A Twins Mainstay Dying Before Our Eyes?

After reading this article the following comes to mind. Maybe Major League Baseball should think about The future of the game. Too many strikeouts, less hits, bunting dying a slow death, hit and run not emphasized as much. This leads to a boring game and less people in the stands. And the shift. I start to think that so many fans love the analytical part more than game itself. Bob Nightengale the long time baseball writer had a good article about this issue in the USA Today. I think the article was written last summer.

Now my personal opinion is that we need both: some of the old time baseball and with a good analytics dept. We just have to keep interest in the game. Football, basketball, and hockey are action sports and don’t have this program. Look at the Vikings, and the Wild..

sold out every game. And the NBA is thriving.

After reading this article the following comes to mind. Maybe Major League Baseball should think about The future of the game. Too many strikeouts, less hits, bunting dying a slow death, hit and run not emphasized as much. This leads to a boring game and less people in the stands. And the shift. I start to think that so many fans love the analytical part more than game itself. Bob Nightengale the long time baseball writer had a good article about this issue in the USA Today. I think the article was written last summer.
Now my personal opinion is that we need both: some of the old time baseball and with a good analytics dept. We just have to keep interest in the game. Football, basketball, and hockey are action sports and don’t have this program. Look at the Vikings, and the Wild..
sold out every game. And the NBA is thriving.

Maybe it's just me but I find basketball to be super boring.

Maybe it's just me but I find basketball to be super boring.

College basketball is fantastic, but the NBA is boring. That said, there is no denying that it is really the only one of the Big 4 pro sports leagues in North America that is   growing.

But I don't think it's so much the fast paced action of the NBA that MLB needs to replicate, it's the personality the players get to show while the game is in action. That sort of personality is against the unwritten rules of baseball and will too often result in being assaulted with a deadly weapon, either for you or someone on your team.

Either that sort of small d*** retaliation has to stop or young fans who care just as much about the showmanship of players as the actual play itself will never get into baseball.

The NBA is so incredibly awful these days, it's worse than Disney on Ice. It's the new Chuck E Cheese:a place to host your 10 year old's birthday party. It's not for adults and that's by design. They've gone all in on the entertainment angle and it's just ruined the league for true sports fans IMO.

Not to ask a silly question, but woudln't hitting the ball the other way counteract the shift?

 

I get not using it for the sake of using it, but if one side of the field is loaded with players, why not hit to the other side?

Because most teams see teams don't want players to change their approach to hitting because of a shift. That might screw up their swings.

Plus the shifting team is saying a single to the opposite field is better than a double in the gap or a home run.

The problem I see with what I consider to be the "all or nothing" approach to hitting is that it devalues putting the ball in play.

Okay, two strikes, put the ball in play, make the opposing team field the ball, rather than striking out.

The Vikings sell out in part because they play so few games. Small venue for the Wild gets them sell outs more easily too.

"Generating hard contact, like we discussed with launch angle, is not all that valuable in a vacuum."

Misleading. Hard contact is always valuable. Always. Exit velocity has a high positive correlation with BA, SLG, BABiP...everything...even bullets hit on the ground.

Launching is good. But, the data that shows results are better when the ball is launched is skewed (at least to some extent) due to the fact that the skill to put the ball in play to the opposite field is nearly extinct. The data is going to show it's especially ineffective (relative to pull/launch/K) when nobody can do it well...or that when it occurs, it occurred by accident by someone that was actually trying to pull/launch. If a twelve year old Rod Carew or Tony Gwynn were to come along today, there would be a coach changing his approach by the time they were 16.

In retrospect, all "pitching to contact" meant was favoring not walking people over striking people out.

Though this sounds like a 'backstop' strategy it worked for the Twins for an entire decade.

But this requires more than a pitching strategy. For this to work, you also need a fired up group of position players who are willing to play some hard defense. Do we have that now? Maybe, I don't know.

A hitter positions himself relative to the plate so that he has full plate coverage with a repeatable swing. He doesn't want to change his swing for any reason- not to pull or "push" the ball, not to reach a pitch in a specific location. He wants to swing the same every time. He wants to cover the width of the strike zone with authority. To hit a ball with authority you contact with the ball on the sweet spot of the barell. With a repeatable, mechanically correct swing, on an inside pitch you want to make contact out in front of where your stride foot lands- you will pull this pitch. On an outside pitch, with the same swing, you want to make contact deeper, a little past where your stride foot has landed- you will hit this pitch to the opposite field.

If you are early on an outside pitch, in anticipation of an inside fastball, you will make weak contact. Often a hitter is early with his lower half, recognizes the location (or offspeed pitch) and tries to slow his hands down and/or reach to make contact. his weight is on a flexed front leg, his butt sticks back, his back arm is extended at the point of contact instead of in a "power L". The contact is weak.

I'm not saying that no one has ever pulled an outside pitch. I'm saying it's unusual, and generally unlikely. 

