Does fielding matter?

Good point Donutman. But keep in mind, many players get limited playing time due to the good hit no field label. In some cases a team may have more than one DH-type. They then have to have a defensive liability on the field if they want both bats in the lineup. Many very good college hitters may go on to minor league ball, but if they aren't great, they are good hit, no glove and a team can only carry so many of those.
Of course on a young team, if a kid can hit, he can be taught how to hold his own on the field.
Which would I rather have? The kid with the stick.
But its still a two way game for the most part.

I think hitting does keep you going up into the next level, but anyplayer should continue to work on all aspects of thier game including their fielding.

Look at most workout regimens for baseball. It is all about the core and getting bigger and stronger. Bulk does not help with fielding in any way except for arm strength. Being quick, agile, and flexible is the key to defensive ability and those things are rarely stressed when it comes to building a baseball body.

Hitting is not only number 1. It is the only 1.

I think I am going to change my name to devils advocate.

quote:

Look at most workout regimens for baseball. It is all about the core and getting bigger and stronger.

I don't know if it's common, but in addition to core and legs, 2B's program includes vertical leap, explosiveness, balance, flexibility, plus drills, drills, drills. All of those positively affect fielding. But this doesn't come from his HS coach - it came first from a personal trainer last summer, then from a former D1 2B who is now his travel coach. I guess it depends on the coach. You know a former 2B is going to like the glove as well as the bat. But this guy makes his living teaching hitting, so there you go.

Still, Rafael Belliard (aka PacMan) remains one of my all time favorite players.

My son is an excellent fielder/average batter and he still was recruited by 3 D1's. Perhaps the one thing he has going for him is he has a high ceiling; he's currently the lightest weight player on his college roster by 10 lbs., but he is predicted to put on quite a bit of weight in the next 2 years (just like his late bloomer dad did), which should help with his hitting. Thankfully, his college coaches are patient and willing to wait for his body to bulk up. But you are right, Doughnutman -- most programs do not value fielding ability like they value a bat.

quote:

Originally posted by Doughnutman:
Baseball is all about hitting for position players anymore. After you have attained a few basic fielding skills, advancing is all about hitting the ball. It doesn't matter how good a fielder you are if you can't hit the ball, but if you can hit you will move up and "they will find a place for you."

I know these are popular notions, but I don't think either is true.

Regarding "anymore": Batting averages today are nowhere near as high as those between 1920 and 1940, and are today, for the DH-less National League, about the same as those between 1940 and 1960. 1960 to 1990 is the low era, but the difference is about .265 versus .270.

How about power? Again using the NL, home runs per game are pretty much at the historical high, although the 50's are very similar. Are the hitters more powerful today, or are the parks on average more home run friendly? I think it is a little of both.

As for "they will always find a place for hitters", it just doesn't stand up to examination, at least for teams that have many more applicants than roster spots. The roster will hold someone else who hits nearly as well, but who can field better. So there is room for just one player who can mash but can't field. The number 2 masher will sit. And the number 1 masher probably won't get to play at the next level.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

We kind of ran into this on my son's AAU team. Last year we had a player tryout, kid could rake the ball and was a physical speciman (man if my kid had 1/2 the muscle tone of this kid...not bulky but ripped..kind of A-Rodish) but he also couldn't field a ground ball to save his life and was 50/50 in the outfield as to whether he'd catch the ball. He also had a limped wrist throwing style. So even though he could rake he didn't make the team..absolutely zero fielding ability. Well apparently he worked hard on his game this past season as he showed up at tryouts again this season. He still tore the cover off the ball while hitting (more power then anyone on our team by far) but he also caught all the balls hit to him in the outfield and his throwing had improved greatly. He still struggled on grounders and took so so paths to the ball in the outfield. This year I expect him to make the team and they will hold their collective breath on every ball that finds him but they will be excited every time he comes up with men on base. This year the trade off is worth it.

I think you can teach a kid to adequately field a position (especially a corner outfield spot) easier then you can teach a kid to hit better.

Welllll now,
I expected to get a lot of disagreement on this topic. Seems like almost all believe the same thing that hitting is king.

I didn't actually think that. Now I have something else to think about. You never know what a thread will teach you.

doughnutman,

It is just like pitching...velocity and size over control and knowing how to pitch. The kid who is 6'4" and throws 92 is going to get a lot of looks compared to the 5' 9" kid who hits 83. Ya the 5' 9" kid gets lots of outs because he is crafty and mixes up his pitches and throws strikes but the scouts, coaches and recruiters will be drooling over the projectability of the 6'4" kid who throws in the 90's even if he walks the park full all the time. It is the nature of the times.

