Recently read a few articles about that. Suggestions were lower mound, smaller strike zone and one even suggested moving the mound back (the rationale was that the geometric middle of the home to second diagonal is actually 63 feet and not 60 so it would be logical to have the rubber at 63).
Would create more actuon and offense. Would suck for the pitchers but if every pitcher had a 5 era it just would be a differetdifferent baseline.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
MLB is in big trouble and reducing Ks isn't going to help much, as seen by the new pace of play changes to speed up the game.
Why would a 5ERA be acceptable to a pitcher who is hoping to one day make the Hall of Fame?
The length of the game as well as higher costs to attend has become a real concern for MLB. They are losing fan attendance ( with exceptions) at the stadium as well as viewership ( especially among the younger generation) on TV. Also the lack of talent, as well as changing the roster too frequently hasn't helped.
JMO
In a word, no. MLB should not do anything at all. This strikeout situation (I'd call it an epidemic!) lies in the decisions hitters are making or not making. Strikeouts are at an all time high because hitters are being taught :
1) to come out of their cleats and swing for the fences even with two strikes. The idea of choking up, and putting a ball in play is absolutely foreign in todays professional game.
2) hit the lower half of the ball to impart a launch angle. So not only do they want athletes to do one of the hardest things in all of sports (hit a fast moving ball that has spin) but they want you to hit the lower half of the ball. Good luck with that at any level!
Possibly MLB could publish and distribute a pamphlet on swing reduction and hitting line drives to better help their hitters.
PS...I was watching an MLB game the other day. The infield had shifted entirely to the right side. There were 4 IFs from 2nd based to 1st base. They were giving this guy a bunt single to any place on the left side of the infield. He wouldn't take it. He struck out looking. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with hitters in todays professional game.
The game is perfect the way it is, it just needs smarter players willing to do things to help their team.
As always, JMO
I like the part about needing smarter players willing to do things to help their team.
Fenway IMO nailed it.
Sabermetrics actually encourage the swinging for the fences. they say that basically an out in play isn't much better than a K and it is not worth trading off power for contact.
also it isn't clear that the hitters are to blame for the Ks. this article says it might be mostly more velo and more breaking balls https://www.fangraphs.com/blog...-all-the-strikeouts/ and also there isn't a clear relationship between Ks and higher launch angle.
Totally agree with Fenway. The launch angle "revolution" may have led to more long fly balls leaving the park, but it also makes hitters who relentlessly pursue launch angle ripe for the pickings by the likes of Corey Kluber.
Over time, as hitters and pitchers adjust to each other, the game will reach some new equilibrium between power and contact. I think you see that already in the likes of Jose Ramirez and Francisco Lindor, both of whom are hitting lots of dingers, but mostly of the line drive variety. And Ramirez in particular almost never strikes out.
I thought of myself as a big MLB fan, but this past weekend when we were at a tournament out of state gave me perspective on the type of fan I am. I think I'm really just a fan of my favorite team, for the most part (the Brewers)
When killing time at the hotel in between my kids' games, since we were out of market the Brewers weren't on. I watched the College World Series a lot and the World Cup a little, but wasn't interested in whatever random MLB game was on.
I still love the MLB postseason, but mostly, I realized, during the season I just follow my team.
If the Angels were on more often, I'd watch them. Trout is must see TV
Just my two cents
Players are too worried about their "next contract" and forgetting that baseball in general is a game of failure. All the new 3 and 4 letter symbols for contrived statistics that the normal person cannot fathom - get rid of them. String together a few hits however you can - 4 straight hits have to lead to at least 1 run. Once you get a couple on, pressure on the pitching/defense builds up. Not taking opportunities given you by beating the shift is just senseless. Watched Mariners and Red Sox the other night - knuckleballs from one side and precision pitching from the other, nothing to do with velocity - didn't like the outcome, but appreciated the pitching efforts.
Read something today where Manfred was partially blaming weather for the drop in attendance. As if!!! As usual the answers to those issues can be round right here on this site by the collective knowledge of HSBBW! No need for surveys and studies. Perhaps MLB needs change at the top of the batting order. Get in touch with the game rather than shaking hands with all the execs and kissing company's $$'s in order to gain revenue. Those companies are probably looking at the most recent tax law changes and perhaps rethinking their own ticket purchasing policies and sponsorship options. Don't wait until it's too late.
