Jump to content

Baseball (1845?-), Alexander Cartwright's "Knickerbocker Rules" Paved the Way for the Modern Game


DonRocks

Recommended Posts

Saying "Alexander Cartwright invented baseball" is a little like saying "Christopher Columbus discovered America." Well, it isn't *that* bad, but there were precedents before Cartwright codified the "Knickerbocker Rules" in 1845.

I grew up believing it was Abner Doubleday at Cooperstown, NY, in 1839, but that has been largely debunked.

This particular thread is for discussion about the game in general - rules, various leagues around the world, etc., and probably won't get much play since most discussion is more specific, but it's here if anyone needs it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Abner Doubleday was invented by some committee around the turn of the last century, when Albert Spalding (of the sporting goods company) decided that baseball needed to be an American game with an American derivation, so Doubleday was semi-immortalized. If not for Doubleday, well heck, baseball would have derived from the English game of Rounders, and how American is that??

The history of baseball was probably best captured in David Quentin Voigt's 3-volume American Baseball: From the Gentleman's Sport to the Commissioner System (Penn State Press, 1983). In George Washington's journals, there are references to "Base Ball" in the late 1700s, and Robert Henderson noted that in 1700s and early 1800s English and American picture books, there were many drawings of children playing bat-and-ball games. It is now more comminly accepted that the modern game of baseball evolved from cricket and rounders, but became decidedly Americanized by the mid-1800s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we've been invited to discuss the rules of baseball:

I was bitten by the baseball bug in 1985, and woke up from the dream during the strike of 1994-1995. Although I thought at the time and still think that that conflict was entirely the fault of the owners, and that the players' union was entirely in the right, it broke the spell for me and I fell out of fandom. I've tried to revive my interest in the sport without much success, but haven't really lost interest in the game. Which is all about the rules.

The baseball rule book has two kinds of rules: those that govern play on the field, and the others, that dictate how play is recorded: the scoring and the record book. I don't know if any other sport has such elaborate rules concerning scoring, but I doubt it.

Of the rules governing play on the field, most are pretty straightforward and easy to understand and to explain. And then there's the balk rule, which I doubt even most major league pitchers could explain. Actually, I suspect even most major league umpires would have trouble explaining it. I certainly don't understand it. It's invoked so infrequently (or at least it was back when I was enthralled) that it's hard to get a handle on it even from observing it in practice. In tennis, the foot-fault is really very easy to understand, but who can explain how it is or mostly isn't enforced? That can drive you crazy. What also used to drive me crazy in the baseball rule enforcement category was the extreme divergence between the rule-book strike zone and the umpire strike zone. Has that changed since I stopped paying attention?

And then there are the scoring rules, of which a couple drive me, or used to drive me, to distraction. The most egregiously stupid one is the sacrifice fly. Just about every play that's scored a sacrifice fly is a failed home run. What makes it so obviously ridiculous is that it only counts as a sac fly (which doesn't count as an at-bat and so doesn't affect a player's batting average) if a runner scores. If the batter puts his whole heart into hitting a long fly ball with a runner on and fewer than two outs, and the ball is caught and no runner scores, it's just a plain out. If a runner scores, it's a sac fly with no at-bat.

Probably next in annoying me is the save rule for pitchers. The rule has nothing necessarily to do with which pitcher actually saved the game for his team, since only the last pitcher for the side is eligible for a save. It's often a middle reliever who rescues a deteriorating situation, but it's the last pitcher who gets the save and the big contract next year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is that I thought listening to a baseball game on the radio had to be the most boring enterprise in existence. Then, I got the bug--because of the Baltimore Orioles and Jon Miller. The Senators had already left town for the second time just before I moved here.

(It is a mere happenstance that I married the son of Bowie Kuhn's one-time law partner--when their firm had the National League as a client.)

Now, for six months of the year, I just don't care what's on TV because there's a game on the radio to listen to. Further, last year, I discovered the most civilized, knowledgeable chat room on the Intertubes--the Washington Post chat room for every Nats game. Seriously. You all remember the playoff game last year that went to 18 innings?  There were fans in Europe staying up and commenting for the whole thing and it was 5 o'clock in the morning over there when it ended. I have no idea what time it was in Taiwan, where another of the faithful joined in.

