Rios and the long ball

"dEAd fREd" <Chuty001.DeleteThis@YourNototMail.com> wrote in message
news:rN7ge.29529$B82.591456@news20.bellglobal.com...
> about as smart as trying to change oleruds swing. Some people never learn
>


The commentators have started using the term "5 tool player" recently. But
how many "5 tool players" really exist? Most see the chance at glory and
swing for the fences, when just getting on base and keeping the rally going
should be the more immediate goal. What also hurt Olerude was the choice to
have him bat behind to free swinging strikeout candidates ( Carter and
Sprague), so Olerude would usually come to the plate with 2 out, no one of
any consequence batting behind him, so he wasn`t getting too many quality
pitches worth changing a swing over anyways.

Why do they need to break the game down into all of these "roles". Just
return to the old cliché's " hit'em where they ain't". Filling a role seems
to open up negotiating points for contract time. It would be nice to have a
"5 tool player" who is willing to use all of them, not just leave the less
glorious ones rusting on the shelf (bunting, sacrifices, singles etc).

Anyways does Gibbons really want to change Rios.. or is it just a subject,
colour commentators can yack about to fill dead air or prevent their jaws
from seizing up.
 >> Stay informed about: Rios and the long ball 

<barber_anooooo.RemoveThis@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0w8ge.10960$Ph4.354938@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> "dEAd fREd" <Chuty001.RemoveThis@YourNototMail.com> wrote in message
> news:rN7ge.29529$B82.591456@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> about as smart as trying to change oleruds swing. Some people never learn
>>
>
>
> The commentators have started using the term "5 tool player" recently. But
> how many "5 tool players" really exist? Most see the chance at glory and
> swing for the fences, when just getting on base and keeping the rally
> going should be the more immediate goal. What also hurt Olerude was the
> choice to have him bat behind to free swinging strikeout candidates (
> Carter and Sprague), so Olerude would usually come to the plate with 2
> out, no one of any consequence batting behind him, so he wasn`t getting
> too many quality pitches worth changing a swing over anyways.
>
> Why do they need to break the game down into all of these "roles". Just
> return to the old cliché's " hit'em where they ain't". Filling a role
> seems to open up negotiating points for contract time. It would be nice to
> have a "5 tool player" who is willing to use all of them, not just leave
> the less glorious ones rusting on the shelf (bunting, sacrifices, singles
> etc).
>
> Anyways does Gibbons really want to change Rios.. or is it just a subject,
> colour commentators can yack about to fill dead air or prevent their jaws
> from seizing up.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Rios and the long ball 

The thinking today is as long as a player can hit for power who cares that
he strikes out in the clutch and couldn't catch a ball to save his life. It
really started to bother me when it became a requirement for a SS to hit for
power. insanity

<barber_anooooo DeleteThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0w8ge.10960$Ph4.354938@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
> "dEAd fREd" <Chuty001 DeleteThis @YourNototMail.com> wrote in message
> news:rN7ge.29529$B82.591456@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> about as smart as trying to change oleruds swing. Some people never learn
>>
>
>
> The commentators have started using the term "5 tool player" recently. But
> how many "5 tool players" really exist? Most see the chance at glory and
> swing for the fences, when just getting on base and keeping the rally
> going should be the more immediate goal. What also hurt Olerude was the
> choice to have him bat behind to free swinging strikeout candidates (
> Carter and Sprague), so Olerude would usually come to the plate with 2
> out, no one of any consequence batting behind him, so he wasn`t getting
> too many quality pitches worth changing a swing over anyways.
>
> Why do they need to break the game down into all of these "roles". Just
> return to the old cliché's " hit'em where they ain't". Filling a role
> seems to open up negotiating points for contract time. It would be nice to
> have a "5 tool player" who is willing to use all of them, not just leave
> the less glorious ones rusting on the shelf (bunting, sacrifices, singles
> etc).
>
> Anyways does Gibbons really want to change Rios.. or is it just a subject,
> colour commentators can yack about to fill dead air or prevent their jaws
> from seizing up.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Rios and the long ball 

"dEAd fREd" <Chuty001 DeleteThis @YourNototMail.com> wrote in message
news:j39ge.27236$XX1.391897@news20.bellglobal.com...
> The thinking today is as long as a player can hit for power who cares that
> he strikes out in the clutch and couldn't catch a ball to save his life.
> It really started to bother me when it became a requirement for a SS to
> hit for power. insanity
>

