the reason why batted balls with equal exit velocity go further in the power alleys. 'You won’t top the ball to right field' with this strategy, is how Freeman explains it."

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/freddie-...-bp-technique/

Were Freeman to focus on beating the shift, hitting it the other way, he'd completely ruin what makes him successful. By any metric, Freeman is a successful MLB hitter. But his success is determined by his process. If his process falters, or he alters it significantly to avoid a few ground ball outs to the shift, his product will suffer.

But bunting isn't that hard, right? Would a hitter rather have a 2/4 day with two bunt singles against the shift or an 0/4 hitting into the shift? How about a 1/4 with a HR over the shift (and three grounders into the shift)? Which day was more successful from the hitter's viewpoint? From the pitcher's? (I suppose a correct response would be, "Well, it depends on the situation." But that's true for every AB regardless of the hitter or the defense.)

Here's what decently successful MLB hitter Kyle Seager said a few years ago about hitting and shifting:

"It goes back to the question of 'How can I help the team the most?' Am I going to help the team the most over the course of the season hitting weak ground balls to shortstop [for a single]? I'm not a guy who steals a bunch of bases, so you're relying on a few hits to score me. If I try to drive the ball and I hit a double, it only takes one hit to score me. I definitely understand how people can look at it and say, 'Man, just hit a ball to the left side.' But there are a lot of different arguments to it.' "

If your number 3 or 4 hitter is being shifted against and bunts or hits a grounder the other way for a single, most defenses will look at that as a success (again, depending on the situation).

Here's the whole article from which the Seager quote comes. It's interesting reading especially the quotes from Matt Carpenter.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ust-beat-shift

Logically, it seems that if the shift is going to be beat, it will take training a new generation of spray hitters. How many fans are willing to sacrifice a .240 / 40 HR season for .310 / 15 HR season? How many players? And, yes, it'd be great to be a .310 / 40 HR hitter, but everyone ain't Mike Trout.

[polmico]

Agree with you on both points. What's next, hit off a batting tee after 3 extra innings?

Still rather mixed about the runner on 2nd thing. It's gimmicky as all heck. I will always contend that sports are a TV show, and makes a better TV product? A three-hour game that ends (rather artificially) in the 10th on a bunt or a four-hour extra innings game that ends on a bloop single by your back-up catcher? I don't really have an answer. Just being contrarian.

But I love the 7-inning double header. There's a weird urgency to it that is fascinating. I'd be ok if this and the universal DH became permanent changes. Heck, the NL should've had the DH beginning way back in 1980 (another interesting read if you have never heard the story):

https://www.sportscasting.com/a-fish...d-hitter-rule/

[ronmac]

Agree with you on both points. What's next, hit off a batting tee after 3 extra innings?

Maybe underhand slow pitch?

I love the way these extreme shifts throw some players off. If you can't tap a grounder to the opposite field when you have runners in scoring position, that's your problem and you need to take some extra BP.

THIS!

Or learn how to bunt, which seems to have become a lost art over the last few decades.

It does sound like common sense, right? Hit it where they ain't. But I think there's more to it than that....

Perhaps, but one only has to hit it the other way (or even drop down a bunt) a few times to remove the shift. It's not like they need to do it every time. I was frustrated by Mark Texiera, for example. Instead of hitting the other way, he decided to try to hit through it or put it over the fence. His numbers plummeted. If you ask me, that's the definition of the shift working more than anything. The player adjusted, but in the wrong way. Even a few soft grounders or a bunt to the opposite field would have helped. And, like I said, these guys are getting paid far too much to not adjust to the game. That's like a pitcher not adjusting their game when they get to the third time through an opposing team's lineup during a game. "Well, it worked for the first two innings..."

I will always contend that sports are a TV show, and makes a better TV product?

But these sports preceded TV by decades.

[polmico]

Perhaps, but one only has to hit it the other way (or even drop down a bunt) a few times to remove the shift. It's not like they need to do it every time.

I think most defenses would gladly eliminate a hitter's strength. They'd love turning a power pull hitter into a singles hitter. I might be wrong on this, but the trade-off seems acceptable. Kyle Seager again: "We've had meetings and talked about this stuff. If you're facing David Ortiz, and he bunts over there and gets a single, he may have just done us a favor. If we let Ortiz beat us with a bunt as opposed to him hitting a homer, maybe that's OK." If Ortiz (or Tex or Bonds or whomever) is hitting single after single after single, then so be it. You've just eliminated one of the ways in which that team can likely beat you. That Texeira couldn't adjust at all (through launch angle or altering his approach to hit the other way more often) likely suggests his limitations as a hitter. Perhaps he was merely average rather than truly good. (I don't feel like looking up the numbers but am, again, willing to admit I'm missing something here.)

But these sports preceded TV by decades.

This is true of politics, too. And yet . . .

