[Giants]

Was just looking at the SFG ten draft selections.  No Stanford players, one Cal player.  Top nine are pitchers.  

Can't get too exercised about the draft.  Usually get one really decent player out of it.

In Farhan we trust, I suppose.  For example, take the 2011 draft.  Joe Panik was their top pick, solid player and one-time all star, batted over .300 until injuries beat him up too much.  #2 pick Kyle Crick has pitched in long relief for Pittsburgh for four years.  #3 Andrew Susac had one really good year for the Giants, then injuries.  #4-#6 never made the bigs.  #7 was Josh Osich, durable long reliever, rookie year for Giants was great, then he fell off (still playing for Cincy).  Has played for five teams in the last four years.  #8 Ray Black, throws 100 mph, control issues, 5.53 ERA, out of baseball for two years.
 
BTW, the Athletic FINALLY ranked the Giants as the #1 team in baseball – and the Giants have had the best record in baseball since May 31, had the best record as early as May 3.

You have to factor subsequent trades into the draft results to get a true picture.

For example, Susac (and former #1, Phil Bickford) was traded for Will Smith who had a couple solid years with SF. In turn, Smith was non-tendered in 2019 and the draft choice SF received when Smith signed with Atlanta, Jimmy Glowenke, is now playing for the San Jose Giants.

There are quite a few other examples of great deals made by the Giants that involved guys SF drafted for established players.

As for this year, I think that if they hit three out of the nine pitchers drafted, the exercise will have been a big success.

[Giants]

Was just looking at the SFG ten draft selections.  No Stanford players, one Cal player.  Top nine are pitchers.  

Can't get too exercised about the draft.  Usually get one really decent player out of it.

In Farhan we trust, I suppose.  For example, take the 2011 draft.  Joe Panik was their top pick, solid player and one-time all star, batted over .300 until injuries beat him up too much.  #2 pick Kyle Crick has pitched in long relief for Pittsburgh for four years.  #3 Andrew Susac had one really good year for the Giants, then injuries.  #4-#6 never made the bigs.  #7 was Josh Osich, durable long reliever, rookie year for Giants was great, then he fell off (still playing for Cincy).  Has played for five teams in the last four years.  #8 Ray Black, throws 100 mph, control issues, 5.53 ERA, out of baseball for two years.
 
BTW, the Athletic FINALLY ranked the Giants as the #1 team in baseball – and the Giants have had the best record in baseball since May 31, had the best record as early as May 3.

You have to factor subsequent trades into the draft results to get a true picture.

For example, Susac (and former #1, Phil Bickford) was traded for Will Smith who had a couple solid years with SF. In turn, Smith was non-tendered in 2019 and the draft choice SF received when Smith signed with Atlanta, Jimmy Glowenke, is now playing for the San Jose Giants.

There are quite a few other examples of great deals made by the Giants that involved guys SF drafted for established players.

As for this year, I think that if they hit three out of the nine pitchers drafted, the exercise will have been a big success.

[Mick]

BTW, the Athletic FINALLY ranked the Giants as the #1 team in baseball – and the Giants have had the best record in baseball since May 31, had the best record as early as May 3.

I think the term you are looking for is "strong priors".  For what it is worth, Fivethirtyeight's Elo rankings have the Giants eighth:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/202...edictions/

But they are explicit that each game moves the needle very little, and the Giants started as a below-average team.  You can see the team's tragectory here:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/202...ns/giants/

Giants are currently projecte second in the Division with a 91% chance to make the playoffs.

BC

I like that.  That means, when the Giants sweep the playoffs and win the WS, 538 will have them advance all the way to third best...

[Mick]

BTW, the Athletic FINALLY ranked the Giants as the #1 team in baseball – and the Giants have had the best record in baseball since May 31, had the best record as early as May 3.

