MarisFan61
Don: I'd say there's a big "if" -- "AND MORE" -- on what you're saying, and that even if so, there's still a problem because of how it's presented.

The "if" is: If it's really the case that "we are now beginning to see more, and more aggressive, outfield shifts" than before;
....and, the "AND MORE" is that it's not just "more and more aggressive" outfield shifts, but, that it's more 'against the grain' outfield shifts.

I don't see at all that the article is about "more, and more aggressive" outfield shifts; it's about outfield shifts that are in the opposite direction from the infield shift.

To this extent, we are simply reading the article differently.

Especially assuming I'm right (but even if it's how you're seeing it!), in order for the article to be (as you say) "something new," there has to be, well something new along such lines.

Per what I've said, I know that the "opposite infield-and-outfield shifts" thing he's talking about has been going on already. The article talks about it as though this is something new -- and it isn't.

Nevertheless, IF in fact there's a significant uptick in such 'opposite infield and outfield shifts,' or even, per your broader view of it, in outfield shifts of any kind, then indeed the article is observing something new, and it's 'something.'

The trouble is, the article's seeming unawareness that (1) the basic phenomenon has been known for a very long time, and (2) such 'opposite infield-and-outfield' shifts were already going on, doesn't seem to give any confidence to think there's anything new but his awareness of it.

So -- if it's really so that there's some uptick there, I have to apologize, and to take back the basic criticism. But the manner of presentation isn't highly conducive for the reader to have confidence in what is being suggested, because it looks like the writer just didn't know about what was already well known for a long time and what was already being done in the way of shifts.
2:29 AM Mar 24th

doncoffin
And here I thought the point of the original article--perhaps implied rather than made completely explicit--is that, unlike the dramatic infield shifts we're begun to see in the past few years, we are now beginning to see more, and more aggressive, outfield shifts as well. If what I thought I was reading is correct, then it is something new, and potentially something interesting.
7:05 PM Mar 23rd

OldBackstop
My instinct would be that uppercuts involve longer swings and tend to be hit a little later, and therefore to the opposite field, rather than short choppy quick swings which would be hit out in front and a little more likely to be pulled.

It's all detailed in my article: ww. smithsonian.oldbackstop.wins.nobel.prize.in.physics .org

Aside to MF: seeing as the proprietor here once wrote here (all in caps) "THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR OLD BACKSTOP, GOD BLESS HIS VICIOUS LITTLE SOUL" we probably all need a very thick skin to hang around.

However, and especially since you had my back after the above, I would point out to BBF that we would have to shutter the store if we kept the respondents to authors who have stuff on the internet (an extremely low bar)

All that said, I hope the Phillies are horribly wrong but persist in that strategy all year, except when they play the Nats.


3:41 PM Mar 23rd

BarryBondsFan25
If you can't figure it out at your age, there is nothing that I could say that will help you. Let me know when you write an article. Perhaps you can build on this one.


A little about the author:


www.baseballinfosolutions.com/AboutUs/OurTeam
12:18 PM Mar 23rd

BarryBondsFan25
Marisfan, it's one thing to raise questions. There is nothing with that. It's another thing to condescend. That is what you do. You have done the same in the past with several other articles. I'm not sure why you believe you are in any position at all to condescend.

I believe Bill once said, in one of his recent articles, something to the affect that the only reason somebody can criticize is because I (meaning Bill) actually produced something whereas the person criticizing did not.

Feel free to submit an article of your own.

10:28 AM Mar 23rd

BarryBondsFan25
I personally can't wait for the "distinguished gentlemen" Marisfan and/or Steve161 posting an article of their own.
7:55 AM Mar 23rd

steve161
Yeah. My first reaction when this came in the email was, "You've only just noticed this?"
5:14 PM Mar 22nd

MarisFan61
I think it's been quite well known for a long time that IN GENERAL ground balls tend more to be pulled than are balls in the air, and balls in the air tend more to be to the opposite field than are ground balls.

Actually I think it's axiomatic and intuitive just from the standpoint of picturing an average swing. As the bat comes through the hitting zone area, it's on an upward path. Balls to the opposite field are struck earlier in the path, balls to the pull field later in the path. Earlier in the path, the bat is lower, and therefore more likely to hit the underside of the ball; later in the path..... Well you get the idea. :-)
1:32 PM Mar 22nd