Chili Davis

[Maxbialystock]

One of the half dozen best hitters who ever lived, Ted Williams, was pretty much a pull hitter, which caused Lou Boudreau to create the Williams Shift. Williams still hit for a high average, including .388 when he was 37 or 37, because he made solid contact.

 

When he was here, 2011-12, Adrian Gonzalez showed Ortiz how effective going the other way could be. Nevertheless, Ortiz pulling the ball can still be very effective, especially when it results in solid contact.

[Maxbialystock]

Let me hasten to add that I think there can be no question the Chili Davis has been a boon to Red Sox hitting, whether they are going opposite field or just whopping the ball. And it's working throughout the lineup. Davis has to get a lot of credit.

[Bellhorn04]

One of the half dozen best hitters who ever lived, Ted Williams, was pretty much a pull hitter, which caused Lou Boudreau to create the Williams Shift. Williams still hit for a high average, including .388 when he was 37 or 37, because he made solid contact.

 

When he was here, 2011-12, Adrian Gonzalez showed Ortiz how effective going the other way could be. Nevertheless, Ortiz pulling the ball can still be very effective, especially when it results in solid contact.

 

I think Ortiz has always been pretty good at hitting to left. 2 of the home runs he hit in the 2004 postseason were over the Monstah (one to win the series against the Angels and one in Game 5 of the ALCS.)

[cp176]

Chili Davis and Brian Butterfield both were on the proverbial crap list last year. Winning has made their public persona look so good. I don't know a whole lot about Davis but I do know a little bit about Butterfield. You cannot and will not find a harder working and better coach. Keep winning.

[southpaw777]

I remember last year on the BDC board a few of our "favorite" posters calling for Chillis job. It takes time to put a new hitting coaches system and approach into the overall philosiphy of the team. That, and most of these guys are really young and only 1-3 years in the league.

Xander, Mookie, Vaz, JBJ, Shaw, etc., doing a great job taking pitches, going opposite field, and taking what they are giving them. Mistake pitches are starting to leave the park recently, which I thought might hapoen with a couple of these guys.

This offense is better than i thought. with guys like Benintendi in the system,who is another kid with a solid approach at the plate, Im looking forward to the next few years...

The only thing we could use is another starter. Other than that, i think this team is going to be tough to beat.

[mvp 78]

I remember last year on the BDC board a few of our "favorite" posters calling for Chillis job. It takes time to put a new hitting coaches system and approach into the overall philosiphy of the team. That, and most of these guys are really young and only 1-3 years in the league.

Xander, Mookie, Vaz, JBJ, Shaw, etc., doing a great job taking pitches, going opposite field, and taking what they are giving them. Mistake pitches are starting to leave the park recently, which I thought might hapoen with a couple of these guys.

This offense is better than i thought. with guys like Benintendi in the system,who is another kid with a solid approach at the plate, Im looking forward to the next few years...

The only thing we could use is another starter. Other than that, i think this team is going to be tough to beat.

This has been the mantra for the past few years now.

[southpaw777]

This has been the mantra for the past few years now.

 

Agree...but with DD leading the way now and not Ben trying to hang on to every prospect, I think we will see another arm this year if other guys dont step up or stay consistent throughout the year...

[mvp 78]

As long as he is moving the right prospects...

[Maxbialystock]

I'm almost sick and tired of the mantra urging the FO to get another starter because it seems the only ones available are available for a reason--they are on the downside. Maybe, maybe Price is about to turn things around, but to me it's pretty obvious we should have kept Lester. At the time, however, I wasn't so sure because I tend to defer to the FO.

[Maxbialystock]

I can't remember, but I might have been one of the guys screaming for Davis's scalp on BDC. However, I also recognized, because it was so obvious, that the hitting was coming around in August and September.

[southpaw777]

No, Im talking about a young controlled kid like Salazar or an arm from the Mets. Yes, it will cost a couple top kids, but thats the price you pay for top young, controlled pitchng.

 

Benintendi Moncada and Espinoza are the three names i Protect at all costs rght now. devers, swihart, travis, kopech,metc., are all up for grabs.

Heres a question for everyone.

If a team is willing to part with a top yung pitcher but asked for at least one of Bogey, Betts, or Bradley along with another couple top porspects, which one do you choose if your the GM? Now, this will be for a young totr pitcher under control for at oeast four years...

[Slasher9]

Hey Lefty.

you know my philosophy has always been pitching = parades. the fact that we have so many position players "blocked" in minors is evidence that we can "afford" to trade position for pitching. DD will trade for 1 (maybe 2) SP before the deadline.

[southpaw777]

Hey Lefty.

you know my philosophy has always been pitching = parades. the fact that we have so many position players "blocked" in minors is evidence that we can "afford" to trade position for pitching. DD will trade for 1 (maybe 2) SP before the deadline.