I think the term you are looking for is "strong priors".  For what it is worth, Fivethirtyeight's Elo rankings have the Giants eighth:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/202...edictions/

But they are explicit that each game moves the needle very little, and the Giants started as a below-average team.  You can see the team's tragectory here:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/202...ns/giants/

Giants are currently projecte second in the Division with a 91% chance to make the playoffs.

BC

I like that.  That means, when the Giants sweep the playoffs and win the WS, 538 will have them advance all the way to third best...

[Giants]

Lol…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kennlandry/status/1412217441959112707?s=21[/tweet]

BC

0-1 on batted balls in play (grounded out to SS).

If I could make three changes to baseball, I would…

1. Eliminate the ghost runner in extra innings
2. Eliminate seven inning games on doubleheader days
3. Eliminate shifting by compelling two infielders to play on each side of 2B and permit them to play no deeper than the edge of the dirt.

In a press conference today, Manfred indicated the ghost runner and the 7 inning doubleheaders will probably not return next year.  He stated they were COVID-related adjustments that were not intended to be long term rule changes.  In addition, he said that the shift issue will be examined in the off-season.

I would suggest that today was a very good day for baseball……

[Giants]

Lol…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kennlandry/status/1412217441959112707?s=21[/tweet]

BC

0-1 on batted balls in play (grounded out to SS).

If I could make three changes to baseball, I would…

1. Eliminate the ghost runner in extra innings
2. Eliminate seven inning games on doubleheader days
3. Eliminate shifting by compelling two infielders to play on each side of 2B and permit them to play no deeper than the edge of the dirt.

In a press conference today, Manfred indicated the ghost runner and the 7 inning doubleheaders will probably not return next year.  He stated they were COVID-related adjustments that were not intended to be long term rule changes.  In addition, he said that the shift issue will be examined in the off-season.

I would suggest that today was a very good day for baseball……

[Goose]

I know lots of people on this board have complained about "the shift". The way I see it, if the batter is totally incapable of hitting the ball to the opposite field, he deserves what he gets. Belt could hit 0.350 if he just learned to place the ball in play toward the vacant side of the field. I know that isn't totally trivial to do, but if you are a professional player, you should be able to do that. You won't hit home runs that way, but you will get a lot of hits. Do that until they have to play you straight up.

[Goose]

I know lots of people on this board have complained about "the shift". The way I see it, if the batter is totally incapable of hitting the ball to the opposite field, he deserves what he gets. Belt could hit 0.350 if he just learned to place the ball in play toward the vacant side of the field. I know that isn't totally trivial to do, but if you are a professional player, you should be able to do that. You won't hit home runs that way, but you will get a lot of hits. Do that until they have to play you straight up.

[lex24]

I know lots of people on this board have complained about "the shift". The way I see it, if the batter is totally incapable of hitting the ball to the opposite field, he deserves what he gets. Belt could hit 0.350 if he just learned to place the ball in play toward the vacant side of the field. I know that isn't totally trivial to do, but if you are a professional player, you should be able to do that. You won't hit home runs that way, but you will get a lot of hits. Do that until they have to play you straight up.

Logical. 

 But the thinking in today’s game is singles don’t matter. Because teams aren’t going to bunch hits together. It’s walks and power. Look at the Giants. Their offense is centered on walks and HRs.  They strike out a ton. And they don’t situationally hit very well. Having said that they are  still one of the better offensive teams in the league right now statistically. 

If you want to look at the statistics that perhaps best explains the giants philosophy compare the number of walks they’ve taken with the number of walks they’ve given up. And the HRs hit vs given up. Very big differential. 

Walks have become more important than singles. So while what you said is logical, hitters just aren’t gonna do it. Because to an extent it’s playing into the opponents hands.

[lex24]

I know lots of people on this board have complained about "the shift". The way I see it, if the batter is totally incapable of hitting the ball to the opposite field, he deserves what he gets. Belt could hit 0.350 if he just learned to place the ball in play toward the vacant side of the field. I know that isn't totally trivial to do, but if you are a professional player, you should be able to do that. You won't hit home runs that way, but you will get a lot of hits. Do that until they have to play you straight up.

