|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 31, 2017 9:38:05 GMT -5
1-Marrero can hit.
And after watching him play LF last night, he'll be okay out there. Certainly better than Pat Burrell was, and, IMHO, better than Mac Williamson on defense, too.
He moved smoothly to each fly ball, had soft hands at reception, and, unlike Mac, doesn't 'jab' at the ball.
2-I didn't think I would, but I think I like Bochy's line up.
Span
Belt
Pence
Posey
Crawford
Marrero
Nunez
Panik
I like Crawford 5 hole, but I can see him flip flopping with Marrero vs LHP IF Marrero continues to hit so well.
In a sense, Nunez becomes like a lead off hitter, hitting in from of Joey P
3-Meloncon is impressive. One of the best 'straight downers' I've seen from a reliever in a long time.
4-Jarrett Parker is playing himself out of a job.
Remember in the first 1/2 of ST how I pointed out how Parker had LESS ridiculous movement at the plate? And then, later on, I mentioned how all that movement was back? Well, all of that movement showing up is reflected on how poorly he's done since he started that fidgeting again. I don't think his fall is a coincidence. I also believe he'll be a massively streaky hitter. When he's hot, you can't keep him in the park. When he's not, he couldn't HIT the park if was standing next to a wall.
5-Blach continues to impress me regardless of his role.
6-Belt impressed me AGAIN last night when he hit that groundball single through SS. Once again, I watched him lead with his hands, and hit the ball firmly to the other side. Maybe, just maybe this is his year.
7-Span doesn't need to be platooned. He made some adjustments and they've paid off.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 31, 2017 10:48:37 GMT -5
I think Parker is still the starter in LF. And I don't think that will be the lineup come opening day. I think it's just a way for Bochy to give Pence more at bats.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 31, 2017 12:34:56 GMT -5
Could be, boagie, but I still like the lineup.
As to Parker, I agree. That's why I phrased what I said in the "Present progressive" tense: "Is playing himself...."
As opposed to a past tense, "Has played..."
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 31, 2017 13:30:39 GMT -5
I don't like Panik batting 8th.
I know you and Randy aren't members of the Brandon Belt fan club, but he's certainly earned the 3rd spot in the lineup over Pence.
I'd start the season with...
Span
Panik
Belt
Posey
Pence
Crawford
Parker vs. righty, Marrero vs. lefty
Gillaspie vs. righty, Nunez vs. lefty
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 31, 2017 13:59:26 GMT -5
I think Parker is still the starter in LF. And I don't think that will be the lineup come opening day. I think it's just a way for Bochy to give Pence more at bats. Rog -- I do think Bruce is strongly considering using the same lineup. It's pretty close to the one they ended 2016 with. I too would like to see Panik hit second. I'm confident he will bounce back, for reasons I have already explained. I would simply slide Panik in, then slide Pence back to fifth in the order. The Giants would then have guys who can get on base in the first four spots, and guys who can drive in runs in the third through sixth spots. Isn't that the way a lineup should be created? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3787/final-spring-thoughts#ixzz4cvnypCkt |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 31, 2017 14:10:39 GMT -5
I'd rather Panik 2 hole, also... but I appreciate what Bochy is trying to do.
Belt walks TOO much to take those walks from the 5 or 6 hole.
In the 2 hole, with power behind him, he can theoretically score more often.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 31, 2017 14:21:41 GMT -5
While I too like the idea of having speed in the 7-hole (again, for reasons I have already explained), it ISN'T like having a second lead off man. The true lead off man has either a bat control guy or simply another good bat immediately behind him, then the best hitters on the team after that.
The so-called second lead off man in the seventh spot is followed by the worst two hitters on the team, and it takes five spots to get back to the team's top hitter.
If a team wants to have more of a true second lead off man, bat him ninth, putting two "lead off hitter" back to back. Having speed in the seventh spot is good because that is the area of the lineup where it is more important to manufacture runs -- not because it is like having a second lead off man.
