Baseball Strategy discussion...

[Spitball]

Does anybody think it would be good to have a separate 'baseball strategy' thread here? I think it would be great for topics like this

 

There was a relief pitcher discussion on another thread, and I think Bellhorn04 had a good idea. There are a lot of strategy discussions to be had. The use of set up men and closers, stolen bases, sacrifice bunts, the shift, line up construction, etc.

 

Anyone want to start?

[a700hitter]

Good ideas for a thread Spitball and Bells. I'll start off.

 

I have a strategy pet peeve. It's hard to notice when watching on Television. It happens quite regularly. In the last inning when a team is ahead by 2 or more runs and the first or second batter gets on first base, I'll never understand why the SS and second baseman pinch to the middle and the first base man holds on the runner with a left handed hitter at bat opening up a huge hole. The guy on first base means nothing. Outs are important. It seems to me that this strategy more often results in a base hit through the hole than it does in a DP. I would move the second baseman to the hole for the lefty pull hitter or at least play him straight away. I would have the first baseman play behind the runner. What do you guys think?

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Score more runs than the opponent.

[jacksonianmarch]

a700, it depends on the lefty. Dead pull guys won't get that treatment. Also, while the 2b does pinch a little towards the middle, typically the 1b isn't holding the runner which covers some of the pull hole.

[jung]

The 1st baseman may not be holding the running but he won't be over covering the hole either. Last inning if anything he will be over by the line in an effort to cut off an extra base hit over the first base bag.

 

With a runner on 1st and a 2 run lead the extra base hit is the real threat. If you don't cut that down, you have guys on 2nd and 3rd, either nobody out or one out and the DP no longer even in order.

 

So my first concern would be cutting off the extra base hit and I would position the 1st baseman accordingly. I can see the SS playing a couple steps toward 2nd but depending on who was hitting and pitching for that matter, would not be real interesting in having the 2nd baseman pinching toward 2nd.

[a700hitter]

The 1st baseman may not be holding the running but he won't be over covering the hole either. Last inning if anything he will be over by the line in an effort to cut off an extra base hit over the first base bag.

 

With a runner on 1st and a 2 run lead the extra base hit is the real threat. If you don't cut that down, you have guys on 2nd and 3rd, either nobody out or one out and the DP no longer even in order.

 

So my first concern would be cutting off the extra base hit and I would position the 1st baseman accordingly. I can see the SS playing a couple steps toward 2nd but depending on who was hitting and pitching for that matter, would not be real interesting in having the 2nd baseman pinching toward 2nd.

I agree about cutting down the extra basehit when the lead is only 2 runs. The first baseman should be hugging the line but a good 15 feet behind the bag. It's hard to tell on TV and the announcers never mention it, but look for it late in games. The first baseman holds the runner. He's not guarding the line and the second baseman is in DP dept moved toward second. It happens numerous times. Also, if the lead is 3 runs there is no need to guard the line either, just get outs. @ Jacko, I have seen this dozens of times with Jeter at bat in the 9th. They open up that hole huge and he is great at using it. He has way more hits through the hole in that situation than DPs. He's a master at using that hole. They play right into his hands.

 

Edit: I never really took note of it until a couple of years ago when a friend of mine pointed it out to me at a Yankee game. I started looking for it, and damn, it happens a lot. It is managerial and coaching laziness. They have a 3 run lead and they are thinking about what to say at the post game press conference. Admittedly, in the 9th inning they do the right thing more often than not, but what about the 8th inning with a 3 run lead-- they almost always play at DP depth and give up the hole. Start looking for it, and you will see it. To me, if you have a 3 run lead with 5 or 6 outs to go, you position the guys to get one out.

[jung]

Yes, 700 that is what I was saying....with a two run lead in the situation you set up, I would be more concerned about the extra base hit than anything else and would have the 1st baseman positioned to cut it off (behind the bag).

 

You did use a left handed hitter in your scenario. So I did not even think about Jeter. Considering his incredible bat control, I would position middle infielders based on who is pitching and what has been discussed between all concerned for how they are going to pitch Jeter in that situation, in the late innings.