I do think mlb will look for more high contact hitters now. MLB has confirmed that the ball is juiced and because of this it might make sense to have contact hitters who have decent but not great pop and can lift the ball, because if you make contact with this ball at a decent angle it flies out and you don't have to swing super hard.
lindor and altuve are like this. they have a bit of pop but nothing special in that regard but they square so many balls up that they will still hit 25 bombs or so.
but the time of the pure slap hitting infielder who doesn't strike out and hits 6 homers a year is over I believe.
Read something today where Manfred was partially blaming weather for the drop in attendance.
The weather has improved. Attendance has not.
You can’t watch every game unless you don’t have a life, But until last year I had the Red Sox game on in the background almost every day. I watched less last year. The only full game I’ve watched this year is opening day. I used to always watch the MLB tv morning after “game in twenty minutes” where they only show the result pitch. I didn’t bother to purchase MLB tv for the first time in several years this year.
The Red Sox are a candidate to bomb a team on any given night. They score a lot of runs. But they don’t score in that many innings or even threaten to score. Rather than watch the game I often check the line score, watch the innings they score and then the last two innings if the game. There are too many boring innings. Last year the Sox were almost unwatchable. And they won their division!
I would rather bike to and be outside watching a high school or travel game than watch MLB. Big deal Chris Sale has a 10:9 K:Inn ratio. Everyone does.
From the Bill Chuck files — “In Joey Gallo’s first 68 games with the Rangers this season, he whiffed 99 times. In 1935, Hall of Famer Jimmie Foxx led the AL with 99 strikeouts in 147 games and 649 plate appearances.’’
- Boston Sunday Globe
Here is another option. I am not advocating this necessarily nor is it my intent to sidetrack this post. There are players who K (either swing or called) frequently because they perceive the pitch being a strike based on how home blue strike zone is that day. If a computer were calling pitches it will be fairly consistent throughout the game and season. A test run was conducted with a minor league team for some games. Results were analyzed and categorized by an ivy league college professor. I don't recall the exact results but I do remember the computer was much more accurate than a human, percentage of questionable balls/strikes decreased, there were minimal extra time it added between pitches. If the batter no longer has to "guess" if blue is going to call a perceived strike they will decrease chasing after those pitches, thus 'theoretically" may not K as much. Just something to file away in your personal filing cabinet.
Homeruns and offense are exciting, so deadening the ball seems like a non-starter. With increased "HR-swings" comes increased strikeouts.
Now they might decide to eliminate the defensive shifts. My so, a LH hitter, would drop bunts all day long if all 4 defenders were right of 2B. Actually, he hits to all fields so much I doubt "the book" would say to shift. Heck, getting bunt base hits, I've been told, is a hoot.
Trust In Him posted:Here is another option. I am not advocating this necessarily nor is it my intent to sidetrack this post. There are players who K (either swing or called) frequently because they perceive the pitch being a strike based on how home blue strike zone is that day. If a computer were calling pitches it will be fairly consistent throughout the game and season. A test run was conducted with a minor league team for some games. Results were analyzed and categorized by an ivy league college professor. I don't recall the exact results but I do remember the computer was much more accurate than a human, percentage of questionable balls/strikes decreased, there were minimal extra time it added between pitches. If the batter no longer has to "guess" if blue is going to call a perceived strike they will decrease chasing after those pitches, thus 'theoretically" may not K as much. Just something to file away in your personal filing cabinet.
I agree. However most sabermetric studies say the electronic ump would increase Ks because umps still call a smaller zone than the book says.
If you do electronic ump you likely have to tighten the rulebook zone.
If you make the zone smaller, in theory then you end up with more walks and less offense other than maybe more runs by walks. The game takes longer and you lose more interest. I wonder what percentage of people would rather see a 2 hour game that is 2-1 or 3-2 vs a 4 hour game that is 10-12? I don't think you can look at one solution in a vacuum without looking at game times. I would think that expanding the zone (or calling it as rule book says) would actually make the game better and quicker IMHO. If guys are striking out at record pace with the zone shrinking, making it smaller will just allow them to sit on pitches more.
I am not one of those that loves to see HRs. 5 or more pitches for a strikeout will shorten the pitchers time on the mound and makes the game longer.
What happened to the strategy? There is none, but swing for the fences. I don't care for the shift, get rid of it.
Big problem is that MLB is losing the younger generation. Football and basketball has taken over. They prefer the faster paced, shorter time span sports.