In reality, the speed of the actual lead off hitter is overrated. The job of that guy is to get on base as often as possible, since the part of the lineup that LEAST needs to manufacture runs is then coming up. If the lead off hitter has speed, that is of course an advantage. But having a guy who gets on base a lot is the primary requirement.
Notice how as we learn more about the game, teams are putting more emphasis on OBP in the lead off spot, and how they're beginning to get away from the traditional "bat control" #2 hitter, often replacing him with one of the best hitters on the team.
Here's something to ponder. Don would like Buster Posey to bat #7, since he doesn't have a ton of power and certainly not much speed. Boly thinks it would be CRAZY to bat Buster lead off. Yet if Buster batted #1 instead of #7, he would likely get about 75 more plate appearances than by batting seventh. There is an advantage to having a team's best hitter come to the plate about 75 more times.
But since Buster is a good RBI man, has above-average power and is the best hitter on the team, batting him clean up is a good compromise. Batting him lead off would be a mistake not because of his lack of speed (although that certainly wouldn't help), but because it wastes his tools as the Giants' best hitter and one of their best power hitters. Batting him seventh would be foolish, putting him in a less important spot and giving him 35 to 40 fewer trips to the plate than he gets batting clean up.
Here is how I see it:
Span -- above-average speed and a decent hitter against right-handers
Panik -- best bat control on the team and one of its best hitters
Belt -- Gets on base more than anyone and is close to the top in home run and RBI skills
Posey -- The team's best hitter and a very good on-base guy
Pence -- One of the team's best RBI guys and a good overall hitter
Crawford -- Seems to have clutch skills and is an above-average hitter
Nunez -- Against southpaws, have him lead off and drop the center fielder to 8th.
Parker -- Has power and at least he can draw a walk with two outs and the pitcher coming up next. Marrero can bat sixth or seventh against southpaws.
That's a lineup that combines some of the strengths of both the traditional and the modern lineup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 31, 2017 14:26:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 31, 2017 14:52:23 GMT -5
At this point, Jarrett Parker is the Giants' least hitter. I would bat him eighth.
And while I might use Gillaspie to rest Nunez on occasion, I wouldn't platoon the two. Over their careers, the two have hit about equally against right-handers, and over the past two seasons combined, Nunez has been the better. And for course, Eduardo is the better fielder.
Conor has been and should continue to be a contributor, but if the Giants at some point this season added both Hwang and Arroyo, it might be possible Conor would be only the fourth-best hitting third baseman on the team. Although they almost certainly wouldn't all be playing for the team at the same time, throw in Hill, and Conor might rank as low as fifth.
If the Giants rest Nunez in favor of Gillaspie, do it against very hard throwers. Conor is good against fastballs over 95 mph.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 31, 2017 15:02:38 GMT -5
Belt impressed me AGAIN last night when he hit that groundball single through SS. Once again, I watched him lead with his hands, and hit the ball firmly to the other side. Maybe, just maybe this is his year.
Rog -- Brandon also hit a hard fly ball to the left fielder on the warning track in an earlier at bat. What was most impressive about his single wasn't that he hit the ball to the left side (which he does more often than Joe Panik), but that he hit a GROUND BALL (which you alluded to). As stated earlier, it is GROUND BALLS to the left side which he needs to hit more of.
If anything, he would likely benefit from hitting more of his fly balls to his pull side, since that is the side where more power is generated. AT&T mitigates some of that, of course.
Another possible factor in Brandon's ground ball hit: On Tuesday he tried to bunt on the first pitch to him. That might have moved the third baseman a little closer to third base last night. Otherwise he might have been able to move to his left to field the ground ball.
One of the best things about baseball is the subtleties that exist. The broader one's perspective, the better he can pick those up.
Here is a comment Brandon made last night, as quoted by Andrew Baggarly:
Brandon Belt shook his head and smirked when his first swing at AT&T Park this season resulted in a long fly ball that died in front of the left-center wall.
