Different factors in calling pitches

WOW!  Talk about a heavy subject.

I would say - to start things off - that calling pitches does not have to be complex with infinite combinations of pitch and location.  Some basics apply which should work in favor of the defensive team.  Keeping the ball low, keeping the ball outside, changing locations, changing pitch selection to alter speed and/or break are what I would consider the basics.  Assume you know nothing about the batter (assume you are calling pitches blindfolded) - are there pitch sequences you would default to?  That would be a starting point and I assume you would build from there.

In a perfect world, the pitcher would call the pitches and somehow get that info relayed to the catcher without tipping off the batter.  He has the best view of the batter.  

Complex topic. I'd say that, in general, the older the players get, the more likely the called pitch will be (1) what is appropriate; (2) what is (more or less) delivered; and (3) more likely to be effective (e.g., induce a ground ball, strike, pop-up, etc.).

I disagree with HSBASEBALL 101 in that I think the catcher, in general, should be the player calling the pitch, unless superceded by a coach. I don't think it is out of the question for a pitcher to weigh-in, but those calls should be rare enough to warrant a mound visit by the catcher. And of course, the catcher can disguise the signals FAR more easily than a pitcher could.

And tradition. Hah.

2017LHPscrewball,

 Yeah, this is a topic that people definitely have strong beliefs about.

 I happen to agree that calling pitches doesn’t have to be all that complex, although it certainly can be.

 I’ve scored tons of HSV games, and although there are those who would disagree, the majority of the hitters who come to the plate have either never been seen before or haven’t been seen enough to have any kind of reliable “book” on. But even so, they come to the plate and pitches get called, which leads me to believe there are default pitch sequences, even though they may be different for different pitchers depending on their capabilities.

hsbaseball101,

 In my day (a long time ago), pitchers did call the pitches indirectly. The catcher would give a pitch and general location, and the pitcher could agree or not. Very seldom did a pitcher shake for a different location though. Usually it was the type of pitch.

Batty67,

It sure is complex for something so simple.

Not tryin’ to start an argument here, but I am curious. How would a coach “supersede” what a catcher called?

I was speaking to the general, and at my son's HS, almost invariable, practice of a coach calling the pitch by relaying it through the catcher. Pretty rare, but I've seen a coach change his mind on the pitch selection he gave and interject to change pitch the catcher just gave before the pitch. 

Also in general, HS catchers get a sense of what is working (and not working) on a batter as the game proceeds. And in my son's case, he had knowledge of at least 7-8 batter's strengths and weaknesses through previous travel baseball. But I'm not sure how he "used it" in-game since the coach almost always calls the pitches.

But does the number of desired outcomes offset the number of undesired outcomes due to poor or misinterpreted information about the batter, some mistake by the pitcher in execution of the pitch, some unexpected response by the batter, or even just an “unlucky” bounce?

I’m not at all saying calling pitches other than for the P and C to be on the same page is a worthless endeavor. But I am wondering just how much having an experienced person sending signals in from the bench improves the chances of an outcome that’s beneficial to the team on defense.

OK, STATS4GNATS, you started the discussion so you are expected to continue to participate and maybe expound on the question(s) you posed.  I did have a chance to read the article and now wonder whether your question has to do with WHO calls the pitches as opposed to whether pitches should be called in the first place.

On the first question above, I would say undesired outcomes will always occur.  That basis for calling pitches is to reduce to probability of an undesired outcome.  I would certainly argue that calling pitches will not lead to more undesired outcomes and, while I cannot quantify it, calling pitches generally should lead to fewer undesired outcomes.  I am not sure if that is really your question but I should hope that the basic logic would dictate that any reasonable pitch calling would, on average, be beneficial with the opportunity for significant upside under certain circumstances.

I was hoping to see lots of replies this morning.  With so few, perhaps you would like to clarify the question at hand so maybe more folks will participate in the discussion.  I will say my 2017LHP has some strong beliefs on how to "set up" a batter for a KO and did not always agree 100% with the calls coming in from the coach.  I always found his comments on the subject to be very interesting.

Batty67 posted:

I was speaking to the general, and at my son's HS, almost invariable, practice of a coach calling the pitch by relaying it through the catcher. Pretty rare, but I've seen a coach change his mind on the pitch selection he gave and interject to change pitch the catcher just gave before the pitch. 

 Thanx for clarifying what you meant. I don’t remember ever seeing that happen, but I don’t pay that close of attention.

 Also in general, HS catchers get a sense of what is working (and not working) on a batter as the game proceeds. And in my son's case, he had knowledge of at least 7-8 batter's strengths and weaknesses through previous travel baseball. But I'm not sure how he "used it" in-game since the coach almost always calls the pitches.

 Your son’s experience sure seems to be “common”. From the discussion by many about game plans and coaches working with the batteries between innings, you’d think that knowledge would be something taken advantage of, but that’s not the feeling I get.