 

Hey slash:cool:

I agree. I think we will have another starter before August. Not sure what names will be involved, but I think I have a good idea who it may be. That really depends on whos available. A lot of fans like Gray. I dont really want him for the price Beane would ask for. Especially at the deadline. Depnding on whos out there would have to depend on whos available from us...but yeah, id bet we will acquire another arm via trade.

[jad]

making contact as opposed to trying to crush HR's make a batter more susceptible to slumps? i would like to hear your reasoning for thinking this.

 

@S5 - i also enjoy the opposite field "make contact" approach that all hitters have been doing. i especially like it when a RH batter is doing it with a runner on 2nd and 0 outs. these guys are willing to sacrifice an AB / stat in order to move their teammate over to 3rd. that is team building and goes along way to parades....

 

It seems to me that the tactic of giving up an out for a base was shown to be bad both in Moneyball and well before that (even in the 60s, the math of the 'sacrifice' exposed it as a myth. Not sure of the figures, but with one out, there would be almost no point whatsoever in giving up an out to get a runner to third--calling that a 'productive' out makes it seem more valuable than it is.).

 

Also, the Williams shift that I recall simply put three infielders on the right, but it's not difficult to find evidence of versions as radical as anything seen today: see photos and even a baseball card from the 40s on: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24378251/just-because-the-ted-williams-shift

[Slasher9]

It seems to me that the tactic of giving up an out for a base was shown to be bad both in Moneyball and well before that (even in the 60s, the math of the 'sacrifice' exposed it as a myth. Not sure of the figures, but with one out, there would be almost no point whatsoever in giving up an out to get a runner to third--calling that a 'productive' out makes it seem more valuable than it is.).

 

Also, the Williams shift that I recall simply put three infielders on the right, but it's not difficult to find evidence of versions as radical as anything seen today: see photos and even a baseball card from the 40s on: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24378251/just-because-the-ted-williams-shift

 

i wasn't advocating that. i wasnt referring to straight up sacrifice as in sac bunt which i think is what you are saying. but the rightside of infield approach with a runner on 2nd and 0 outs is the correct approach. if the ball gets through you get an RBI. if you groundout you move the runner over. it's not giving up an AB. it's directional hitting.

[S5Dewey]

It seems to me that the tactic of giving up an out for a base was shown to be bad both in Moneyball and well before that (even in the 60s, the math of the 'sacrifice' exposed it as a myth. Not sure of the figures, but with one out, there would be almost no point whatsoever in giving up an out to get a runner to third--calling that a 'productive' out makes it seem more valuable than it is.).

 

Also, the Williams shift that I recall simply put three infielders on the right, but it's not difficult to find evidence of versions as radical as anything seen today: see photos and even a baseball card from the 40s on: http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24378251/just-because-the-ted-williams-shift

 

I wouldn't put what the RH Sox hitters are doing now in the same category as a bunt. A bunt is intended to be an out, an expense to be incurred to move a runner along. OTOH, I've seen Pedey, Mookie, and Xander intentionally reach out and "serve" the ball to RF. In the worst case scenario it's as effective as a (successful) bunt but in the best case scenario it's a base hit, which doesn't cost the offense 1/3 of an inning. The strategy is much preferable to a bunt, which too many ML players can't do successfully anyway!

 

My personal favorite, of course, is when an LH hitter serves the ball to an almost vacant left side of the IF. This has to improve the chances of the batter getting a hit.... doesn't it? Shouldn't every LH hitter be able to successfully serve the ball to an semi-vacant left side of the IF more often than one time out of three?

 

Getting back to my OP three pages ago, if more players would go to the opposite field it would discourage these shifts.

[User Name]

It's pretty goddamn hard to hit a ball the other way when a pitcher is pounding you with hard stuff inside or soft stuff away. If hitting oppo with authority was so easy, everyone would do it, and shifts wouldn't be as popular as they currently are.

[S5Dewey]

It's pretty goddamn hard to hit a ball the other way when a pitcher is pounding you with hard stuff inside or soft stuff away. If hitting oppo with authority was so easy, everyone would do it, and shifts wouldn't be as popular as they currently are.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that soft stuff away is a problem. Just stick the bat out and there it is! Pedey is an expert at it. As for hard stuff inside, bsolutely true, but if you watch the games you'll see that often times the pitcher will pitch the ball to the outside of the plate in an effort to get the hitter to try to pull the ball, thereby resulting in a weak ground ball to the infield.

 

Who was it who said, "Hit it where they ain't"?

[mvp 78]

I don't know where you get the idea that soft stuff away is a problem. Just stick the bat out and there it is! Pedey is an expert at it. As for hard stuff inside, bsolutely true, but if you watch the games you'll see that often times the pitcher will pitch the ball to the outside of the plate in an effort to get the hitter to try to pull the ball, thereby resulting in a weak ground ball to the infield.

 

Who was it who said, "Hit it where they ain't"?

