OT: The Yankees

[DeltaOne81]

I don't know if swinging away is more exciting, not if you're watching baseball for the right things. A good pitcher/hitter battle is very enjoyable. That's kinda what baseball is, a serious of well-defined small battles, whether it's hitters at the plate or runners taking leads. Swinging away is like an all-out charge in a battle, it may be exciting momentarily, but it's not likely a good strategy to leave you in a better position for the next time around

[Jordan 04]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:


It may be more enjoyable, but it doesn't work.  Exhibit A, the Mets.  We haven't had a patient hitter since John Olerud.  All those guys being aggressive at the plate has meant opposing starters go deep in the game with low pitch counts, letting them set up optimal matchups for opposing relievers.  And that has been a complete disaster.[/q]

We've certainly had patient hitters since then.  Alfonzo, Zeile, Ventura, Piazza (say what you want about his recent struggles -- but I haven't seen much change in his generally patient approach at the plate) are a few...Ok, so maybe they're the only ones.  Not many, if any, in the last 2 years or so.  But honestly, the issue has been more about the talent sucking than being over-aggressive.  For example, it's hard to go to battle with outfields riddled with the Shinjos and Tyners and Cedenos of the world.

What we certainly haven't had since the turn-of-the-millenium "glory days" is a patient lineup.  Although the top of that late-90's lineup seems to be more the exception than the rule these days -- Henderson, Fonzi, Olerud, Piazza is as patient a top of the order as they come.

[jtwcornell91]

This seems to be tangentially related to the annoyance a lot of us feel at people going to baseball games just to see home runs.  So let me throw out this question: what's the most exciting play to watch?  My vote goes to the squeeze play.  Although the suicide squeeze is more dramatic, the result is basically a foregone conclusion based on whether the batter makes contact or not, so how about a safety squeeze with an ensuing play at the plate?

[Jordan 04]

I don't know if it's at the top of the list, but triples are great.

Speaking of triples, I'd hazard a guess that this week was the first time in baseball history 2 pitchers named Zambrano tripled on consecutive nights. (Victor, Wednesday; Carlos, last night).

[Trotsky]

A well-executed hit and run is a thing of beauty.  I was at an A ball game in Maryland last weekend and the visiting team won with an unrelenting combination of smart, smallball tactics: establishing advantageous counts, taking walks, sacrificing (which a lot of sabermetricians actually think is a net loss of production), steals, hit and runs -- first-and-thirding us to death all day long.  They barely had an extra base hit but still put 7 runs on the board an won easily.

[KeithK]

OK, everyone is missing my point.  Obviously a case of me not explaining well enough on an internet site.  I'd probably have an easier time explaining this in person...

I am not saying that a particular team should start "swinging away".  Yes, the evidence is quite clear that patience = more successful offense.   Drawing walks, getting favorable counts and getting to the bullpen sooner all improve your odds of scoring runs and thus winning games.  This is the way the game works and it's not going to change.  

I am just bemoaning in a general sense that as knowledge of this fact becomes pervasive in baseball patience has become more and more emphasized at the plate.  This has meant more walks, deeper counts and slower games.  This is not a in an overall sense positive for baseball.  It plays into the argument that baseball is slow and boring (which it most certainly is not if you know what you're seeing).  A particular pitcher/batter battle can be extrememly exciting and enjoyable but in the aggregate average I think it might be a better spectator sport if batters put the ball in play one pitch earlier.

Just a case where what works best isn't ideal from an aesthetic sense.  I ask, what's more fun to watch as a neutral observer (that is, you don't care which team wins): a team scores one run in an inning off of a single followed by a a two out double or one run off of four walks?

Enough.

[Trotsky]

I don't think we're missing the point.  We're pointing out (repeatedly) that being aggressive at the plate is less successful than being patient, currently.

Now, as hitters become more patient, pitchers will adjust by becoming more aggressive -- taking control of the strike zone and punishing guys who take by piling up 0-2 counts.  This will in turn force hitters to become more aggressive, which will lead to pitchers nibbling... and so on...

It's all about the yin-and-yang.

[KeithK]

Hands down the most exciting play (to me) is an inside the park home run with a play at the plate.  It combines fast action, baserunning, tension and as an added bonus lasts a long time in baseball terms.

A straight steal of home is right up there too.

Among things that actually happen with some frequency these days I'd put triples high on the list.  A squeeze with a play at the plate is a real good choice too.

Personally I find (over the wall)  home runs one of the less exciting plays in the game.  Watching a guy trot is much less interesting than watching a guy run and try to beat a throw.  If I were running a baseball team I'd prefer to have a ballpark with cavernous power alleys that encourage extra base hits rather than a bandbox that encourages homers.  (Of course, I'd probably lose my shirt trying to sell my old-time purist's version of the game to casual  fans these days...)

