jad

Well yes. I agree with some of that. But during his bad periods, JBJ wasn't making good contact at all--all K's and tappers. He now has a beautiful swing (but in a sense, always has; cf. Ortiz--when he swings and misses, it looks like he's swatting at the ball!) I don't understand 'slider-type' bat speed (doesn't this just mean timing does not adjust to pitch speed? I'm not sure that falls under the category 'mechanics', which is always what one hears with JBJ.) (Then again, I don't really trust 'scouting'--I guess I'm more a less a Moneyball thinker on this aspect of the baseball institution!) Obviously, there's a case to be made for 'simpler is better', and maybe that applies to his case. Even on our level, the simpler your golf/tennis stroke is, the easier time you'll have getting back to it if something goes wrong. One hitting coach I heard used to say he got hitters out of a slump by pretending to see a flaw in their swing and having them concentrate exclusively on that. Focussing them on this real or imaginary detail then would clear their heads of the clutter that was preventing their bodies from 'doing its thing'. (This of course presumes that the athlete already possesses basic skills. -- focussing on one thing is NEVER going to put my drive 300 yards straight down the fairway.)

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).

This covered by a specific rule, although I've never seen it happen: as a poster noted above, if you are hit while attempting to swing, it's a dead ball strike. (Doesn't matter where, apparently). So you can't, say, hit a fair ball if the ball touches your hand during the swing.

NESN (or whatever) broadcast is saying HOlt got concussion diving for ground ball last week.

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

Rockets. Lots of off-speed stuff up in the zone.

Porcello, on the other hand ...

Too bad RS can't play Atlanta, Houston, Oakland, and NY through the rest of the season, and that the post-season (should they get there) might have some over .500 teams.

Tell it to the Rhode Island taxpayers who are still paying for his failed video-game operation.

What was that cloud of dust(?) they threw on Ortiz as he made 2 base? Rosin? Soda?

Manny's catch, high-riving the fan, then turning and doubling the runner off first makes him the greatest MLB fielder of any position at any time, past, present, and future.

It was a bad bunt. The only argument for it is completely tautological: if it had worked, it would have worked. Well duh.

Another example of the virtue of the attempted bunt. Why is it regarded as strange to let your .300 hitters swing away?

Signing Pablo might have been dumber. But that's the only thing that comes to mind.

What was THAT????

Wasn't there a study done on the notion of 'protection' a couple of years back, and it was shown to be a myth? (can't remember how it was done--comparing the performance of, say, a #3 hitter when 'protected' by a .300 clean up hitter vs. a .200 clean-up hitter?--no difference). But it's one of those comforting myths we have,, like the virtue of the bunt, 'moving runners up', the 'ideal #2 hitter', and likely most everything we like to discuss!

How can you adjust to a strike zone where balls six inches off the outside of the plate are strikes? Throw the bat at them?

Young for Holt? ?

Clearly ball 4. But he probably should have swung at the pitch before that.

I'd rather blame the guy who called the play.

The argument for Crawford would be that just for the mere privilege of getting rid of him, RS had to give up one of the most consistent and productive hitters ever.

How is there an up-side to this? It's almost assuredly going to be "dead money": there's no way rehabbing from shoulder surgery he's going to get himself in shape, and by next spring, he should look even worse than he does now. Anyone who thinks another team will take him off Boston's hands by paying 3/4 of his contract (or was that a joke?) is delusional.

Wow. Another no-nonsense internet tough guy. I guess we better be careful and talk about something else.

I just can't keep up with the insights and thinking of this board: the last time I checked in (a week or so ago), it seemed as if half the posters were all for getting rid of JBJ, as if there were no need of a great fielding .230 hitter.

Well, at least the bullpen problem is solved this year.