You guys are right, heavy subject. First, you have to have a catcher that has a high level of understanding. Knowing the pitcher, knowing the hitter, knowing the situation, knowing the on deck hitter, what does the pitcher have that outing vs. what he does not have. Ultimately, a true catcher calling his own game will take full responsibility for a ball getting squared up in a gap or hit out of the yard. Regardless of who is calling the pitch, catcher or coach, if the pitch is not located that guy will be second guessed. Hate seeing the right pitch called, ball being hit hard and the coach screaming at the catcher for calling that certain pitch. Pitch calling is an art form, really gets interesting second/third time through the lineup. Prefer to see catchers calling their own game if they are capable, but also like to see coaches working with and developing their catchers, maybe calling the pitches 1st time through and then letting the catcher call the rest of the game after seeing some tendencies. For the pitching dads: I also wish that there was a greater appreciation for the right pitch, in the right spot that a really talented or lucky hitter did something with. Pitching is hard, catching is hard, hitting is hard, even coaching in the situation is hard. Everyone is at the mercy of eachother. Love this game!

Couple of comments:

1.  With respect to "default sequences" of pitches for hitters who have not been seen before, a guy who coached for several years in the minors (and later in MLB) discussed this in a hitting clinic I attended.  When nobody had a "book" on a hitter in the minors, the standard approach (assuming a RH pitcher and RH hitter) was first pitch FB at the knees on the outside corner, with the second pitch being a curve at the knees that started on the outside corner and then broke out of the zone.  How the hitter handled those pitches dictated what came next.

2.  On who calls pitches, my older son caught in college.  On his team, it was a combination of coach-called pitches and catcher-called pitches.  Catcher would look over for a sign before every pitch.  Coach would generally call the pitch, but would also often indicate that it was the catcher's call.  If it was the catcher's call, the catcher would tap his chest protector before giving the sign to the pitcher to indicate that the pitch was his call.  I suppose the intent was to give the pitcher a bit more leeway to shake off a catcher-called pitch than a coach-called pitch.   

There are sooooo many variables to consider.  Does the coaching staff have a good scouting report of the hitter?  Is this the first game your team has seen the opposing line-up?  Is it say, the 5th time you have seen this line-up? (Multiple times seeing the line-up, you may understand the tendencies of the batters.)  How effective is the current pitcher at executing the pitch being called?  Can he hit his spots?  On this particular day, is the pitcher able to throw his off speed stuff for strikes?  The quiver is going to be lacking arrows if the pitcher cannot execute all of his pitches.  How good is the coach, pitcher, or catcher at calling pitches in the first place? 

In my son's experience, in HS, and in JC ball, was that the coach called the pitches.  In both instances, the results were good, if not great. 

My belief is that the coach should call the pitches.  Theoretically, he is the one with the most experience, and I think it takes some pressure off of the pitcher.  He doesn't have to think about what pitch to throw, he just needs to execute what is called.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

OK, STATS4GNATS, you started the discussion so you are expected to continue to participate and maybe expound on the question(s) you posed.  I did have a chance to read the article and now wonder whether your question has to do with WHO calls the pitches as opposed to whether pitches should be called in the first place.

I came across that article when I was doing some research on the subject and thought it was worth passing on. While it’s true I believe the players and not coaches should be calling pitches, that isn’t why I posted the OP. I’m trying to find out why pitches get called and why it often takes up to 10 years to teach it.

On the first question above, I would say undesired outcomes will always occur.  That basis for calling pitches is to reduce to probability of an undesired outcome.  I would certainly argue that calling pitches will not lead to more undesired outcomes and, while I cannot quantify it, calling pitches generally should lead to fewer undesired outcomes.  I am not sure if that is really your question but I should hope that the basic logic would dictate that any reasonable pitch calling would, on average, be beneficial with the opportunity for significant upside under certain circumstances.

I don’t disagree that logic dictates calling pitches generally should lead to fewer undesired outcomes, especially at the ML level where there’s so much more information available about the hitters. But to me there’s so much failure when it comes to hitters just because hitting is such a difficult thing to do, and pitchers because pitching isn’t any easier, it’s hard to pick out why something was successful.

I was hoping to see lots of replies this morning.  With so few, perhaps you would like to clarify the question at hand so maybe more folks will participate in the discussion.  I will say my 2017LHP has some strong beliefs on how to "set up" a batter for a KO and did not always agree 100% with the calls coming in from the coach.  I always found his comments on the subject to be very interesting.

I was hoping for more response as well, but it’s a topic that can really be divisive, plus it’s difficult to argue when there’s so little proof of something one way or the other. FI, I know when I caught, the signals to the P were 1^st and foremost so I’d have the best idea of anyone other than the P what was coming. The rest of it was trying to “trick” the batter by changing pitch types and locations.

