2 Strike Approach... Yes or no?

Absolutely! I know some disagree, but you HAVE to have a 2 strike approach, primarily in your mental approach at the plate, but also secondarily in your mechanics (put the ball in play and put the pressure on the defense).

The argument some will make is "I spend all this time teaching this guy how I want him to hit, and now, just because we have 2 strikes, we're gonna throw that out the window and change everything?"

JMW,

I think you're correct. It's all about making adjustments.

A good example of 2 strike approach... Damon's last AB in game 5.

I do not believe there is a clear-cut answer. It goes back to an understanding of situational baseball that has somewhat been lost. Do you need baserunners? Do you need a fly ball? Do you have a 3 or 4 run lead and are looking to bust the game open? What kind of hitter do you have at the plate? What kind of pitcher do you have on the mound? To absolutely approach every 2-strike situation with the same mentality, one way or the other, is limiting the hitter and the team's ability to maximize the opportunity at hand.

I am in total agreement with you PG. I believe it is essential to have a 2 strike approach. Your game plan when you enter the batters box is based on an 0-0 count. With each pitch your mental approach changes. For example if a hitter hits with a 1 - 2 count the same way he hits with a 3-1 count he is going to struggle. The better the pitching the more he will struggle in these situations of course that is obvious.

I believe the 2 strike approach is more of a mental adjustment than it is a physical or mechanical adjustment. But players who can not make the adjustment will K way too often.

There are different approaches to hitting...some coaches like their kids being aggressive swinging for the fences while others like them to be more methodical by making a pitcher throw them a first strike. But, I think there is not a coach alive that who likes to see their players taking a third called strike on a dead red fastball.

When I was coaching the little guys during one year I had to institute a ‘five pushup’ rule. That is for every third strike while looking you owed me 5 pushups just outside of the dugout area...a little public humiliation that some sensitive parents didn’t like. Some of our guys got pretty strong doing those pushups. But eventually it worked the strikeouts while looking went way down...

As far as the older guys go...well, that’s a different story. The last couple of years I have been coaching 16 + year olds and I treat them like young men. If I see a trend then I try to cut it off before it becomes an issue that is out of control. Let’s face it; everyone who has played baseball has gotten fooled on a pitch...even to the point of watching a third called strike on some wild gyrating pitch that buckles you at the knees. It happens...however, it is a coaches’ job to instruct and teach a player to be smart about his approach to his AB.

For example, if we have been facing a tough pitcher who always seems to get ahead in the count and then consistently throws a curveball for a strike on a 0-2 or a 1-2 count, then I want my boys to at least be looking for it and if it hangs take to the opposite field. If he suddenly changes his approach and throws you a FB it may because he thinks you can’t catch up with it. A smart pitcher, catcher or coach will change it up, but what I want my players to do is study the pitcher and look for a trend that will indicate what pitch may be coming on any certain count. I also warn my pitchers of being too consistent on particular counts...other than the obvious 3-0 when a guy pretty much has to throw it down the middle...but low!!!!

When I see an opposing pitcher always getting ahead, particularly when he seems to always be throwing a first pitch FB strike, which these guys at this age seem to do...then I tell my guys it is time to get aggressive on the first pitch until the pitcher changes it up. If a guy can’t seem to hit the broadside of a barn why be aggressive? I try to teach them to analyze the situation and then go up to bat with a plan. For example, a man on second base, well then they should try to look for a pitch they can hit to the right side of the field. A man on third with one out, try to hit it in the air to the outfield far enough back that the runner can score. Be smart and play smart don’t just try to get up there and wail away...

But...let’s face it...we are talking about young men here who most of the time don’t watch the pitcher closely throughout the game and then go up to bat hoping to get something that they can hit. This does not stop me from coaching them, but it is an obstacle I have to deal with as a coach. It is my job to teach and convey how to play the game effectively. That is why I have begun the last couple of years staying in the dugout rather than coaching a base and talking with the players as the game transpires... trying to convey the nuances, strategies and tactics of the game. Even then it is hard because boys will be boys and their attention span is usually as long as the next thing that pops into their heads. You know how it is...dugout talk...

My coaching approach is not necessarily to be over-aggressive at the plate and to almost always have a two strike approach. I tell my pitchers to look for the overly aggressive guys and to start off their AB by throwing them pitches anywhere but in the strikezone until they begin to show some restraint. Then mix the pitches up until he starts being overly aggressive again...but, always keep it low!

I guess the coaching and player techniques will vary, but I believe a player should play to their strengths and go about developing themselves around those abilities and it is my job to try to develop that talent as much as they player permits...

