Why it's not good to expand the zone

[Rog]

We talk about it all the time.  The 8th-place hitter needs to expand the zone.  In RBI situations, good RBI hitters need to expand the zone.

Except that they don't -- and shouldn't.

There may be the rare exception to the rule, but it is a fact that in 2015 and 2016, batters hit a very nice .292 on balls in the strike zone.  And a horrible .168 on balls outside it.

How many times have we heard, the idea isn't to go WAY out of the strike zone.  It's to hit the close pitches just off the plate.  Which makes sense except that with the batting average on balls in the strike zone nearly twice as high as those off the plate or high or low indicates that there is some drop off even when the ball is slightly out of the zone.  The balls that get hit the hardest, after all, come on pitches "down the middle."  The more a pitch deviates from "down the middle," the lower the average.

One more problem with this idea of expanding the zone slightly.  Batters already swing at perhaps a third of pitches outside the zone. If they're LOOKING to go outside the zone, they'll be swinging at even more -- and even further off the plate.

Expanding the zone is a nice thought.  It has been said that even Ted Williams emphasized it when he was a manager rather than a player.  But right about the time he was supposedly emphasizing expanding the zone, his book -- considered something of a bible of hitting -- was coming out and showing how the farther the pitch was from "down the middle," the lower the batting average.  And Ted was basing this on HIMSELF.

If arguably the best hitter the game has seen wrote a book about keeping one's swing in the zone and showed how going outside the zone affected even HIM, it's hard to believe expanding the zone is a good thing.

.168 compared to .292 further illustrates the point.  Hitters, expand at your own risk.  

Expand and let the pitcher lead off the next inning, crushing the run potential of that inning.  Why would a team want it's lead off hitter come up with no one out?

Teams score more runs in the first inning than any other.  Part of the reason for that is it is the only inning in which the batting team can control the beginning point of the order for that inning.

Teams are jumping on this.  Getting on base by the top of the order is more appreciated these days.  And in an effort to get them more at bats, look at some of the hitters who bat second.

This series it is one of the game's top power hitters, Giancarlo Stanton.  Last series it was Alex Avila, a very slow base runner who gets on base a ton and hits with power.  Kris Bryant has batted second more than in any other spot in the order.  Not your typical #2 hitters.  The game is changing.

[Rog]

I guess the moral of the story is, expand the effectiveness of your batting order -- not its strike zone.

[donk33]

Jul 9, 2017 5:26:57 GMT -5 Rog said:

I guess the moral of the story is, expand the effectiveness of your batting order -- not its strike zone.

.and Rog was the guy that was all over me when I suggested that Bonds should be moved up to 1 or 2 in the batting order...hit the pitcher 7th and the usual leadoff hitter and number 2 guy in the 8/9 holes...thus Bonds, who hit many homers in the first inning, would be sure to get to hit in the first...and after the first time at bat for the first 7 hitters you have the normal batting order...

[Rog]

.and Rog was the guy that was all over me when I suggested that Bonds should be moved up to 1 or 2 in the batting order...hit the pitcher 7th and the usual leadoff hitter and number 2 guy in the 8/9 holes...thus Bonds, who hit many homers in the first inning, would be sure to get to hit in the first...and after the first time at bat for the first 7 hitters you have the normal batting order...


Rog -- Perhaps I disagreed with moving Barry to the top of the order, but I don't recall it. As I look at it now, I would say no to leading off but perhaps OK to batting second where he would have more chance of having runners on. Batting him fifth as the Giants often did was likely a mistake.

One plus to having him lead off is that the Giants' chances of scoring in the first would be very good. If I were the opposition though, would virtually always pitch to him leading off the game, realizing that if he reached base, his chances of scoring were quite good, and if he homered, he could drive home no more than a single run.

I think my personal choice would to bat him third, although in part the order is based on ALL hitters, not just one. The one negative to batting third is that is the position most likely to come up with two outs and no one on base. Batting cleanup might be the position most likely to lead off an inning (aside from the lead off spot, of course). If not, it would likely be the 5-hole, which is another reason batting Barry fifth likely wasn't a good idea.

As for your idea of hitting the pitcher other than in the 9th spot, I applauded it -- although I mentioned that what I had read said batting him seventh was even better than batting him eighth as you recommended. Either way though, you were being progressive. You and I are about the only ones here who are, which seems odd given that I believe we are the two oldest.