Logical. 

 But the thinking in today’s game is singles don’t matter. Because teams aren’t going to bunch hits together. It’s walks and power. Look at the Giants. Their offense is centered on walks and HRs.  They strike out a ton. And they don’t situationally hit very well. Having said that they are  still one of the better offensive teams in the league right now statistically. 

If you want to look at the statistics that perhaps best explains the giants philosophy compare the number of walks they’ve taken with the number of walks they’ve given up. And the HRs hit vs given up. Very big differential. 

Walks have become more important than singles. So while what you said is logical, hitters just aren’t gonna do it. Because to an extent it’s playing into the opponents hands.

[Goose]

I know lots of people on this board have complained about "the shift". The way I see it, if the batter is totally incapable of hitting the ball to the opposite field, he deserves what he gets. Belt could hit 0.350 if he just learned to place the ball in play toward the vacant side of the field. I know that isn't totally trivial to do, but if you are a professional player, you should be able to do that. You won't hit home runs that way, but you will get a lot of hits. Do that until they have to play you straight up.

Logical. 

 But the thinking in today’s game is singles don’t matter. Because teams aren’t going to bunch hits together. It’s walks and power. Look at the Giants. Their offense is centered on walks and HRs.  They strike out a ton. And they don’t situationally hit very well. Having said that they are  still one of the better offensive teams in the league right now statistically. 

If you want to look at the statistics that perhaps best explains the giants philosophy compare the number of walks they’ve taken with the number of walks they’ve given up. And the HRs hit vs given up. Very big differential. 

Walks have become more important than singles. So while what you said is logical, hitters just aren’t gonna do it. Because to an extent it’s playing into the opponents hands.

I agree that the Giants are living and dying by the long ball, but a sure, safe, hit is the same as a walk. The Giants need runners on base to make those HRs be more efficient. If you can tap the ball through the empty SS hole reliably, it is as good as a walk. Better than bashing the ball into a packed right side of the infield. Unfortunately, you are correct. Players just aren't going to do it, partly because it makes them look "weak". However, asking for a rule change to cater to this behavior is IMHO silly. Might as well put squares in the outfield too where every outfielder must stand until the ball is pitched. Defense does have a place in the game!

[Goose]

I know lots of people on this board have complained about "the shift". The way I see it, if the batter is totally incapable of hitting the ball to the opposite field, he deserves what he gets. Belt could hit 0.350 if he just learned to place the ball in play toward the vacant side of the field. I know that isn't totally trivial to do, but if you are a professional player, you should be able to do that. You won't hit home runs that way, but you will get a lot of hits. Do that until they have to play you straight up.

Logical. 

 But the thinking in today’s game is singles don’t matter. Because teams aren’t going to bunch hits together. It’s walks and power. Look at the Giants. Their offense is centered on walks and HRs.  They strike out a ton. And they don’t situationally hit very well. Having said that they are  still one of the better offensive teams in the league right now statistically. 

If you want to look at the statistics that perhaps best explains the giants philosophy compare the number of walks they’ve taken with the number of walks they’ve given up. And the HRs hit vs given up. Very big differential. 

Walks have become more important than singles. So while what you said is logical, hitters just aren’t gonna do it. Because to an extent it’s playing into the opponents hands.

I agree that the Giants are living and dying by the long ball, but a sure, safe, hit is the same as a walk. The Giants need runners on base to make those HRs be more efficient. If you can tap the ball through the empty SS hole reliably, it is as good as a walk. Better than bashing the ball into a packed right side of the infield. Unfortunately, you are correct. Players just aren't going to do it, partly because it makes them look "weak". However, asking for a rule change to cater to this behavior is IMHO silly. Might as well put squares in the outfield too where every outfielder must stand until the ball is pitched. Defense does have a place in the game!

[Phogge]

I like the interesting hitters: Carew, Rose, Kuenn, Clemente. Use the whole field.

Home runs are for kids and shallow homecoming queens.

