My SO is watching the All Star game HR derby and made the comment that if it were he, he would rather be receiving pitches from a pitching machine because of the consistant predictability of the pitch to the strike zone.
I disagree on the grounds that a human pitcher can make the necessary and sensitive adjustments for height, stance, position in the batter’s box, etc. much more quickly and effectively than the machine, providing the batter with a more personalized “sweet spot”.
I am (obviously) not an expert on the subject and would appreciate the thoughts of others.
These guys are hitting live pitching every day. No pitching machine, no matter how good it is, can replicate live pitching. If they switched to a pitching machine, the Home Run Derby wouldn’t be quite as exciting, because the players would have to adjust to the pitching machine, and they probably wouldn’t be able to do quite as much as they can with a guy out there delivering the ball.
Did you see how many pitches guys like Giambi and Pujols let go by? They knew that the BP pitcher would eventually throw one right where they wanted it.
Major leaguers usually only hit against a machine in the offseason or in the early parts of spring training.
Different hitters like the ball in different places. Pujols might like a higher pitch than Giambi, for example. A human pitcher, even though he’ll throw some bad pitches at times, provides more flexibility and adjustibility, if that makes sense. Many of the home run derby competitors bring the guys they hit off of in batting practice every day because they know exactly where the batter likes the ball and how he likes it thrown.