Another No Hitter

[Really Clark?]

Nope. Bad diagnosis. You two can play the old man "get off my lawn" all you want but if you want actual change to occur you'll implement what I said.

Awful cocksure of yourself considering how off the mark you are in many ways on the game. Was that Hatcher crow any good? Because we both know who had that situation nailed, from the eye test and from the analytics standpoint. It wasn’t you.

I actually don’t mind looking at the mound distance experiment, which they are doing in the minor league right now. And of course trying to catch them using foreign substance is already a given...if they can catch them. The shift is beatable so while I don’t like it, we don’t ban defensive schemes in other sports. You want to see it gone, beat it, don’t ban it. The Braves last night and Austin Riley has been for the last several games, actually used an approach at the plate last night and executed it that beat the shift. It can be done. Riley’s average is much higher this year so far using a better approach and tweaking his bat path. While his HR’s are down, everybody would take his approach and execution today over his last 2 years.

But here is the question, what is your end goal for pushing the mound back a foot and banning the shift? Just more offense? In the end I don’t like leagues forcing game shifts by rules instead of allowing the players and coaches to find creative and innovative ways to win. If the game needs to move the mound back, it needs to be for several reasons, safety, game playability, offense, pitcher craft work, etc.

[Rex54]

But here is the question, what is your end goal for pushing the mound back a foot and banning the shift? Just more offense?.

Mound - cut down K's and get more balls in play
Shift- sliding the analytic incentives to balls in play away from selling out for the HR or looking for a walk.

We don't ban defensive schemes in other sports

3 in the key

[Really Clark?]

Mound - cut down K's and get more balls in play
Shift- sliding the analytic incentives to balls in play away from selling out for the HR or looking for a walk.



3 in the key

You can also accomplish both of those without changing the rules or banning a defense. Different approach at the plate would cut down K’s and adding bunting vs the shift with a different approach would do the same thing. That is allowing the coaches and players to adapt and you don’t have regulate the sport.

3 in the key is offensive restriction not defense. The NBA (and NCAA) 3 second violation for defense, the Shaq rule, is probably what you are referring to. It was idiotic to have that rule stay but then lift the ban on zone defenses for the NBA and keep the penalty harsh. Another one of the NBA’s cockups but in the end they actually expanded what type of defenses the could run not decrease it. But the positive of that rule was about the health of the post players...not everyone could take the punishment Shaq did on the inside. That rule in itself didn’t restrict the type of defense just how long you could be in the paint but overall effect caused coaches to make changes.

[Rex54]

You can also accomplish both of those without changing the rules or banning a defense. Different approach at the plate would cut down K’s and adding bunting vs the shift with a different approach would do the same thing. That is allowing the coaches and players to adapt and you don’t have regulate the sport.

No you can't. The reason they have the approaches they do now is because it leads to the most runs scored in this pitcher dominant environment. All of these hitters COULD sacrifice some power and raise their batting averages with more singles, but the value of the HR is such compared to the ball in play it's literally not worth it. Do you think these people are dumb? They're trying to win games and the best way to do that IN THIS PITCHING/DEFENSE ENVIRONMENT is to sell out for power and who cares if I K because a ball in play is likely to be an out anyway with shifts, or if I can even manage to get a ball in play with the velocity and spin rates we see these days.

Also, bunting is really hard. And nobody wants to see that shit. People want to see early 90's version of the game, and that can be manufactured through rule changes.

Look, it takes a certain IQ level to understand the concept of "they do what they do to maximize runs in this environment." You could change approaches to a "try to beat the shift or bunt" but you would get worse actual run results if the ENVIRONMENT doesn't change, the environment being mound distance, spin rates, and shifts. It's a big-brain vs small-brain discussion. Smootness for example is fairly big-brain on the topic. Clark, Commercecomet, and Todd, small brain.

[BrunswickDawg]

No you can't. The reason they have the approaches they do now is because it leads to the most runs scored in this pitcher dominant environment. All of these hitters COULD sacrifice some power and raise their batting averages with more singles, but the value of the HR is such compared to the ball in play it's literally not worth it. Do you think these people are dumb? They're trying to win games and the best way to do that IN THIS PITCHING/DEFENSE ENVIRONMENT is to sell out for power and who cares if I K because a ball in play is likely to be an out anyway with shifts, or if I can even manage to get a ball in play with the velocity and spin rates we see these days.