“Welcome to SF!” he joked later. “It was like, well, that goes out in Arizona.”
As an aside, did others notice the seemingly serious discussion Brandon was having in the dugout with Hensley Meulens? Good sign. Or maybe Brandon was simply asking Hensley how he could get Dutch citizenship so he could play for Hensley in the World Baseball Championship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 31, 2017 15:05:27 GMT -5
Span doesn't need to be platooned. He made some adjustments and they've paid off. Rog -- I hope so. Denard is hitting the ball VERY well right now after an extremely slow start. It would be a big help if he doesn't need to be platooned, since the Giants don't have a player who is anything close to an idea platoon partner for him. Probably when he's this HOT, he doesn't need to be platooned. But when he's not, he probably does. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3787/final-spring-thoughts?page=1#ixzz4cw4s6CmS |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 31, 2017 15:20:55 GMT -5
Remember in the first 1/2 of ST how I pointed out how Parker had LESS ridiculous movement at the plate? And then, later on, I mentioned how all that movement was back? Rog -- That was a very good point, Boly. Brandon had stopped striking out as much and was walking even more. When he changed back, he struck out even more and walked even less. Jarrett did get a hit on Tuesday, and didn't he hit a hard line drive last night that was caught by Rajai Davis? But he has now struck out 22 times in 59 spring at bats. And doesn't the ball move less in the dry air of Arizona? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3787/final-spring-thoughts?page=1#ixzz4cw5dXuYe |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 31, 2017 15:22:46 GMT -5
By the way, Boly, I do understand what you're saying about Nunez's being like a second lead off hitter, since he would be batting in front of Panik. I agree with you to that point. But things do change a lot with the pitcher's coming up next rather than the three hitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 31, 2017 18:11:22 GMT -5
Rog--At this point, Jarrett Parker is the Giants' least hitter. I would bat him eighth.
***boly says***
He is our least hitter of our starting 8, rog, that's true.
But he is NOT a good candidate to BE that guy.
1-Too much power.
They'd almost never pitch to him where as they WOULD pitch to an 8 hole guy without that power.
2-The 8 hole guy should be able to extend the strike zone, work the pitcher to get extra pitches, and be able to go out of the strike zone to get the bat on the ball.
None of those are Parker's strengths.
3-His power. I can't emphasize this enough. Power needs to be where it has a chance to come into play. That's why he's more suited to the 6 hole so that if they pitch around that power, other hitters can make them pay.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Mar 31, 2017 23:00:20 GMT -5
Great points, Boly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 1, 2017 1:33:59 GMT -5
You just don't put the worst hitter in your lineup in the six-hole. That means about 35 more plate appearances than if he bats eighth where he belongs. Just as bad if not worse, his plate appearances batting sixth are higher leverage than if he batted eighth. Again, not good.
You are right that it does Jarrett no good to extend the strike zone. That is true of virtually every hitter, but Jarrett has enough trouble not striking out without extending the strike zone. Ted Williams would roll over in his grave -- or at least his torso would. But there is something else about batting eighth that we seem to forget.
We want the eight-place to at least be clearly aggressive when he bats eighth with two outs and a runner in scoring position. If he walks, it isn't the end of the world. If the pitcher has to bat and makes the final out, at least the top of the order begins the next inning with no outs instead of one. And if there is a runner on second base with ONE out, a walk to the eight-place hitter is fine, since the pitcher can then sacrifice, hopefully putting two runners in scoring position for the top of the order.
If we want to look at a situation where the offense should be more aggressive, it is with a runner on third, one out, and a fly ball hit to shorter left, center or right field than one would usually send the runner home to try to score on a sacrifice fly. The chances are only rarely more than three in ten that the next guy will get a hit to score the runner with two outs. So send the runner if he has even a 50/50 shot. Late in a close game, send him even more often than that.
But this idea that the eighth-place hitter should expand the zone isn't considering the entire situation. Certainly Ted Williams wouldn't approve, not that he knew anything about hitting.
