Is it really an advantage to bat last? I got into an argument with my trainer. He says the home team has the advantage in that they have the power to end the game. I argue that each team gets the same number of outs so there really is no advantage. Are last licks beneficial for the home team?
What is the catcher doing when he holds out his arm to the pitcher after a pitch before the pitch is thrown back? It’s as if he’s saying “nice job, man,” but that can’t be right.
Generally speaking, is patience at the plate a more successful strategy than aggressive hitting?
What happens when a player needs to go to the bathroom in the middle of an inning, or if he uses the restroom between innings and is in there for a while? Will the game be delayed to wait for him?
Finally, here’s a proposal from my trainer. He says the All-Star Games are stupid because the “home-field advantage to the respective winning league’s winning team” doesn’t significantly make a difference. He proposes to renew enthusiasm in this particular exhibition game, you put an American League and National League Ballpark in the running. For my example, you hold the ASG in let’s say, Wrigley Field. Let’s say Citi Field and Fenway Park are in the running for the next ASG. If the NL wins, the next ASG goes to Citi Field. If the AL wins, the next ASG goes to Fenway.
In his scenario, they open up both Citi Field and Fenway Park to crowds. During the day before the big game, they do baseball events on the field. (Kids running the bases, softball game, local homerun derby, etc.) Then for the big game at night, both crowds watch the game on the big screen at the stadium. They cheer for their league, because if the next ASG comes to their town, it will mean a big boost in the local economy, plus publicity, etc. It gives the stadium crowd a reason to be excited. In our scenario Fenway wins and Citi Field loses. Next year, Citi Field is automatically in the running. So it gives people a reason to show up again and root even harder for the NL to win.
According to my trainer, the big draw for this event is the publicity surrounding it…the media. Make people interested in the attention and the celebrities and media presence and that means more money, more tourism dollars, more everything. The ASG is a circus, for sure, but at least in this scenario the winning league has an advantage that is absolutely translatable into $$ for the economy of important baseball cities. Being able to see stars of the league in your own home city, all in one place, plus the home run derby, has to be exciting for crowds.
I believe the current consensus is Yes. Winning correlates with tiring out the opposing pitcher, so patient batters that force the pitcher to throw many pitches are thought to contribute more than those who are aggressive.
The primary advantage is that you know exactly what you need to do to win (or tie). If you’re trailing by one, you might bunt a runner to get him in scoring position. Down by two, you probably aren’t going to waste outs. You can’t operate on that sort of information if you’re batting in the top of the 9th.
If a player has to use the john, they do it while in the dugout while waiting for an AB. That said Ive seen games delayed while waiting for the player to then take the field when their batting frame was over. Theres also Manny Ramirez going behind the Big Green Wall to do Lord knows what . . . .
The All-Star Game idea is a cute one, but I don’t think fans care all that much if their city hosts it or not. Im not as outraged as others by the winning league getting the home field in the World Series because previously, they just alternated every year.
You are right. Generally he’ll point and say, “good spot,” or something like that.
Generally speaking, yes patience is a virtue at the plate. You get the pitcher to throw more pitches, wear him down, learn his tendencies and so forth.
But it’s debatable. My approach to hitting was always if I get a good pitch, I’m hitting it. The pitcher usually wants to get ahead of the hitter with strike one, so it’s likely that the first pitch will be in the zone. I hate getting down in the count simply because I need to be patient. What’s the point if the best pitch I get is the first?
I love Dustin Pedroia but it drives me crazy when he just stands still with the bat on his shoulder and watches a first pitch fastball strike one in so many at bats. But that’s how the Red Sox were so successful back when they outscored everyone. Every hitter applied the same patient strategy and they ran up starting pitchers’ pitch counts.
We just had a whole thread a few weeks ago about the supposed “batting last advantage”. Short answer, while it’s nice to know what you need, both the offense and defense know what they need, and so there’s also a “fielding last” advantage that’s at least comparable to and probably greater than the “batting last” advantage.
