Hi mwbbl,
I played the game until I was about 18, but more importantly, I've watched the game enthusiastically since I was about 7 years old, and I've studied the history of the game all the way back into the 1800s. Hopefully, you'll still refer to this post from time to time, so I'll try to add some helpful input to the discussion.
1. I wouldn't say that first base is exceptionally difficult to play, or easy. It's about in the middle. A first baseman's responsibilities will change depending on the situation. How they position themselves on the field is determined by a lot of different factors: who, if anybody, is on base. The number of outs, the score, the inning, and who is at the plate. A left handed pull hitter is much more likely to hit the ball to the first base side than a right handed hitter. If a man is on first base, the first baseman works with the pitcher to keep the runner close to the base so they can't steal. But they are still responsible for playing their defensive position. The really great defensive first baseman, like the aforementioned Keith Hernandez, would not only play exceptional defense, but they would play their position aggressively, often time rushing towards home plate in a situation where it was believed the batter might try to sacrafice bunt a runner over. Look him up on Youtube. There are some brilliant examples of his play. Typically, a first baseman will be a power hitting run producer, and on average, less athletic than the other players on the field. Hernandez was different in that he wasn't a power hitter. He could hit for great average, but he was more of a balanced player. Another player like him was Rod Carew. Don Mattingly, before his back injuries sapped his power, was one of the best all around first basemen. He was spectacular defensively, he could hit for power and great average.
2. You used to have some baseball players who were a little more out of shape, though this has become less prevalent. That's because baseball, while certainly requiring athleticism, demands a unique skill set. The best athlete in the world might flop as a baseball player if they can't hit a curve ball. Yet somebody that can consistently hit, and be productive overall, can still have a good career even without elite athleticism. One player that comes to mind is John Kruk, a hitter with the Phillies and Padres. Krukkie was never a well conditioned athlete, but he could hit .300, and so he was always going to find a roster spot. Other players start out in great shape, but they let themselves go somewhat. Tony Gwynn is an example. When he started out, Gwynn was in amazing shape. He was fast, stealing 56 bases, and that speed helped him to hit for high average (he hit .370 that year). When he put on some weight, and his speed lessened, his batting average dipped somewhat, until he had a discussion with Ted Williams at a Major League All Star Game. He changed his approach at the plate somewhat, and regained his peak hitting form. Yet, he never achieved that peak physique again. But, because he could hit .340, he was always going to find a Major League roster spot. You do have some players with less than impressive physiques. Dan Vogelbach, a prospect in the Cubs organization, was downright portly, at least as of last year. The scouting scale had his speed at a 20 on the 20 to 80 scale. That means basically no speed. But he had power, and a plus hit tool, so he was able to move up through their system. He's shed quite a bit of weight this offseason, and gotten in better shape. That can only help his prospects going forward.
3. THE position in baseball is the catcher. Don't be fooled. The pitcher is, of course, vital, to a team's success. But a starting pitcher is only on the mound every four games. The catcher is the closest thing to the quarterback position in baseball. A great catcher, like Yadier Molina on the Cardinals, calls the pitches the pitcher is going to throw. They position the players on the field, calling defensive shifts, and they nearly eliminate the opponent's running game with their great throwing arm (Molina routinely throws out around 40% of would be base stealers). Plus, they still have to provide offense, and savvy on the basepaths. Molina is a guy that can hit .290 to .300, hit 15 home runs a year, have a strong OBP (.350-.360ish), and then play elite defense. Another guy like Milwaukee's Jonathan Lucroy doesn't have Molina's arm, but he's the same offensive force. He racks up a lot of extra base hits, calls a great game, and he gets extra strikes for his pitchers, and extra outs, with his pitch framing (Google that if you're curious). A catcher is the manager's field general on the field. He has to have situational awareness of everything going on at any given time on the diamond. And, he often has to play shrink to the pitcher. He has to massage his ego, watch him to see if he's struggling, so the pitcher doesn't try to go too long, and injur themselves, and he needs to help him calm, and confident. A great catcher wears many hats. If you look at some of the greatest teams in baseball history, they have great catchers: the New York Yankees of the 50s had Yogi Berra. The Brooklyn Dodgers had Roy Campanella. The Big Red Machine, the Cincinatti Reds of the 1970s, had Johnny Bench. And, the San Francisco Giants, who have won three World Series in an era where there really are no more dynasties, have the great Buster Posey behind the plate. One year, they win it all with him behind the plate. The next year, he breaks his leg, and the team falls apart. He comes back the next season, wins the MVP, and the Giants win the World Series again. It's no coincidence. He's an offensive force, and he manages what has been one of the best pitching staffs in baseball to perfection.
4. In order to answer your question about the most difficult pitch, I would need to know the context. Most difficult to throw? To hit? The most difficult pitch to throw is the knuckleball. In fact, only a few pitchers in the history of the game have ever been able to throw it consistently. The knuckle ball, if thrown correctly, has no rotation. Therefore, there is no movement. It just floats through the air, and it is unpredictable, and exceedingly hard to hit. If it's not thrown right, however, it's just a fat pitch, and will get knocked out of the park. Some of the game's great knucklers have been Hoyt Wilhelm, the first pitcher ever to appear in 1,000 games. Hoyt was an eight-time All Star in his twenty year career. Then, you have the Neikro brothers, Phil and Joe. Phil won over 300 games with the Atlanta Braves. Joe won over 200 with the Houston Astros. Recently, you've had Tim Wakefield, who won over 200, and ended his career as the Boston Red Sox all-time winningest pitcherm, and R.A. Dickey, who was initially signed for big money by the Texas Rangers until the team physician noticed a Sports Illustrated cover photo where his arm was held in a weird position. An MRI showed he was missing a ligament in his arm, and Dickey lost the big contract, and was offered a pittance comparatively. He bounced around from one team to another, and was in the minor leagues when the Mets called him in up 2011. Two years later, he won the National League Cy Young Award. From a hitting standpoint, I think the curveball is the most difficult pitch to hit. The curveball has ended a lot of Major League careers prematurely. There are a lot of hitters who can send a little baseball 430 feet into the stands when they see a fastball. But if they can't hit a curveball, they will never make it in the Majors. To quote the movie title, "that's called truble with the curve."