The spring training game on Sunday will be on the radio and I am going to take my $10 Radio Shack transistor radio outside with me and listen while I prune my roses. This, people, is the definition of BLISS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there are the scoring rules, of which a couple drive me, or used to drive me, to distraction. The most egregiously stupid one is the sacrifice fly. Just about every play that's scored a sacrifice fly is a failed home run. What makes it so obviously ridiculous is that it only counts as a sac fly (which doesn't count as an at-bat and so doesn't affect a player's batting average) if a runner scores. If the batter puts his whole heart into hitting a long fly ball with a runner on and fewer than two outs, and the ball is caught and no runner scores, it's just a plain out. If a runner scores, it's a sac fly with no at-bat.

I may not be reading this clearly, but what about this rule bothers you? One is a productive at-bat; the other is a non-productive at-bat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may not be reading this clearly, but what about this rule bothers you? One is a productive at-bat; the other is a non-productive at-bat. 

No, one is a non-productive at-bat, the other is a productive non-at-bat. The batter who swings for the fences with a man on (typically 3rd base) and fewer than two outs whose long fly ball is caught is credited with a sac fly (no at-bat but an RBI) if the runner scores, but an at-bat if the runner doesn't score. Unlike a sac bunt, where the batter is clearly willing to make an out to advance a runner (as stupid a play as that often is), and who is credited with a sacrifice (and no at-bat) no matter the outcome of the play, the batter who is credited with a sac fly is virtually never trying to concede an out to advance a runner, he's trying to hit a home run. And even if he advances the runner, he doesn't get a sac fly (and thus his batting average suffers) if no runner scores. I may not be explaining this very well.

In a sacrifice bunt situation, the batter isn't charged with an at-bat, and so his batting average is unaffected, because he's basically been told to make an out to advance a runner. In a sacrifice fly situation, the batter isn't charged with an at-bat even though he isn't actually trying to make an out to advance a runner, but only if the play results in a run scored. If he hits the same pitch exactly the same way but the advancing runner gets nailed at the plate, the batter is charged with an at-bat and his batting average suffers, even though everything that the batter does is identical in either case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. There are many ABs that are very productive, like hitting the ball to the right side to advance a runner, or working a 12-pitch strikeout so that the next batter feasts on the pitcher's rubber arm. Or even better, get into the bullpen after that AB to feast on weak middle relief.

Before I married Lady KN, she was required to answer four questions correctly -- explain the infield fly rule (she did) -- what's the best pitch in baseball? (strike one) -- what's a pitcher's best friend? (double play) -- what do chicks dig? (the long ball).

Of course, the more she thought about the last question, the long ball, she said "Hey, wait a minute....that's because it's a 'home run'...! You men are all dogs!"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the batter who is credited with a sac fly is virtually never trying to concede an out to advance a runner, he's trying to hit a home run. 

I'm not sure I agree with this. Trying to hit a fly ball involves making contact and swinging up; a home-run swing is a much lower-percentage swing because you're "swinging for the fences" and likely to whiff. You're the first person I've ever heard make a comment (negative or positive) about the sacrifice fly rule.

Sorry to bring up Brooks Robinson again, but I remember during the end of his career, it seemed like *every time* he was at-bat, he'd make solid contact, and hit a medium-distance fly ball for an out - because that's all he had left in his swing - but he did it really consistently.

Without looking at statistics, I'm willing to bet that with a runner on third, there are multiples-more sacrifice flies than there are home runs, and that's because major-league hitters are generally good enough to hit a fly ball (as opposed to a grounder) when they want to.

Here's an attempt at a study.

How is the infield fly rule in baseball like the Riot Act of 1714?

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...What also used to drive me crazy in the baseball rule enforcement category was the extreme divergence between the rule-book strike zone and the umpire strike zone. Has that changed since I stopped paying attention?...

No. It's as maddening now as ever. This will be the last holdout as instant replay slowly spreads to improve calls for more situations. Very unlikely we'll see replay used for balls and strikes in any of our lifetimes. Umpires like Joe West are especially annoying about this. The big complaint, a valid one imho, you'll hear from most players isn't so much about a high or wide zone. It's about an inconsistent zone.

...

Before I married Lady KN, she was required to answer four questions correctly -- explain the infileld fly rule (she did) -- what's the best pitch in baseball? (strike one) -- what's a pitcher's best friend? (double play) -- what do chicks dig? (the long ball).