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/170992420/mookie-betts-hitting-like-dustin-pedroia

 

Pedroia is a pull hitter. He doesn't use all fields as much as he should.

[Slasher9]

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/170992420/mookie-betts-hitting-like-dustin-pedroia

 

Pedroia is a pull hitter. He doesn't use all fields as much as he should.

 

you are failing to recognize the Chili Davis effected Pedroia. his hit location is well spread.

2016:

Pull: 19

Middle: 16

Opp: 14

[User Name]

I don't know where you get the idea that soft stuff away is a problem. Just stick the bat out and there it is! Pedey is an expert at it. As for hard stuff inside, bsolutely true, but if you watch the games you'll see that often times the pitcher will pitch the ball to the outside of the plate in an effort to get the hitter to try to pull the ball, thereby resulting in a weak ground ball to the infield.

 

Who was it who said, "Hit it where they ain't"?

 

It is a problem if you're trying to go the other way, because there's a very high likelyhood that you'll be in front of an offspedd pitch away and you'll shoot it back up the middle or to your pull side. If it was so easy "hitting it where they ain't" shifts would not be as effective as they are. Bat control is hard to come by.

[Slasher9]

It is a problem if you're trying to go the other way, because there's a very high likelyhood that you'll be in front of an offspedd pitch away and you'll shoot it back up the middle or to your pull side. If it was so easy "hitting it where they ain't" shifts would not be as effective as they are. Bat control is hard to come by.

 

the shift works on a player like Ortiz because he is not trying to get basehits. ever. he is trying to jog around the bases. and that is exactly what we want him to do. they dont work on someone like HanRam or X-Bo because they arent trying to jog around the bases with every swing.

[mvp 78]

you are failing to recognize the Chili Davis effected Pedroia. his hit location is well spread.

2016:

Pull: 19

Middle: 16

Opp: 14

 

Yes, he's been doing a much better job recently. He is a much better hitter when he uses all fields like Chili said in the article I posted.

[Slasher9]

Yes, he's been doing a much better job recently. He is a much better hitter when he uses all fields like Chili said in the article I posted.

 

ah. i was responding to your text below your link.

"He doesn't use all fields as much as he should" sounded like current and not past analysis.

i will checkout the article.

[mvp 78]

ah. i was responding to your text below your link.

"He doesn't use all fields as much as he should" sounded like current and not past analysis.

i will checkout the article.

 

I have seen him go more to RF this season and have been very pleased with it so far. To me, he's still a few hr's away from thinking he needs to go La Luna every game.

 

If he keeps up the good work, I may have to revise the Three Point Plan.

[User Name]

the shift works on a player like Ortiz because he is not trying to get basehits. ever. he is trying to jog around the bases. and that is exactly what we want him to do. they dont work on someone like HanRam or X-Bo because they arent trying to jog around the bases with every swing.

 

So again, not all ballplayers have the bat control or the offensive approach to beat the shift consistently, which is my point.

[Kimmi]

i wasn't advocating that. i wasnt referring to straight up sacrifice as in sac bunt which i think is what you are saying. but the rightside of infield approach with a runner on 2nd and 0 outs is the correct approach. if the ball gets through you get an RBI. if you groundout you move the runner over. it's not giving up an AB. it's directional hitting.

 

With a runner on 2nd and 0 outs, the Sox have advanced the runner 56% of the time, 4th best in the league. League average is 51%.

[bosoxmal]

Wait, wait wait+Quick, quick, quick=hits to all fields

[jad]

I've heard Davis get credit for JBJ, but haven't heard what he himself has said. Farrell says "he's shortened his swing," (whatever that means); Cora on ESPN just gave a lengthy analysis, claiming he's "gone back to his mechanics in college" (but the film he presents to prove it doesn't seem to support that); one other ESPN analyst credited his stint at Pawtucket; others said (last year) he was "uncoachable." All I see is that he's gone to a leg kick, committing him to the swing (like Papi, or the old Hanley). Last year, he developed during his bad streak a 'foot tap' in his front foot--which I have only seen in one other hitter, oddly: Daniel Nava when he went from being a .300 hitter to a .150 hitter. Is his success dependent on a particular mechanical adjustment? (too bad we can't do that in, say, our golf swings!). Or is it the reverse: when you get a good, confident swing and have success, suddenly you 'look' better doing it (i.e., what we describe as 'mechanics' is often a function of success, rather than a cause of it).

[User Name]

It depends on how you define success, because in baseball, sometimes success is dependent on luck. If a guy's stinging balls all over the place but they're getting caught, should he change his mechanics? Also, in jbj's case, I've heard some analysts/scout types say (granted, they're from here, so not your typical ESPN guys) explain long swings as "slider-type" bat speed (read that in scouting reports from the states too), as in, mechanics with unnecessary movements and inefficient bat paths that make it hard to catch up to big velocity, forcing the batter to cheat on fastballs, then be easily beat by breaking balls.