Quote Originally Posted by Really Clark? View Post
I disagree with this premise. There is causation in this that is hurting the game. One being is what is working at MLB trickle downs to dads and ?hitting coaches? of 8-12 year olds and that creates a ton of bad swings and approaches at the plate. I hear it and see it all the time with other lessons going on around me at the field. I also hear the frustration of the kid that hit a double over the weekend but K?d 8 times and the parent is up their ass about the K. That?s the swing you are teaching them parents. You are losing good potential players because mentally at the plate it destroys their love for the game. Kids want to make contact over striking out 100 times out of a 100.

The other issue is this, there are only so many players with actual power potential...but everybody else can train to be good contact hitters. There are more players that could have good contact skills actually training to increase power that won?t ever come. Why take a kid that makes great contact and change their swing to where the best they will do is hit some doubles, fly / line out a lot more because they hit to OF depth now and triple their K?s, trying to bomb something.

Learn the absolutes of what makes a great swing, work on reading and timing the pitcher and then timing the speed of the ball, work on reading spin, and mental approach of what actually works at the plate. As they grow and learn to square up the ball you can make adjustments to play into their ability for power but you hear it even in MLB telecast about how many guys struggle with learning to stay inside the ball and drive everything back to the middle of the pitch location.

And what exactly would be wrong in having a team of Tony Gywnn?s? Why is that not a big standard for players. I also beat the ever living crap out of teams if I have 9 of those vs what you are trying to do offensively.

Bunting beats the shift and will kill it for the most part but one of the biggest problem is the analytics against bunting do not factor in that 1) those numbers are for MLB grown men where they never applied shifts in the equation and 2) it still works very well in lower levels of ball...exponentially works better the lower you go. But it?s not taught at all or what is taught is wrong and trash. And the player gets to try it in soft BP for 3-5 pitches. That?s it. Then they hit 175 balls in the cage. You want to bunt better which would change the analytics about it as well, you have to actually bunt a ton and go live just like you do for hitting. It will work in lower levels if you teach and practice actual bunting. I mean sac bunting (not squaring up in a goofy position while the pitcher and catcher are looking in the dugout for a sign and the defense is being changed because you squared around 10 min early), drag bunt, push bunt, slash...you do that about 10 straight times and the shift suddenly is not seen near as much.

ETA. All of this is coming from a guy who takes analytics seriously and applies it but the game is not pure analytics either and it has flaws. And as a coach it’s your job to know how to beat analytic driven teams as well.
Saying 'what would be wrong with a team of Tony Gwynn's?' is like asking 'what would be wrong with a team of Barry Bonds?' Tony Gwynn was a freak of nature in his ability to hit. You don't teach that. If a guy can hit like Tony Gwynn, I promise no one is going to tell him to swing for the fences more and K more.

And you act like everyone is out there hitting .220 with 40 bombs. There are plenty of really good hitters out there who have a good approach, make consistent contact, and know what they're doing, just as many as there ever were. My main point is that the change is at the very least not only a change in approach. Part of the change in approach was necessitated by an increase in pitching quality. Pitchers are now much harder to hit, on average, than they've ever been. Hitters didn't just decide to start striking out more; it's actually harder to hit a pitched baseball now because pitchers are better and more specialized. So to combat that, they even more need their contact to count.

Guys are still trying to decrease K's and make more contact, but they're more focused on the kind of contact they're making than they've been before, which is a positive change. Craig Counsell didn't strike out as much as hitters today...great. He also made weak contact, so he still didn't have great BAs and did little damage when he hit the ball. He was able to get on base, so he was useful in some ways but was negligible as a hitter. Dansby Swanson is a guy who is somewhat similar in today's game - he K's more, but he makes better contact, so his BA is pretty similar, and even though he doesn't walk as much, the additional damage he does when he makes contact makes him a slightly better hitter than Counsell was.