My answer to this is much like Coach May's: of course there is a change in approach with a two strike count.

EVERY count requires a slightly different approach. The thought process for what kind of pitch to expect, what kind of pitch should be swung at, and what kind of a swing to put on it - all these things change depending on count.

So to me, the approach doesn't change just for a two strike count. Every count has its own approach.

quote:

To me 0 strike counts and 2 strike counts absolutely require a different approach. For sure a different mental approach if not a physical approach. There is a very obvious difference in potential results when there is 2 strikes on the hitter.

IMO... Hitters who develop a good 2 strike approach have a big advantage. The one possible exception being the guys who hit the most homeruns. However, I think they too would benefit by improving their 2 strike approach.

At the D1 level, there is not a day that goes by where they don't talk about the two strike approach. At the pro level, there is not a day that goes by that they don't talk about the two strike approach. It must be a pretty important topic.

I think that most power hitters (other than Dave Kingman) also have a two strike approach. You won't see them choking up on the bat or anything like that but you will see them change their approach with two stikes. The thing is, a true power hitter is someone that does not have to hit a perfect pitch "perfectly" on the sweet spot to hit one out. Thus, imho, it is possible for a power hitter to also hit one out of the park even though they might be in "two-strike" approach mode.

I agree with Rob that proper thinking must be applied throughout the count. I still recommend that college or pro hitters read The Science of Hitting by Ted Williams. I believe Ted's big contribution to the "art form" was teaching hitters how to think like a pitcher. Educated guessing if you will.

quote:

Thus, imho, it is possible for a power hitter to also hit one out of the park even though they might be in "two-strike" approach mode.

Yes, but probably a bit more likely to hit one out to the opposite field. I was kind of hoping to hear some viewpoints from the other side. I think that could cause some good discussion. I know there are some good baseball people who don't believe in the 2 strike approach.

PG,
Thank you for starting this topic. To me, it is very timely. More importantly, it is really interesting to exchange information and consider ideas.
Over the past two weeks, our papers have had a number of stories about the Giants termination of their hitting coach. Supposedly, it is related to the 2009 team being so undisciplined and being unable to execute fundamentals, including hitting with 2 strikes.
With that said, there are many in Milb/MLB who do not subscribe to a 2 strike approach. Latin players have a reputation and the saying goes "you don't walk" off the islands.
In general, those Latin players who make it do so on their ability to hit. Many remain quite undisciplined. We see the ones who succeed based on ability. Jose Sandoval of the Giants is a very good young example of this type. It sure seemed that for a hitter like Sandoval, there was little or no effort to change his free swinging approach or to suggest he needed one. Some reported there was concern about "screwing" him up by making him think when he is so natural, and has the ability to get a base hit on the curve ball that bounces in front of the plate.
Those who don't have that upper level of talent and who refuse or cannot adjust don't make it. They do fail in significant numbers.
I would also agree that not every 2 strike approach is the same, but there is a need for such an approach.
From discussions with our son, through the information he acquired at every level, he advocates an approach on every pitch.
Just as a pitcher is trying to set up hitters, he is doing the same with the pitcher. Part of that begins by watching the hitters before you. Part of it is from your prior AB's. Part of it is from scouting reports when you get to college and Milb.
Indeed, what he has talked with me about is that your adjustment with 2 strikes may be different in your 2nd at bat of a game as contrasted with the first, when you have seen a number of pitches, seen what is successful for the pitcher, etc.
My view, especially in Milb, is that this topic also has some organizational issues. The Club our son played with kept and reported stats on pitches per AB's. They wanted hitters to go deep into counts, especially early in games. They also reported averages for players as they went deeper in counts.

Excellent post IFD...I agree on the organizational approach as you will see some players not handle the aggressive at the plate approach that the club advocates...regardless of the count or what kind of player they are. Sometimes these players end up on a team that lets them be themselves.

There was a very good chapter in Michael Lewis's Money Ball book about such a player...Scott Hattenberg has had exceptional success when he was left alone to go deep into most counts.

Ironically, Money Ball is in production to become a movie with Hattenberg slated to play himself...

PG in order to stir some debate maybe we can talk about differences in the two strike approach and coaches teaching players to approach a two strike situation differently?

I think its very important for hitters to understand when the count is in their favor and when it is not. Some kids hit like they are down in the count 0-2 all the time. Some kids hit like they are up in the count 3-1 all the time.