Now, the guy who does hit eighth can make a difference in that. Maybe Pablo Sandoval would be a good eighth-place hitter. He could hit bad balls, and he could also take a walk on occasion. But few are the hitters who benefit from expanding the zone.
One thing to remember is that even the best hitters swing at pitches outside the strike zone. If they TRY to swing at some pitches outside the zone, they can wind up swinging at some REALLY bad pitches.
If it involves hitting and Ted Williams wouldn't approve, it's probably wrong. Short-sighted. Not properly weighting all the possibilities and likely results. Even Ted Williams thought he would hit only something like .230 on pitches placed well at the bottom and outside part of the strike zone. If Ted believed he would hit 100 points lower than he otherwise did, how low do we think he would have believed he would hit if he went OUTSIDE the strike zone. Since pitchers today have such great strikeout stuff, the damage would likely be even greater.
At first glance, it looks like it makes GREAT sense to have the eight-place hitter expand the strike zone. But the closer we look and the sharper we analyze, more we see that it isn't nearly as good an idea as it first appears.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 1, 2017 15:55:46 GMT -5
Roger, I don't say this very often, if ever, on this board, but you are wrong.
And not just by a little.
Most 8 hole guys ARE the worst hitters on the team: Guys like Kirk Manwaring, Rod Kanehl, Larry Burright and so forth.
NONE of them, however, had ANY power to speak of.
Parker is, as the old saying goes, "a horse of a different color."
He likely IS the worst hitter in the line up, but with outstanding power.
Put HIM in the 8 hole and he likely would be worked around, or simply NOT pitched to with less than 2 out, or unless he's leading off an inning, or if there's just no one on.
You strategy is "paper" strategy, Rog, I'm sorry, but that's all it is.
The reality of the game, and in particular, in game management says that doing as you're suggesting is simply not wise.
Sorry.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Apr 1, 2017 23:24:24 GMT -5
You just don't put the worst hitter in your lineup in the six-hole. That means about 35 more plate appearances than if he bats eighth where he belongs. Just as bad if not worse, his plate appearances batting sixth are higher leverage than if he batted eighth. Again, not good. You are right that it does Jarrett no good to extend the strike zone. That is true of virtually every hitter, but Jarrett has enough trouble not striking out without extending the strike zone. Ted Williams would roll over in his grave -- or at least his torso would. But there is something else about batting eighth that we seem to forget. We want the eight-place to at least be clearly aggressive when he bats eighth with two outs and a runner in scoring position. If he walks, it isn't the end of the world. If the pitcher has to bat and makes the final out, at least the top of the order begins the next inning with no outs instead of one. And if there is a runner on second base with ONE out, a walk to the eight-place hitter is fine, since the pitcher can then sacrifice, hopefully putting two runners in scoring position for the top of the order. If we want to look at a situation where the offense should be more aggressive, it is with a runner on third, one out, and a fly ball hit to shorter left, center or right field than one would usually send the runner home to try to score on a sacrifice fly. The chances are only rarely more than three in ten that the next guy will get a hit to score the runner with two outs. So send the runner if he has even a 50/50 shot. Late in a close game, send him even more often than that. But this idea that the eighth-place hitter should expand the zone isn't considering the entire situation. Certainly Ted Williams wouldn't approve, not that he knew anything about hitting. Now, the guy who does hit eighth can make a difference in that. Maybe Pablo Sandoval would be a good eighth-place hitter. He could hit bad balls, and he could also take a walk on occasion. But few are the hitters who benefit from expanding the zone. One thing to remember is that even the best hitters swing at pitches outside the strike zone. If they TRY to swing at some pitches outside the zone, they can wind up swinging at some REALLY bad pitches. If it involves hitting and Ted Williams wouldn't approve, it's probably wrong. Short-sighted. Not properly weighting all the possibilities and likely results. Even Ted Williams thought he would hit only something like .230 on pitches placed well at the bottom and outside part of the strike zone. If Ted believed he would hit 100 points lower than he otherwise did, how low do we think he would have believed he would hit if he went OUTSIDE the strike zone. Since pitchers today have such great strikeout stuff, the damage would likely be even greater. At first glance, it looks like it makes GREAT sense to have the eight-place hitter expand the strike zone. But the closer we look and the sharper we analyze, more we see that it isn't nearly as good an idea as it first appears. dk...as Jim Kaat said...Ted Williams, the hitter, wouldn't go outside the strike zone...Ted Williams, the manager, would go "nuts" if his big hitters didn't expand their strike zone when he needed a big hit.... |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 1, 2017 23:29:31 GMT -5