...

Good stuff there, KN. This could have saved me some real trouble had I come across it many moons ago.

...Unlike a sac bunt, where the batter is clearly willing to make an out to advance a runner (as stupid a play as that often is), and who is credited with a sacrifice (and no at-bat) no matter the outcome of the play, the batter who is credited with a sac fly is virtually never trying to concede an out to advance a runner, he's trying to hit a home run. ...

Disagree. Batters often go up trying to send one deep rather than out of the park. It's a more relaxed swing. And if the runner on 3B has good speed, the batter will know that which takes off more pressure. Billy Hamilton (the fastest man in baseball currently with baseball's oldest professional team, Cincinnati) has scored on a Sac Fly to very-shallow right field. Finally, the strategy also varies dependent on ballpark dimensions. Contact teams like KC and, to a lesser extent, Oakland, have huge parks, far fences and more ways to get runs in including the SF. Swinging for a sac fly is about making contact versus really catching one for a HR, which often results in a K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I agree with this. Trying to hit a fly ball involves making contact and swinging up; a home-run swing is a much lower-percentage swing because you're "swinging for the fences" and likely to whiff. You're the first person I've ever heard make a comment (negative or positive) about the sacrifice fly rule.

I'm surprised that I am apparently alone in my view of the sac-fly rule. But okay, even conceding that batters really do try for long fly balls rather than home-run fly balls in sac-fly situations, what I still object to is that the outcome of the play, rather than the action of the batter, determines whether the batter has an at-bat with an out, or no at-bat with an RBI, even though the outcome may have nothing to do with what the batter does, and even though the batter's intention may be exactly the same in either case. That's what makes it utterly bogus to me. The fate of civilization obviously does not hang in the balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that I am apparently alone in my view of the sac-fly rule. But okay, even conceding that batters really do try for long fly balls rather than home-run fly balls in sac-fly situations, what I still object to is that the outcome of the play, rather than the action of the batter, determines whether the batter has an at-bat with an out, or no at-bat with an RBI, even though the outcome may have nothing to do with what the batter does, and even though the batter's intention may be exactly the same in either case. That's what makes it utterly bogus to me. The fate of civilization obviously does not hang in the balance.

Civilization aside, this is baseball and thus foundational to our very being.

That said, your assumptions are flawed here. The outcome has much (nearly everything) to do with what the batter does. And, any professional batter knows the situation when he goes up to the plate. He'll have talked it over with the bench coach or skipper while on deck. As explained some above, attempting to drive in a run with a sac fly is very much intentional, situationally dependent and requires different tactics than trying to hit one out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that I am apparently alone in my view of the sac-fly rule. But okay, even conceding that batters really do try for long fly balls rather than home-run fly balls in sac-fly situations, what I still object to is that the outcome of the play, rather than the action of the batter, determines whether the batter has an at-bat with an out, or no at-bat with an RBI, even though the outcome may have nothing to do with what the batter does, and even though the batter's intention may be exactly the same in either case. That's what makes it utterly bogus to me. The fate of civilization obviously does not hang in the balance.

Can't the same thing can be said about RBIs in general? The batter strokes a single, and if there's a runner on second or third, he most likely gets an RBI. The batter hits a hard ground ball, and if there's a runner on first, he most likely hits into a double-play.

If the batter batting ahead of you has a .360 average, you're going to have more RBIs than if you bat behind a .270 hitter. If you play in Denver, you're going to have more home runs than if you play in Tampa. That's just life.

I don't understand what I'm missing here - could it be possible you're out-thinking the situation? The effect sacrifice flies have on batting average is pretty minimal, I would think. Is this what you're objecting to? The effect on batting average?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't the same thing can be said about RBIs in general? The batter strokes a single, and if there's a runner on second or third, he most likely gets an RBI. The batter hits a hard ground ball, and if there's a runner on first, he most likely hits into a double-play.

I don't understand what I'm missing here - could it be possible you're out-thinking the situation?

But in your example, either way it's an at-bat. In the sac-fly situation, it's an at-bat if it fails, and no at-bat if it succeeds, even though the success or failure may be completely out of the batter's control. Do I have to shout to make the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in your example, either way it's an at-bat. In the sac-fly situation, it's an at-bat if it fails, and no at-bat if it succeeds, even though the success or failure may be completely out of the batter's control. Do I have to shout to make the point?