I have always believed that the two strike approach starts with the mental understanding of the game and situation first. And then there are certain things hitters can do to give them a better opportunity to NOT strike out. And then there are things a hitter can do to still drive the baseball but cut down on their chance of striking out. With approach depends on the hitters ability and his individual skill set at the plate.

With some hitters you may spread them out , take the stride out of the swing , look exclusively away and react in , expand the zone in out down away , look off speed and react enough to foul off the fast ball , etc etc.

The quality of the pitcher you are facing , the score , the inning , his stuff and what he has shown previously as his out pitch , how he has pitched you before , how he has pitched other hitters in the same situation , etc etc.

I would love to hear others thoughts on some of what I have brought up. There are some hitters who thrive with two strike counts. When I say thrive they seem to continue to stay alive and may K sometimes but often draw walks or eventually work a full count which can turn into a hitters count. Or work the pitcher into throwing a mistake and then take advantage of it. And then there are some hitters who when faced with a two strike count almost always fail. Any thoughts?

Coach May, I wrote this below before reading your post. To be honest, I think you and I always seem to think alike. Not sure what that means.

Aggressive hitter! Has there ever been a non aggressive good hitter? I think being patient, selective, etc., doesn’t necessarily mean being non aggressive.

Now there are some free swingers (Vlad) who have been very successful. But those guys are far from the norm. There are guys who are very selective, but not necessarily non aggressive.

To me the best hitters are those who attack under control. Still everything changes with 2 strikes, at least until the count is full. The count, situation and pitcher dictate the hitters plan on each pitch, starting at 0-0 count. However, the biggest change in plan happens when the hitter has 2 strikes. Without 2 strikes, there is no reason to fight off pitches or swing at borderline strikes. The hitter absolutely has to expand his zone and it helps to have the ability to use the whole field. With 2 strikes the hitter really is in a more defensive mode. He can’t just look for a fastball in his zone, he can’t even gear in on a breaking ball over the plate. It helps to know the pitcher and what he uses as his “out” pitch, his “K” pitch, and his “control” pitch.

To me the 2 strike approach can be mechanical, but for certain there has to be a change in mental approach. This is no more than having a plan, just like any other count. It’s just that the plan might be a lot different. The pitcher wants to get ahead in the count for a good reason.

There is an old saying that I believe is important. Failing to plan… Is planning to fail! Some think all this thinking clutters the mind and gets in the way. I think it’s only the negative thinking that gets in the way. Baseball is very much a thinking game.

Those of you who are familiar with professional baseball might have noticed something, especially when it comes to pitchers. The lower levels (Rookie/A) is relatively easy for a good pitcher. You will often see “great” K to Walk ratios. The pitchers often have lots of Ks and very few walks because there are so many young hitters who are swinging at everything, without a plan. Then as the pitcher who appears to have amazing control moves up to the higher levels, he runs across “smarter” hitters, who are much more patient, much smarter. AAA is full of “smart” hitters, guys who know what they are doing and don’t chase everything. The biggest difference is the number of pitches “not” swung at. That and the fact that the higher level hitters will spoil great pitches while they stay alive to hit. Of course, the very best pitchers are still the best and they still succeed much more than the hitters do.

In this year’s World Series we saw lots of strikeouts. We also saw some amazing 2 strike hitting. Two of several that come to mind was Damon’s AB against Lidge and Utley’s AB against CC when he fouled off a few very good breaking balls to stay alive and then hit a hanging breaking ball for a HR. The pitches he fouled off, I am guessing is a result of having a 2 strike approach. Without 2 strikes I believe he would have taken those pitches or missed them completely.

I’m still hoping to hear other opinions from those who might not agree with the 2 strike approach.

PG for me at least it means I am not the only complete Dumb As_ out there! LOL

Seriously it makes me feel good about what I am teaching when someone of your knowledge of the game validates it.

I am very big on having a game plan when you step in the batters box. And I also believe that game plan is not the same for every hitter and changes for every hitter based on the situation in the game , the quality of the pitcher on the mound , what stuff he has or does not have , what he has done so far , the count , etc etc. Saying you do not believe in a two strike approach would be akin to saying you dont have a 3-1 approach or a 2-0 approach imo. If you do not have a approach for two strikes does that mean you do not make adjustments for any count?

One of the biggest adjustments hitters have to make imo as they move up in the game is the approach for 2-0. They come up in the game knowing they are going to get a fb over the plate in this count. Then they start seeing 2-0 change ups for strikes , 2-0 sliders and cb's for strikes. So many players get themselves out in hitters counts because they have one game plan or no game plan.