[Phogge]

I like the interesting hitters: Carew, Rose, Kuenn, Clemente. Use the whole field.

Home runs are for kids and shallow homecoming queens.

[BostonCard]

I think the logic is that a walk gets the runner to first base 100% of the time, but a ball hit into play will result in an out ~70% of the time (a typical batting average of balls hit into play is .300).  However, the way Lex phrased it is wrong; a single and walk are close to equivalent (not quite, because a walk will only advance a runner who can be forced to advance one base, while a single will almost always advance a runner, and can advance a runner more than one base).  The issue is that when you put the ball in play, you cannot guarantee a single.  On the other hand, a typical plate appearance will draw around 4 pitches, while the minimum pitch count for a walk is 4, so under the theory that getting the pitcher to pitch more pitches is good, a walk has that advantage over a single.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think the logic is that a walk gets the runner to first base 100% of the time, but a ball hit into play will result in an out ~70% of the time (a typical batting average of balls hit into play is .300).  However, the way Lex phrased it is wrong; a single and walk are close to equivalent (not quite, because a walk will only advance a runner who can be forced to advance one base, while a single will almost always advance a runner, and can advance a runner more than one base).  The issue is that when you put the ball in play, you cannot guarantee a single.  On the other hand, a typical plate appearance will draw around 4 pitches, while the minimum pitch count for a walk is 4, so under the theory that getting the pitcher to pitch more pitches is good, a walk has that advantage over a single.

BC

[Goose]

I think the logic is that a walk gets the runner to first base 100% of the time, but a ball hit into play will result in an out ~70% of the time (a typical batting average of balls hit into play is .300).  However, the way Lex phrased it is wrong; a single and walk are close to equivalent (not quite, because a walk will only advance a runner who can be forced to advance one base, while a single will almost always advance a runner, and can advance a runner more than one base).  The issue is that when you put the ball in play, you cannot guarantee a single.  On the other hand, a typical plate appearance will draw around 4 pitches, while the minimum pitch count for a walk is 4, so under the theory that getting the pitcher to pitch more pitches is good, a walk has that advantage over a single.

BC

A walk does have advantages over a single in many cases because it makes the pitcher throw more pitches. However, waiting for a walk results in lots of called third strikes. You don't get a walk on demand. I think it is axiomatic that you don't swing at pitches that are out of the strike zone. If they walk you, great. If the count involves 2 strikes, you have to be real sure the pitch is a ball if you chose not to swing at it.
With the shift, the probability of reaching base safely will go WAY up from less than 0.3 if you can slap the ball into the open side of the field. A guy like Carew could hit 0.950 against such a defense. If you are in a situation where strike 3 is coming (so you have to swing at it), going to the open side of the infield should be the obvious strategy. This is independent of any other "strategic" considerations. You can either 1) get on base with very high probability by hitting to the open side of the field, 2) drive the ball into the teeth of the defense (if you are lucky), or 3) take a called third strike. Choice seams clear to me.

[Goose]

I think the logic is that a walk gets the runner to first base 100% of the time, but a ball hit into play will result in an out ~70% of the time (a typical batting average of balls hit into play is .300).  However, the way Lex phrased it is wrong; a single and walk are close to equivalent (not quite, because a walk will only advance a runner who can be forced to advance one base, while a single will almost always advance a runner, and can advance a runner more than one base).  The issue is that when you put the ball in play, you cannot guarantee a single.  On the other hand, a typical plate appearance will draw around 4 pitches, while the minimum pitch count for a walk is 4, so under the theory that getting the pitcher to pitch more pitches is good, a walk has that advantage over a single.