(Ok. I'll admit that I just made a false analogy, yet I couldn't resist.).

[Jerjo]

'Bout a week ago the Twins were tied in the bottom of the ninth with Buxton at the plate and speedster Nelson Cruz on third. Buxton takes an outside pitch and deliberately slaps at it, a slow four-hopper to the shortstop. The point it, a good hitter should be able to somewhat slap the ball into either side of the infield, ESPECIALLY if that's all you need to win the game.

https://www.mlb.com/video/tigers-cha...uxton-singles-

[polmico]

^ Were all MLB hitters good situational hitters, as good as Nelson Cruz is, then we'd have a very different game. Think about all the times you've watched a game where there is a runner on third and less than two outs, and all the hitter needs to do is get a deep fly to score the run. It doesn't happen every time even for good hitters.

As a fan, I sometimes forget how difficult the game is. I think, "These guys make a shit ton of money; they should be able to do X, Y and Z with aplomb." But it just isn't that easy, is it. And, again, a lot of these hitters are successful, even in a limited scope (this guy is a power hitter, that guy is a spray hitter, that guy has oppo power) because of their process.

Also, Nelson Cruz is fucking awesome. Hall of Famer for sure.

[ronmac]

Kyle Seager again: "We've had meetings and talked about this stuff. If you're facing David Ortiz, and he bunts over there and gets a single, he may have just done us a favor. If we let Ortiz beat us with a bunt as opposed to him hitting a homer, maybe that's OK."

Then why not just walk Ortiz if a single is a favor? Last time I checked, Ortiz still would have had a roughly 70% chance of making an out. If baseball is a game of odds...

[polmico]

Ortiz slugged .552 for his career. He wasn’t hitting singles. If you consider he’s going to hit every third time, why wouldn’t you be happy to make him a singles hitter?

Again, what’s a better line from the hitter’s perspective ? 2/4 with two singles against the shift or 1/4 with a two-run homer over the shift. It is a game of odds, but it’s also a game of macro-data. Two singles in a game against the shift may look good at the micro level. But what does a season of that look like. And, yes, a team would continue shifting against a power hitter if it limited his power.

[ronmac]

If you walk hm, he still gets on base and there's no chance of an error or a runner advancing more than one base.

Look, I get it and I'm not trying to be dickish or anything like that. Just a good healthy baseball discussion.

I just think a batter can increase his effectiveness by occasionally taking the ball the other way, whether it's by a bunt, a liner or a dribbler, and thereby eliminating the shift. Teams will decide to do what they think gives them the best chance of the least damage. If it's going with the shift, so be it.

[Lou]

I don't see why people have a problem with the shift. Same number of players on the field. Defense leaving themselves vulnerable on one side. It's up to the offense to make adjustments.

[Poisoned Youth]

I don't see why people have a problem with the shift. Same number of players on the field. Defense leaving themselves vulnerable on one side. It's up to the offense to make adjustments.

I don't care for the shifts, but it's a critical part of the analytics game, so it's here to stay. As long as they institute universal DH going forward, I'm fine with it.

[polmico]

Look, I get it and I'm not trying to be dickish or anything like that. Just a good healthy baseball discussion.

Oh yeah. No worries.

[Shadow]

In four games against the Yankees the Orioles score three runs, tonight against the Braves they score fourteen runs and give up one.

[loshammeros]

With the 7 inning double headers does a pitcher get "true" credit for a shut out complete game?

[Shadow]

With the 7 inning double headers does a pitcher get "true" credit for a shut out complete game?

Is your ERA based on 7 or 9 innings.

[Lou]

With the 7 inning double headers does a pitcher get "true" credit for a shut out complete game?

I would think so. He pitched the entirety of an official MLB game. I guess it would be the same as if he had a shut out after 7 innings and the game
was called due to rain.

[Shadow]

Why was the Orioles first game only seven innings.

[ronmac]

Why was the Orioles first game only seven innings.

Double headers are seven-inning games now

[ronmac]

Yankees set a franchise record and tied a MLB record with five dingers in one inning against the Jays tonight. They also set a MLB record with 18 HRs in three games (well, 2-1/2 games, actually).

After a miserable 5-15 run, they are on a tear just at the right time.

[ronmac]

Yankees set a franchise record and tied a MLB record with five dingers in one inning against the Jays tonight. They also set a MLB record with 18 HRs in three games (well, 2-1/2 games, actually).

After a miserable 5-15 run, they are on a tear just at the right time.

Make that 19.

First team in MLB history to hit at least six HRs in three straight games

[Tangram]

Make that 19.

First team in MLB history to hit at least six HRs in three straight games

Damn, missed most of it watching hockey. I did know they outscored the Jets and Giants the other day.

[Jerjo]

The way the umps are calling balls and strikes this year, I bet we're going to go computerized calls at the plate sooner than later. I swear, every ump behind home plate thinks he's Angel Hernandez now.