Hitting is about making adjustments based on many factors. Didnt mean to hijack the thread and change its focus. But its hard for me to talk about a 2 strike approach and wether or not you have one and not talk about the fact if you dont have a two strike approach do you even have an approach on any count?

PG & CM I agree with what you both have said. I was saying basically the same thing above, just didn't have time to expand upon it in detail. I just think that saying that one has a 2 strike approach that is exactly the same all the time is short-sighted.

I feel strongly that the 2 strike situation fits into the overall plan that a good hitter must have when he steps into the batter's box every at-bat. Each and every at-bat is it's own one-on-one cofrontation. It is an absolute must to have a plan each and every time that includes knowledge of the game situation, the pitcher, past history, the umpire's strike zone, and your own strengths and weaknesses.

A "2 strike approach" should simply be 1 part of a hitter's overall approach to any given at-bat.

Here is a link to an story in April about Mark Reynolds improving his 2 strike approach. Reynolds struck out a record 204 times in 2008. The story talks about how he had cut down on his strike outs early this year. They should have waited until later to do the story because he ended up striking out a new record 223 times in 2009.
Mark Reynolds 2 Strike Approach
Guess he will have to go back to the drawing board.

If I am going to read an article called: 2 strike approach by Mark Reynolds should I also read?

How to Stay Calm by Bob Knight
Workplace Ethics by Steve Phillips
Fielding in the Clutch by Bill Buckner

I go with the Buckner was injured theory.

One thing I'll do sometimes is use a 3rd round of BP to have the hitters go through a couple of actual AB's (with me throwing and talking to them about their mental approach to EVERY count that comes up)

0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 3-1, (3-0 if green light): we talk about one pitch-one spot (whatever the pitch and location they hit best, we're looking to get that and drive it. If they feel like they hit a slider at the knees the best, that's the one they're looking for)

0-1, 1-1, 2-1: be aggressive

0-2, 1-2, 2-2: shorten up. Fight off good pitches and hit a mistake. Put the ball in play. For hitters that have trouble shortening up, I may even put them in stride.

3-2: Whether this falls into any of these categories depends on the situation (inning, score, # of baserunners, etc. This is where understanding the game comes into play).

Makes BP drag a little, which is why I don't do this a lot, but I really think it helps to talk about the counts as they come up instead of before or after they happen.

JMW, Good stuff. More people should do that.

Another way of doing it would be...

0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 3-1, 3-0... Look for pitchers control pitch, almost always fastball. Especially when ahead in the count. Look for pitch in your strongest hitting zone. Be aggressive but do not chase outside your zone or pitch!

0-1, 1-1, 2-1... Look for pitchers out pitch, usually something down. Be aggressive but do not chase outside the strike zone.

0-2, 1-2, 2-2... Look for pitchers K pitch and adjust from there. Think opposite field, think line drive, protect the edges of the strike zone, still attacking a mistake.

I'm sure all of this can be added to and things obviously change as situations change, but to me getting hitters to think in BP is a very big advantage.

The biggest problem with BP is hitters don't see quality breaking balls. For the most part the only way to practice hitting a good breaking ball is in the game. This is where the pitching simulators are so valuable. The more good curveballs you see the better you will get at hitting them.

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
I go with the Buckner was injured theory.

Veiled negativity, ja.

Bear your on a roll!

would this work as a 2 strike approach

Be prepared to hit a ball out of the strike zone with 2 strikes.

I have seen guys put themselves in a very defensive position with 2 strikes. As a pitcher that made me happy.

This topic came up alot this past summer on my son's team. My son is an aggressive hitter with power. His 2 strike approach was more about swinging at pitches that were borderline to protect the plate more. He would never choke up or swing less aggressively.

Another player on the team is 6'3", 250# not as aggressive but obviously has power. With 2 strikes this boy would choke up and look to punch balls the opposite way. He would be encouraged to "choke and poke" by his father.

I could never see the reason to basically take the power out of his game. Also I think that when a pitcher sees a hitter's one way approach with 2 strikes the pitcher has an advantage.

These were only 16 yo kids so they could both get away, at times, with their way of doing things, but you don't see many major league power hitters trying to poke a ball the opposite way with 2 strikes.

I agree with whomever said above that the 2 strike approach is more of a situational/mental approach than a mechanical approach.

quote:

but you don't see many major league power hitters trying to poke a ball the opposite way with 2 strikes.

I don't think this is exactly what people are suggesting. The difference in the two strike approach isn't so much how you swing, but what you swing at. How you swing depends on where the pitch is.