 

Jeter gets that hole on the right side so well because that is what they are usually giving him. However don't fool yourself. He is just as adept moving the ball around the rest of the infield. So, I would want to know who is pitching and what the plan is for that situation.

 

While this is off topic this is yet another reason why I would not want to see Bard in any of these sorts of situations. He has proven time and time again that he just goes out to the mound and throws outs as effectively as he can. Once you start layering complications on him.....look out!

[a700hitter]

Yes, 700 that is what I was saying....with a two run lead in the situation you set up, I would be more concerned about the extra base hit than anything else and would have the 1st baseman positioned to cut it off (behind the bag).

 

You did use a left handed hitter in your scenario. So I did not even think about Jeter. Considering his incredible bat control, I would position middle infielders based on who is pitching and what has been discussed between all concerned for how they are going to pitch Jeter in that situation, in the late innings.

 

Jeter gets that hole on the right side so well because that is what they are usually giving him. However don't fool yourself. He is just as adept moving the ball around the rest of the infield. So, I would want to know who is pitching and what the plan is for that situation.

 

While this is off topic this is yet another reason why I would not want to see Bard in any of these sorts of situations. He has proven time and time again that he just goes out to the mound and throws outs as effectively as he can. Once you start layering complications on him.....look out!

I'd play Jeter straight up in that situation with the first baseman off the bag behind the runner. I know Jeter can move the ball around, but that second base hole is money for him. I did use a lefty in my scenario, but the same would go for a RH opposite field hitter too.

[Whiteandnerdy42]

Well, Jeter is the best shortstop the world has seen in a while.

[a700hitter]

Well, Jeter is the best shortstop the world has seen in a while.

Do you want to start a Jeter is #1 thread?

[jung]

Well Jeter is getting older. So it stands to reason that he would have a harder time getting around on a good FB than in the past. Although I would be willing to bet that the smart ass has lightened his bat over the years, especially given his current hitting style.

 

Still and all, if I had a good FB pitcher on the mound I would want that hole in the right side covered, not left wide open as that is truly playing into his hands. I would not want my good FB pitcher throwing strikes on the outer half but would tease Jeter out there with pitches off the plate and try to bust him inside. This might finally be the year when he cannot get around on that pitch. Beyond that I would still want to know who was pitching and what the plan was for Jeter in the late innings.

[Spitball]

As has been mentioned, there are some variables to account for in a700's scenario. The abilities (speed of base runners, type of batter) of the players and the pitcher are factors.

 

Also, a visiting team will defend differently than the home team. A visiting team does not want give up the tying run or obviously the winning run, so they will guard the lines as Jung mentioned to try to prevent the extra base hit. They also want to prevent the runners from getting great jumps and thus taking extra bases. With no out and a poor hitter/good bunter up, ther the visiting team also has to watch for the possibilty of both runners being sacrificed into scoring position with one out.

 

If I am managing the home team with a two run lead, the defense is going for outs and avoiding a big inning. I play for the double play and don't worry about the opponents scoring a run. Even if they score runs, my team has a chance to bat again.

[a700hitter]

As has been mentioned, there are some variables to account for in a700's scenario. The abilities (speed of base runners, type of batter) of the players and the pitcher are factors.

 

Also, a visiting team will defend differently than the home team. A visiting team does not want give up the tying run or obviously the winning run, so they will guard the lines as Jung mentioned to try to prevent the extra base hit. They also want to prevent the runners from getting great jumps and thus taking extra bases. With no out and a poor hitter/good bunter up, there is the possibilty of both runners being sacrificed into scoring position with one out.

 

If I am managing the home team with a two run lead, the defense is going for outs and avoiding a big inning. I play for the double play and don't worry about the opponents scoring a run. Even if they score runs, my team has a chance to bat again.

The scenario is that there is 1 runner on (not 2) and at least a 2 run lead. It is most egregious, IMO, when there is a 3 run or more lead and they defense is playing for the DP and holding the runner in the 8th inning thus opening the hole for a cheapie GB hit.