I have watched 1, ONE ML game on TV. I don't plan on watching again until playoffs, hoping someone else gets in this year. Unless you are a true fan, it's tough to give up 4 hours. It's just not fun to watch anymore.
JMO
If the MLB owners wanted to reduce strikeouts they would with the approval of the player agents negotiate a system of "bonus" $$$ for a % of strikeouts to the # of "At Bats". Williams, DiMaggio, Mays, Aaron, Clemente all had a very low strikeout ratio to the # of AB's for each season.
Bob
Not sure if it was much noticed, But MLB and a private equity firm with long ties to professional baseball, have agreed to purchase the Rawlings Sporting Goods company.
Of interest to this discussion in my opinion, is the Press statement from MLB....
“MLB is excited to take an ownership position in one of the most iconic brands in sports and further build on the Rawlings legacy, which dates back to 1887,” said Chris Marinak, MLB’s executive vice president for strategy, technology & innovation, in a press statement. ” We are particularly interested in providing even more input and direction on the production of the Official Ball of Major League Baseball, one of the most important on-field products to the play of our great game.”
MLB will now have the control of the ball's manufacture. If that is an avenue that might be taken.
I love baseball, but I confess to watching less games, and more Quickpitch. It is a time thing as many of you have mentioned.
fenwaysouth posted:PS...I was watching an MLB game the other day. The infield had shifted entirely to the right side. There were 4 IFs from 2nd based to 1st base. They were giving this guy a bunt single to any place on the left side of the infield. He wouldn't take it. He struck out looking. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with hitters in todays professional game.
The game is perfect the way it is, it just needs smarter players willing to do things to help their team.
As always, JMO
I have absolutely no idea why ANY guy wouldn't take an easy bunt single against the shift....even though there is supposedly some "unwritten rule" against it lol. If a manager wants to give you half a field with nobody there to cover it....of course you'd better be smart enough to take it. It baffles me that any player would try to swing against the shift....just drop a bunt down and get to first.
piaa_ump posted:Not sure if it was much noticed, But MLB and a private equity firm with long ties to professional baseball, have agreed to purchase the Rawlings Sporting Goods company.
Of interest to this discussion in my opinion, is the Press statement from MLB....
“MLB is excited to take an ownership position in one of the most iconic brands in sports and further build on the Rawlings legacy, which dates back to 1887,” said Chris Marinak, MLB’s executive vice president for strategy, technology & innovation, in a press statement. ” We are particularly interested in providing even more input and direction on the production of the Official Ball of Major League Baseball, one of the most important on-field products to the play of our great game.”
MLB will now have the control of the ball's manufacture. If that is an avenue that might be taken.
Hmmm. Was there anything preventing them from having taken control of this at any point in history? Could they not have simply manufactured their own ball at any point in the past and deemed it the only allowable ball? This isn't tongue in cheek, but a legitimate question. I get that bats must be on the approved vendor list, then each player is free to use a bat from that vendor, but baseballs have always been a single supplier and I'm not aware of anything that MLB coudn't have done in the past to manufacture their own ball.
Buckeye 2015 posted:fenwaysouth posted:PS...I was watching an MLB game the other day. The infield had shifted entirely to the right side. There were 4 IFs from 2nd based to 1st base. They were giving this guy a bunt single to any place on the left side of the infield. He wouldn't take it. He struck out looking. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with hitters in todays professional game.
The game is perfect the way it is, it just needs smarter players willing to do things to help their team.
As always, JMO
I have absolutely no idea why ANY guy wouldn't take an easy bunt single against the shift....even though there is supposedly some "unwritten rule" against it lol. If a manager wants to give you half a field with nobody there to cover it....of course you'd better be smart enough to take it. It baffles me that any player would try to swing against the shift....just drop a bunt down and get to first.
I always thought this. Then I heard a former player/announcer explain MLB ball isn’t high school ball. It’s not that easy to bunt the other way on a MLB pitcher who is pitching to make you hit the ball into the shift.
They already shrunk the strike zone. I'm still bewildered by pitches at the letters being called balls
RJM posted:Buckeye 2015 posted:fenwaysouth posted:PS...I was watching an MLB game the other day. The infield had shifted entirely to the right side. There were 4 IFs from 2nd based to 1st base. They were giving this guy a bunt single to any place on the left side of the infield. He wouldn't take it. He struck out looking. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with hitters in todays professional game.
The game is perfect the way it is, it just needs smarter players willing to do things to help their team.