Big bat, pitch velocity and physical size...those are what rule...defense and pitching know how are just bonuses...just be fringe average and you'll be ok. Be a great defender or pitcher and have fringe batting or pitch velocity and good luck to you!

Marc Belanger of the Orioles would never make it in today's game...no matter how great a shortstop he was. .220 average would have killed him. Heck I bet Brooks Robinson would have been in trouble as his batting numbers wouldn't have cut it as a corner infielder in todays game.

You might want to take a closer look at Brooksie's offensive numbers. Maybe not Schmidt or Chipper, but no slouch he.

As for Belanger, could he make it today: I would agree, probably not. But then, Fran Tarkenton wouldn't make it in the NFL today, Bob Cousy wouldn't make it in the NBA today, etc. Competition is stiffer and you can't expect to make it with gaping holes in your game.

Think of Rey Ordonez as the closest thing to the Belanger of the past decade. How long did he last?

I think baseball will start again more and more to require diversified skills as the steroid era fades away. During the 90's to 06 timeframe when hitting was totally king, you could see a definite decline in overall defensive and baserunning skills because most lineups stacked the lineup from 1 thru 8 or 9 with 20 plus homer guys. I looked and there were historical numbers of both team 10+ run games during the 96-02 years. I'm even thinking there might be a rebirth of the prototype leadoff batters again such as Henderson, Raines, Rose, Boggs and Butler who actually took 80 to 120 walks to go along with .300 batting averages reguardless of whether they hit for much power. That type guy does not currently exist in the majors. Sizemore draws some walks but his average is only soso anfd he strikes out 130 times. Furcal might be the closest. Biggio was somewhat of this type but too many k's. While these guys were all very good hitters, they could also do other things on the field besides just mash, offensively as well as defensively. Didn't mean to get off your original topic Doughnutman but I think the game will change back a little from Homerun Derby only in the next few years. The guys who can do the "little things will once again become important. Look at the team we sent to the world cup. They couldn't even get down a bunt or steal a base when they needed to because it was a team of sluggers and not total baseball players. Vernon Wells batted leadoff at times. They needed Eckstein or Pedroia bad.

Hi Three Bagger,

I sure hope you are right and I suspect you are correct. Ryan Howard leads MLB with 48 Hrs as of tonight. That is closer in line with when Mike Schmidt was leading the league with 40 plus HRs.

And Mike Schmidt played in a bigger ball park

I think this depends a lot on the team and their needs amd the position of the player, though positions can be changed if you have the discipline and power at the plate.
One of my fav players, Hanley Rimerez, can't play his position well but man can he rake, drive in runs, etc. He just got a 14M contract this year and it wasn't because he fields his postion well, though he is young and will improve. I htink that his postion was changed to better suit the team's needs, which often happens (Arod for example).
If you are a power hitter or find a way to get on base, you get the job, if you can't produce runs than you have to be A+ at your position (SS or catcher for example). DH in college ball doesn't have to be a power hitter or one who fields their position well, often times just able to come up with the hit or HR when you need it, that is what makes them so special. Kind of like the Ortiz's of the world.
You practice fielding as a team and the team isn't always practicing. You are dependent upon that to improve your skills.
However, you can spend literally hours in the cages, getting better at what is perceived to be the most important thing for most coaches and managers. I have never heard anyone say, he can't hit for average but plays his position well. What I have heard is that he hits for average or above but needs work on his fielding skills. A lot also depends on the position you play. I know of one player who got drafted very early, not a power hitter, in fact not a HR in college(?) but way above average OBP, HBP and steals and fast as lightening as the CF. Excellent table setter as first at bat, every game.
STL's first pick was all about his bat. He may have been better suited for a AL team, but as stocky as he is, they say he is pretty fast on the bases. He can improve on his fielding, but his bat got him 2.3 million dollars. My son's friend was a 13 round pick, his bonus wasn't as high as someone who had 5 tools, but his bat got him that pick. The top draft choices, have the tools to get them that spot. Buster Posey, Matt Weiters for example, excellent catchers (with power arms) who can hit for power. There are not too many of them that exist.
Someone mentioned it and it's true, same for pitchers. You are more desireable if you pitch 90's,they can teach you to pitch. Same for hitters, you have that natural instinct at the plate and you are in, they can teach you your position, which sometimes is not even what you were chosen for in teh first place.
IMO, it's all about tools and you have to hit for one of them to get you noticed.
I'd like to hear PG's take on this one, he can shed a better opinion.
JMO

Hitters will find their way into a starting lineup. Not so with someone who's a better fielder.

I think a lot depends on the program/clubs philosophy.

Fielding is a key element just as is speed

I agree with TPM. It's all about the tools and hitting and power are 2 of the 5. If one gets you noticed then having these two will definitely get you a starting job.