I could name fifty examples where the outcome is out of the batter's control (I named two, perhaps four, in my previous post). I see the point, but I don't see the point of making the point. What exactly is so bad about this "at-bat vs. no at-bat" outcome?

I promise you I'm not trying to argue; I'm trying to understand. I'm more with you on the balk rule, which I don't understand either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could name fifty examples where the outcome is out of the batter's control (I named two, perhaps four, in my previous post). I see the point, but I don't see the point of making the point. What exactly is so bad about this "at-bat vs. no at-bat" outcome?

I promise you I'm not trying to argue; I'm trying to understand. I'm more with you on the balk rule, which I don't understand either.

In an ordinary sacrifice situation, it's usually quite clear whether the batter is trying to give up an out to advance a runner. If he is, in the view of the scorer, he is not charged with an at-bat whether he advances the runner or not, so the out doesn't count in his batting average. The batter's perceived intention is the only factor in the scoring decision. In the sacrifice-fly situation, the batter's intention isn't really a consideration at all. It's whether a runner scores, which can depend not just on the batter's execution of the long fly ball, but on the skill of the fielding and the speed of the runner. The sac bunt is never an at-bat; the sac fly is an at-bat if it fails, for whatever reason, but not if it succeeds, again for whatever reason. Would you be okay with aligning the sac-bunt rule with the sac-fly rule? An attempted sac-bunt counts against the batter's batting average when it fails to advance the runner, but not if it succeeds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an ordinary sacrifice situation, it's usually quite clear whether the batter is trying to give up an out to advance a runner. If he is, in the view of the scorer, he is not charged with an at-bat whether he advances the runner or not, so the out doesn't count in his batting average. The batter's perceived intention is the only factor in the scoring decision. In the sacrifice-fly situation, the batter's intention isn't really a consideration at all. It's whether a runner scores, which can depend not just on the batter's execution of the long fly ball, but on the skill of the fielding and the speed of the runner. The sac bunt is never an at-bat; the sac fly is an at-bat if it fails, for whatever reason, but not if it succeeds, again for whatever reason. Would you be okay with aligning the sac-bunt rule with the sac-fly rule? An attempted sac-bunt counts against the batter's batting average when it fails to advance the runner, but not if it succeeds?

Okay, I see what you're saying. With a sacrifice bunt, it's perfectly clear what the batter's intent is; with a sacrifice fly, the batter could be trying to slap a single to left field, but if he accidentally hits a fly ball to right field, and a runner happens to score, the batter is credited with an RBI and no at-bat. So it's the automatically assumed intent that you have a problem with, when there's no way to really know what the batter's intent is in a sacrifice fly situation, is that correct? If so, I understand your objection. With a sacrifice bunt (as opposed to a fielder's choice), it's obvious what the intent is, so the scorer can make a ruling; with a sacrifice fly, the ruling is automatically made and dictated entirely by the situation, even if the intent isn't there.

Because of this, I don't think the two rules can be aligned because I don't think the scorer is capable of determining intent for a sacrifice fly.

I consider this one of baseball's quirks, like a strikeout when the batter can run to first base if the catcher drops the ball. There are several of these arcane rules in baseball that rarely come up, and when they do, they're often confusing. But it has always been like this, and I think overall, they've done a pretty good job; it's the B.S. like the designated hitter in one league and not the other (hence alternating years in the World Series) that grates my nerves - things like that. To me, that's as bad as if they introduced aluminum bats. Also, what's with the winning league in the All-Star Game getting home-field advantage in the World Series? That is a total screwing to a team that does nothing to deserve it. I also think league playoffs are bogus; the team with the best regular season record in each league should advance to the World Series, because even the best teams can easily lose a single series. (Of course, if there was a runaway champion, revenues would plummet - it's all driven by money.) It's now harder for the best team to win a World Series, since lesser teams can sneak in and win because they get hot and play a couple good series in a row (it's like making the NCAA tournament in college basketball - as long as you do, the entire regular season loses a lot of meaning). Before 1969, the best team in both leagues *always* played in the World Series, and it was really exciting to see the true American League Champions playing the true National League Champions (in 1997, they began playing each other during the regular season which I thought was a shame). I understand reality, and that we're never going back to the leagues being totally separate until the World Series, but I also think fans are missing out on a lot of high-stakes, nail-biting excitement because of inter-league play during the regular season. When Bob Gibson was pitching to Mickey Mantle, that was *really* a special occasion, and it only took place in the 1964 World Series. Lifetime memories were made during those times, and every single World Series was an epic event - here, you can watch Mantle club a three-run homer against Gibson, but it wasn't enough - after 4 games, Gibson was 0-1, but he was made of steel, pitched 2 complete-game victories in Games 5 and 7, and was named World Series MVP. That's one for the history books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I see what you're saying. With a sacrifice bunt, it's perfectly clear what the batter's intent is; with a sacrifice fly, the batter could be trying to slap a single to left field, but if he accidentally hits a fly ball to right field, and a runner happens to score, the batter is credited with an RBI and no at-bat. So it's the automatically assumed intent that you have a problem with, when there's no way to really know what the batter's intent is in a sacrifice fly situation, is that correct?