Too much power. They'd almost never pitch to him where as they WOULD pitch to an 8 hole guy without that power. Rog -- Let's think about that for a moment. If there's a runner or runners in scoring position, wouldn't pitching to a guy without power but a higher batting average than Jarett be a worse idea then pitching to Jarrett, since a single will still drive in the run -- just like a double or triple? Wouldn't it make more sense to pitch to Jarrett than to the better hitter? With the bases empty or a runner on first base, Jarrett might be more dangerous than the better with less power. It normally takes at least a double to plate a runner from first base. But if they pitch around Jarrett in that situation and walk him, it moves a runner into scoring position. That might set up a sacrifice situation. It might set up a situation for a pinch hitter. At the very least, it puts a runner in scoring position and insures the pitcher doesn't lead off the next inning. In other words, a better hitter with less power is more dangerous than Jarrett with a runner or runners in scoring position, whereas Jarrett is more dangerous with a runner on first. With a runner on first, a walk isn't usually a bad thing, so if the pitcher pitches around Jarrett -- and he does have a pretty good eye -- it's an advantage more than a disadvantage. Jarrett would make a decent 8th-place hitter because his eye will insure that at least the pitcher leads off fewer innings, which is the worst position from which to start an inning. This idea of having the 8th-place hitter expand the zone doesn't give proper credence to how much worse he usually hits given that disposition, and how detrimental it is to have the pitcher lead off the next inning. One last thing: If they pitch around Jarrett with a runner on first base, not only does it move the runner into scoring position, but since it will take Jarrett at least a double to score the runner from first base, we need to look at how often Jarrett hits at least a double. In his brief career, he has done so at a .096 clip. That average batting average for a pitcher last season was .102. The average pitcher is essentially just as like to get a single as Jarrett is to get a double. Pitching around Jarrett with a runner on first base doesn't hurt the Giants much in that inning, and having the pitcher NOT lead off the next inning is a big bonus. With a runner in scoring position and first base empty, it would seem a better strategy to pitch around a better average hitter than to do so with Jarrett. Logic says batting Jarrett eighth when he is the worst hitter in the lineup is smart baseball. It simply takes looking at the entire picture -- not simply the at bat by the 8th-place hitter. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3787/final-spring-thoughts#ixzz4d3uJAgt4 |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 1, 2017 23:30:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 1, 2017 23:32:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 1, 2017 23:33:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 1, 2017 23:36:34 GMT -5
as Jim Kaat said...Ted Williams, the hitter, wouldn't go outside the strike zone...Ted Williams, the manager, would go "nuts" if his big hitters didn't expand their strike zone when he needed a big hit.... Rog -- #1 Don, could you share where the above is written? #2, how do we know Jim could read Ted's mind? Thing about this logically. If Ted, arguably the best hitter in history, didn't think be would be a good hitter at the outside bottom of the strike zone, let along OUTSIDE it, does it make sense that he would encourage his batters to go after pitches he himself couldn't hit? Just doesn't pass the reasonableness test. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3787/final-spring-thoughts?page=1#ixzz4d404oryG |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 1, 2017 23:39:26 GMT -5
I realize, Boly, that you're thinking that all I'm looking at is the numbers, but in this case, aren't the numbers precisely what we want to be looking at? We want to look at the odds of success of the situation and its resultant situations and figure out the way to approach the situation that provides the best chance for success, right?
