Dominic Smith’s best hope may be advice from Eric Chavez

Chances are you’re a bigger soccer fan than me. But even if you aren’t, you’ve probably heard of penalty kicks. Those are times when it’s a one-on-one matchup with the goalie. It’s not a good situation to be in for the netminder. Essentially, you guess which direction the ball is going to go, and at what height, and dive that way. Many more times than not, it results in a goal.

About a dozen years ago, there was a study which looked at penalty kicks in French and Italian Leagues. And one of the conclusions was that the best thing a player could do would be to kick the ball to the middle of the net. If the keeper is diving to one of the extreme corners, it makes sense that the middle would be wide open. But that’s generally not what happens.

To an observer like me who’s not really invested, it brings up one question: Why not?

No doubt there are multiple reasons why. My fear is that the main reason why is similar to why no NBA player shoots free throws underhanded, despite the ability for lousy free-throw shooters to increase their shooting percentage if they adopted this method. And the reason is that no one wants to look bad. If you shoot it in the middle of the net and the keeper doesn’t move – you look foolish. And if you have a high percentage already shooting for the corners, why risk looking foolish for a relatively minor gain?

Which brings me to Dominic Smith.

This past December an article was written here asking why Smith struggled so much in 2021. And one of the conclusions was that Smith should lay off the high pitches, as he had very little success swinging at pitches much above his belly button. It’s a trend that’s carried over to 2022. And to a very-much-invested observer like me, it brings up one question: Why does Smith continually swing at pitches he’s shown close to zero aptitude for delivering positive outcomes?

Last night in the Game Chatter, ChrisF and I were wondering about what advice the hitting coaches were giving Smith. There has been so much (so, so, so much) written and said about the Mets’ change in both hitting coaches and philosophy from 2021 to 2022. What’s been said and written about how things were in 2021 paints a pretty bleak picture – one no one should want.

At the same time, it’s hard to point to a success story from the new hitting coaches. Yes, everyone points to Jeff McNeil but anyone who actually looks at how McNeil is achieving his success in 2022 knows that it has nothing to do with trying to hit to all fields rather than just looking to pull the ball for power.

We still live in a world where broadcasters, mainstream media people and bloggers can just say something with zero proof and have it accepted as truth by the overwhelming number of people. Screw those geeks with their numbers and acronyms that all blend together into a big pile of mush. The masses are quite happy with narrative storytelling, even if reality contradicts it in every way.

Unfortunately, neither narrative storytelling nor reality can make a case for Smith being an asset to the club right now. So, if you have any interest in getting Smith to be the hitter he was in 2019-20 – what do you do?

The 2022 Mets have Eric Chavez and Jeremy Barnes as their hitting coaches. In simplistic terms, Chavez deals with the mental aspect of things while Barnes, the assistant, deals more with technical issues. It certainly sounds like a reasonable way to split up the duties. Yet, it doesn’t change the fact that it would be helpful for us outsiders to know what these two coaches are doing to help Smith.

As a fan, there’s nothing more frustrating than watching a hitter who takes strikes down the middle and swings at pitches outsize of the zone. After Pete Alonso homered in the first inning yesterday, Smith watched a cookie in the middle of the strike zone on the very next pitch. And it’s not because of some Wade Boggs-like refusal to swing at the first pitch. We saw Smith take hacks at the first offering later in the game. And on pitches way outside of the strike zone, too.

It’s just maddening.

My alma mater – Guilford College – won the NAIA Basketball Championship in the 1972-73 season under coach Jack Jensen. He was still a coach at my time at Guilford, although it was no longer the basketball team. Instead, Jensen led the golf team. The program won three national titles under Jensen’s direction. Jensen was quick to tell anyone who would listen that he couldn’t really help any of his golfers with technical issues about their swing. Instead, he coached other things. Maybe he was like Chavez, focusing on mental aspects. Or maybe he was just the original Ted Lasso.

Jensen’s no longer with us but my opinion is that if he was coaching the Mets that we would get better results from Smith. It’s my belief that Smith is not in need of any technical advice, meaning that if he’s going to get untracked, it’s more likely that Chavez will accomplish the turnaround rather than Barnes. And that’s fine – it doesn’t matter who gets positive results or what means they use to get them. You know, as long as they’re legal. This is not a backdoor plea for Smith to start taking PEDs or anything like that.

If the Mets hired me as a consultant, my advice would be to have some kangaroo-court-like system with Smith. Fine him some small amount whenever he swings at a pitch above his belly button or a foot out of the strike zone. Fine him when he looks at pitches that are middle-middle. And pay him when he produces a barrel. You’re not going to get a barrel when you swing at a pitch that bounces in the dirt. Maybe you’ll get one swinging at a high pitch but the risk/reward scenario there is completely out of whack, even if we’re talking about currency measured in quarters.

Is my solution simplistic? Absolutely. But whatever Chavez and Barnes are trying now, to say nothing about the 2021 regime, is not working. When something’s not working, you try something else.

My favorite story about a simplistic thing actually working involves Steve Dalkowski and Earl Weaver. Dalkowski was a minor leaguer with a great arm but absolutely no idea where the ball was going. In 1961, Dalkowski was 3-12 with an 8.39 ERA, continuing the same story of his professional career from 1957-1960. In 1962, Dalkowski was in Elmira with Weaver.

Weaver wanted Dalkowski to not try to throw the ball thru a brick wall on every pitch. But that was Dalkowski’s M.O. So, Weaver made a system where he would allow Dalkowski to throw as hard as he could at certain times if he would lay off the gas on the others. And how would Dalkowski know when he could go full blast? Weaver would whistle in the dugout. When Dalkowski heard the whistle, he let it rip as hard as he could. Otherwise, he eased up to try to throw strikes. The results? Dalkowski was 7-10 with a 3.04 ERA. He cut his WHIP from 2.631 to 1.444 and improved his K/BB ratio from 0.77 to 1.68 – despite having fewer strikeouts while pitching under Weaver.

Just because something’s simplistic, doesn’t mean it can’t work. Whenever you hear about a technical change, it’s almost always something simple. It’s usually repositioning the hands, whether that being where a batter starts his swing or how a pitcher holds the ball before he delivers the pitch.

When it comes to high pitches, Smith is much like Kit from “A League of Their Own.” Can’t hit ‘em, can’t lay off ‘em is how Kit’s reaction to high pitches is presented. That pretty much describes Smith, too. The rational assumption from an outsider is that the Mets have tried to help Smith with technical advice on how to handle high pitches.

Now it’s time to get him to stop swinging at those pitches. It’s your move, Chavez.