the state of MLB

This year’s Giants utilized so many pieces. Veterans at their peak, but partially because they were seldom over-exposed. Ten players in double figures in home runs. RBI’s kind of spread out among many. Revitalized starters like Gausman, a very solid bullpen with surprise primary closer Jake McGee setting a career best with 31 saves…

Some thoughts on the current so-called dominance of pitching in baseball is this: The pitching and defense have adjusted to what the hitters have been doing. The hitters have not re-adjusted.

Hitting is currently skewed towards the long ball and and using "exit velocity" and "launch angle" have become some of the major tools to achieve it. Such a hitting technique results in essentially a hard upper cut swing.

However, several years ago umpires came under a lot of pressure to call strikes at the top of the zone. They were, in fact, strikes, but were not getting called. That has changed. As a result, pitchers can now successfully go to the top of the strike zone. Consequently, pitchers will go with high heat knowing that an upper cut swing will either not catch up with it or will result in weak ground balls or pop ups. It is hard to square up a round bat with a round ball if the batter is upper cutting a high fastball. The timing must be absolutely precise. Consequently, there is an emphasis by pitchers on velocity and spin rate.

Until hitters/teams decide that low batting averages and high K-rate with increased power are not as conducive to scoring as more "normal" hitting, pitching will seem to dominate. It is up to the hitters to adjust at this point. The shift is a whole different discussion, but a well placed bunt or not so hard hit ball in the direction of the "hole" in the infield would probably put a stop to a lot of it. Baseball, in its current state, highly values walks--an outcome totally dependent on the pitcher not being able to throw strikes (or having Angel Hernandez types calling the game). They should eventually come to value "weak" base hits or bunts/drag bunts where the defense is essentially giving the hitter a base. Thus, I don't understand why they wouldn't eventually revert to taking what is being offered. As inger pointed out, if it makes the outfield grass, such a ground ball or pop up can even result in a double. If a few hitters could successfully achieve these results, those hitters would likely no longer be subject to a shift.

Just my thoughts. FWIW.

this is actually part of my critique of those that think home runs are all that matter. Another similar problem is that a lot of the home run hitters hit to only one field. That and inability to bunt, is why the shift works.

In the past they would have just learned to bunt and the shift would have gone away. Or they would have gotten players who can hit to all fields. Because home runs is all that matters, they do neither. So hitting will continue to decline.

It has to be monumental ego. Ted Williams refused to go against the shift Lou Boudreau devised against him back in the 1940s, preferring to bat .200 hitting into the shift than .350 against it. Fortunately for The Splinter, the shift wasn't commonly deployed.

I guess you have to be a major leaguer to get it.

They just don't work at it anymore. It used to be a standard part of training. Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays would lay one down from time to time, more with the idea of getting a hit than advancing a runner. The analytics guys determined that giving up an out was too steep a price to pay for advancing a runner. I don't know that that holds true in every single instance, but it’s been nearly universally accepted by the powers that be.

I read my first "the game is dying" article in Sports Illustrated around 1964. It was about two years after my first "the Hall of Fame is becoming a joke" article in SI.