Now, in the bottom of the ninth, we would look at this differently. But in that instance, the pitcher would likely be pinch hit for by an equal or better hitter than the #8 hitter.
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Apr 1, 2017 23:52:34 GMT -5
as Jim Kaat said...Ted Williams, the hitter, wouldn't go outside the strike zone...Ted Williams, the manager, would go "nuts" if his big hitters didn't expand their strike zone when he needed a big hit.... Rog -- #1 Don, could you share where the above is written? #2, how do we know Jim could read Ted's mind? Thing about this logically. If Ted, arguably the best hitter in history, didn't think be would be a good hitter at the outside bottom of the strike zone, let along OUTSIDE it, does it make sense that he would encourage his batters to go after pitches he himself couldn't hit? Just doesn't pass the reasonableness test. dk..kiss my rear...I heard Kaat discuss this on TV when he was broadcasting the game...Kaat played against Ted and played for him...he didn't have to read his mind, he was vocal about it to his players....and don't tell me what is reasonable...if you don't believe what I say...fine, kiss my rear and forget what I said, just don't ask me for written proof...I, unlike our POTUS, I have no reason to tell tall tales....and you are the only SOB that doubts my telling the truth....I wasn't a bookkeeper.\, just an Engineer and we are taught to deal ethically with this world....and then little man, I never said anything about swinging at pitches the hitter couldn't hit...only the ones that were probably balls but could be hit....many of the hits in today's games come on balls out side the strike zone....and by the way, I told you what Kaat said several years ago...and you didn't believe it then because you read some 2 bit nerd wrote in a book about baseball.. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3787/final-spring-thoughts?page=1#ixzz4d404oryG |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 2, 2017 1:06:19 GMT -5
I didn't mean to offend you Don. If you say you heard Kaat say that, I have no doubt that you did. But Kaat could have been wrong.
Ted managed from 1969 through 1972. Here is an excerpt from a letter he wrote in the winter of 1968-69:
"Rogers Hornsby said, and after playing professional ball for 25 years myself, I agreed: With all the natural ability and talent in the world, it is impossible to be a really good hitter WITHOUT GETTING A BALL TO HIT! Now, what does that mean?
It means a ball that is not in a tough area for you. It means a ball you are not fooled on, and, of course, I mean this applies only up to two strikes. With two strikes, you simply have to protect the plate. I get a little impatient watching the good hitters today -- fellows with great ability -- who are not as good as they should be simply because they won't wait for the good pitch to hit.
I've been asked how often I got the ball I was looking for. I would say that it was a good 70 percent of the time."
It doesn't appear Ted had changed his philosophy at the time he wrote this letter. It seems to me that, despite what Ted said, his philosophy of hitting is so well known and respected, that if he changed it, a lot would have been written indicating so. Quite possibly his book, "The Science of Hitting" would have been modified or amended.
I'm not saying you're wrong, Don. I certainly don't want to even come close to your rear! What I'm saying is that Jim Kaat might have gotten it wrong.
Actually, I was assuming Ted wrote his book earlier than he did. He wrote it in 1970, AFTER he had started managing.
You made a point about a lot of today's hits coming on balls out the strike zone, and indeed some of them do. Let's take a look at Pablo Sandoval, one of the best bad ball hitters in the game over his career. Pablo has hit the ball on 80% of his swings outside the strike zone, a very high percentage. But he has hit the ball 88% of the time when it has been IN the zone.
Another way of looking at that is that Pablo has MISSED the ball only 12% of the time when it has been in the strike zone, compared to 20% when it is outside. In other words, for three times he missed a pitch IN the strike zone, he missed five outside the zone.
That certainly indicates he's a better hitter IN the zone than out, wouldn't one think? And Pablo has been possibly the best bad ball hitter in the game over his career.
If Pablo is clearly a better hitter within the zone, it's hard to imagine an 8th-place hitter being successful going outside the zone. Remember, Ted Williams said in his book that when the pitcher put the ball at the bottom of the outside corner, he was only a .330 hitter -- more than 100 points below his career average.
