I dunno what team you follow, but Blue Jays broadcasts show exactly that - a 3D prism, viewed from side and top, of precisely the path the ball took through the strike zone. Pitch F/X catches the true flight of the ball.
[QUOTE=Jas09]
You may notice that as we speak the division leaders in the AL are the Oakland A’s, the KC Royals, and the Toronto Blue Jays. The NL has the small-market Brewers leading the Central.
[/QUOTE]
The Blue Jays play in one of the biggest markets in baseball and are owned by a gigantic media conglomerate so I am not sure they stand as a terrific example of small market success. Toronto could swallow Kansas City and not even burp.
It’s only exciting because they’re completely useless hitters. Like having your 12 year old kid subbing on the adult softball team.
Re the DBacks, which great hitting pitcher are you thinking of? The one who is hitting .222 with 6 hits and 12 strikeouts, or the one hitting .222 with 6 hits and 4 strikeouts? I suppose it’s the second one, he’s actually got an RBI.
Yeah, for me it’s like the excitement of watching my cat figure out the TV remote. It’s funny because it’s unexpected. But that doesn’t make the rest of the time with the cat just sitting on the remote blocking my ability to use it any more fun.
Without weighing in one way or the other: as a data point, hits are at 20-year lows and batting average and scoring are at 25-year lows. Strikeouts are at all time highs. Not only that, they’re up almost 20 percent in the last 10 years and they were close to all-time highs 10 years ago. But if this is a problem for you, the solution is arguably strategic: tell hitters to stop taking so many pitches because in an era of specialized relievers it doesn’t work. That would not only reduce strikeouts, it might make the games a bit quicker.
The only way to get batters to take fewer pitches would be to make the strike zone larger. But you’re saying pitching is too dominant already. So I don’t get it.
No that was Brandon McCarthty with 3 RBI. But he’s only a .153.
I don’t count .222 as bad, if you can also pitch. There are position players that bat that low. I’m not a stats expert, but the way I read them there are currently at least 17 position players with worse averages than that.
I’m not arguing any of those are HOF candidates. But don’t exclude the middle in your defense of the DH. IF one believes that all players should bat (that is, normal thinking people ) then a .222 is better than .000.
Yes, there are a few pitchers who can hit about as well as the worst position players, who constitute the bulk of the people who pinch hit for them. The fact that you can name those pitchers individually only demonstrates that most are simply useless at the plate.
It comes down to this: I think all players should hit, as part of the game. You don’t. You enjoy your game, and I’ll enjoy mine. I’ll be happy when my starter gets a hit, you groan when they strikeout. Fair enough?
Let’s argue important stuff, like how many times a batter should be allowed to adjust his gloves per at-bat. Maybe we can get it recognized as an official stat. Zip-zip.
I was more pointing out that 2/3 of the divisions in the AL were led by small markets. And 1/3 in the NL. Although compared to their AL East brethren, don’t the Jays have a smaller payroll? Or was that OBE when they signed all of those free agents a few years ago?
You can’t leave first until you chug a beer. Any man scoring has to chug a beer. You have to chug a beer at the top of all odd-numbered innings. Oh, and the fourth inning is the beer inning.
So on an inside pitch if the batter jumps back and steps out of the box there is an automatic strike? I see a new strategy when the count has two strikes.
It has been suggested that pitchers cannot hit only because they get no practice.
Pitchers get 2 or 3 ABs in a game, every 5th game? They do not take BP on days when they are not going to pitch. Some don’t take BP at all. At the pro level, no practice means no success.
The whole point of baseball is that you have nine people and you have to make your choices based on their individual offensive and defensive capabilities. That’s part of the game. You might have to give up the world’s greatest shortstop if he can’t be halfway decent at the plate. That’s part of the balance. You don’t get to split individual human beings into parts and pick and choose the parts to create a team of Frankenstein players. You take human beings as they are and you weigh the options and you have to take all their strengths and weaknesses.
If you think it’s worth it to create a great pitcher by neglecting his offensive skill development, then you should have to live with that. You take the consequences.
Generally kids that are going to grow up to be a major league level pitcher are naturally extremely good at baseball and probably (compared to Joe Schmoe) would seem like very good hitters. Because of that a small number of pitchers can hit decently, but that just means they might flirt with the Mendoza line. They generally cannot hit for power, rarely hit anything other than a single, aren’t good at drawing walks etc. A BA in the mid-200s isn’t in and of itself a sign of real MLB hitting ability.
Yes, because the people who make up baseball rules are, in fact, idiots.
No, it actually states that:
Once the batter enters the batter’s box, he must keep one foot inside the box unless:
a. he swings at a pitch;
b. he is forced out of the box by a pitch;
c. the pitcher with the ball leaves the dirt portion of the mound or positions himself on the mound farther than five feet from the rubber;
d. the catcher leaves his box to give defensive signals or adjust his equipment;
e. anyone is granted time;
f. he attempts a drag bunt;
g. the catcher does not catch the pitch;
h. the catcher or pitcher feints or attempts a play anywhere;
PENALTY: The umpire shall call a strike, and the ball remains alive.
) then a .222 is better than .000.