With two strikes you should swing at pitches that might be strikes even if you cannot necessarily drive them. And that means that you might swing at an outside fastball and take it the other way, with a swing not intended to drive it out of the park.

That's not turning power hitters into "choke and poke" hitters, it is taking what the pitch will give you - and swinging at pitches that you might pass up on other counts.

PG, this is a fun topic and I have enjoyed reading all the responses. I am also a proponent of using a 2 strike approach. fillsfan, you made me think a little more about why I like the approach on a personal level.

Most K's happen on the outer half of the plate anyway, at least in highschool and college. Every hitter is going to have to develop his own approach. It may be moving up in the box,getting closer to the plate,or choking up a little to improve bat control.Then practicing whatever it takes to get the job done.With this I am just rehashing a lot of what has all ready been said.

What I would like to add to one of Coach May's statements when he wrote about looking away and reacting inside is we like to emphasize concentration and focus on the inner half of the ball. We like to use a number of drills to help develop a short stroke that can translate into better concentration and reaction to a pitch. Some of the drill work we use includes two ball soft toss,tracking, pepper, rapid swing, close pitch and counts.
I'm curious about finding out other methods that others may use to gear towards this situation.

We agree Rob.

We go with looking FB away. Not so much the actual pitch, but the start of the swing occuring as if you were to hit a FB away...more of a timing cue. If you are set up mentally to this pitch it allows you to adjust to offspeed, and it "forces" you to track the ball longer. The advocate to this is the FB in, which to that I have no response, except you better get it in there, or we had better fight it off. We feel it is better to take the different speeds and location of the middle/middle-away to our favor and give you FB in (assuming we can foul it off or you make a mistake).
Regardless of what approach is taught I believe it is important to teach something. In that you don't want a hitter on an island feeling defensless and trying to hit everything. I would never look curve and adjust to FB (if it is strictly a CB pitcher...then we go 2-strike approach like above for the entire AB)

Smoking Southpaw,

Welcome, thanks for participating in this discussion.

Regarding the start of the swing starting as though you would hit a fastball away. Wouldn't this create somewhat of a longer swing and make it nearly impossible to handle anything inside?

Someone earlier mentioned hitting the inside of the ball which is good advice IMO on most every pitch. But with 2 strikes I think it is especially good thinking.

Also, having a good 2 strike approach does not mean a hitter is giving up on power. A good 2 strike approach for a power guy would include hitting the ball left out over the plate, out of the park. If a 2 strike approach eliminates the possibility for power in a power hitter, I would change that 2 strike approach. To me, it is great to see a guy spoil several pitches and then hit a mistake out of the park. Exactly what Utley did to CC when he fouled off several great borderline pitches and then hit a long one on a hanging CB.

The number one bit of given information in the whole formula is the pitcher's fastball. If the hitter is overmatched by the fastball (and let's face it, a lot of times that is why he has two strikes on him) the more overmatched you are the more defensive becomes the hitters strategy.
If he can't throw it by me (Matsui vs. Pedro in game 6)... I am relaxed and I know that I can foul off or take until i get something to crush.

If I have to honor his fastball then yes I'm teaching cover the outside half and think middle back side...

Also; I'll bet this entire thread you guys all have Right hand hitters in mind don't you... Lefty's have a big advantage in this area... unless facing a lefty, but still it's usually not quite the same.

that's my poorly organized thoughts

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Regarding the start of the swing starting as though you would hit a fastball away. Wouldn't this create somewhat of a longer swing and make it nearly impossible to handle anything inside?

This is true, were the hitter loading and unloading at the same point where the ball is in space as a pitch middle-in. The fastball away timing cue allows the hitter to begin this process later. Thus the swing is the same mechanically; just begun at a later time in relation to the ball's location in space.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
To me, it is great to see a guy spoil several pitches and then hit a mistake out of the park. Exactly what Utley did to CC when he fouled off several great borderline pitches and then hit a long one on a hanging CB.

The above is the desired result and what the approach is meant to accomplish:

Allow the hitter the chance to track the ball longer

Allow the hitter the opportunity to level the count mechanically...and

Allow the hitter the chance to put a mirrored swing on the pitch.

Thanx for the welcome and hope this made sense.

E

I know many very good baseball people who share your view on looking outside. I think that is based on solid thinking.

However, depending on the level of play, I would think looking inside and adjusting from there would be even better. Especially at the very highest levels where wood bats are being used. I would be interested in what others think about this.

Example... Rivera throwing to LH hitter. If the LH hitter is looking outside, I think he has no chance to hit the inside pitch.