what is your take on deciding take before the pitch is released in certain counts? 3-0 is a given for most but also sometimes 0-0 and other counts.
i think ideally you are not taking all the way but shrink your zone and sit on certain pitches but there are probably situations when you want a hitter to take all the way.
how would you handle that?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Factors to me:
1) What is the pitcher's recent history the previous 5-15 pitches?
2) What is the batter's proficiency?
3) What is the stage/purpose of the game? late inning? close game? blowout? Still in league playoff contention, etc?
Not a black or white question to me. Maybe you are trying to win the game. Maybe you are just trying to get the batter on base for the first time in the season. Maybe you want to let the batter get a chance to drive in some runs (if runners are on).
If I'm behind by a run in bottom of last inning and the pitcher has walked the bases loaded, I'm normally giving the batter a take sign on first pitch.
I like aggressiveness in hitters, so overall I don't like it. That being said, there are still times we have kids take pitches. Some HS kids it's ok to let them think a little at the plate, with some of them it's easier to tell them what to do.
When we talk "selectivity" in counts we mean to sit on your pitch or be picky, but nothing like a take sign.
Often with a pitcher with control issues and a weak bullpen, we'll let them be very selective 0-0 (meaning if it's in your super hot zone drive it). If it's a ball then it becomes automatic take till you get a strike.
A few years ago we could really swing it, so we hardly ever did any of that. Last year we were average to weak offensively, so it was a bit more common.
Taking pitches just depends on a ton of different factors.
My position is very similar to Ironhorse, although even leaning harder toward not taking. I want to instill an aggressive approach. Players like to hit and I want them to like to hit. We have a 3-0 take sign I use only on occasion in a competitive game and even then I will stress to get a really good look because they are going to get the same exact pitch next pitch. Always be thinking about hitting.
I know that, from a game strategy standpoint, this may not be optimal but I want to be consistent with my message to be aggressive hitters. We do talk a lot about zone size and pitch type with different counts, different pitchers, etc. but, as Ironhorse said, that conversation is targeted more often at players who have the capacity to use the approach without getting paralyzed with it.
Perhaps you will see more automatic takes with the pitch count rules that are being implemented? as strategy?
IMO overthinking a simple game, but managers like to manage.
It depends what level of ball we're discussing. Given the board I'll use the high school. Other than 3-0 ...
- Sometimes you're trying to run up the pitch count on a challenging pitcher and get him out if the way.
- The pitcher is wild and the hitter lacks any plate discipline at all. I don't want a hitter swinging at a pitcher's strike or a ball when the pitcher is walking the park or constantly falling behind in the count. This is the hitter who never saw a pitch he couldn't hit. This is the hitter I'll try to coach into a 2-0 count where he may see a grooved pitch.
If you give a take sign at 0-0 and the pitcher has reasonable control, you expect to be 0-1 about 60% of the time, maybe more.
From googling around a bit, it appears that a player's batting average at 0-1 is about 20 points lower than at 0-0, and a player's batting average at 1-0 is only about 5 points higher than 0-0.
These numbers probably vary by level, bit if they're reasonably close, a straight take at 0-0 would lower batting averages by 10 points or more.
I'd need a good reason to give up those ten points.
Hoping the opponent will perform poorly is not a strategy.
Swampboy posted:If you give a take sign at 0-0 and the pitcher has reasonable control, you expect to be 0-1 about 60% of the time, maybe more.
From googling around a bit, it appears that a player's batting average at 0-1 is about 20 points lower than at 0-0, and a player's batting average at 1-0 is only about 5 points higher than 0-0.
These numbers probably vary by level, bit if they're reasonably close, a straight take at 0-0 would lower batting averages by 10 points or more.
I'd need a good reason to give up those ten points.
Hoping the opponent will perform poorly is not a strategy.
Are we talking batting average or on-base percentage? I would assume a 1-0 count might improve your on-base percentage by something north of 5 points.
