The Art of Hitting vs The Art of Batting

On Saturday morning KNBR weekday host Marty Lurie interviewed Rangers all everything player Michael Young on "the art of hitting". To give you some context Lurie is what I would call an old baseball romantic. He goes in the Bob Costas/George Will group that still talks about the days of Mantle and Mays roaming their respective outfields.

I personally enjoy listening to Marty and his kid like enthusiasm for the game and the Giants. It's refreshing to listen to on the weekends, especially after considering the crap KNBR runs during the weekdays. Yes Marty says things that make me want pound my head against a wall, but he's an old romantic and you can't be so jaded all the time which in my opinion sabermetric followers are.

Anyways Lurie interviewed Michael Young on the art of hitting. It was an interesting conversation because Young was so opened and honest about his approach to hitting and what he looks for at the plate and where he can hit the ball. I do suggest listening to that interview because it's really good.

I bring this up because Michael Young is one of those players that sabermetric followers and writers hate and who the old baseball romantics like Marty Lurie love. Young hits for a high average, low OBP, lots of singles with a little bit of power, and hardly any walks. Young is also one of those players that loves to talk about hitting and the art of it. He sucks in guys like Lurie while turning off someone like a Jonah Keri.


Now full disclosure I don't claim to be a hardcore sabermetric follower nor am I an old baseball romantic who yearns for the days DiMaggio. Both sides are a little too much for me with their devotion to their respective religions. I guess you can call me a baseball independent.

I had to chat with friend of KSJ and patron of fine bourbons The Colonel about the art of hitting vs the art of batting and why both sides are like political parties.

The Colonel has always struck me as also an baseball independent. Like me he appreciates what newer stats say and what their purpose is, while also appreciating that baseball is a hard sport and hitters like Michael Young should be appreciated for doing something that most people can't do, hit a baseball.

"Both sides of the aisle are like political parties," says The Colonel. "They're both ideologues who cling to their respective ideas of how baseball should be played and what kind of hitters should be appreciated."

"I'll say this," I replied. "Listening to both sides has given me an appreciation for both Ben Zobrist kind of guys along with Michael Young."

"The thing about sabermetric followers is that they don't appreciate how hard hitting really is," The Colonel said. "Here's the thing with hitting, it's really fucking hard to hit a baseball and Michael Young is actually good at hitting a baseball. That should be appreciated. No Michael Young doesn't walk a lot and he's an overage OBP player, but he still reaches base.

This is the thing about the art of hitting vs the art of batting. A single is just a walk, but they reach first base in a different method. And there are other instances when you want a single over a walk like when someone else is on base."

"On the flip side of that," I say. "The art of hitting crowd doesn't appreciate the batters who have mastered a disciplined approach to hitting."

"Exactly!" says the Colonel. "There's a disconnect really on both sides. Sabermetric followers as disconnected to the art of hitting. The baseball romantics are disconnected to the art of batting. Both sides have their own nuances that make them special and both sides should be appreciated.

Sabermetric followers and baseball romantics shouldn't easily dismiss either sides. Everyone goes about their business a different way. Delve deeper into Michael Young's numbers and you'll see a hitter for exactly what he is. He's a productive hitter who goes about his business a different way. Now the MVP talks by baseball romantics a couple of years ago was ridiculous, but ridiculous goes both ways with ideologues."

As a neutral observer I scoff at both sides. I especially scoff at posts like this, because people use numbers as an excuse. Yes the Phillies are not "bad" but they ain't "good" either. And that's why you have a last place team. I also scoff at baseball romantics like Lurie fawning over Young while he's discussing opposite field hitting.

Both sides are exactly like political parties. They're derisive, filled with excuses and under-deserved praise. I think I'll continue to be an baseball independent.