[Spitball]

The scenario is that there is 1 runner on (not 2) and at least a 2 run lead. It is most egregious, IMO, when there is a 3 run or more lead and they defense is playing for the DP and holding the runner in the 8th inning thus opening the hole for a cheapie GB hit.

 

I read your post incorrectly. I can't imagine why the second baseman would be cheating towards the bag with a left handed batter up. The first baseman will try to hold the runner until the last possible moment to keep him from getting too good a jump.

 

I'll have to watch for this.

[dupree]

I was just wondering how everyone viewed the strategy of driving the pitch count up and looking at a lot of pitches.

 

Is it a good strategy or is the swing em if its close strategy more favorable?

 

I myself am more of the swing at anything close and hack away. Being patient is good and does get the pitcher out of the game earlier. Just seeing what others thought about it.

[Spitball]

I was just wondering how everyone viewed the strategy of driving the pitch count up and looking at a lot of pitches.

 

Is it a good strategy or is the swing em if its close strategy more favorable?

 

I myself am more of the swing at anything close and hack away. Being patient is good and does get the pitcher out of the game earlier. Just seeing what others thought about it.

 

I am all for the patient approach. That does not mean the batter should avoid swinging at the first pitch...which is often the best pitch he will see.

[dupree]

Thats true the first pitch is usually the best one.

 

I also dont like the approach of not swinging in a 3-0 count. U know that you're prolly gonna get a fastball so i say swing for the fences dont just take the pitch and let the count go 3-1.

[NYlove4BoSox]

I also dont like the approach of not swinging in a 3-0 count. U know that you're prolly gonna get a fastball so i say swing for the fences dont just take the pitch and let the count go 3-1.

 

I would assume teams have stats on an opposing pitcher showing what the odds are that he'll throw a strike after missing with 3 balls. Adding that to the consideration of whose at bat, on base, number of outs, score of game...on and on, I'd then assume there's more calculation factored into whether or not to swing on 3-0, and less of a simple approach. Maybe.

[jung]

According to a study conducted by Stanford U over I think either a 4-5 year period, based on the result (hit vs swing and miss or foul vs swing and hit into an out) 0-0 is the worst swing count in baseball from the hitters perspective. That only suggests one thing to me. Hitters are not as confident as swingers when the count is 0-0. For one thing, I see too many 0-0 count swings when the hitter cannot possibly have been looking for the ball where it was pitched. In other words, the hitter swung at a pitchers pitch. Might have been a strike but it was still a pitchers pitch. I often see hitters swinging at pitches out of the strike zone and way out of their sweet spot 0-0. That to me is the height of arrogance for a hitter. Sure tough guy....go ahead and swing ya' big dope.

 

Obviously, if you earn a reputation as a hitter for never swinging at the first pitch, pitchers will start to groove that pitch on you. However, at least my view of it is that 0-0, I was going to swing at a pitch if I had guessed right for pitch type and especially for location. I believe the hitter should narrow up his strike zone 0-0 and only swing if he gets a strike he can really do something with and that he is really prepared to hit. If not, let it go.

 

The best pitch the hitter is going to see is the one he is most prepared to hit and that pitch may well not be 0-0.

 

The study also suggests that all this ******** about reflexes and the ability to react is just that....********. Either you get the pitch where you need it to be, count on it and then do something with it when you get it or you don't. You can rely on reflexes later in the count as long as you have become conscience of protecting the plate, choke up on the bat.....whatever gets you more bat control. If you really have power as a hitter, you are still going to hit the ball out of the park if you hit it right....it you don't.....well...you don't.

 

As for the guys that can swing at anything and hit it....the Yogi Berra's of the world, they are few and far between and that sort of hitting suggests a perspective on hitting that few hitters have, not monster reflexes. Might suggest better hand eye coordination than other hitters. However all baseball players have better hand eye coordination than the average bear.

[SoxSport]

The biggest advantage of taking taking a lot of pitches these days is to run up the pitch count for the starting pitcher. That's the easiest way to get him out of the game, because most teams have a pitch count machine in their dugouts. If the guy goes beyond a certain number of pitches, he's gone--no matter how good he's pitching. Some teams like the Red Sox are pretty religious about this, while other teams are more flexible--depending on the situation. The Rays are an example of the latter. My own view is a starter should be stretched out if he is sharp--and relieved when he is not--regardless of pitch counts.