When there are so many things to keep track of and react to as a hitter (location, velocity variability, movement) one approach to making things a little easier is to isolate focus. You can do this from pitch to pitch based on a variety of information, and obviously the extent to which a hitter is intellectually capable of doing this will have an impact on his success. You can also do it generally. Some hitters will just disregard a whole portion of the zone. I would say pretty much every hitter has done this to some extent. Even Ted Williams pretty much eliminated low and away. I think the way hitters do this differs along two different paths. One is that a hitter recognizes the pitch in the eliminated part of the zone, and refuses to swing at it. The other is that a hitter doesn't make the recognition and swings as though he hopes the pitch will be in the part of the zone he likes. The former is a better approach, but it relies on the abilities of the hitter to work. 

For a hitter whose spray chart is so heavy to the pull side that a defense shifts to that side (this is a hitter who is obviously isolating focus on middle-inside part of the zone) the pitcher's job is easier. He can expose the hitter for called and swinging strikes on the outer third, and force him to hit into the shift on the inner third (the area the hitter is focused on). The hitter is left with (as this article suggests): beat the shift by hitting over it with launch angle plus exit velocity. So, either hit a jack or get lucky. I would say this is pretty much what we see now in MLB. Hitters are successful at hitting more home runs, but the chances of any other hard hit (or weakly hit) ball landing for a base hit are reduced significantly, with the exposed vulnerable parts of the strike zone yielding more strike outs. 

A hitter who can "go with the pitch"- pull the inside pitch and hit the outside pitch away- with the same powerful swing, has a serious advantage over the hitter who isolates. 

One of the tricks to being able to hit the outside pitch with authority is that you have to "wait" for it, which is a weird concept when we're talking about milliseconds. You have to wait for it to travel just a little bit deeper in the zone, like maybe 8-12 inches deeper. (Also, how the &!%# do you "wait" when the pitch is coming well over 90 mph most of the time?) I think the hitters who do this successfully, are focused first on the outer third- they are thinking about "waiting" and letting the ball travel a little deeper and driving it the other way; AND, they are trusting their instincts to recognize and quickness to react to the inside pitch and pull it. Ability to recognize (location or pitch type) is increased by the extra wait time. It can also be increased by "shortening" the swing- less load action (maybe no leg kick, maybe the hands fire from a position closer to the point of contact rather than loading back to a more powerful counter rotated position, a position farther from the point of contact)- this would obviously sacrifice power in favor of contact. The closer that your hands are to the point of contact when they fire, the longer you can wait before firing. 

It is a HUGE advantage to be able to cover the outer third and hit the ball to the opposite field. To be able to do it with authority (and still be able to recognize, react, and turn on the inside pitch) is a demonstration of exceptionally capable hitting.

To do it, a hitter has to have exceptional vision, be smart, have a mechanically powerful, repeatable swing, be able to "wait", and be able to react with elite quickness.

Vision can be measured, and corrected to an extent if needed. Intelligence can be evaluated (and maybe improved???). A swing can be learned. Ability to wait can be learned. Quickness can be measured, and it can be optimized. 

I bet most MLB guys have the vision, swing, and quickness. I bet their intelligence is generally disregarded. I bet (traditionally) hitting instructors put a lot of effort into teaching hitters how to "wait". 

I'm happy to see launch angle and exit velocity embraced, and in particular the amended philosophy on bat path to facilitate increases in launch angle and exit velocity. I think even, along these lines, it is fine for some hitters to have a pull first approach. That approach would be relative to their intellect and to their skills, and maybe for them it happens to be optimal and it makes them the most productive hitter they can be. I think a hitting instructor's job is to help them figure that out. If I'm a hitting instructor, the general approach I advocate is to think 'cover the outer third to the opposite field first, and trust my quickness to react to the inner third'. 

It's interesting that while annual home run totals are up relative to league history, annual home run totals for the league's elite hitters are pretty stable. Mike Trout is the best hitter in baseball. He doesn't strike out a lot, he walks a lot, his avg is over 300, his obp is over 400, he hits 30-40 dingers. it's pretty comparable to elite hitters of the past (home run spikes of the steroid era aside). Recent elites, Miguel Cabrera and Albert Pujols have similar numbers. The overall annual homerun total increases are not accounted for in elite hitters hitting more homeruns, but rather sub-elite hitters, and even sub all-star hitters hitting more homeruns. I'll draw from this that the approach of elite hitters has stayed constant over time, and that we see sub-elite hitters favoring one approach/result over another (presently, power over contact). 

If the league has a temporary trend in a specific direction, in order to be competitive in the league you either have to be among the best at executing the characteristics of the trend or find the weaknesses in the trend and expose them with opposing characteristics. The teams that will be the best at executing the trend will be the teams that are willing to spend the most money, or get lucky in the draft/develop their talent most successfully. Maybe the Twins will be one of these teams. They usually aren't. I hope they are, because I don't see any signs of them being an organization ready to find and expose the weaknesses of trending MLB defense/pitching strategy. 

I wonder if there are any organizations out there who have been recruiting/developing contact hitters. I would like to see it. I think a lineup of hitters who aren't exposable on the outer third would tear up the league. And I think they could have a sustained run. I think it would take a while for organizations to adjust.