Also, bunting is really hard. And nobody wants to see that shit. People want to see early 90's version of the game, and that can be manufactured through rule changes.

Look, it takes a certain IQ level to understand the concept of "they do what they do to maximize runs in this environment." You could change approaches to a "try to beat the shift or bunt" but you would get worse actual run results if the ENVIRONMENT doesn't change, the environment being mound distance, spin rates, and shifts. It's a big-brain vs small-brain discussion. Smootness for example is fairly big-brain on the topic. Clark, Commercecomet, and Todd, small brain.

Or, MLB can lower the seams on the ball and juice the core again - like they did in the 90s - and not have to monkey with the rules.

[Rex54]

Or, MLB can lower the seams on the ball and juice the core again - like they did in the 90s - and not have to monkey with the rules.

Which would make the HR even more optimal.

The issue with MLB isn't a lack of runs - League ERA is up three quarters of a run in the last decade. To win games you have to play the way we are seeing. The idea of changing approaches would be laughed at, "what do you want us to start losing?"

The issue with baseball is that it's become an incredibly boring product with the BB/K/HR approach. Same as the NBA with the 3. Analytics aren't going away so you need to use the rules to make the most optimal analytical approach ALSO be the most enjoyable form a fan/viewer perspective.

[Really Clark?]

No you can't. The reason they have the approaches they do now is because it leads to the most runs scored in this pitcher dominant environment. All of these hitters COULD sacrifice some power and raise their batting averages with more singles, but the value of the HR is such compared to the ball in play it's literally not worth it. Do you think these people are dumb? They're trying to win games and the best way to do that IN THIS PITCHING/DEFENSE ENVIRONMENT is to sell out for power and who cares if I K because a ball in play is likely to be an out anyway with shifts, or if I can even manage to get a ball in play with the velocity and spin rates we see these days.

Also, bunting is really hard. And nobody wants to see that shit. People want to see early 90's version of the game, and that can be manufactured through rule changes.

Look, it takes a certain IQ level to understand the concept of "they do what they do to maximize runs in this environment." You could change approaches to a "try to beat the shift or bunt" but you would get worse actual run results if the ENVIRONMENT doesn't change, the environment being mound distance, spin rates, and shifts. It's a big-brain vs small-brain discussion. Smootness for example is fairly big-brain on the topic. Clark, Commercecomet, and Todd, small brain.

Well my small brain, has destroyed several of your points throughout the season with actual results. Innovation and creativity wins without major rule changes. Analytics are great and I use them a lot but it has flaws. A part, big part of why bunting is hard but it’s not worked on either. Analytics says it’s almost useless in most situations but that is a two part flaw in regards to this discussion: 1) players are not great at bunting so it is even harder against the pitching of today, worked on harder and it would be better. 2) The analytics can’t factor in bunting against the shift because it’s not implemented for the data. But we know it will work simply by the defensive positioning. We don’t have to have data to know it is an approach that would work, IF they choose to work on it.

Being someone of low IQ with regards to actual technique and approach, as yourself, a change of approach is NOT about hitting only singles and eliminating power. It’s about a better swing path and approach to beat the defenses and pitching of today. And it is being discussed at higher levels to a degree. Hearing it from some high level hitting coaches. Launch angle is being adjusted again to change from just 2 years ago. But there is an organizational and money component that is in play that is outside of all of this.

Riley was just a good immediate example of someone I know many watch and how he is making changes that have increased his average but not at the expense of all of his power potential. Be interesting to see if he can continue and if the changes work under pressure. But you keep on sucking off Hatcher’s piss rods while he is on the bench. Low IQ, you are a joke with that. CC24 would coach circles around you every game. Clueless and calling someone else low IQ when you have proven yourself to be ignorant

[Todd4State]

No you can't. The reason they have the approaches they do now is because it leads to the most runs scored in this pitcher dominant environment. All of these hitters COULD sacrifice some power and raise their batting averages with more singles, but the value of the HR is such compared to the ball in play it's literally not worth it. Do you think these people are dumb? They're trying to win games and the best way to do that IN THIS PITCHING/DEFENSE ENVIRONMENT is to sell out for power and who cares if I K because a ball in play is likely to be an out anyway with shifts, or if I can even manage to get a ball in play with the velocity and spin rates we see these days.