By the way, Barry would indeed be guaranteed of hitting in the first if he leads off (obviously), as would be the case if he batted second or third. It does depend in part on the other hitters in the order, but overall I would likely bat him third. I might go with cleanup though, thinking that either he would come up with a runner on base in the first, or there would already be at least one run in. And if he led off the second, given how often he got on base, there would be a very good chance the Giants would score at least one run. In fact, I think it was likely cleanup that I recommended at the time. That has kind of a ring to it.

There are many factors to look at, but my original point was that lineup construction is much more progressive than in the past, where a fast guy led off (more or less independent of whether he actually got on base a lot or not), and a "bat control" guy hit second, somewhat independent of how often he reached base or how good a hitter he was.

Baseball has gotten much smarter, and we're beginning to see some incredible young talent. Part of the reason the Giants are struggling is that while they had more than their share of the top young talent back when they began winning World Championships, they are lagging now, especially when it comes to star and superstar talent.

This time a decade or more ago we were talking about how pitching was about to begin more domination, and now with the ball apparently being livelier, hitting is beginning to take the fore, especially power hitting. Once again something the Giants are lacking, although it is likely they will have a 25-homer guy this season, and they might even have a 30-home run hitter.

But hitting -- and especially power hitting -- remains a problem.

The bullpen might be good in 2018. Melancon still has been one of the best closers the past five seasons when he's healthy. Sam Dyson was a coup, as he has closed as recently as last season. Will Smith should be back, although perhaps not until later in the 2018 season. Hunter Strickland and Derek Law have shown promise. The Giants have two young lefties who might be capable of being at least LOOGY's.

The rotation should be improved if Johnny Cueto comes back, which seems a bit unlikely, but which could still be possible even if the Giants trade him later this month. (Speaking of which, the GM's are likely getting together at the All-Star game.)

Catcher and the infield seem to have enough proven talent and young talent coming up from the minors. The outfield remains a disaster, and it's too bad we don't get to see more of Austin Slater, especially with regard to perhaps seeing if he can play center field. Brian Reynolds played in right field in the Futures Game, although he didn't start.

We heard criticism when the Giants drafted an "athlete" instead of a "baseball player" with their first-round pick this season. That's probably precisely what they should have drafted -- a potential 5-tool player. Heliot Ramos is -- like most high schoolers -- starting in the Rookie League, but while he won't turn 18 until after his season is over, he has begun his short career by hitting .406 with a 1.361 OPS. Of his 13 hits, only four have been singles. 5 doubles, 2 triples and 2 home runs. He is faultless in four steal attempts.

His 9 strikeouts in 32 at bats isn't very good (although it's not horrible for a slugger, either), but his 5 walks are good.

It's WAY too early to tell if Ramos is the real deal or when he might begin dealing at the major league level, but for a team who has only one prospect in Baseball America's top 100 prospects (and #84 at that), Ramos is providing more excitement than perhaps any prospect since Buster Posey.

Look at the present Giants. They do have some ballplayers. But how many ATHLETES do they have? How many of those came up through the ranks?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3964/why-good-expand-zone#ixzz4mUlN8000

[donk33]

Jul 11, 2017 0:13:34 GMT -5 Rog said:

.and Rog was the guy that was all over me when I suggested that Bonds should be moved up to 1 or 2 in the batting order...hit the pitcher 7th and the usual leadoff hitter and number 2 guy in the 8/9 holes...thus Bonds, who hit many homers in the first inning, would be sure to get to hit in the first...and after the first time at bat for the first 7 hitters you have the normal batting order...


Rog -- Perhaps I disagreed with moving Barry to the top of the order, but I don't recall it. As I look at it now, I would say no to leading off but perhaps OK to batting second where he would have more chance of having runners on. Batting him fifth as the Giants often did was likely a mistake.

One plus to having him lead off is that the Giants' chances of scoring in the first would be very good. If I were the opposition though, would virtually always pitch to him leading off the game, realizing that if he reached base, his chances of scoring were quite good, and if he homered, he could drive home no more than a single run.

I think my personal choice would to bat him third, although in part the order is based on ALL hitters, not just one. The one negative to batting third is that is the position most likely to come up with two outs and no one on base. Batting cleanup might be the position most likely to lead off an inning (aside from the lead off spot, of course). If not, it would likely be the 5-hole, which is another reason batting Barry fifth likely wasn't a good idea.