MLB seems to go through cycles, where 15 yrs ago or so, 1st basemen,
catchers tended to be fat not very mobile so they were expected to produce
homeruns, Center Fielders stole bases, SS had anemic BAs, batted at the
bottom of the line-up but were valued because of "defensive skills", put
your weak armed outfielders into left etc.. I see nothing wrong with a power
hitting SS, but I think you need a balance of hitting styles spread
throughout the line-up, just now teams do not care which position provides
the power, just so long as someone does..
 >> Stay informed about: Rios and the long ball 

On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:29:17 GMT, <barber_anooooo.RemoveThis@ns.sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>
> MLB seems to go through cycles, where 15 yrs ago or so, 1st basemen,
>catchers tended to be fat not very mobile so they were expected to produce
>homeruns, Center Fielders stole bases, SS had anemic BAs, batted at the
>bottom of the line-up but were valued because of "defensive skills", put
>your weak armed outfielders into left etc.. I see nothing wrong with a power
>hitting SS, but I think you need a balance of hitting styles spread
>throughout the line-up, just now teams do not care which position provides
>the power, just so long as someone does..
>
Which brings us back to the whole diversity vs. role playing issue.
I think your observations regarding trends in the MLB is a very
poignant one, especially in relation to power hitters. If you look at
the history of the long ball, you'd find that there are often
extenuating circumstances that brings them in and out of popularity.
But I think we would both agree that teams should play to their
strengths, and the truth of the matter is that if you have four
players on the roster who hits dingers on a regular basis, you don't
really need as good a defence. Personally, I don't really think how a
SS hits really is of any issue at all (assuming he does hit well)
since we're first and foremost paying him for his defensive plays.
Jeter and A.Rod don't count.

MF
 >> Stay informed about: Rios and the long ball 

as long as they are good defensively. I agree with that, if he can hit
bonus.

"Fong" <fong DeleteThis @notthefinalword.com> wrote in message
news:aq23811pi65a61p90qgt3rkdho2k5l5qk8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 02:29:17 GMT, <barber_anooooo DeleteThis @ns.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> MLB seems to go through cycles, where 15 yrs ago or so, 1st basemen,
>>catchers tended to be fat not very mobile so they were expected to produce
>>homeruns, Center Fielders stole bases, SS had anemic BAs, batted at the
>>bottom of the line-up but were valued because of "defensive skills", put
>>your weak armed outfielders into left etc.. I see nothing wrong with a
>>power
>>hitting SS, but I think you need a balance of hitting styles spread
>>throughout the line-up, just now teams do not care which position provides
>>the power, just so long as someone does..
>>
> Which brings us back to the whole diversity vs. role playing issue.
> I think your observations regarding trends in the MLB is a very
> poignant one, especially in relation to power hitters. If you look at
> the history of the long ball, you'd find that there are often
> extenuating circumstances that brings them in and out of popularity.
> But I think we would both agree that teams should play to their
> strengths, and the truth of the matter is that if you have four
> players on the roster who hits dingers on a regular basis, you don't
> really need as good a defence. Personally, I don't really think how a
> SS hits really is of any issue at all (assuming he does hit well)
> since we're first and foremost paying him for his defensive plays.
> Jeter and A.Rod don't count.
>
> MF
 >> Stay informed about: Rios and the long ball 

Fong wrote:
> Heard it from the sportsnet commentators again - "Rios only has one
> career home run," "Needs to develop more power." And the thing that
> bothers me the most is that the kid is hitting well, he's driving in
> runners (2-rbi triple today), and hasn't a bad average. If it ain't
> broke...
>
> Understandably, the Jays are looking for another power hitter on their
> roster. As it stands, we have Wells, Koskie, and maybe
> Hinske/Hillenbrand for power, and even then, they aren't exactly up
> there with their HR numbers. All I'm saying is that the Jays are
> finally doing well this year because they're playing to their
> strengths: good small ball. Rios should continue doing what he's
> doing, focus on getting that bat on the ball, and not worry too much
> about the fence.
>
> MF

Your main premise is correct. However, by opening his stance, shortening
his swing and using more wrist action, Rios would be hitting even better
than he is. Also raising his left foot before he swings would help his
power shift. He does not need to hit home runs but he can still improve
his swing which now is too long and "lazy". This is why he hits so many
balls to right field, not his power alley.
 >> Stay informed about: Rios and the long ball