That's about right. The batter could, as you say, accidentally hit a fly to right when trying for a single to left, or could, as I think is often the case, be trying to hit one out and falling short. Whatever the batter's (unknowable) intent, he should be credited with an RBI and debited, so to speak, with an out. That is, the sac fly rule should be eliminated.

I agree with just about everything else you wrote about the changes to play (almost all of which are far worse than the sac fly rule, which has been around for a long time (according to Wikipedia, first adopted in 1908, repealed in 1931, reinstated and repealed or changed multiple times, permanently adopted in 1954). I loathe interleague play, especially. It introduces an asymmetry into the season that makes even the division championships pretty bogus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is the infield fly rule in baseball like the Riot Act of 1714?

?

Well, it looks like nobody cared enough for my riddle to look it up. The infield fly rule and the Riot Act of 1714 are alike in that they apply only if a competent official declares that they apply in a situation in progress. In the infield-fly situation, an umpire has to call it while the ball is in the air. In the Riot-Act situation, an authorized representative of the state had to order allegedly riotous assemblies to disperse by reading language included in the Act (hence, "reading the riot act"); only if that language had been read aloud could anyone be charged with violating the Act, which was a felony punishable by death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't correct you, and I don't think you're wrong.

As a student of baseball history, I consider the '60s to be the transitional decade of baseball -- much like the '60s is the transitional decade of the post-war history of our country (and you've read my previous comments about how baseball intertwines with American history like no other sport in any other country).

The '60s represented baseball's defining decade of integration, and of expansion (twice, from 8 to 10 to 12 teams in each league), and of free agency and the player's union....baseball in 1960 was decidedly a different creature than baseball in 1970, although the between-the-lines game was essentially the same. Koufax brought that pre-'60s grit and guts combined with class and carriage, more reminiscent of the older version of baseball. By the end of the '60s, while there was still plenty of grit and guts combined with class and carriage all over the place, now the players had more of a swagger, the trash talk was beginning, the look that players adopted was less conformist and more individual, and the overall relationship between the player and the team had transformed dramatically because the reserve clause was about to be overturned.

So if you want to point to Sandy Koufax as the bridge between the old and the new, I won't argue with you at all. (I might point out that other players, like Brooks Robinson, Hank Aaron, Harmon Killebrew, and a host of others who began their careers in the mid- to late '50s and ended their careers in the early to mid-'70s were co-authors or supporting cast of that transition, along with Sandy Koufax.)

If Koufax was "the last of the old," who would you say was "the first of the new?" Reggie Jackson? Curt Flood? Tommy Agee? Tony Oliva? Vida Blue? Dick Allen? Johnny Bench? Rod Carew? Joe Pepitone? Rusty Staub? Boog Powell?

Maybe when the Kansas City Athletics became the Oakland Athletics in 1968? Or was it when the Dodgers and Giants moved to California ten years before that?

I know you don't like him, but I think you could make a case for Pete Rose being something of a transitional player too: a rookie in 1963 who was a bare-knuckle brawler, he was just too old in style (it's hard not to think of him alongside Ty Cobb in terms of ferocity) to be considered new-age.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first of the new....wow, what a concept. I'll need some time to think about that....