Except that the Royals have been making a total mockery of said strategy.
And maybe it is for the good-I think if strikeouts (which are partly a function of this overpatient approach) continue to rise like they have, it will do damage to the aesthetics of the game. If the Royals with their superaggressive hit the first thing close to the plate that you see way of hitting sparks a new trend, maybe K’s will finally go down.
It can be many things. Nice job is one of them. He may be pointing a runner to warn him off an attempted steal, or signaling the pitcher to keep an eye on him for the next pitch. It could be a predetermined signal about the pitch itself. But usually he’s holding up the ball as an expression of victory following a strike.
There’s a reason all-star game sites are determined years in advance; there is a lot of work that both the league and the city have to do to get ready for it. You can’t just tell a city, “Get ready to host next year’s ASG, although there’s a chance that it won’t happen.” (Well, you can, in case the game ends up being cancelled because of a strike, but it causes a bit of a mess.)
Case in point: the 1995 NHL All-Star Game was scheduled for San Jose, but the strike that started that season resulted in no game being played that year, and they couldn’t move the 1996 game there as the 1996 host city (Boston?) was already in the middle of plans for it.
Wouldn’t that be even more true for the World Series? It isn’t all that unusual for the sites for these games to be decided only days prior. I would hope a city could deal with a year’s advance notice.
I would say yes. As some have said, it can drive up pitch counts. I believe, though, that there are two more important things. One is that it leads to more walks, which are more beneficial than once realized, even if they just prevent the player from making an out. The second reason, is that unless you are Miguel Cabrera, you will hit pitches in the strike zone with more authority leading to better results. This makes it worthwhile to pass on pitches that are borderline early in the count.
I am a Reds fan and so get to see Joey Votto bat a lot. He has gotten criticism for taking too many pitches and drawing walks, when many feel he should “expand the zone” and try to hit more. I wrote an article for the Redleg Nation website explaining why I thought this was a really stupid idea.
How is any strategy that results in drawing walks worth criticizing? He gets on base. Unless you expect him to hit homers consistently, you can’t get much better than that.
I agree with you in general, but here’s some possible exceptions:
Potentially he could be considered a better hitter than that and able to produce more bases by swinging. He may not be a good base runner so his walks are worth less than the average. He may not be drawing those walks against good pitchers, and against good pitchers he could end up striking out more.
Still drawing walks is a good thing, he can be taught to run better and expand his zone against the better pitchers. If he starts swinging more and striking out more he’ll just be criticized for that.
They were in particular criticizing him for drawing walks with runners on base (especially in scoring position). They felt he should be driving those runners in. Of course the thought that he would probably not make normal Joey Votto type contact on pitches he was reaching for never seemed to cross anyone’s mind.
And this is why lineup protection is a real thing, folks! I don’t know the Reds lineup by heart, but if Votto was in the 3 hole, who bats cleanup? Jay Bruce? A guy who hit like .220 and was hardly a threat following a guy like Votto who puts up MVP numbers. Even if it was Todd Frazier or Brandon Phillips hitting cleanup, I’ll take my chances against them over Votto. Of course Votto won’t see a ton of strikes with runners on. Of course he’ll draw more walks.
Well, it’s not just lineup protection. In 2013, when the Reds won 90 games (and were a WC team), Votto had 135 BBs that year, even while Jay Bruce hit more HRs and doubles than Votto did. Votto is just a patient hitter. It’s what helps him be so good. In the last 5 seasons, Votto has led the league in walks 4 times and the one he didn’t, he was injured. So regardless of how good his protection or the team is, that’s just what Votto does.
And the bolded part is the key, right? Votto could be doing exactly the same thing, but if the Reds won 90+, people wouldn’t be complaining about him (well, I guess some might because in the NL this year you had to get a little more than 90 wins to make the WC). People always find something to complain about if a team is lousy.