Chavis

[harmony]

Michael Chavis and Will Middlebrooks in a comparison of the first 15 games of their respective MLB careers:

 

MC 63 PA, .333/.460/.725/1.186, 13 R, 6 HR, 13 RBI

WM 64 PA, .262/.297/.541/.838. 9 R, 4 HR, 14 RBI

Michael Chavis and Will Middlebrooks in a comparison of the first 18 games of their respective MLB careers:

 

MC 76 PA, .270/.395/.587/.982, 21 K, 12 BB, 13 R, 6 HR, 14 RBI

WM 77 PA, .297/.325/.581/.906, 24 K, 3 BB, 12 R, 5 HR, 16 RBI

Edited May 11, 2019 by harmony

[OH FOY]

The BB's are what impresses me. Shows me he is selective, with a better eye, at the moment. Not just a free swinger.

[oldtimer]

Ted was no stranger to launch angle.

 

In his book on hitting , he recommended that the bat be swung along and upward arc that a ball would normally be dropping as it came to the plate. The idea was to maximize the possibility of making solid contact, not of hitting up on the ball to launch it. I think people are crediting Ted with something he never advocated.

[jad]

In his book on hitting , he recommended that the bat be swung along and upward arc that a ball would normally be dropping as it came to the plate. The idea was to maximize the possibility of making solid contact, not of hitting up on the ball to launch it. I think people are crediting Ted with something he never advocated.

 

Exactly. And he criticized Doerr's insistence on "a level swing" specifically because it was not in line with the path of the ball. (Also, the mound would have been a lot higher in those days than it is now, right? or was the height increased in the 60s and 70s before lowered to accommodate all the poor slobs who had to swing against Bob Gibson?)

Edited May 11, 2019 by jad

[sk7326]

In his book on hitting , he recommended that the bat be swung along and upward arc that a ball would normally be dropping as it came to the plate. The idea was to maximize the possibility of making solid contact, not of hitting up on the ball to launch it. I think people are crediting Ted with something he never advocated.

 

Oh he advocated solid contact, but he was trying to get backspin and all of that good stuff. Really all the mystical woo around launch angle and exit velocity is silly ... it's just ways to measure stuff Williams and others understood qualitatively.

[notin]

In his book on hitting , he recommended that the bat be swung along and upward arc that a ball would normally be dropping as it came to the plate. The idea was to maximize the possibility of making solid contact, not of hitting up on the ball to launch it. I think people are crediting Ted with something he never advocated.

 

Didn’t he also say “production comes from hitting the ball in the air”?

[notin]

Exactly. And he criticized Doerr's insistence on "a level swing" specifically because it was not in line with the path of the ball. (Also, the mound would have been a lot higher in those days than it is now, right? or was the height increased in the 60s and 70s before lowered to accommodate all the poor slobs who had to swing against Bob Gibson?)

 

 

And the slider didn’t come into prominence until the 1950’s...

[oldtimer]

And the slider didn’t come into prominence until the 1950’s...

 

He turned 39 in 1957. Some of his stats that year were BA of 388, his OPS was 1257 and his slugging % was .731. I fillowed his career from the time I was a young boy, starting in the 1940's and he is the most remarkable hitter I ever watched. No hint of the steroids in any of his stats plus 5 of his prime years in Military service.

[notin]

He turned 39 in 1957. Some of his stats that year were BA of 388, his OPS was 1257 and his slugging % was .731. I fillowed his career from the time I was a young boy, starting in the 1940's and he is the most remarkable hitter I ever watched. No hint of the steroids in any of his stats plus 5 of his prime years in Military service.

 

I think, if not for his military service, Williams might have been able to catch Babe Ruth for the all time HR title and might have even made it a point to do so. Aaron would not have been there to shoot for at the time. Ditto Bonds, obviously...