As always, JMO
I have absolutely no idea why ANY guy wouldn't take an easy bunt single against the shift....even though there is supposedly some "unwritten rule" against it lol. If a manager wants to give you half a field with nobody there to cover it....of course you'd better be smart enough to take it. It baffles me that any player would try to swing against the shift....just drop a bunt down and get to first.
I always thought this. Then I heard a former player/announcer explain MLB ball isn’t high school ball. It’s not that easy to bunt the other way on a MLB pitcher who is pitching to make you hit the ball into the shift.
Yep. If bunting 95 mph sliders was easy, they'd do it.
RJM posted:............................I always thought this. Then I heard a former player/announcer explain MLB ball isn’t high school ball. It’s not that easy to bunt the other way on a MLB pitcher who is pitching to make you hit the ball into the shift.
So, what this former MLB player/announcer is saying is that it is easier to hit a major league slider against the shift than it is to bunt a major league baseball against the shift? Sorry, that doesn't pass my logic test and sounds like bull*hit to me. Bunting has significantly less moving parts. These are professional hitters. I think what this is about is that they (the general MLB position player population) do not continually practice bunting sliders against the shift (or bunting in general) enough to call on that skill when they need it.
Again, JMO.
RJM posted:Buckeye 2015 posted:fenwaysouth posted:PS...I was watching an MLB game the other day. The infield had shifted entirely to the right side. There were 4 IFs from 2nd based to 1st base. They were giving this guy a bunt single to any place on the left side of the infield. He wouldn't take it. He struck out looking. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with hitters in todays professional game.
The game is perfect the way it is, it just needs smarter players willing to do things to help their team.
As always, JMO
I have absolutely no idea why ANY guy wouldn't take an easy bunt single against the shift....even though there is supposedly some "unwritten rule" against it lol. If a manager wants to give you half a field with nobody there to cover it....of course you'd better be smart enough to take it. It baffles me that any player would try to swing against the shift....just drop a bunt down and get to first.
I always thought this. Then I heard a former player/announcer explain MLB ball isn’t high school ball. It’s not that easy to bunt the other way on a MLB pitcher who is pitching to make you hit the ball into the shift.
Baseball Prospectus put some numbers to this equation. Kind of interesting.
if a hitter, any hitter, would lust be willing to use the entire field they will never have to face a shift...it is really not that complicated.
As a Phillies fan I get to watch smart people show how stupid they are every day of the week.
hsbaseball101 posted:They already shrunk the strike zone. I'm still bewildered by pitches at the letters being called balls
Letters? Hell, anything above the top of the belt buckle is not called a strike. Personally, I think this is the key. Just calling the zone as it is defined would cure a lot of ills. Average and younger fans want action and want things to move a little more quickly. Calling a strike zone that includes the defined upper portion would result in more strikes, more swings, less working the count. This would result in quicker AB's, more balls in play (not necessarily more well hit balls) and quicker games. Less bat on shoulders. Instantly, games are shortened, more action, a big move in the right direction without really altering our game. Just call the whole strike zone. I think the resulting adjustments that the hitters would need to make might just also result in less K's eventually (requiring a more traditional protective 2-strike approach). Initially, they would probably go up a bit more.
I agree with Fenway as well regarding bunting and the shift. Yes, hitting major league pitching is tough but these are major league hitters. Bunting is the simplest type of hitting to execute by far if proper time is given to work on it. This is the adjustment that needs to be made to negate the shift, not more rules that tell you where you need to stand defensively. Again, the game is very well designed in this regard. No alterations of the rules necessary. Just the same types of adjustments that have been happening for over 100 years.
I personally don't mind that the shift is a trend. It will require hitters to work more on developing a whole hitting approach and be better at executing situationally.
cabbagedad posted:hsbaseball101 posted:They already shrunk the strike zone. I'm still bewildered by pitches at the letters being called balls
Letters? Hell, anything above the top of the belt buckle is not called a strike. Personally, I think this is the key. Just calling the zone as it is defined would cure a lot of ills. Average and younger fans want action and want things to move a little more quickly. Calling a strike zone that includes the defined upper portion would result in more strikes, more swings, less working the count. This would result in quicker AB's, more balls in play (not necessarily more well hit balls) and quicker games. Less bat on shoulders. Instantly, games are shortened, more action, a big move in the right direction without really altering our game. Just call the whole strike zone. I think the resulting adjustments that the hitters would need to make might just also result in less K's eventually (requiring a more traditional protective 2-strike approach). Initially, they would probably go up a bit more.