BC

A walk does have advantages over a single in many cases because it makes the pitcher throw more pitches. However, waiting for a walk results in lots of called third strikes. You don't get a walk on demand. I think it is axiomatic that you don't swing at pitches that are out of the strike zone. If they walk you, great. If the count involves 2 strikes, you have to be real sure the pitch is a ball if you chose not to swing at it.
With the shift, the probability of reaching base safely will go WAY up from less than 0.3 if you can slap the ball into the open side of the field. A guy like Carew could hit 0.950 against such a defense. If you are in a situation where strike 3 is coming (so you have to swing at it), going to the open side of the infield should be the obvious strategy. This is independent of any other "strategic" considerations. You can either 1) get on base with very high probability by hitting to the open side of the field, 2) drive the ball into the teeth of the defense (if you are lucky), or 3) take a called third strike. Choice seams clear to me.

[BostonCard]

Was just looking at the SFG ten draft selections.  No Stanford players, one Cal player.  Top nine are pitchers.  

LOL, the Angels drafted 20 pitchers in 20 rounds.

BC

[BostonCard]

Was just looking at the SFG ten draft selections.  No Stanford players, one Cal player.  Top nine are pitchers.  

LOL, the Angels drafted 20 pitchers in 20 rounds.

BC

[Mick]

I know lots of people on this board have complained about "the shift". The way I see it, if the batter is totally incapable of hitting the ball to the opposite field, he deserves what he gets. Belt could hit 0.350 if he just learned to place the ball in play toward the vacant side of the field. I know that isn't totally trivial to do, but if you are a professional player, you should be able to do that. You won't hit home runs that way, but you will get a lot of hits. Do that until they have to play you straight up.

Logical. 

 But the thinking in today’s game is singles don’t matter. Because teams aren’t going to bunch hits together. It’s walks and power. Look at the Giants. Their offense is centered on walks and HRs.  They strike out a ton. And they don’t situationally hit very well. Having said that they are  still one of the better offensive teams in the league right now statistically. 

If you want to look at the statistics that perhaps best explains the giants philosophy compare the number of walks they’ve taken with the number of walks they’ve given up. And the HRs hit vs given up. Very big differential. 

Walks have become more important than singles. So while what you said is logical, hitters just aren’t gonna do it. Because to an extent it’s playing into the opponents hands.

I agree that the Giants are living and dying by the long ball, but a sure, safe, hit is the same as a walk. The Giants need runners on base to make those HRs be more efficient. If you can tap the ball through the empty SS hole reliably, it is as good as a walk. Better than bashing the ball into a packed right side of the infield. Unfortunately, you are correct. Players just aren't going to do it, partly because it makes them look "weak". However, asking for a rule change to cater to this behavior is IMHO silly. Might as well put squares in the outfield too where every outfielder must stand until the ball is pitched. Defense does have a place in the game!

Giants have been improving all year.  Their April OPS was #12 in MLB (.700), May was #5 (.766), June was #4 (.791), and July was #2 (.847, so far). The difference was even more pronounced in batting averages, from #22 (.225) in April to #16 (.236) to #6 (.259) in June and #2 (.284)
 in July.
 They are really accelerating.

---

Was just looking at the SFG ten draft selections.  No Stanford players, one Cal player.  Top nine are pitchers.  

LOL, the Angels drafted 20 pitchers in 20 rounds.

BC

In the last 10 rounds, SF selected:

Here’s the breakdown of the Giants 20 total picks, counting Dula as a pitcher, since that seems to be the skillset that led to him being drafted:

Right-handed pitchers: 10
Left-handed pitchers: 4
Position players: 6
Catchers: 0
Right-handed hitters: 3
Left-handed hitters: 2
Switch hitters: 1
College players: 16
Prep players: 4

https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2021/7...raft-day-3

[Mick]

I know lots of people on this board have complained about "the shift". The way I see it, if the batter is totally incapable of hitting the ball to the opposite field, he deserves what he gets. Belt could hit 0.350 if he just learned to place the ball in play toward the vacant side of the field. I know that isn't totally trivial to do, but if you are a professional player, you should be able to do that. You won't hit home runs that way, but you will get a lot of hits. Do that until they have to play you straight up.

Logical. 