As for your idea of hitting the pitcher other than in the 9th spot, I applauded it -- although I mentioned that what I had read said batting him seventh was even better than batting him eighth as you recommended. Either way though, you were being progressive. You and I are about the only ones here who are, which seems odd given that I believe we are the two oldest.

By the way, Barry would indeed be guaranteed of hitting in the first if he leads off (obviously), as would be the case if he batted second or third. It does depend in part on the other hitters in the order, but overall I would likely bat him third. I might go with cleanup though, thinking that either he would come up with a runner on base in the first, or there would already be at least one run in. And if he led off the second, given how often he got on base, there would be a very good chance the Giants would score at least one run. In fact, I think it was likely cleanup that I recommended at the time. That has kind of a ring to it.


dk...I believe that Barry had his best numbers in the first inning without any runners on base....players say they never "try" to hit a home run...I think Bonds was not one of them...when he comes up early and without runners on base, it gives him some incentive to go for the "bay"...



There are many factors to look at, but my original point was that lineup construction is much more progressive than in the past, where a fast guy led off (more or less independent of whether he actually got on base a lot or not), and a "bat control" guy hit second, somewhat independent of how often he reached base or how good a hitter he was.

Baseball has gotten much smarter, and we're beginning to see some incredible young talent. Part of the reason the Giants are struggling is that while they had more than their share of the top young talent back when they began winning World Championships, they are lagging now, especially when it comes to star and superstar talent.

This time a decade or more ago we were talking about how pitching was about to begin more domination, and now with the ball apparently being livelier, hitting is beginning to take the fore, especially power hitting. Once again something the Giants are lacking, although it is likely they will have a 25-homer guy this season, and they might even have a 30-home run hitter.

But hitting -- and especially power hitting -- remains a problem.

The bullpen might be good in 2018. Melancon still has been one of the best closers the past five seasons when he's healthy. Sam Dyson was a coup, as he has closed as recently as last season. Will Smith should be back, although perhaps not until later in the 2018 season. Hunter Strickland and Derek Law have shown promise. The Giants have two young lefties who might be capable of being at least LOOGY's.

The rotation should be improved if Johnny Cueto comes back, which seems a bit unlikely, but which could still be possible even if the Giants trade him later this month. (Speaking of which, the GM's are likely getting together at the All-Star game.)

Catcher and the infield seem to have enough proven talent and young talent coming up from the minors. The outfield remains a disaster, and it's too bad we don't get to see more of Austin Slater, especially with regard to perhaps seeing if he can play center field. Brian Reynolds played in right field in the Futures Game, although he didn't start.

We heard criticism when the Giants drafted an "athlete" instead of a "baseball player" with their first-round pick this season. That's probably precisely what they should have drafted -- a potential 5-tool player. Heliot Ramos is -- like most high schoolers -- starting in the Rookie League, but while he won't turn 18 until after his season is over, he has begun his short career by hitting .406 with a 1.361 OPS. Of his 13 hits, only four have been singles. 5 doubles, 2 triples and 2 home runs. He is faultless in four steal attempts.

His 9 strikeouts in 32 at bats isn't very good (although it's not horrible for a slugger, either), but his 5 walks are good.

It's WAY too early to tell if Ramos is the real deal or when he might begin dealing at the major league level, but for a team who has only one prospect in Baseball America's top 100 prospects (and #84 at that), Ramos is providing more excitement than perhaps any prospect since Buster Posey.

Look at the present Giants. They do have some ballplayers. But how many ATHLETES do they have? How many of those came up through the ranks?


dk...all baseball players are athletes, not all are athletic........not all athletic athletes can play baseball....Gorkys Hernandez was probably drafted as an athlete by someone...not the Giants...there have been drafting guys that have perplexed other organizations by the high ranking the Giants put on their ability...and the Giants have paid a price....isn't that the reason the Giants' owners brought some old timers back in the organization to help with the draft..and those guys appear to be long gone...maybe there is some new blood in the front office and  things could be looking up...draft wise....they certainly have flunked the test on the ball field in the majors and the minors....it is sad to look at the daily scores as it becomes common for the Giants and ALL their minor league teams lose on the same day....

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3964/why-good-expand-zone#ixzz4mUlN8000