[oldtimer]

I think, if not for his military service, Williams might have been able to catch Babe Ruth for the all time HR title and might have even made it a point to do so. Aaron would not have been there to shoot for at the time. Ditto Bonds, obviously...

 

Aaron did go past Ruth and to his credit did it without the help of steroids. That cannot be said of Bonds. If Williams had averaged 35 HR for his years missed, he still would have fallen a little short in HRs, but that doesn't diminish his greatness.

[sk7326]

Aaron did go past Ruth and to his credit did it without the help of steroids. That cannot be said of Bonds. If Williams had averaged 35 HR for his years missed, he still would have fallen a little short in HRs, but that doesn't diminish his greatness.

 

Aaron used greenies instead

[harmony]

Michael Chavis and Will Middlebrooks in a comparison of the first 18 games of their respective MLB careers:

 

MC 76 PA, .270/.395/.587/.982, 21 K, 12 BB, 13 R, 6 HR, 14 RBI

WM 77 PA, .297/.325/.581/.906, 24 K, 3 BB, 12 R, 5 HR, 16 RBI

Michael Chavis and Will Middlebrooks in a comparison of the first 38 games of their respective MLB careers:

 

MC 165 PA, .264/.358/.500/.858, 49 K, 18 BB, 22 R, 10 HR, 28 RBI

WM 145 PA, .316/.352/.551/.903, 37 K, 7 BB, 20 R, 8 HR, 31 RBI

[Slasher9]

Aaron did go past Ruth and to his credit did it without the help of steroids. That cannot be said of Bonds. If Williams had averaged 35 HR for his years missed, he still would have fallen a little short in HRs, but that doesn't diminish his greatness.

 

f*** ruth.

Until 1931, balls bouncing over the fence were counted as home runs

[Maxbialystock]

He turned 39 in 1957. Some of his stats that year were BA of 388, his OPS was 1257 and his slugging % was .731. I fillowed his career from the time I was a young boy, starting in the 1940's and he is the most remarkable hitter I ever watched. No hint of the steroids in any of his stats plus 5 of his prime years in Military service.

 

Something we have in common. I too was a huge Williams fan and followed his games/seasons intensely. But I never saw him in person--in the ballpark or otherwise, and rarely got to see him on TV.

[mvp 78]

f*** ruth.

Until 1931, balls bouncing over the fence were counted as home runs

 

IDK, I kinda like that rule. It puts a bigger emphasis on OF defense.

[moonslav59]

IDK, I kinda like that rule. It puts a bigger emphasis on OF defense.

 

I hate how a ball bouncing over the fence prevents a runner from scoring from 1B. We could change that rule.

[Slasher9]

IDK, I kinda like that rule. It puts a bigger emphasis on OF defense.

 

would be hard to do with any ball hit to LF at Fenway Park......

[Slasher9]

I hate how a ball bouncing over the fence prevents a runner from scoring from 1B. We could change that rule.

 

only if it is left to the judgement of ROBOT umps.

[mvp 78]

I hate how a ball bouncing over the fence prevents a runner from scoring from 1B. We could change that rule.

 

Automatic bases clearing double?

[notin]

only if it is left to the judgement of ROBOT umps.

 

 

And robot baserunners...

[Bellhorn04]

I hate how a ball bouncing over the fence prevents a runner from scoring from 1B. We could change that rule.

 

I can't see a clean way to change that rule.

[sk7326]

Michael Chavis and Will Middlebrooks in a comparison of the first 38 games of their respective MLB careers:

 

MC 165 PA, .264/.358/.500/.858, 49 K, 18 BB, 22 R, 10 HR, 28 RBI

WM 145 PA, .316/.352/.551/.903, 37 K, 7 BB, 20 R, 8 HR, 31 RBI

 

Middlebrooks came up on a BABIP hot streak. It was clear that at some point that would fade. What is clear is that Chavis can clearly hit - he has a real approach and stuff.

[sk7326]

I hate how a ball bouncing over the fence prevents a runner from scoring from 1B. We could change that rule.