Well, there was Curt Flood himself, who challenged the reserve clause and made it his defining raison d'etre. There are the first wave of "me" versus "team" kinds of players, like Richie (later Dick) Allen, Reggie Jackson, and the like....not to be confused with lovable flakes like Bill Lee or Joe Pepitone or Bo Belinsky. Even Willie Stargell, with the dancing yellow "We Are Family" Pirates of the late '70s represented the "new," as did Oscar Gamble with his 'fro!

(By the way, I don't detest Pete Rose -- rather, I see him as a flawed and pitiful character possessed by demons, and he has not yet emerged from denial. It's a real shame, because a truly contrite Pete Rose, one who apologizes and confesses his transgressions, and then comes out strongly as an active and vocal anti-gambling advocate, would be embraced by baseball and have a red carpet waiting for him at Cooperstown. He just doesn't get it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KN:  I don't consider myself a good "pitcher watcher".  I really have a hard time distinguishing between each great pitch, and what appear to me to be very slight differences between not so great pitches.  Further, I can't distinguish between delivery...and how difficult it might be to follow a pitch from different delivery styles.  Now I've watched from a very close perspective, and on the modern big screens with a box etc.   Can't tell.

I was quite friendly with the high school catcher from "my days".  He used to state who was pitching better....our guy or the other guy.   I just believed him.  I never questioned it.  I would assume catchers are in the very best position to evaluate pitches.   So.... I tend to believe your comments on issues of that ilk.  

Now what about Pedro Martinez??   From the late 90's to the early 2000's that guy was dominant, about 6 years.  A lot like Koufax.  Additionally he was a  relatively skinny guy for a pitcher, a little like Louisiana Lightening, Ron Guidry, who you referenced above.   I can't imagine Martinez was taking steroids (as with some of his contemporaries).  He was too thin.   I suspect he had an "on top of the heap period" similar to Koufax.  What is your take?

In fact Martinez;  pretty amazing.  He had a long career.  Before his hot 6 years he was pretty damn good.  After those 6 years, he was still pretty damn good.  I watched him pitch.  Now, as stated above I couldn't tell about the quality of his pitches.  But he sure had great results!!!!!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KN:  I don't consider myself a good "pitcher watcher".  I really have a hard time distinguishing between each great pitch, and what appear to me to be very slight differences between not so great pitches.  Further, I can't distinguish between delivery...and how difficult it might be to follow a pitch from different delivery styles.  Now I've watched from a very close perspective, and on the modern big screens with a box etc.   Can't tell.

I was quite friendly with the high school catcher from "my days".  He used to state who was pitching better....our guy or the other guy.   I just believed him.  I never questioned it.  I would assume catchers are in the very best position to evaluate pitches.   So.... I tend to believe your comments on issues of that ilk.  

Now what about Pedro Martinez??   From the late 90's to the early 2000's that guy was dominant, about 6 years.  A lot like Koufax.  Additionally he was a  relatively skinny guy for a pitcher, a little like Louisiana Lightening, Ron Guidry, who you referenced above.   I can't imagine Martinez was taking steroids (as with some of his contemporaries).  He was too thin.   I suspect he had an "on top of the heap period" similar to Koufax.  What is your take?

In fact Martinez;  pretty amazing.  He had a long career.  Before his hot 6 years he was pretty damn good.  After those 6 years, he was still pretty damn good.  I watched him pitch.  Now, as stated above I couldn't tell about the quality of his pitches.  But he sure had great results!!!!!!!

Martinez and Guidry, like all good pitchers on the smallish side, had a unique physical capability that translated well to pitching at a high level.

Martinez had abnormally long fingers, and they were also quite flexible, allowing him to master a repertoire of pitches that included a deadly, unhittable split fingered fastball.

Mariano Rivera had a grip that made for a natural cut fastball. Batters would know it was coming and they still couldn't hit it. Chipper Jones referred to it as a "buzzsaw."

Guidry was built like a whip and used his beautiful mechanics to deliver a slider that dipped under the hands of the right-handed batters, and was stiletto-like in carving up the outside corner -- or backdoor -- of the plate at the knees.

What these guys featured is called "late movement." It takes two-fifths of a second for a baseball to travel the 60 or so feet from release to the plate, and only one-fifth of a second for the batter to pick it up, recognize the spin, speed and trajectory, and activate his hitting mechanics. "Late movement" is when the ball does something that appears to defy the laws of physics in the last tenth of a second.

