Thanks to Adam D. for this poster concept.
Happy Opening Day 2013! (part 3)
5 Replies
Subscribe
5 Comments
There is a lot of talk about players that would be in the HoF even if they didn’t take steroids. The 2 that come to mind are obviously Bonds and Clemens. I think Jason Giambi could have made it without juicing. I say that because of his walk totals. He only swung at his pitches and that decision process isn’t affected by steroids. Regardless of your talent or your swing, the most important part of hitting is the decision whether to swing or not. Ted Williams talked about that a lot.
Steroids give strength. Strength gives bat speed. Bat speed adds pitch recognition time. Giambi was a good enough hitter to be a pro for sure, don’t get me wrong. How much of the numbers came from the needle I would not be very sure on. Giambi’s 2007+ numbers look a lot like Adam Dunn. Younger Giambi (ages 24-26) had a lot less patient .072 walk rate in Oakland compared to his staggering .123 career rate. I think he would have peaked maybe at an all-star level with a .280/.360/.450 type line maybe with career averages more in the .250/.325/.400 range… Read more »
Becoming more selective as a hitter ages is not uncommon.
Bonds notwithstanding, I suspect that has more to do with a batter knowing that his bat speed is slowing than knowing that it hasn’t. In which case, the hitter may be more inclined to look for something off-speed, than to take a big cut on the heater.
Yay for baseball talk not related to a statistic! I think every hitter is different on pitch selection. The concept of “sitting” on fast or slow is pretty universal though. That said, the majority of times guys are sitting on a fastball because that’s what they have less time to react to. That means physically they’re starting their swing and timing things to line up with the expected fastball. The idea of course is that if it’s slower, you’ll have more time to adjust but you cannot speed up as easily as you can slow down due to the reaction… Read more »