We can talk about youth ball, and the need to teach a kid how to field if he can hit.
But don't get lost in the idea that an MLB ss who hit .250 is not a good hitter. Does anyone here think they could hit .250 in the bigs? If a guy hits .250 in the bigs, he may be a .300-325 hitter in AAA. If he's a major league fielding ss, then his .250 will be tolerated.
Lets not forget McDonald from Toronto and I'm sure a few other big leaguers who are there because they can field and they Can hit big league pitching.
Not every player is going to be a Banks or Ripken. All around talent will be evaluated and the big leagues teams will select players on what the individual team deems acceptable for its roster. Make no mistake, Mark Bellanger was a big league shortstop and a very good one who could play in any era.
As for youth, the aau kid who could hit should have made the team regardless of his fielding ability. However, I am not surprised that he wasn't as many of these programs preach good coaching, but most won't take the time to teach a good hitter how to field. It takes much less time and effort than trying to teach a kid how to hit.

Living close to Houston, I used to watch Adam Everett and he is much like Belanger. He just killed you with his offense in these more offensive times. He's a guy who can do it all defensively but is really a detriment to offensive production. When you have a team of truly great hitters that are also Golden glovers like the 1975 Reds then that is something special to watch. However, I tend to agree with those that say hitting ability is valued by coaches, over fielding.

I hope fielding dont matter. My son hit well last year, but should be able to hit with power this year (fingers crossed). His fielding though, ug, I tell yas. I try to do some fielding practice, but still ug. So all I can say is !Yay! for batting.

Ask the Angels how defense can kill you

Thats too bad, because I sure love to watch Webgems alot more compared to HRs on sportscenter.

Maybe it's because my 10 yr old is a step ahead of the other kids in the area as far as playing 2B goes. He is the smallest and fastest on his travel team and doesnt hit for power yet. I love the fact that he is the fast, high OBP, great fielder that I like to see leading off for a team. He is a tough out and that is what I want at leadoff. He's not going to hit a HR but I like the fact that he stuckout 3 times in over 120 abs this season.

I guess I need to feed him more so he can get big, slow and hit for power. (joke)

I admit that it is upsetting reading how you have to hit the long ball or throw 90+ to get noticed.

Im pretty confident a team of 9 players like my son would beat a team of 9 players like our powerhitters.

gameth,

PEDROIA....... not big, at all....

my son was small when he was your sons age, power begins to develop as they mature, just keep letting him play like a spark plug, he will get noticed. work hard, play hard.

Mark Belanger was one of the top fielding Shortstops in his time.

A more recent top SS would be Omar Vizquel.

Their lifetime fielding statistics reveal the following…

Belanger – 1971 games – 210 errors
Vizquel – 2656 games – 183 errors

Belanger - .977 Fld %
Vizquel - .984 Fld %

Bottom line… As great a fielder as Belanger was the more current Vizquel was even better. By a long ways!

BTW, Belanger was bigger than Vizquel

Hitting has become the #1 tool, but fielding is still a very important part of the game and is not overlooked by scouts. You do have positions for those who hit but lack highest level fielding skills. Other positions require outstanding defensive skills. To play those positions you need more than just a bat.

There were much better hitters available than the first pick of the 2008 draft, but none with better overall talent.

Just something to think about.

PG,

What do you think? do you think you can teach a hitter to hit say at the college level? or is it easier to take a good hitter and make him better defensively?
From what I have observed, and you have way more experience than me, If you are an above avg. fielder with a good arm and you really begin to hit, you def. get noticed.(esp. extra base hits)

fanofgame,

IMO any and all parts of the game can be taught and players can improve.

That said, you can't teach just anyone to hit like Pujols or field like Vizquel. There has to be a certain amount of natural ability.

Then again, a lot depends on the position. It's easier to teach a shortstop to play 1B than the other way around. BTW, Pujols was a shortstop.

One of the sweetest fielders I ever saw was Luis Aparicio of the White Sox---tell his pitchers that defense did not count

A few others from before the times for most of you

Phil Rizzuto
PeeWee Reese
Alvin Dark


ask their pitching staffs if defense did not matter

I am in no way underesimating good defensive players. I was just curious if someone can learn to hit at the next level if not a very good hitter at the present.I agree that their is natural abilities for both. But I think being hitting would be tougher to teach , can you teach bat speed and quick hands,pitch recognition, just curious thats all.

Does fielding matter? Yes.

Some say hitting a baseball is the toughest thing to do in all of sports. I would agree with that to a certain extent.

Then again there are many more great hitters than there are great shortstops.

You can improve bat speed and pitch recognition. Harder to improve quick hands quite as much.