Assumption here is "reasonable control" along with the idea that the pitcher is really trying to throw a strike. Once you move away from either or those being 100% true, the math may turn. That said, I think averages for anyone other that your starting lineup need to be discounted somewhat in favor on what a coach thinks about his hitters and the relative strength of the opposing pitcher.
Swampboy posted:If you give a take sign at 0-0 and the pitcher has reasonable control, you expect to be 0-1 about 60% of the time, maybe more.
From googling around a bit, it appears that a player's batting average at 0-1 is about 20 points lower than at 0-0, and a player's batting average at 1-0 is only about 5 points higher than 0-0.
These numbers probably vary by level, bit if they're reasonably close, a straight take at 0-0 would lower batting averages by 10 points or more.
I'd need a good reason to give up those ten points.
Hoping the opponent will perform poorly is not a strategy.
I would surmise that these %'s are not for HS and under. I would further surmise the younger you get, the more difference in the %'s.
Most of what I found was for batting average--I didn't look long, mind you.
I did find MLB's OPS for 2014 and the results were consistent with what I posted earlier:
OPS after 0-0 = .700
OPS after 0-1 = .592
OPS after 1-0 = .796
60.3% first pitch strikes for the year.
Expected OPS taking all the way on 0-0 = .673 or 27 points lower.
So the starting point for my "other things being equal" analysis, which understands that other things never are equal, is that I want something in exchange for those 27 points. Lots of situation-specific factors can tilt it away from that < 3% difference, but a coach needs to know there is a cost to taking an 0-0 pitch and make an informed decision about when he wants to pay that cost.
I would surmise that these %'s are not for HS and under. I would further surmise the younger you get, the more difference in the %'s.
Your first surmise is fact.
Your second surmise would match my own surmising.
Swampboy posted:If you give a take sign at 0-0 and the pitcher has reasonable control, you expect to be 0-1 about 60% of the time, maybe more.
From googling around a bit, it appears that a player's batting average at 0-1 is about 20 points lower than at 0-0, and a player's batting average at 1-0 is only about 5 points higher than 0-0.
These numbers probably vary by level, bit if they're reasonably close, a straight take at 0-0 would lower batting averages by 10 points or more.
I'd need a good reason to give up those ten points.
Hoping the opponent will perform poorly is not a strategy.
Many strategies aim at the opponent performing poorly, if you wait for a pitch down the middle it is hoping him performing poorly too.
Baseball is a game of mistakes and capitalizing on them is fair game.
Taking all the way 0-0 is of course about getting the pitch count up and increase the chance of a walk. Even in mlb there are hitters doing it a lot, I read that Joe Mauer swung 0-0 less than 10 percent in his career and he was pretty good in his prime.
However it seems like now players are starting to swing first pitch more again, donaldson is hacking 0-0 all the time.
Dominik85 posted:Swampboy posted:If you give a take sign at 0-0 and the pitcher has reasonable control, you expect to be 0-1 about 60% of the time, maybe more.
From googling around a bit, it appears that a player's batting average at 0-1 is about 20 points lower than at 0-0, and a player's batting average at 1-0 is only about 5 points higher than 0-0.
These numbers probably vary by level, bit if they're reasonably close, a straight take at 0-0 would lower batting averages by 10 points or more.
I'd need a good reason to give up those ten points.
Hoping the opponent will perform poorly is not a strategy.
Many strategies aim at the opponent performing poorly, if you wait for a pitch down the middle it is hoping him performing poorly too.
Giving a take sign at 0-0 isn't "aim[ing] at the opponent performing poorly." It doesn't aim at anything. It does nothing to increase the likelihood of his performing poorly, and it prevents you from taking the best advantage of the mistakes he does make. It merely hopes he performs poorly. Hope is not a strategy.
The MLB examples you raise reinforce the difference between a player who makes a strategic decision to be very selective on first pitches and a coach who routinely gives a 0-0 take sign.
Pro ball I agree but do hs pitchers throw 60% first pitch strikes? I would guess closer to 50%.
