Isn't the infield fly just the most extreme version of "weak contact"? The pitcher has induced contact so weak that the fielders have essentially no trouble at all getting to the ball. If they convert the out 99% of the time, it easentially doesn't matter who the fielder was, so we credit the pitcher. BUT, if we're crediting the pitcher, we are assuming he wasn't lucky; just like a strikeout, we are assuming that some skill of the pitcher - velocity, movement, deception, location, pitch selection, etc - induced the weak contact and that created the IFFB and gave the fielders all the time they needed to run/walk under it. Makes sense.
Next up: the pitcher brings that same set of skills to the next batter, throws a pitch with just as much velocity, deception, and movement, and induces extremely weak contact again, but this time it is a slow roller between first and second. Because the ball was hit so weakly, even the slowest footed second baseman in the league (Uggala?) has plenty of time to cut it off and flip to first. Again, the weakness of the contact gave the fielder the time to run/walk in front of the ball. But, this time inducing weak contact isn't a skill of the pitcher because the ball was on the ground? That's logically inconsistent.
Isn't the infield fly just the most extreme version of "weak contact"? The pitcher has induced contact so weak that the fielders have essentially no trouble at all getting to the ball. If they convert the out 99% of the time, it easentially doesn't matter who the fielder was, so we credit the pitcher. BUT, if we're crediting the pitcher, we are assuming he wasn't lucky; just like a strikeout, we are assuming that some skill of the pitcher - velocity, movement, deception, location, pitch selection, etc - induced the weak contact and that created the IFFB and gave the fielders all the time they needed to run/walk under it. Makes sense.
Next up: the pitcher brings that same set of skills to the next batter, throws a pitch with just as much velocity, deception, and movement, and induces extremely weak contact again, but this time it is a slow roller between first and second. Because the ball was hit so weakly, even the slowest footed second baseman in the league (Uggala?) has plenty of time to cut it off and flip to first. Again, the weakness of the contact gave the fielder the time to run/walk in front of the ball. But, this time inducing weak contact isn't a skill of the pitcher because the ball was on the ground? That's logically inconsistent.