Agressive or patient hitter?

SG, I am very sure that is true.  The question gets raised then as to how do HS aged players learn to "play" the game, including hit/run, hitting behind runners, advancing runners and the like.. 

To provide some information for contrast, when our son was in Milb one of the major graded elements for every hitter was pitches seen per AB.  I think the requirement was something around 5  pitches per AB was the minimum expectation. This was posted daily.

A different Milb team actually resorted to requiring every hitter in their line up to take one strike for a period of time(3-4 weeks during a 144 game schedule.)

While proving you can rake is part of the equation, it seems different colleges and MLB organizations could want  more from a hitter.  As an illustration, proving you can rake might need refinement and  not work completely  at Fullerton, Oregon, Vanderbilt, Texas,  and UCLA, for instance, if you cannot play their type of offense with the 4 guy bunting, advancing runners, putting pressure on the defense, etc. From a different college view point, Stanford still seems to rely on the ability to rake approach.  When they run into pitching of the type they saw at Vanderbilt last weekend, they end up with results where they outhit Vanderbilt 7-4 but lose the game 4-2 and the ability to rake puts up 4 runs in 3 games. 

Some of this might also be geographic, at least in college. Other than Vanderbilt, many West Coast teams play a very different type of offensive college baseball than the ACC and SEC.

Again, as many have said in this thread, there is no substitute for the ability to hit in HS.  On the other hand, I wonder about and welcome your thoughts about whether and how that "ability" might be defined or visualized  based on the level of play and whether it is different during a HS season in a team environment vs a Summer season and a travel or showcase situation?

Being on the West Coast, the West Coast style is boring!  I understand they get the wins, but still boring.  Let the kids hit as they do at Stanford and southern teams, that is baseball. 

I found this read interesting on the subject.  Maybe some of you will too.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs...ty-versus-passivity/

I THINK... but certainly don't know definitively... That the idea is "we, as professional coaches, can teach a guy who can rake to hit situationally... Much more predictably than the other way around". No doubt for those guys who clear that hurdle and move to next level, learning those finer points can become a differentiator... Unless a guy is still considered a "raker" by next level standards... And depending on position.

deuces wild, that is a very interesting article. Thanks for the link. I think I need to read it more than once, though.!

 I love these types of charts! It really helps putting number's together with today's current and mainstream coaching.

 

 Thanks for the link!

You mean this part and the conclusion about taking first pitches and hitting 0-1, selectively?

"So, now, things are a little more complex than just “fewer first pitch swings = lower offensive levels”. This data shows that hitters are swinging at fewer first pitches that are tough to hit, so they’re trading swings that would result in a lot of outs for more 0-1 counts. Is that a good trade-off? Well, to answer that question, we need to look at how hitters do after the count goes 0-1. So, let’s look at the same table we just presented for 0-0 counts, only for all at-bats after a count goes 0-1. This is not just at-bats that end with an 0-1 count, but for everything that occurs after a hitter falls behind a batter with a first pitch strike.

 

Year	PA	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+
1988	66526	0.223	0.261	0.321	0.582	84
1989	65698	0.225	0.263	0.324	0.586	84
1990	61439	0.226	0.265	0.329	0.594	84
1991	67759	0.225	0.265	0.329	0.594	84
1992	68264	0.230	0.270	0.330	0.599	86
1993	71787	0.233	0.274	0.346	0.619	84
1994	50684	0.236	0.278	0.356	0.634	83
1995	62405	0.233	0.278	0.352	0.630	83
1996	68824	0.236	0.281	0.361	0.642	84
1997	70863	0.232	0.275	0.354	0.629	83
1998	81536	0.230	0.274	0.352	0.626	83
1999	81226	0.238	0.283	0.367	0.650	84
2000	82476	0.237	0.283	0.372	0.655	84
2001	85369	0.231	0.276	0.364	0.640	84
2002	84586	0.230	0.274	0.355	0.628	84
2003	86452	0.235	0.278	0.364	0.641	85
2004	86979	0.237	0.279	0.368	0.647	85
2005	87034	0.237	0.277	0.364	0.642	86
2006	87728	0.241	0.283	0.374	0.657	86
2007	88494	0.238	0.281	0.361	0.643	85
2008	88073	0.234	0.278	0.357	0.635	85
2009	88182	0.232	0.275	0.354	0.629	84
2010	88651	0.227	0.269	0.346	0.615	85
2011	89320	0.225	0.265	0.341	0.606	84
2012	90061	0.226	0.265	0.346	0.612	85

Well, look at that. We noted that hitters have basically skipped out on 7,000+ first pitch swings that would have had to result in an 86 OPS+ in order to get the 0-0 OPS+ to equal what it was in 1988, and the penalty for not swinging at those pitches and falling behind 0-1 has been to post an 85 OPS+ after they fall behind with strike one. In other words, if every first pitch take that used to be a swing was called a strike, then hitters would have been making an almost perfectly rational trade-off between swinging and not swinging at the first pitch. Their overall performance level has not been dragged down by moving swings out of marginal 0-0 pitches and into 0-1 pitches. The approach is different, certainly, but not less productive overall.