Pitching is all about location, velocity and movement, and mastering all three of these elements is called "command." These smaller pitchers had an absolute mastery of command, as did Koufax when he ratcheted down his fastball to the high 90s and learned how to pitch instead of throw.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martinez and Guidry, like all good pitchers on the smallish side, had a unique physical capability that translated well to pitching at a high level.

Martinez had abnormally long fingers, and they were also quite flexible, allowing him to master a repertoire of pitches that included a deadly, unhittable split fingered fastball.

Mariano Rivera had a grip that made for a natural cut fastball. Batters would know it was coming and they still couldn't hit it. Chipper Jones referred to it as a "buzzsaw."

Guidry was built like a whip and used his beautiful mechanics to deliver a slider that dipped under the hands of the right-handed batters, and was stiletto-like in carving up the outside corner -- or backdoor -- of the plate at the knees.

What these guys featured is called "late movement." It takes two-fifths of a second for a baseball to travel the 60 or so feet from release to the plate, and only one-fifth of a second for the batter to pick it up, recognize the spin, speed and trajectory, and activate his hitting mechanics. "Late movement" is when the ball does something that appears to defy the laws of physics in the last tenth of a second.

Pitching is all about location, velocity and movement, and mastering all three of these elements is called "command." These smaller pitchers had an absolute mastery of command, as did Koufax when he ratcheted down his fastball to the high 90s and learned how to pitch instead of throw.

Nice one, KN.   One of my two best friends growing up was a Guidry type of guy.  Long arms, long legs, whip like movement, sprinter speed, great all around athlete and a high school star pitcher who got all region, all division, all state kind of mention and got a division 1 baseball scholarship.  Pitched in college as a reliever.  Undistinguished career in college but great in high school.

He and I played stickball probably from when we were tads.  I couldn't hit that guy to save my life, not at age 8, not at age 15 or 16.  Never!!!!!  I might have been one of his pigeons, that improved his overall pitching.  Sometimes we played with rubber balls, so the ball bouncing off a wall would go back to the pitcher; sometimes we played with hard balls and the batter would have to lob the ball back.  He was definitely Guidry like in build, delivery, and used that in a lot of sports, but most prominently in baseball.   He had to have "late movement" or something like that.  I couldn't connect.  To save my life.  When I swung the ball was somewhere else.

Oh...except for one time.  The swing of the bat and the placement of the pitch met at the meat of the bat.  Killer home run.  Pissed him off.  LOL.  Had to be pure luck on the swing because like every other pitch I had no idea where it was.   Ha ha ha.

Great description above of the various elements to pitching prowess.

I still can't tell the difference or see any of those aspects when I watch games!!!!  LOL   I can distinguish among swings, I can distinguish fielding and throwing plays.  Can't tell hoot about pitches!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What these guys featured is called "late movement." It takes two-fifths of a second for a baseball to travel the 60 or so feet from release to the plate, and only one-fifth of a second for the batter to pick it up, recognize the spin, speed and trajectory, and activate his hitting mechanics. "Late movement" is when the ball does something that appears to defy the laws of physics in the last tenth of a second.

I hate to bring tennis up again, but that's what I know about; I know relatively little about pitching mechanics.

"Late movement" also applies to hitting a tennis ball, in particular during the past twenty years, when racket technology improved enough where you could combine extreme topspin *and* velocity (instead of one or the other) - what happens is that when you hit it just right, the ball goes in a fairly straight line because of the acceleration generated by impact, but when the velocity of the ball slows, the spin takes over, and the ball drops down rather dramatically. If you hone your swing just right, you can combine the perfect combination of velocity and topspin so that the ball drops down right at the baseline, and it is a *nasty* shot to return because the topspin makes it bounce like crazy when it hits the ground. I suspect this is the exact same principle that a Koufax or a Strasburg uses when their slider drops down just as it crosses home plate (in table tennis, it's called a "loop," and the physics of it is demonstrated really well at 4:25 in this video - this video is even better).

I'll never forget the first time I faced a curve ball. I was 13, the batter before me struck out looking, and when he walked back to the dugout he just looked off into space and said, to nobody in particular, "God damn," like he just witnessed something he couldn't really explain. I got up there, and on the first pitch, I *ducked* to get out of the way, and the ball curved over the plate for a strike.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...