I don't doubt you strongly believe you heard Jim Kaat say what you indicated he said. Isn't it possible though that Jim might have mis-remembered or misunderstood?
That Ted wrote his book while he was managing indicates Jim might have made a mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 2, 2017 1:07:22 GMT -5
By the way, that nerd who wrote something in a book that swayed my opinion has since lost his head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 2, 2017 12:15:20 GMT -5
What Williams said as a manager is reasonable, when a big hit is needed you want your best hitters taking their cuts and maybe expanding the zone a little bit.
Williams liked the ball up, in today's game he would probably expand the zone as well, so it's not inconceivable that he'd have said that later in his life.
But, Rog, why argue it? You don't know that Don didn't hear that, you don't know if Kaat misquoted Williams or Williams didn't say it either. Honestly, I think I recall Kaat saying something like that, but my mind isn't as sharp as Don's. Or maybe it is and I just forgot.
Don has a very sharp memory on quotes. If Don says Kaat said that, I have zero doubt he did say it, and why would Kaat make that up or get it wrong? It would be hard to screw up a pretty basic quote. It's probably a story he's told many times, broadcasters tend to repeat themselves and I'm sure he wrote it down.
The point is, Rog, you have no clue whether it was said or not.
I do remember something like that, and it's very likely since me and Don are both Giants fans that we were watching the same game. Maybe you would have heard it too if that night Kaat was announcing the Dodgers game instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Apr 2, 2017 19:59:53 GMT -5
as Jim Kaat said...Ted Williams, the hitter, wouldn't go outside the strike zone...Ted Williams, the manager, would go "nuts" if his big hitters didn't expand their strike zone when he needed a big hit.... Rog -- #1 Don, could you share where the above is written? #2, how do we know Jim could read Ted's mind? Thing about this logically. If Ted, arguably the best hitter in history, didn't think be would be a good hitter at the outside bottom of the strike zone, let along OUTSIDE it, does it make sense that he would encourage his batters to go after pitches he himself couldn't hit? Just doesn't pass the reasonableness test .dk...once more numb nuts, you are putting words into my mouth...balls outside the strike zone are not unhittable...only in your mind....in fact if you look at your hitters charts showing the location of pitches, I would bet many are outside the strike zone...Yogi probably hit as many pitches outside the zone than strikes.....and by the way, the Giants might not have made the 1951 playoffs won by Bobby Thomson if Don Mueller hadn't got a hit on a pitch in which they were trying to walk him...now, impossible....new rule.... Why is it so hard for you to understand that Ted was a very selfish ball player who worried more about his stats than his team winning....he had trained himself to restrict his swinging only at strikes...and even Ted would get fooled to swinging at balls that would break out of the zone... when he was manager winning was the big thing and when you have very few good hitters it becomes even more important in some situations for them to swing the bat and get the win...and screw the averages...and I know that eludes your sense of reasonableness, but give it a try... and stop calling me a liar I'm only telling you what Jim Kaat said...and his broadcast buddy brought up the same comments you repeated but Kaat laughed and swore it to be the truth....is that so hard for you to understand?  Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3787/final-spring-thoughts?page=1#ixzz4d404oryG |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 2, 2017 22:09:47 GMT -5
My point was that Kaat may have been mistaken. Given that Ted's book came out during his managerial career, it is perhaps more likely than not that he was. Kaat could have misunderstood, misheard or mis-remembered.
How likely is it though that Ted is going to write one thing in his book and tell his players another? Maybe he just lost his head.
I also believe that if Ted changed his mind, we would be able to find something on the internet to that effect. For him to go against his book would be a huge item.
The bottom line is this: It rarely makes sense to go outside the strike zone. That's why they call strikes when the pitch is in the zone and balls when it isn't.
Why would Ted tell his players who weren't as good at hitting as he was to attempt something he himself wouldn't attempt?
|
|