And that doesn’t account for the fact that the called strike rate on these now non-swings shouldn’t be 100%. It might be pretty high — it’s impossible to know without strike zone location data, which we don’t have for 1988, of course — but it shouldn’t be a perfect relationship between not swinging and taking a called strike. When you factor in that some of those non-swings should lead to 1-0 counts — and as you’d expect, hitters do very well after the count goes 1-0 — and not 0-1 counts, the data suggests that hitters are making a good choice to take more marginal first pitches and look for better pitches to hit later in the at-bat."

The problem I have with this type analysis, and not saying it doesn't have some useful validity because it does, is that you're looking across all ABs... All hitters. So not sure how this amalgamated data applies meaningfully to a big swing feast or famine middle of order guy vs a lead off guy vs two hole vs bottom of order guy. 

Great point, pitch selection should be different depending on position in lineup, situation and play to individual batters strengths to name a few.  I think this has been said already in this thread by wiser men than myself, it just appealed to the statistical geek in me.

The analysis is getting deep!. Too many situational thoughts (any thoughts ) in the head of the hitter is not usually a good thing at the HS level, they start guessing alot and pretty soon the swing goes to crap. 

 

If your son wants to play in college he needs to swing as often as he can, as hard as he can on any count. JMHO

 

Love that mentality Colparent. I agree, less thoughts the better.

Wish it were that easy.

Although hard to not think you're going to see a waster or 55 footer down 0-2.

I go back to coach, with scouting notes of pitchers. Have to know their tendencies.

Yet be prepared to swing always! Even when down runs late in the game.

In a game AB, I want to see a great mental hitter.  Breathing, great approach, competing, prepared.  A great hitter will be both agressive and patient.

 

Well, for what it's worth, I tracked my son's performance on two strike counts during his sophomore college season. I did it for all counts with 2 strikes, but also looked at what he did after 0-2 counts.

I was just curious, because it seemed like he was getting on base a lot after two strikes. 

Two great players!

Ted Williams [no relation] AB - 7706 Walks - 2021 RBI's -1839  strikeouts - 709 [9%]

 

Joe D'Maggio  AB - 6821 Walks - 790 RBI - 1537 strikeouts - 369 [5%]

 

Interesting guidelines. What adjustments did they make with 2 strikes?

DETERMINATION - CONCENTRATION - BASEBALL INTELLIGENCE - CONFIDENCE

 

Bob

Ok ill take the bait, results plz.

 

 

I'm no expert, but I've watched a LOT of preseason MLB baseball and I'm surprised by all the backwards Ks! I'm amazed so many hitters are not trying to make contact with two strikes on pitches that clearly (to my all-seeing eye) look too good to lay off.Not to mention almost nobody takes a cut at the first pitch and everyone is working the count.

 

Perhaps this is a preseason thing. But to my untrained eye, the hitters look way too passive...

 I have noticed that also. But to give the hitters some credit, the pitchers are usually a little ahead this time of year because of timing and depth perception.(hitting outdoors)

Originally Posted by Rob Kremer:

Well, for what it's worth, I tracked my son's performance on two strike counts during his sophomore college season. I did it for all counts with 2 strikes, but also looked at what he did after 0-2 counts.

I was just curious, because it seemed like he was getting on base a lot after two strikes. 

 

Great! Would you mind sharing the results? I’m working on developing something that will show all the hitters and would appreciate any input or guidance. It turns out that it’s not something easily accomplished.

We could back forth forever on this topic because it's neither. A hitter who has success understands it's both. And sometimes not both. There are times to be patient. There times to be aggressive. If your always aggressive it will become your weakness. If your always patient that will be your weakness.

A quiet approach that is selectively aggressive. There are numerous factors were dealing with. The talent of the hitter, pitcher, situation in the game, count, how you got to that count, etc etc.

FWIW, here’s the 1^st iteration of what I came up with for 2 strike performance for our 2013 season.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scor.../images/2strikes.pdf

 

Stats -

I found the data from that season. I can send you the excel file if you want. It is missing some games for which I couldn't find the data for each at bat's count, but it does have 3/4ths of the at bats or so.. Where should I send it?

Check your Dialogs.

I assume the OP is asking the question about HS level players. I could care less on all the statistical mumbo jumbo that gets regurgitated for major leaguers or  Williams or DiMaggio as examples since the world only has only seen the rare few of this caliber. We're talking the everyday hs level baseball player and I'll take the aggressive hitter any day over the week over a hitter than the one who waits and waits and lets fat strikes go with some false sense of working counts.

 

I will take approach in HS as well IF the kid can hit. But I also feel its important teach kids how to be the best they can be. That 2-0 grooved fb in HS becomes a solid CU at the next level. That ultra aggressive HS hitter finds that approach just doesn't cut it college or vs quality HS pitching. Some kids have to cheat. Some don't have to.