Up to this point in HS I've always encouraged my son to be ready to go first pitch. Most pitchers are looking to get ahead in the count and up to this point the pitch they rely on the most is a FB. Now at TB at 17U its a little different story. No small amount of the pitches he sees can throw more than one pitch for a strike so less likely to see a FB. Still, knowing a pitcher wants to work ahead in the count you assume that first pitch is going to be somewhere around the zone. That said his TB coach would sit them for swinging at first strike curves, no matter how hittable. So once a pitcher realizes your not swing at a FP curve what do you think the team saw more often than not.
Now 3-0 it depends on situation and player. Down 4 or 5 runs you need base runners, so I'd say take. Most other times comes down to the kid in the batters box. You know its going to be about an 80% FB down the middle. If a kid is proficient with the bat how can you ask him not to swing. I mean it's the best pitch he's going to see the whole AB. Also, if swung on and put in play it makes it more difficult for the pitcher the next 3-0. Now you have to make a pitch.
The last few years my kid has played for coaches who trusted him and pretty well let him swing away. He has rewarded these coaches by putting up some pretty good numbers. The last two years at TB he has played for a guy who wants to dictate everything done at the plate (didn't even have a take/swing sign for 3-0 because no matter what you were taking). The results, the worst two seasons the kid has had playing baseball.
....somebaseballdad wrote...."That said his TB coach would sit them for swinging at first strike curves, no matter how hittable."
Kinda shocked at that one, especially 17U. Son swings left-handed. Most left handed pitchers start him with a breaking ball. Sometimes he sits breaking ball first pitch. If he sees it up, he unloads.
Automatic takes are for letting your pitcher get some rests in-between innings. At 14/15U, I see a lot more hitters suffer from unwilling to let the bat fly vs being too aggressive.
Go44dad posted:....somebaseballdad wrote...."That said his TB coach would sit them for swinging at first strike curves, no matter how hittable."
Kinda shocked at that one
Yeah me too. After watching him let a couple of bunny pitches go by first pitch I finally asked him what gives. Actually it was more like "whats wrong with you/what in the world are you thinking". It was then he told me it was a curve, and no matter how bad of one it was they couldn't swing.
Go44dad posted:....somebaseballdad wrote...."That said his TB coach would sit them for swinging at first strike curves, no matter how hittable."
Kinda shocked at that one, especially 17U. Son swings left-handed. Most left handed pitchers start him with a breaking ball. Sometimes he sits breaking ball first pitch. If he sees it up, he unloads.
Automatic takes are for letting your pitcher get some rests in-between innings. At 14/15U, I see a lot more hitters suffer from unwilling to let the bat fly vs being too aggressive.
I think many youth coaches knowingly or unknowingly teach their weaker hitters to look for a walk. They are not saying that but they say things like only swing if it is really a perfect pitch to hit. No bad advice but the kid hears better not mess up with a swing.
That weak kid learns that if he swings often not such a great thing happens and every time he takes a ball he hears "good eye" or "walk is as good as a hit". That means the way to get gratification and compliments is by keeping the Bat on his shoulder.
Up until 12-13 (then pitchers get better but also the mound moves back so it might work for another year) that approach often works. Later of course most of those kids get washed out but that is none of the business of their 9u or 10u coaches, they were just glad to occasionally get their bottom of the lineup on base.
I think you should teach some approach early but don't be too hard on them if they occasionally chase one because that can create a fear of pulling the trigger.
Go44dad posted:....somebaseballdad wrote...."That said his TB coach would sit them for swinging at first strike curves, no matter how hittable."
Kinda shocked at that one, especially 17U. Son swings left-handed. Most left handed pitchers start him with a breaking ball. Sometimes he sits breaking ball first pitch. If he sees it up, he unloads.
I have a problem with kids swinging at a first pitch CB if they're sitting first pitch FB (or vice versa). 0-0 we're looking for our pitch. Too many kids sit FB, see a "hittable" CB and pop it up or roll over. That to me is a waste.