 

That is a very hard call for the umps to make in real time - it means there has to be a simultaneous view of the baserunner and the ball as it leaves the field of play. You almost have to go to replay to feel good about it.

[harmony]

Middlebrooks came up on a BABIP hot streak. It was clear that at some point that would fade. What is clear is that Chavis can clearly hit - he has a real approach and stuff.

It's true that Will Middlebrooks had a BABIP of .380 through 38 games while Michael Chavis has a BABIP of .329 through 38 games.

 

Middlebrooks had struck out in 25.5 percent of his plate appearances while Chavis has struck out in 29.7 percent of his plate appearances.

 

Then again, the game has changed in seven short years with the spike in strikeouts.

 

The biggest contrast is in walks with Middlebrooks walking in only 4.8 percent of his plate appearances and Chavis walking in 10.9 percent of plate appearances.

Edited June 4, 2019 by harmony

[mvp 78]

Michael Chavis and Will Middlebrooks in a comparison of the first 38 games of their respective MLB careers:

 

MC 165 PA, .264/.358/.500/.858, 49 K, 18 BB, 22 R, 10 HR, 28 RBI

WM 145 PA, .316/.352/.551/.903, 37 K, 7 BB, 20 R, 8 HR, 31 RBI

 

Griffey JR 152 PA, .275/.338/.457/.795, 27 K, 13 BB, 23 R, 6 HR, 16 RBI

[mvp 78]

It's true that Will Middlebrooks had a BABIP of .380 through 38 games while Michael Chavis has a BABIP of .329 through 38 games.

 

Middlebrooks had struck out in 25.5 percent of his plate appearances while Chavis has struck out in 29.7 percent of his plate appearances.

 

Then again, the game has changed in seven short years with the spike in strikeouts.

 

The biggest contrast is in walks with Middlebrooks walking in only 4.8 percent of his plate appearances and Chavis walking in 10.9 percent of plate appearances.

 

Griffey Jr had BABIP of 305 FYI.

[jacksonianmarch]

Chavis' biggest problem is the fastball. And in today's game, that is a killer. He has not proven to be able to hit a high fastball. This is in absolute contradiction to almost all other minor leaguers coming up. Chavis is a low ball fastball or a breaking ball hitter. He is gonna see heat in the upper part of the zone until he proves he can hit it

[harmony]

Griffey JR 152 PA, .275/.338/.457/.795, 27 K, 13 BB, 23 R, 6 HR, 16 RBI

Ages at MLB debuts:

 

Michael Chavis: 23 years, 252 days

Will Middlebrooks: 23 years, 236 days

Ken Griffey Jr.: 19 years, 133 days

[mvp 78]

Ages at MLB debuts:

 

Michael Chavis: 23 years, 252 days

Will Middlebrooks: 23 years, 236 days

Ken Griffey Jr.: 19 years, 133 days

 

[harmony]

Michael Chavis and Will Middlebrooks in a comparison of the first 38 games of their respective MLB careers:

 

MC 165 PA, .264/.358/.500/.858, 49 K, 18 BB, 22 R, 10 HR, 28 RBI

WM 145 PA, .316/.352/.551/.903, 37 K, 7 BB, 20 R, 8 HR, 31 RBI

Through Michael Chavis' first 38 games the Red Sox are 30-29 on the season.

 

Through Will Middlebrooks' first 38 games the Red Sox were 36-33 on the season en route to a 69-93 finish.

 

History is unlikely to repeat.

 

Nevertheless the parallels remain interesting:

 

Michael Chavis was 23 years, 252 days old, when he made his MLB debut in Game 21 of the 2019 season nearly five years after being drafted out of high school as a righthanded power-hitting infielder.

 

Will Middlebrooks was 23 years, 236 days old when he made his MLB debut in Game 24 of the 2012 season nearly five years after being drafted out of high school as a righthanded power-hitting infielder.