 But the thinking in today’s game is singles don’t matter. Because teams aren’t going to bunch hits together. It’s walks and power. Look at the Giants. Their offense is centered on walks and HRs.  They strike out a ton. And they don’t situationally hit very well. Having said that they are  still one of the better offensive teams in the league right now statistically. 

If you want to look at the statistics that perhaps best explains the giants philosophy compare the number of walks they’ve taken with the number of walks they’ve given up. And the HRs hit vs given up. Very big differential. 

Walks have become more important than singles. So while what you said is logical, hitters just aren’t gonna do it. Because to an extent it’s playing into the opponents hands.

I agree that the Giants are living and dying by the long ball, but a sure, safe, hit is the same as a walk. The Giants need runners on base to make those HRs be more efficient. If you can tap the ball through the empty SS hole reliably, it is as good as a walk. Better than bashing the ball into a packed right side of the infield. Unfortunately, you are correct. Players just aren't going to do it, partly because it makes them look "weak". However, asking for a rule change to cater to this behavior is IMHO silly. Might as well put squares in the outfield too where every outfielder must stand until the ball is pitched. Defense does have a place in the game!

Giants have been improving all year.  Their April OPS was #12 in MLB (.700), May was #5 (.766), June was #4 (.791), and July was #2 (.847, so far). The difference was even more pronounced in batting averages, from #22 (.225) in April to #16 (.236) to #6 (.259) in June and #2 (.284)
 in July.
 They are really accelerating.

---

Was just looking at the SFG ten draft selections.  No Stanford players, one Cal player.  Top nine are pitchers.  

LOL, the Angels drafted 20 pitchers in 20 rounds.

BC

In the last 10 rounds, SF selected:

Here’s the breakdown of the Giants 20 total picks, counting Dula as a pitcher, since that seems to be the skillset that led to him being drafted:

Right-handed pitchers: 10
Left-handed pitchers: 4
Position players: 6
Catchers: 0
Right-handed hitters: 3
Left-handed hitters: 2
Switch hitters: 1
College players: 16
Prep players: 4

https://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2021/7...raft-day-3

[lex24]

I think the logic is that a walk gets the runner to first base 100% of the time, but a ball hit into play will result in an out ~70% of the time (a typical batting average of balls hit into play is .300).  However, the way Lex phrased it is wrong; a single and walk are close to equivalent (not quite, because a walk will only advance a runner who can be forced to advance one base, while a single will almost always advance a runner, and can advance a runner more than one base).  The issue is that when you put the ball in play, you cannot guarantee a single.  On the other hand, a typical plate appearance will draw around 4 pitches, while the minimum pitch count for a walk is 4, so under the theory that getting the pitcher to pitch more pitches is good, a walk has that advantage over a single.

BC

I don’t believe that “a walk is as good as a hit”. That was not my point.  My point is the value of a walk has risen considerably.  And the value of a single has dropped. In the minds of those that run the game. 

Taking close pitches with 2 strikes is another change. Taking a called third used to be heavily frowned upon. So you swung if it was close with two strikes.  Now, not such a big deal.  Take the pitch.  You probably aren’t going to hit it anyway….

[lex24]

I think the logic is that a walk gets the runner to first base 100% of the time, but a ball hit into play will result in an out ~70% of the time (a typical batting average of balls hit into play is .300).  However, the way Lex phrased it is wrong; a single and walk are close to equivalent (not quite, because a walk will only advance a runner who can be forced to advance one base, while a single will almost always advance a runner, and can advance a runner more than one base).  The issue is that when you put the ball in play, you cannot guarantee a single.  On the other hand, a typical plate appearance will draw around 4 pitches, while the minimum pitch count for a walk is 4, so under the theory that getting the pitcher to pitch more pitches is good, a walk has that advantage over a single.

BC

I don’t believe that “a walk is as good as a hit”. That was not my point.  My point is the value of a walk has risen considerably.  And the value of a single has dropped. In the minds of those that run the game. 