5. There is always an element of luck to the game. Remember, a hitter only has a fraction of a second from the time a pitcher releases the ball until it sails into the catcher's mitt. They need to decide--and fast--if they want to swing. While they can judge some things about the pitch-directionality, velocity, there is always an element of luck involved as to where the bat hits the ball, if at all. But yes, a very good hitter can absolutely determine where the ball is hit. And yes, a pitcher can absolutely have a huge impact on their success. If you have somebody like a Clayton Kershaw out there, 90% of the time he takes the mound, he is just going to destroy the opposition. If the Dodgers score 3 runs of support for him, he's going to win about 80% of the time. Kershaw has spectacular command on his pitches. And, he has just nasty stuff. As a Brewers fan, it kills me seeing that the Dodgers always get these marvelous pitchers. Look through their history, and it's dotted with names like Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Fernando Valenzuela, Orel Hershiser, Hideo Nomo, and now they've got Kershaw, and Zack Greinke, and Hyun-jin Ryu. The Dodgers, the Braves and the Giants, in the National League, always seem to have this inexhaustable well of pitching. And to a slightly lesser degree, the Cardinals are the same way.
6. Judging players on a team, I typically like to avoid things like RBI, runs scored, and to a lesser degree, batting average, though I tend to think it is still a better metric than most people give it credit for. RBIs are dependent on situation. Driving in a run is great, but if a player has a lower RBI total, it doesn't make them a bad player. They cannot control who gets on base in front of them. I have seen players hit well over 30 home runs on bad teams, and barely crack 90 RBI. For pitchers, wins are overblown, and to a certain extent, so is ERA. Those are dependent on the team, and defense, around you. Nolan Ryan had a season in 1987 that was spectacular. Yet, he only finished fifth in the CY Young voting because his record was 8-16, even though he led the NL in ERA and strikeouts, had the best strikeout to walk ratio, the fewest hits per 9 IP, and the most strikeouts per 9 IP. I felt he should have won the award. But he never won the Cy Young. For pitchers, I like to look at things that a pitcher has more control over. WHIP (walks and hits allowed per inning), FIP (fielding independent pitching), and walk to strikeout ratio. Those things tell me how well a pitcher is in control. A win loss record can be misleading. Look at poor Harvey Haddix. He once threw a perfect game for 12 innings-36 batters up, 36 down, against Lew Burdette of the Milwaukee Braves, who gave up 12 singles, but no runs. Haddix gave up what should have been a three run home run to Joe Adcock, but because he passed the man on the bases in front of him, just the one run scored. So Haddix, even though he threw arguably the best game in the history of baseball, got the loss, because his team couldn't score. His fault? Of course not. He threw a complete game, 12 2/3 innings, gave up one unearned run, one walk and one hit, struck out eight, and lost.
7. The American and National Leagues are on the same level. They are identical, really, except for the designated hitter rule (the NL has their pitcher bat, the AL has a hitter bat for the pitcher). They meet during the season in what's called inter league baseball (this has only existed since 1997. Before then, teams from the two leagues never met until the World Series). So, you could live in Chicago, by Wrigley Field, where the Cubs play, and unless you went north to see a game at Comiskey Park, you'd never see the White Sox. At least, that's how it used to be. I like it, as you see players you wouldn't see otherwise. And, seeing teams adapt to the designated hitter is interesting. There is a strategy. It's also fun to see A.L. pitchers hit.
8. Without reading any of the other responses, it sounds like the fielder that caught the ball, and threw to first base, was conceeding the run. Why? Well, because remember that the runner at third base never has to run, unless there is a player on base behind him that would force him to run. If he is at third, and there are runners on first and second when a ground ball is hit to an infielder, he must run home, because the other base runners must advance to make room for the hitter who is now trying to get to, and occupy, first base. If there is nobody on second base, the man on third base does not have to run, so the fielder who caught the ball is going to take the sure out. His only other option is to force the runner at third to stay, but in doing so, he allows the hitter to reach first base safely, meaning that nobody scores, but no out is made. And now, instead of just a runner on third, there is a runner on first, and a runner on third. In baseball, unless you are in something like a one run game, you always take an out if it is available.
For example, say that I am a player for the home team, and I am on the field in the top of the 9th inning. My team is ahead 3-1. There are no outs, and a runner at third base. If a ground ball is hit to me, I am going to throw it to first base, because my team's primary goal is to get three outs. The runner at third cannot win or tie the game for the other team, so he is somewhat inconsequential. I will trade the one run for one out, because that moves us one step closer to winning the game. Now, there is one out, and the score is 3-2. There is no runner on base, so the worst that can happen in the next at bat is that the hitter can hit a solo home run to tie the game. If I had held the ball, the runner at third would have likely stayed, yes, but the hitter would have reached first base safely. And now, my team is in big trouble, because instead of nobody on, and one out, they have two men on, and no out. A home run now scores 3, and the score goes from 3-1 to 3-4, meaning my team must score a run in the bottom of the 9th inning, or we lose.
I hope this helps ya to understand a little more. Enjoy the game. I love it!
Never for the sake of peace and quiet deny your convictions-Dag Hammarskjold
reply
share