Different skill sets, different levels of ability. Different approaches. Bat speed, swing process, ability to see the ball deep, reaction time, etc etc. Play to your strengths and continue to get better. It's not one size fits all.

Well, after changing things a bit, I’ve managed to quantify how both our pitchers and our hitters REALLY deal with 2 strike counts to at least some degree.

 

http://www.infosports.com/scor...ges/2strikesboth.pdf

 

The thing I see both intuitively obvious as well as proved true by the numbers is, hitters in general don’t fare very well with 2 strikes on them, and pitchers in general do very well when they get 2 strikes on hitters. Its intuitively obvious when one considers its only when there are 2 strikes that the additional possibility of making an out exists.

 

Rather than just throw out clichés with no proof other than “gut feelings” or “perceptions” about how hitters and pitchers compare when they are in 2 strike counts, at least now I have the ability to look at our pitchers and hitters real numbers. While I think its safe to say all hitters and pitchers can do better in those situations, with numbers in hand, those who need the most help can be easily identified and given more problem specific help. That should lead to much more efficient use of valuable coaching talent and time.

 

 

Statty, Statty, Statty: I leave HSBBW for a few days and return to find you complaining for the umpteen-thousandth time about people thowing out cliche's and expressing gut feelings and perceptions about high school baseball, when dammit! The ONLY thing that matters is data!

 

And then ... because you, too, are a human, you say two sentences later,

 

"While I think it's safe to say..."

 

Physician Statty: Heal thyself.

Originally Posted by jp24:

Statty, Statty, Statty:I leave HSBBW for a few days and return to find you complaining for the umpteen-thousandth time about people thowing out cliche's and expressing gut feelings and perceptions about high school baseball, when dammit! The ONLY thing that matters is data!

 

And then ... because you, too, are a human, you say two sentences later,

 

"While I think it's safe to say..."

 

Physician Statty: Heal thyself.

 

If you don’t see the difference between someone saying so and so is a good 2 strike hitter based on real numbers and saying it based on only an opinion or perception, there’s no way to communicate with you on the subject, and for that I’m sorry.

 

When I said “I think its safe to say all hitters …”, I was basing that on the many times people have used numbers to prove hitters do worse and pitchers do better in 2 strike situations, so its not really an opinion or perspective.

 

But if it makes you’re happy to attack me personally rather than discuss the topic, so be it. I wonder though, why is it you do that?

Wade Boggs was the best 2 strike hitter ever. With zero room in foul territory at Fenway, he would just stick his bat out and foul pitch after pitch off until he got the one he wanted to drive....just saying!

The question we have is how do we teach the young hitter to adjust with 2 strikes.

A few years ago I met Edgar Martinez in the Mariners locker room and I asked him a similar question.

"Edgar I notice you like to go deep in the count".

"He said yes, except one pitcher". Who? Roger Clements. "Against Roger, I go after the 1st fast ball as I do not want the split finger".

 

Hitting with 2 strikes is adjusting to the situation, the pitcher, the field, the wind, the score and your mental and physical quickness on that day. A good hitter does not change his stance, he will think quicker, wait, wait and swing hard!

 

Bob

Stats:

I really like the format of how you presented that 2 strike data. Unlike what I sent you, it didn't require a bunch of explanatory footnotes. 

 

I am very interested in the underlying question, which is: are there significant differences in batters' 2 strike performance? Or is it a myth, like Sabremetrics has pretty much concluded the phenomenon of "clutch hitter" is, that some hitters over large samples are better with two strike counts.

 

Has anyone seen any good data on this at the MLB level? Surely this question must have been studied by the Sabremetric gurus, yes? 

 

Does es anyone know?

 

 

 

Rob,

 

First let me apologize profusely for not getting your data. Evidently my provider caught it as spam and I unknowingly deleted it. But, I still want to see it very much! If you would be so kind, send me a Dialog with the e-mail address you’ll be sending it from, and I’ll put it on the “approved address” list. That way when you send it, it should come straight through. After I get the address I’ll send you an e-mail when its set up. I’m really sorry for the inconvenience.

 

Since I originally posted my data, it was pointed out to me that the Ks didn’t align very well with the called and miss strikes. After a few hours of intense scrutiny and a lot of flying expletives, I found a logic error in how Ks were counted and have subsequently fixed it. I also added the hitter’s regular OBP, just to get a better handle on how they’re performance with 2 strikes compared to their regular OBP.

 

Interestingly enough, the player with the best 2 strike “OBP” had one of the worst as far as regular starters went, and the player with the best OBP among the regular starters had one of the worst 2 strike “OBPs”.

 

I’m not sure what a lot of investigation will prove, but for sure a lot of bubbles will be burst along the way. Our coaches were pretty much surprised by what I came up with for our team. It seems like most people get preconceived notions about what’s really taking place. That makes seeing “real” numbers humbling in most cases.

 

I’m sure there’s been a lots of studies at the ML, but I doubt whether it would translate very well to lower levels. The problem is, there simply isn’t a lot of data at the lower levels to go on.