 

The other advantage is to the hitter as well. He has a better chance of getting on base, which means of not making an out--in saber terms. If you ever saw Ted Williams play, you would know the guy was a pitch count machine. He simply would not swing at a pitch out of the strike zone--no matter what the situation.And boy did he know the strike zone.That means he got a ton of walks, including intentional ones, which added greatly to his OBP and OPS numbers. Bonds had ridiculous OPS numbers in his Hercules PED period, when he was walking more frequently than even Williams or Ruth did. Teams refused to pitch to him with men on base.

[Bellhorn04]

The biggest advantage of taking taking a lot of pitches these days is to run up the pitch count for the starting pitcher. That's the easiest way to get him out of the game, because most teams have a pitch count machine in their dugouts. If the guy goes beyond a certain number of pitches, he's gone--no matter how good he's pitching. Some teams like the Red Sox are pretty religious about this, while other teams are more flexible--depending on the situation. The Rays are an example of the latter. My own view is a starter should be stretched out if he is sharp--and relieved when he is not--regardless of pitch counts.

 

 

I guarantee the Rays are on strict pitch counts too. David Price reached 120 pitches twice in 2012. He reached 125 pitches zero times.

 

About the only starter in the bigs that gets pushed beyond the normal limits anymore is Verlander.

[SoxSport]

I guarantee the Rays are on strict pitch counts too. David Price reached 120 pitches twice in 2012. He reached 125 pitches zero times.

 

About the only starter in the bigs that gets pushed beyond the normal limits anymore is Verlander.

 

Oh sure. You're gambling above 120 pitches. That's usually the limit though some pitchers can stretch to 125 or so on a good day. Guys like Verlander. That's where pitch counts matter--around 120 and above.

 

Trouble is, the limit is now being set to 100 pitches--well below 120. That gets the starter out after 5-6 innings--in some cases, and puts burden on the bullpen. That policy sucks, because it gets middle relievers into the game that suck and can cost you the game. The Rays don't do that unless they have to. And there are enough times when you have to--when the starter doesn't have it that day.

[Spitball]

Often it is not about saving an arm as much as it is about winning a baseball game. I know we all remember 2003 when Grady Little let Pedro Martinez go too long in game 7 of the ALCS.

 

From pitches 85 to 100, the batters had hit .230 off Martinez that year, but from 101 to 120 they had hit .370. Little should have been checking the satistics that game. It wasn't about saving his arm so much as logical checking of the statistics.

[SCM33]

Thats true the first pitch is usually the best one.

 

I also dont like the approach of not swinging in a 3-0 count. U know that you're prolly gonna get a fastball so i say swing for the fences dont just take the pitch and let the count go 3-1.

 

Jeff Frye, who produced some pretty solid OBP numbers for a smallish 2B NEVER swung at the first pitch.

[a700hitter]

I didn't know where to put this, because it involves a rule/penalty and not strategy. There was a lot of talk about the penalty that Carlos Quentin should get for his part in the brawl that injured Greinke. Some people feel that he should be suspended for the duration of Greinke's injury. I agree with that. I hate these stupid bench clearing brawls. The games are long enough. I don't want to sit through that s***. The penalties should be mandatory and severe enough that batters will not think about charging the mound. The penalty structure I would recommend would be as follows:

 

1. 15 game mandatory suspension for charging the mound. Players will think twice before they will take almost a 10% cut in pay.

 

2. Any player to leave the bench or dugout should get a mandatory 5 game suspension.

 

3. If there is an injury in a brawl, the other party(ies) to the brawl get suspended for the greater of the duration of the injury or 15 games.

 

These measures should just about eliminate brawls. If they insist on fighting, let them go at each other in the runway or the parking lot. I don't want to see it.