Taking close pitches with 2 strikes is another change. Taking a called third used to be heavily frowned upon. So you swung if it was close with two strikes.  Now, not such a big deal.  Take the pitch.  You probably aren’t going to hit it anyway….

[Goose]

Taking close pitches with 2 strikes is another change. Taking a called third used to be heavily frowned upon. So you swung if it was close with two strikes.  Now, not such a big deal.  Take the pitch.  You probably aren’t going to hit it anyway….

Unfortunately, taking the pitch does make sense. If it is truly a "50-50" pitch, which half the time will be called a ball, you are probably better of taking it, unless you are hitting .500. It is not that simple of course. Hitters that do that a lot will find that the Umps will tend to call the pitch a strike. If you are a great hitter known to have a good eye, you may get the benefit of some calls, but if you get a reputation of being passive, you get the opposite. Also, late in the game where everybody wants to go home, if it doesn't go to the backstop it is probably a strike. Recognizing the 50-50 pitch can be as difficult as hitting it.

[Goose]

Taking close pitches with 2 strikes is another change. Taking a called third used to be heavily frowned upon. So you swung if it was close with two strikes.  Now, not such a big deal.  Take the pitch.  You probably aren’t going to hit it anyway….

Unfortunately, taking the pitch does make sense. If it is truly a "50-50" pitch, which half the time will be called a ball, you are probably better of taking it, unless you are hitting .500. It is not that simple of course. Hitters that do that a lot will find that the Umps will tend to call the pitch a strike. If you are a great hitter known to have a good eye, you may get the benefit of some calls, but if you get a reputation of being passive, you get the opposite. Also, late in the game where everybody wants to go home, if it doesn't go to the backstop it is probably a strike. Recognizing the 50-50 pitch can be as difficult as hitting it.

[lex24]

Taking close pitches with 2 strikes is another change. Taking a called third used to be heavily frowned upon. So you swung if it was close with two strikes.  Now, not such a big deal.  Take the pitch.  You probably aren’t going to hit it anyway….

Unfortunately, taking the pitch does make sense. If it is truly a "50-50" pitch, which half the time will be called a ball, you are probably better of taking it, unless you are hitting .500. It is not that simple of course. Hitters that do that a lot will find that the Umps will tend to call the pitch a strike. If you are a great hitter known to have a good eye, you may get the benefit of some calls, but if you get a reputation of being passive, you get the opposite. Also, late in the game where everybody wants to go home, if it doesn't go to the backstop it is probably a strike. Recognizing the 50-50 pitch can be as difficult as hitting it.

To me it depends on the situation.  If you are in a run producing situation, taking a 50/50 pitch with two strikes is much different than if no one is on.  Because in the former situation, a strike out hurts much more.  Situational hitting.  It’s not just for Grandpa’s baseball players.

[lex24]

Taking close pitches with 2 strikes is another change. Taking a called third used to be heavily frowned upon. So you swung if it was close with two strikes.  Now, not such a big deal.  Take the pitch.  You probably aren’t going to hit it anyway….

Unfortunately, taking the pitch does make sense. If it is truly a "50-50" pitch, which half the time will be called a ball, you are probably better of taking it, unless you are hitting .500. It is not that simple of course. Hitters that do that a lot will find that the Umps will tend to call the pitch a strike. If you are a great hitter known to have a good eye, you may get the benefit of some calls, but if you get a reputation of being passive, you get the opposite. Also, late in the game where everybody wants to go home, if it doesn't go to the backstop it is probably a strike. Recognizing the 50-50 pitch can be as difficult as hitting it.

To me it depends on the situation.  If you are in a run producing situation, taking a 50/50 pitch with two strikes is much different than if no one is on.  Because in the former situation, a strike out hurts much more.  Situational hitting.  It’s not just for Grandpa’s baseball players.

[BostonCard]

Right... tie ballgame, late innings; runner on third and one out, you should not take the pitch.  OTOH, runner on first and no outs, take the pitch.  Down 5 runs... take the pitch, etc.