Also, bunting is really hard. And nobody wants to see that shit. People want to see early 90's version of the game, and that can be manufactured through rule changes.

Look, it takes a certain IQ level to understand the concept of "they do what they do to maximize runs in this environment." You could change approaches to a "try to beat the shift or bunt" but you would get worse actual run results if the ENVIRONMENT doesn't change, the environment being mound distance, spin rates, and shifts. It's a big-brain vs small-brain discussion. Smootness for example is fairly big-brain on the topic. Clark, Commercecomet, and Todd, small brain.

Speaking of IQ you're baseball one is very low.

You want to maximize runs? Look at the best home run hitters of all time. The Aaron's, the Ruth's, the Bond's, Pujols, A-Rod, Trout, Ted Williams etc. The vast majority could hit for power AND average. The people like you who don't know what you're talking about try to make into an either you're a singles hitter or a home run hitter argument. But the reality is the best power hitters of all time were also great hitters as well. They actually ended up hitting more, striking out less, and hit more home runs. Why? Because if you have the skill to hit the ball to all fields it makes it more difficult on the pitcher to pitch you and attack you. What happens then is the pitcher is then more likely to make a mistake. THEN you end up with a bomb. If you don't do that maybe you get a double- and yeah maybe you get a single. But all of that is valuable. Especially when it comes to getting paid in MLB. A guy that hits 25 now using this bullcrap pull only philosophy would be able to hit 40 if they actually tried to use the whole field.

MLB pitchers can get hitters out very easily that swing at everything and don't adjust at all.

[Rex54]

Speaking of IQ you're baseball one is very low.

I wouldn't normally do this, but come on...

You want to maximize runs? Look at the best home run hitters of all time. The Aaron's, the Ruth's, the Bond's, Pujols, A-Rod, Trout, Ted Williams etc. The vast majority could hit for power AND average. The people like you who don't know what you're talking about try to make into an either you're a singles hitter or a home run hitter argument. But the reality is the best power hitters of all time were also great hitters as well. They actually ended up hitting more, striking out less, and hit more home runs. Why? Because if you have the skill to hit the ball to all fields it makes it more difficult on the pitcher to pitch you and attack you. What happens then is the pitcher is then more likely to make a mistake. THEN you end up with a bomb. If you don't do that maybe you get a double- and yeah maybe you get a single. But all of that is valuable. Especially when it comes to getting paid in MLB. A guy that hits 25 now using this bullcrap pull only philosophy would be able to hit 40 if they actually tried to use the whole field.

MLB pitchers can get hitters out very easily that swing at everything and don't adjust at all.

Yeah, let's assume every hitter is going to be able to turn into the best hitters of all-time. That'll fix everything! Just to be clear your argument is that currently the vast majority of the league could increase their power AND average (and net worth by millions of dollars) but aren't because The Voice from Field of Dreams hasn't come along and whispered in their ear "go, the other way"...




"Guys, hear me out. If you want to fix offense in baseball.... you all need to become Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, and Barry Bonds"

What utter nonsense. This is why I'm bullying you on this topic. Your arguments are a waste of time and provide no actual solutions to MLB being a completely unwatchable product.

[Todd4State]

I wouldn't normally do this, but come on...



Yeah, let's assume every hitter is going to be able to turn into the best hitters of all-time. That'll fix everything! Just to be clear your argument is that currently the vast majority of the league could increase their power AND average (and net worth by millions of dollars) but aren't because The Voice from Field of Dreams hasn't come along and whispered in their ear "go, the other way"...




"Guys, hear me out. If you want to fix offense in baseball.... you all need to become Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, and Barry Bonds"

What utter nonsense. This is why I'm bullying you on this topic. Your arguments are a waste of time and provide no actual solutions to MLB being a completely unwatchable product.

The hitting approach that players are using right now is what is making MLB unwatchable. I wonder why it was more watchable doing it my way?

But yeah- keep making strawmen instead of staying on point. The point was obvious to people who aren't stupid. You imitate how the best of the best do things. And then each individual player achieves their personal best. They won't all be Babe Ruth. But they sure as hell won't be hitting .210 with 20 home runs and 200 K's either.

Another big problem with baseball is stupid people like you telling people that know baseball how it should be played.