[VA Sox Fan]

I didn't know where to put this, because it involves a rule/penalty and not strategy. There was a lot of talk about the penalty that Carlos Quentin should get for his part in the brawl that injured Greinke. Some people feel that he should be suspended for the duration of Greinke's injury. I agree with that. I hate these stupid bench clearing brawls. The games are long enough. I don't want to sit through that s***. The penalties should be mandatory and severe enough that batters will not think about charging the mound. The penalty structure I would recommend would be as follows:

 

1. 15 game mandatory suspension for charging the mound. Players will think twice before they will take almost a 10% cut in pay.

 

2. Any player to leave the bench or dugout should get a mandatory 5 game suspension.

 

3. If there is an injury in a brawl, the other party(ies) to the brawl get suspended for the greater of the duration of the injury or 15 games.

 

These measures should just about eliminate brawls. If they insist on fighting, let them go at each other in the runway or the parking lot. I don't want to see it.

 

 

Questin was totally wrong in that situation. Sometimes batters are hit on purpose for various reasons.

 

You are sounding very PC. Guess you want fighting in hockey gone too?

 

You make some very valid points. But brawls are part of the game of baseball. Sorry it inconveniences you or prolongs the game. But that's just how it is.

[Palodios]

I didn't know where to put this, because it involves a rule/penalty and not strategy. There was a lot of talk about the penalty that Carlos Quentin should get for his part in the brawl that injured Greinke. Some people feel that he should be suspended for the duration of Greinke's injury. I agree with that. I hate these stupid bench clearing brawls. The games are long enough. I don't want to sit through that s***. The penalties should be mandatory and severe enough that batters will not think about charging the mound. The penalty structure I would recommend would be as follows:

 

1. 15 game mandatory suspension for charging the mound. Players will think twice before they will take almost a 10% cut in pay.

 

2. Any player to leave the bench or dugout should get a mandatory 5 game suspension.

 

3. If there is an injury in a brawl, the other party(ies) to the brawl get suspended for the greater of the duration of the injury or 15 games.

 

These measures should just about eliminate brawls. If they insist on fighting, let them go at each other in the runway or the parking lot. I don't want to see it.

 

Part of me agrees with you, but the problem can't really be solved unless something is done about pitchers hitting players with pitches. If a guy is throwing a 100 mph pitch directly at you--and not over the plate-- how are you going to defend yourself? I think it is more likely for players to get hurt when an opposing pitcher starts headhunting in response.

 

The other problem is that during a brawl, there are 9 players surrounding the charging player. So if a batter is defending himself after a headshot, he's f***ed without the bench clearing out.

[a700hitter]

Part of me agrees with you, but the problem can't really be solved unless something is done about pitchers hitting players with pitches. If a guy is throwing a 100 mph pitch directly at you--and not over the plate-- how are you going to defend yourself? I think it is more likely for players to get hurt when an opposing pitcher starts headhunting in response.

 

The other problem is that during a brawl, there are 9 players surrounding the charging player. So if a batter is defending himself after a headshot, he's f***ed without the bench clearing out.

I believe that batters have to do a better job of not getting hit. Too many guys dig in with that body armor and don't even attempt to get out of the way. I'd let the pitchers police the game if their hitters get nailed. I'd keep the current warning and ejection system for pitchers.

[jung]

Hitters are not just digging in, they are diving over the plate. Besides Quintin did not even get hit in the head while diving over the plate. He is a card carrying *******. I don't think I would change anything at this point. Although I would maybe not take it for granted that my catcher knows he is supposed to intercept the idiot on the way to the mound. I would also probably remind my timid as the day is long 1st baseman Agons that he is supposed to do more than show up ten minutes after everything is over and scratch around the mound for a bit.

[Bellhorn04]

A strategy point that came to mind in last night's game:

 

A lot of managers like to arrange their lineup with lefty and right hitters alternating as much as possible. The Yankees lineup last night was a perfect example. The main thing that this accomplishes is that it makes bullpen matchups more difficult for the opposing team. In the 7th inning Thornton came in and faced Gardner-Jeter-Cano. So he got to face two lefties but had a righty planted in the middle. Then Tazawa came in and faced Soriano-Granderson-A-Rod. Again there's the lefty hitter in the middle.

 

I don't know productive this strategy really is, no way of measuring I guess, but I do see the reasoning behind it.