Part of the reason for the increased Ks is because the pitchers are so crazy good. Wouldn't you be concerned about more Ks with a bigger zone?
Nuke83 posted:piaa_ump posted:Not sure if it was much noticed, But MLB and a private equity firm with long ties to professional baseball, have agreed to purchase the Rawlings Sporting Goods company.
Of interest to this discussion in my opinion, is the Press statement from MLB....
“MLB is excited to take an ownership position in one of the most iconic brands in sports and further build on the Rawlings legacy, which dates back to 1887,” said Chris Marinak, MLB’s executive vice president for strategy, technology & innovation, in a press statement. ” We are particularly interested in providing even more input and direction on the production of the Official Ball of Major League Baseball, one of the most important on-field products to the play of our great game.”
MLB will now have the control of the ball's manufacture. If that is an avenue that might be taken.
Hmmm. Was there anything preventing them from having taken control of this at any point in history? Could they not have simply manufactured their own ball at any point in the past and deemed it the only allowable ball? This isn't tongue in cheek, but a legitimate question. I get that bats must be on the approved vendor list, then each player is free to use a bat from that vendor, but baseballs have always been a single supplier and I'm not aware of anything that MLB coudn't have done in the past to manufacture their own ball.
No, I don't think there was ever a time that baseball could not have taken control of the manufacture of the baseball. They rules of baseball have provided for the acceptable standards for the equipment that would be legal to use in professional games.
I believe MLB had no interest in being a manufacturer of equipment and was quite satisfied being the final authority on what was legal and approved to be used. The award of the "official ball of professional baseball" goes back to 1876. As a collector of baseballs I have examples of the 3 companies that have made official major league baseball. Spalding made balls for the National League from 1876 and Reach made them for the American League from 1877....In 1977 Rawlings won the contract for MLB and has had it ever since.
I just don't think that was a core business interest. It is interesting that MLB did buy Rawlings even today. Which is why I posted the MLB statement. Recently there was an investigation into the performance of MLB baseballs. A MLB commission found that air resistance was the dominant factor that changed in the last 3 years. The commission found that baseballs manufactured in the last 2 years are structurally different that in previous years and significantly more lively.
Rawlings admitted that some aspects of the core production changed in 2015. Those changes were attributed to upgraded mechanical production processes. These process upgrades means the newer baseballs are not "juiced" but certainly there are more aerodynamic.
This lends credence to the MLB statement "We are particularly interested in providing even more input and direction on the production of the Official Ball of Major League Baseball, one of the most important on-field products to the play of our great game.”
I know this is more response than needed but it was an interest to me. Its clear production can affect the performance of the ball, but doubtful that it would do anything to reduce K's in baseball.
old_school posted:if a hitter, any hitter, would lust be willing to use the entire field they will never have to face a shift...it is really not that complicated.
As a Phillies fan I get to watch smart people show how stupid they are every day of the week.
The new, most exciting play in baseball is now a hit against the shift, especially ground ball hits.
Wait -- I don't understand. I thought all the willingness to endure the K's was to enhance HR's and thereby give fans what they want. Plus, we have all these guys throwing 95-100 now because that's what fans want to see, and what wins. Right?
With all due respect to those who think MLB is in trouble, the revenue numbers and soaring values of franchises suggest otherwise. If I were an owner, I think I would say, "Keep doing exactly what you're doing, please. In fact, your job depends on it."
I suspect this will be another phase in MLB's history that at some point will pass. The Astros hit plenty of HR's but seem to do so without all the K's. I suspect more and more people will be asking themselves, "If they can have the HR's without the K's, why can't we?"
The reality is that today's hitter is much bigger and stronger than those of yesteryear. There would be a ton more HR's today with or without all the attention to launch angle. At some point, some Sabermetric guy will discover that the number of additional HR's is not worth all the unproductive outs.
It's like watching Bryce Harper right now. He's so determined to make his every hit a HR, he's a mess. But if he would just hit, his natural power would give him HR's -- on a lesser percentage of his instances of contact, perhaps, but given the overall increase in instances of contact, he would probably suffer no reduction of HR's at all, net.
Maybe if his market value disappoints him next winter, he'll learn that lesson. But as long as folks pony up $20 and even $30 million per year for this, who can blame the players for giving people what they want?
In the end, there are 30 teams and they don't all have exactly the same philosophy.
Expect most to emulate those who win.
