Another No Hitter

[BrunswickDawg]

No hitters on back to back days for the first time since 1969.

6th no no of the season. Kluber does it for the Yanks against the Rangers.
2 against the Mariners.
2 against the Indians.
2 against the Rangers.

Single season record is 8 in 1884.

First Yankees no hitter since 1999 and their first in the road since 1951.

What a crazy season so far.

Oh, and Kershaw has another one goin thru 3 against the D-Backs

[MetEdDawg]

I keep thinking at some point hitters will adjust and change their approach. Getting no hit used to be an embarrassment. Now it's become more commonplace and it doesn't seem like it bothers folks as much as it used to.

I remember as a Braves fan when Randy Johnson no hit us. I was embarrassed for a long time after that even with it being against one of the best pitchers to ever to play the game.

[Really Clark?]

No hitters on back to back days for the first time since 1969.

6th no no of the season. Kluber does it for the Yanks against the Rangers.
2 against the Mariners.
2 against the Indians.
2 against the Rangers.

Single season record is 8 in 1884.

First Yankees no hitter since 1999 and their first in the road since 1951.

What a crazy season so far.

Oh, and Kershaw has another one goin thru 3 against the D-Backs

Peacock has a no hitter (maybe perfect) through 3 for the Diamondbacks as well in the same game.

Kershaw just gave up a 2 run shot

[Schultzy]

through three is not a thing...through six, maybe

[BrunswickDawg]

through three is not a thing...through six, maybe

On a day when one has already been thrown, it’s worth noting that there could be another in the works. 2 on the same days has only happened twice in MLB history.

[Schultzy]

It ain’t in the works after 3

[Rex54]

Move the mound to 61' 6"
Ban the infield shift
Severely punish foreign substances that increase spin rate.

[Homedawg]

Move the mound to 61' 6"
Ban the infield shift
Severely punish foreign substances that increase spin rate.

No too much hitter advantage
No learn to go the other way
I can go with this but they are trying to catch them I guess. It's just hard to prove

Hitters have become hr or bust. That's the problem. Not the mound and not the shift. The reason the shift is in is Bc everyone is up there pull happy trying to hit jacks. That's why we are at a modern day low of league Ba at 232. That's a joke. Crying shame really. But as long as hr hitters get paid a premium and people don't get paid for being tiny Gwynn at an equal rate that's what's going to happen. No different than hoops being a 3 point contest. Makes for a crappy level of basketball but that's what it is and ii isn't changing.

[Todd4State]

No too much hitter advantage
No learn to go the other way
I can go with this but they are trying to catch them I guess. It's just hard to prove

Hitters have become hr or bust. That's the problem. Not the mound and not the shift. The reason the shift is in is Bc everyone is up there pull happy trying to hit jacks. That's why we are at a modern day low of league Ba at 232. That's a joke. Crying shame really. But as long as hr hitters get paid a premium and people don't get paid for being tiny Gwynn at an equal rate that's what's going to happen. No different than hoops being a 3 point contest. Makes for a crappy level of basketball but that's what it is and ii isn't changing.

Yep. All of this.

[Rex54]

Yep. All of this.

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.

[MetEdDawg]

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.

Can you explain what was factual incorrect about Homedawg's statement?

Because every bit of it is true.

[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.

[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

[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.

[PMDawg]

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.

The difference is that everyone you listed here is actually able to remain civil and have a very good point/counter-point debate with each other. They have all made good points on both sides of the argument, and have managed to do so while being civil to each other.

You, on the other hand, actually add no meaningful content to the discussion and just hurl child-like insults whenever someone disagrees with you. You insinuate that you are the smartest person in the room. You need to humble yourself, and consider that maybe you're not. Most members of this board are college educated people with technical degrees. Everyone on here is likely very smart. Your baseless insults make you come across like a 5 year old brat stomping their foot or laying on the ground crying. It certainly doesn't paint you as the smartest person in the room.

I have no doubt you've studied baseball a lot, and that you have a lot of good knowledge to bring to the table. However, no one is going to listen to you if you can't be civil with it.

I'll take my own advice and stop here.

[Rex54]

The difference is that everyone you listed here is actually able to remain civil and have a very good point/counter-point debate with each other. They have all made good points on both sides of the argument, and have managed to do so while being civil to each other.

You, on the other hand, actually add no meaningful content to the discussion and just hurl child-like insults whenever someone disagrees with you. You insinuate that you are the smartest person in the room. You need to humble yourself, and consider that maybe you're not. Most members of this board are college educated people with technical degrees. Everyone on here is likely very smart. Your baseless insults make you come across like a 5 year old brat stomping their foot or laying on the ground crying. It certainly doesn't paint you as the smartest person in the room.

I have no doubt you've studied baseball a lot, and that you have a lot of good knowledge to bring to the table. However, no one is going to listen to you if you can't be civil with it.

I'll take my own advice and stop here.

I don't really "study the game" that much, mostly been a casual Braves fan over the years. I just loathe what analytics has done to all sports. You can't even watch MLB anymore. I wish we could see the league leaders around 80 stolen bases, 50 HR, .360 averages, and 10 K/9. I miss hit-and-runs, squeeze plays, etc. I miss the mid-range jump shot. I miss the I-formation. I'm not interested in time-wasting discussions on the problems being the hitter's approaches when they have no choice but to take those approaches to win games. That's the message that needs to be hammered home and the prism which this needs to be looked at. Environment necessitates approach. Blindly saying "durrr just change approach" is nonproductive.