BC

[BostonCard]

Right... tie ballgame, late innings; runner on third and one out, you should not take the pitch.  OTOH, runner on first and no outs, take the pitch.  Down 5 runs... take the pitch, etc.

BC

[Phogge]

If I'm facing Glausman I take the first pitch. If it's a strike he usually throws a split so I'd take pitch two. So now at 1-1 I'm hitting. Behind two strikes I'm shortening up and stroking. Hardly anybody shortens up anymore. They DGAS about bat control. If I'm Belt and 3B is playing off the line I bunt evert time. Not necessarily to get a hit but to make them play a bit more honest. But he won't do it.

[Phogge]

If I'm facing Glausman I take the first pitch. If it's a strike he usually throws a split so I'd take pitch two. So now at 1-1 I'm hitting. Behind two strikes I'm shortening up and stroking. Hardly anybody shortens up anymore. They DGAS about bat control. If I'm Belt and 3B is playing off the line I bunt evert time. Not necessarily to get a hit but to make them play a bit more honest. But he won't do it.

[lex24]

If I'm facing Glausman I take the first pitch. If it's a strike he usually throws a split so I'd take pitch two. So now at 1-1 I'm hitting. Behind two strikes I'm shortening up and stroking. Hardly anybody shortens up anymore. They DGAS about bat control. If I'm Belt and 3B is playing off the line I bunt evert time. Not necessarily to get a hit but to make them play a bit more honest. But he won't do it.

Actually, Belt does do it on occasion.  Not a whole lot. Agree COMPLETELY on shortening up.  So few do that.  And it amazes me .  Cause Barry Bonds did.  And he was a pretty good hitter as I recall….

[lex24]

If I'm facing Glausman I take the first pitch. If it's a strike he usually throws a split so I'd take pitch two. So now at 1-1 I'm hitting. Behind two strikes I'm shortening up and stroking. Hardly anybody shortens up anymore. They DGAS about bat control. If I'm Belt and 3B is playing off the line I bunt evert time. Not necessarily to get a hit but to make them play a bit more honest. But he won't do it.

Actually, Belt does do it on occasion.  Not a whole lot. Agree COMPLETELY on shortening up.  So few do that.  And it amazes me .  Cause Barry Bonds did.  And he was a pretty good hitter as I recall….

[Phogge]

Bonds could have hit .400, at least once. He was that good. But this is America and if you don’t go long ball you are a wuss.

[Phogge]

Bonds could have hit .400, at least once. He was that good. But this is America and if you don’t go long ball you are a wuss.

[DC 86]

Bonds could have hit .400, at least once. He was that good. But this is America and if you don’t go long ball you are a wuss.

He is the only man to ever put up an on-base percentage above .600, which is pretty significant even if it's not as famous.

[DC 86]

Bonds could have hit .400, at least once. He was that good. But this is America and if you don’t go long ball you are a wuss.

He is the only man to ever put up an on-base percentage above .600, which is pretty significant even if it's not as famous.

[teejers1]

Bonds could have hit .400, at least once. He was that good. But this is America and if you don’t go long ball you are a wuss.

He is the only man to ever put up an on-base percentage above .600, which is pretty significant even if it's not as famous.

Bonds was intentionally walked with the bases loaded.  I don't recall ever seeing that happen, though I'm sure it has on occasion in MLB history.  That season he was incredible.

As for Belt and bunts, hell, he did it with 2 strikes (for a single) not too long ago.  He's done it (or attempted it) a handful of times, at least, this season.

[teejers1]

Bonds could have hit .400, at least once. He was that good. But this is America and if you don’t go long ball you are a wuss.

He is the only man to ever put up an on-base percentage above .600, which is pretty significant even if it's not as famous.

Bonds was intentionally walked with the bases loaded.  I don't recall ever seeing that happen, though I'm sure it has on occasion in MLB history.  That season he was incredible.

As for Belt and bunts, hell, he did it with 2 strikes (for a single) not too long ago.  He's done it (or attempted it) a handful of times, at least, this season.