I'm not advocating for a return to small ball. I stand firmly against the sacrifice bunt. It's a waste of an out. I don't think it's exciting. I do like a hit and run- maybe in an offspeed count, with a runner who has a chance of a clean steal anyway, and with a non-elite hitter at the plate. Hit and runs are exciting. I would like to see more balance from hitters, even if it means a drop in power from guys like, say, Brian Dozier. I would be happy to see bunts for hits into the shift. I would be happy to see it over and over and over again until the shift goes away, if that's what it takes. The shift is ugly. I would rather see the game take care of it naturally than have it legislated away.

Chicks dig the long post.

Not to ask a silly question, but woudln't hitting the ball the other way counteract the shift?

 

I get not using it for the sake of using it, but if one side of the field is loaded with players, why not hit to the other side?

The pitchers are also pitching to support the shift they have in place.  They try not to give them anything that they can be easily hit the other way. Basically just hit it the other way is easier said than done.  If players could beat the shift at will, then it wouldn't make sense to use it.  Makes me think hitters can't beat the shift at will.  (Some players are exceptions and they don't see as many shifts)

MLB.com determined that batting averages are lower with the shift in place but walks and homeruns slightly increased when the shift was on.  So in a way that is how hitters are trying to beat the shift.  Overall the shift decreased wOBA for the lefties they studied by just .008, the righties they studied were actually better against the shift by .001.  Like Ted's article says if the shift is trying to take away my singles I will go for extra bases (launch angle).

https://www.mlb.com/news/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-shift-c276706888 

Because most teams see teams don't want players to change their approach to hitting because of a shift. That might screw up their swings.

 

Plus the shifting team is saying a single to the opposite field is better than a double in the gap or a home run.

They do not worry about launch angle screwing up their swings.  We used to have teams with players who got on base, players who moved them forward and players who drove them in.  Are we now at a point where all players are supposed to do the same thing?

How is an article going to talk about Twins Exit Velocity and Launch Angle without mentioning Buxton?  I get it, he wasn't a recent pickup or a product of this FO but I still want to talk about it.

94.5 MPH average Exit Velocity, 22nd in MLB, higher than MVP Christian Yelich(who is not slumping).

55% hard hit rate, 31st in MLB, 0.2% lower than Trout (29th).

His Launch angle is also more than double his career average so far.  28.2 versus 11.0 for career.

Every time I see a lefty slugger get in the box, the defense shift, and no bunt is laid down, a little bit of me dies.

Watching Jose Ramirez attempt to bunt and waste pitches made more of me die. Most of these guys can't bunt, and when they attempt to, they usually can't get him down the 3rd base line. Maybe if they could be bothered to learn how to bunt...

Maybe it's just me but I find basketball to be super boring.

I remember reading a Patrick Reusse column many years ago that said something to the effect that you can watch an NBA game closely and see nothing new at all, but you can watch an MLB game closely and see something new every time.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pitching to contact. It's an excellent strategy but it's not one-size-fits-all. Nolan Ryan never thought about pitching that way and he never should have. But pitchers who rely on finesse and deception, and there have been many very good ones, should try to induce less-than-ideal contact. Don't waste pitches trying to strike someone out unless the situation calls for it. That type of pitcher should have as his goal getting through an inning on two ground-outs and a fly-out in 7 pitches.

I seem to remember a game that Brad Radke won with no K's. I guess he said afterward that he couldn't get anyone out.

If we compare the likes of last's years version of Schoop and Joey Gallo to emphasize the point of controlling the strike zone, we can see some interesting differences. They both are known as home run hitters, so strikeouts are something one would expect.

We often throw phrases around when referring to players like Gallo as "All or nothing" or "Either or home run or a strikeout." Hence, to the casual observer it might seem like Schoop was at least a comparable player to Gallo based on the more obvious stats:

Strikeouts:

Gallo: 207 (sounds ghastly)

Schoop: 115

BA:

Gallo: .206

Schoop: .233

That Gallo had more strikeouts than his BA is death-defying, but from that point forward, all metrics are solidly in Gallo's favor. Despite Schoop having a BA .027 higher than Gallo's, his OBP was .046 lower. This is due to strike zone expansion in many cases I would surmise.

OBP:

Gallo: .312 (.106 higher than his BA)

Schoop: .266 (.033 higher than his BA)

Walks:

Gallo: 74

Schoop: 19

Strikeout/walk ratio

Gallo: 2.8

Schoop: 6.1

In a weird world where walks were counted as hits, their respective batting averages would be inverted:

Weird world BA:

Gallo: .354

Schoop: .294

This is why, from last year's point of view, Gallo was a far more dangerous player than Schoop. It is true that when Gallo did swing the bat, he certainly was 'all or nothing,' but he didn't always swing the bat as evidenced by the walks. Gallo took those mighty swings at pitches that tended to be in the strike zone to his overall advantage. His 92 RBI attest to this (Schoop had 61).

It is good that Schoop has managed his OBP very well in 2019. He has strikeout/walk ratio is better (3.67) so far, which indicates he hasn't chased as often, but it is still early. Let's hope he keeps this pace as he would be a very dangerous player if her could return to 2017 form.