Which is why I think the Astros are the model of what is to come. And all this will sort itself out on its own.
My vote for the short answer to the original question is....No 
At the end of the day, winning is what it is all about. It solves all of the pace of play, strikeout issues & revenue issues. As long as that remains the case, expect teams to use whatever means necessary to get there, shifts, High HR / low B Avg. position players, 8 relievers a game etc. etc.
hsbaseball101 posted:old_school posted:if a hitter, any hitter, would lust be willing to use the entire field they will never have to face a shift...it is really not that complicated.
As a Phillies fan I get to watch smart people show how stupid they are every day of the week.
The new, most exciting play in baseball is now a hit against the shift, especially ground ball hits.
Sad to say I've seen several pro players who just cannot bunt. Various reasons for this but it would make logical sense. My son once saw a 4 outfield shift (LF, LCF, RCF, and RF) with 3rd baseman in SS position. He is a R bat, most of the pitches he saw outside part of plate. I asked son why he just couldn't pull ball, he said difficult on away pitches. Didn't work anyways since he got a LD hit LCF. He is actually a good bunter except I think only got called to bunt 3 or 4 times in college/milb.
MidAtlanticDad posted:cabbagedad posted:hsbaseball101 posted:They already shrunk the strike zone. I'm still bewildered by pitches at the letters being called balls
Letters? Hell, anything above the top of the belt buckle is not called a strike. Personally, I think this is the key. Just calling the zone as it is defined would cure a lot of ills. Average and younger fans want action and want things to move a little more quickly. Calling a strike zone that includes the defined upper portion would result in more strikes, more swings, less working the count. This would result in quicker AB's, more balls in play (not necessarily more well hit balls) and quicker games. Less bat on shoulders. Instantly, games are shortened, more action, a big move in the right direction without really altering our game. Just call the whole strike zone. I think the resulting adjustments that the hitters would need to make might just also result in less K's eventually (requiring a more traditional protective 2-strike approach). Initially, they would probably go up a bit more.
Part of the reason for the increased Ks is because the pitchers are so crazy good. Wouldn't you be concerned about more Ks with a bigger zone?
Just my personal take...
The current small (no high strikes and usually giving one edge or the other but not both) zone has cultivated a hitting approach that is both very patient and also very aggressive in regards to trying to hit for power, even with two strikes. While I agree that the pitching is crazy good, with the smaller zone, the hitters can afford to wait out a pitch they can drive... can look for that thigh high pitch with no concern for the high strike being called.
If the zone were expanded (called as defined), yes, initially, it would give even more advantage to pitchers until the hitters adjusted. But, even during the adjustment phase, the game would move faster because the hitters wouldn't be able to be as selective - either get the bat on the ball or take a seat. The adjustment, like I said, would ultimately be a move back to more of a traditional contact approach with a higher degree of a protective 2-strike approach instead of always big hacks thigh high up and down the lineup. So the pendulum would swing back to value inclusion of contact and situational hitters and reduce some of the value of selective all-or-nothing guys.
So, yes, perhaps more K's short term but less long term after the hitting approach adjustment.
3and2Fastball posted:RJM posted:Buckeye 2015 posted:fenwaysouth posted:PS...I was watching an MLB game the other day. The infield had shifted entirely to the right side. There were 4 IFs from 2nd based to 1st base. They were giving this guy a bunt single to any place on the left side of the infield. He wouldn't take it. He struck out looking. That in a nutshell is what is wrong with hitters in todays professional game.
The game is perfect the way it is, it just needs smarter players willing to do things to help their team.
As always, JMO
I have absolutely no idea why ANY guy wouldn't take an easy bunt single against the shift....even though there is supposedly some "unwritten rule" against it lol. If a manager wants to give you half a field with nobody there to cover it....of course you'd better be smart enough to take it. It baffles me that any player would try to swing against the shift....just drop a bunt down and get to first.
I always thought this. Then I heard a former player/announcer explain MLB ball isn’t high school ball. It’s not that easy to bunt the other way on a MLB pitcher who is pitching to make you hit the ball into the shift.
Yep. If bunting 95 mph sliders was easy, they'd do it.
It isn't easy but I'm not convinced they would do it if it was. Pro athletes have an ego. Shaq was once asked if he would try underhand (Rick Barry style) and he replied, I'm a gangster,I would rather shoot zero percent from the line.
But yes,it also is mucha easier said than done.
http://fortune.com/2018/06/15/...ance-rate-declining/