It's also possible to improve footwork, soft hands, actions, arm strength, arm accuracy, quick transfer, speed, and all the other things needed to be a quality shortstop. But very hard to improve those skills enough to produce a professional level shortstop.

I've seen several non athletic types become outstanding hitters. Not to mention names, but there are several very good major league hitters that lack the skills necessary to be a very good fielder. Not sure I've ever seen an outstanding non athletic shortstop. But I've seen many outstanding shortstops who are also outstanding hitters.

Hitting may be the most important tool, but it takes more than that to win.

There fore, I would have to say it would actually be easier to teach someone how to be a good hitter. Because I've actually seen it done before.

PG,

Thanks thats what I was looking..Just wanted your opinion Thanks fan

Fielding is easy to learn with lots of reps and some technical work. Batting would be easier to learn if we knew what to teach. No one can put an exact thumb on how to teach the MLB swing. If we knew what to teach, I think it would be easy, but everyone is just guessing.

PG you have a PM

quote:

Fielding is easy to learn with lots of reps and some technical work. Batting would be easier to learn if we knew what to teach. No one can put an exact thumb on how to teach the MLB swing. If we knew what to teach, I think it would be easy, but everyone is just guessing.

LAball,

Think I understand what you mean. There are many different hitting theories. However, I'm stubborn enough to think there are a few extremely important things that most everyone would agree with as it relates to the MLB swing. One being the position at toe touch.

I also believe that even if there were the perfect swing developed, it wouldn't neccessarily make someone a great hitter. The natural ability involved in hitting a baseball is important. However, there are many people who can "teach" hitters better technique and see lots of improvement.

My point regarding fielding was this... Using a shortstop as the prime example. You can teach the proper technique of back handing the ball in the hole... You can teach the proper footwork to make that play... you can teach the proper transfer and throwing technique... And after teaching all of that... You still either have the ability to make that play... Or you don't!

If some kid you never saw before showed up for you to coach, knowing nothing about him, would you like your chances better making him a good hitter or a good shortstop? Not saying either is very easy.

BTW, wouldn't you agree that "lots of reps" is important in both?

It would depend on what you call "the ability to field" is. If you are talking about the ability to field a routine ball on a routine basis and make the routine play at the hs level you are probaly correct. If you are talking about learning how to field at a high level good enough to play at the next level the answer would be no. There is way more to the art of playing defense at a high level than most people understand. The players are faster , they get out of the box quicker , the balls are hit much harder , the play of the game is much faster , you must defend a greater amount of the field , you must have a much stronger and accurate arm etc etc. There are alot of hs players that are good hs defenders that can not play defense at the next level. There are many hs catchers that do an adequate job behind the plate at their level that can not defend at the college level. The same can be said for all posistion players.

If you can not defend at a high level you will not play unless you are in a program that is very weak. If you can mash you will have a chance to compete against every other player on the team that did not win a role in the field that can also mash. Fielding is extremely important. Always has been and always will be.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach May:
If you can mash you will have a chance...

This ol' Irishman can't begin to tell you how thrilled I was to hear that Coach!



Let the rotational vs. linear debate spudder back to life!





.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
BTW, wouldn't you agree that "lots of reps" is important in both?

For a beginner yes. But once you get mid level, say HS'ish, I'd say You either have the swing or you dont ( can you hit a good curve ) and no matter how many Tee or batting cages you do will help, but doing more fielding may.....
I guess im saying this, the ceiling is shorter without technical help ( just straight reps ) for the swing. I'll also say this simple Technical help for a swing can greatly improve if taught right. I think, hope, pray, that my swing mechanics are right , cuz my son is horrible at fielding HA HA! ( I can only laugh since I cant cry about it ) but I;ll have to wait since he is the class of 2017. At least you have PG youth in the near future for my son to aspire to.

quote:

My point regarding fielding was this... Using a shortstop as the prime example. You can teach the proper technique of back handing the ball in the hole... You can teach the proper footwork to make that play... you can teach the proper transfer and throwing technique... And after teaching all of that... You still either have the ability to make that play... Or you don't!

So true.

My son is a shortstop and he definitely has benefitted from fielding instruction. Through weekly fielding lessons during his sophomore year in high school, he mastered backhanding the ball -- something he previously hadn't done well. But like PGStaff said, after all the instruction, you either have the ability to make that play or you don't. During my son's fall evaluation, his college coach stated, "You have two tools that we can't teach -- defense and hand-eye."

My son has always been highly-regarded for his fielding ability, but not necessarily for his hitting. (He is much like Gameth's son; until his senior year, he had hit only 1 HR in his life.) But after two months of working with his college hitting coach, who is a tremendous instructor, he received great feedback on his ability and potential. Revamping his swing has made all the difference in the world.