[KeithK]

I don't really see a good chance of it yang-ing back.  But it's hard to predict the future so maybe it will.  Hope so.

[French Rage]

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

 A well-executed hit and run is a thing of beauty.  I was at an A ball game in Maryland last weekend and the visiting team won with an unrelenting combination of smart, smallball tactics: establishing advantageous counts, taking walks, sacrificing (which a lot of sabermetricians actually think is a net loss of production), steals, hit and runs -- first-and-thirding us to death all day long.  They barely had an extra base hit but still put 7 runs on the board an won easily.[/q]

Frederick Keys?

[Tom Lento]

Runners at the corners with the tying run on third late in the game.

The actual play could be anything - the interesting thing to me is watching the fielders deal with it.  Do you go double play depth with your groundball pitcher?  Do you bring the infield in to make a play at the plate?  Do you play a hybrid (that was all the rage for awhile, but I haven't seen this situation in a game recently)?  Where do you play your OF?

As long as the batter doesn't pop up or hit a really long fly ball (including homers) it'll be an exciting play.

I'll second the hit and run as an exciting play, too.  If it's botched, especially with 2 strikes on the hitter (although I've never really agreed with putting the batter in a "must swing" situation with 2 strikes), you get a nice fielding play.  If it's executed properly, you get to see an active, interesting offensive play.  If Piazza or Posada is the guy behind the plate, and it's a swing and a miss, then things get *really* interesting.  :-P

[Jordan 04]

[Q]Tom Lento Wrote:

If Piazza or Posada is the guy behind the plate, and it's a swing and a miss, then things get *really* interesting.   [/q]

For very differnet reasons, however.  Although Piazza is unlikely to throw through in this situation, if he does, things become interesting as we see if the ball will get to the 2nd base on a fly, or on 1 or 2 hops.  Or it could hit the pitcher's mound.  Or it could end up in centerfield.

With Posada, the entertainment is in waiting to see if he'll actually catch the ball or not.  He seems to have issues with that essential element of being a catcher.

[ugarte]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:I am just bemoaning in a general sense that as knowledge of this fact becomes pervasive in baseball patience has become more and more emphasized at the plate.  This has meant more walks, deeper counts and slower games.  This is not a in an overall sense positive for baseball.  It plays into the argument that baseball is slow and boring (which it most certainly is not if you know what you're seeing).  A particular pitcher/batter battle can be extrememly exciting and enjoyable but in the aggregate average I think it might be a better spectator sport if batters put the ball in play one pitch earlier.[/q]I'm not worried about the financial health of MLB. To remove the ambiguity, I do not believe that baseball is in financial trouble AND I don't care about changing the sport so that it appeals to the most people. We all understand you, Keith, we just think that walks - and the increased offense that is the ultimate reward of better pitch selection - are aesthetically pleasing and we don't care about entertaining the non-fans with more popups and weak grounders. Hell, you know this and probably even agree with it. What is good for the owners is not necessarily good for baseball.

[q]Just a case where what works best isn't ideal from an aesthetic sense.  I ask, what's more fun to watch as a neutral observer (that is, you don't care which team wins): a team scores one run in an inning off of a single followed by a a two out double or one run off of four walks?[/q]False choice. Two walks and a gapper off a meatball from a frustrated pitcher is plenty exciting. Especially if there is a play at the plate on the trailing runner.

[q]Enough.[/q]We'll let you know when it is enough.

[ugarte]

[Q]KeithK Wrote:Personally I find (over the wall)  home runs one of the less exciting plays in the game.  Watching a guy trot is much less interesting than watching a guy run and try to beat a throw.[/q]Watching the trot is boring, but you are missing the fun of gasping when the ball explodes off the bat and disappears into the night on the real monster shots and the will it/won't it tension of the ones that are in the neighborhood of the fence.

For my money, I'll take a bases loaded strikeout late in a one-run game. I got used to those when Wetteland was pitching in NY and they never lost their thrill (and I never stopped getting exasperated at the three walks that set up the drama).

[KeithK]

OK, we'll agree to disagree on the aesthetics.  To me, a player who works the count,  fights off pitches and eventually takes a walk is pleasing.  Watching a hitter walk on five pitches (four plus the somewhat automatic 3-0 strike) because the pithcer is nibbling isn't.  This is purely opinion though.

No, I'm not really worried about the health of MLB or the owners finances.  I'm not even terribly worried about whether the casual fan likes it.  Heck I'd rather have some of the casual fans stay home so ticket prices might drop... er, not rise as fast.  Just an aesthetic thing really.

[q]We'll let you know when it is enough.[/q]Please do.