I’m sure your boy has a very strong set of beliefs about pitching as do most pitchers who have any experience at all. I’m also pretty sure some of those beliefs are right and same aren’t. But I’ve also always been someone who puts a lot of value on what the pitcher wants to do, which is another reason I liked that article. Here’s what he said in #2.

2.) In my opinion, the very best pitch a pitcher can throw in any given instance is the pitch he can throw with his heart, with conviction. Regardless if it's the "right" call or not. There's only one person who knows what that pitch is: the guy on the mound, not the coach.

I wish I could better clarify the question at hand, but it’s almost impossible since as far as I know there are no set rules, other than to change pitch types, speeds, and locations.

Going back to a post a few weeks back, our HS coaches called pitches which, to some degree, were designed to induce weak contact versus completely tricking the batter.  As that post discussed, there was a desire to have starting pitchers go deep and a pitch strategy to maximize KO's would not help reach that goal.  I guess I am saying that calling pitches sort of has multiple layers that might include, in addition to simply getting one batter out, helping preserve the pitching staff or might even include protecting one of the fielders that might not be on top of his game.  In these situations, the catcher/pitcher combo might not always see the "big picture" and could make pitch calls that might not serve the team as a whole - one more argument for coaches calling the pitches.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

Going back to a post a few weeks back, our HS coaches called pitches which, to some degree, were designed to induce weak contact versus completely tricking the batter. As that post discussed, there was a desire to have starting pitchers go deep and a pitch strategy to maximize KO's would not help reach that goal.  I guess I am saying that calling pitches sort of has multiple layers that might include, in addition to simply getting one batter out, helping preserve the pitching staff or might even include protecting one of the fielders that might not be on top of his game.  In these situations, the catcher/pitcher combo might not always see the "big picture" and could make pitch calls that might not serve the team as a whole - one more argument for coaches calling the pitches.

 Talking about HS now, is there any reason the P&C can’t be made aware of whatever “big picture” there was? We’re not talking about little kids. We’re talking about young men very close to going out into the cruel world on their own, so why should they continue to be treated like little kids?

 If the goal is to have the starters go deep, the pitchers should be pitching to contact, not trying to get lots of K’s. How does the person calling the pitches do that?

 How would a fielder be protected by pitch calling? I can see if it was a F3 or F9 pitches would tend to be thrown on the inside to a RHB and outside to a LHB and the opposite if it were the F5 or F7. But how do you protect the F4, F6, or F8? Along those lines, would anyone handcuff the pitch caller because he was afraid a fielder MIGHT misplay a ball IF it was hit to him?

 A lot of what goes on depends on the guy responsible for the W’s and L’s philosophy. Some people want to see minimal contact and others want to see outs and don’t care how they happen. But to be honest, unless a coach has a for real stud on the bump with for real swing and miss stuff, which isn’t “typical”, it’s rare to see them not want pitching to contact. Sure they’d like lots of K’s, but I don’t think it’s possible or makes any sense what-so-ever to pitch for K’s unless the pitcher has a devastating out pitch.

"True Story" Can you believe a CF calling the pitches?  Willie Mays for the SF Giants.

ask your self WHY? and HOW?

Bob

Stats4Gnats posted:

2017LHPscrewball posted:

Going back to a post a few weeks back, our HS coaches called pitches which, to some degree, were designed to induce weak contact versus completely tricking the batter. As that post discussed, there was a desire to have starting pitchers go deep and a pitch strategy to maximize KO's would not help reach that goal.  I guess I am saying that calling pitches sort of has multiple layers that might include, in addition to simply getting one batter out, helping preserve the pitching staff or might even include protecting one of the fielders that might not be on top of his game.  In these situations, the catcher/pitcher combo might not always see the "big picture" and could make pitch calls that might not serve the team as a whole - one more argument for coaches calling the pitches.

 Talking about HS now, is there any reason the P&C can’t be made aware of whatever “big picture” there was? We’re not talking about little kids. We’re talking about young men very close to going out into the cruel world on their own, so why should they continue to be treated like little kids?

 If the goal is to have the starters go deep, the pitchers should be pitching to contact, not trying to get lots of K’s. How does the person calling the pitches do that?

 How would a fielder be protected by pitch calling? I can see if it was a F3 or F9 pitches would tend to be thrown on the inside to a RHB and outside to a LHB and the opposite if it were the F5 or F7. But how do you protect the F4, F6, or F8? Along those lines, would anyone handcuff the pitch caller because he was afraid a fielder MIGHT misplay a ball IF it was hit to him?

 A lot of what goes on depends on the guy responsible for the W’s and L’s philosophy. Some people want to see minimal contact and others want to see outs and don’t care how they happen. But to be honest, unless a coach has a for real stud on the bump with for real swing and miss stuff, which isn’t “typical”, it’s rare to see them not want pitching to contact. Sure they’d like lots of K’s, but I don’t think it’s possible or makes any sense what-so-ever to pitch for K’s unless the pitcher has a devastating out pitch.

I was sort of treating these items as incremental items that can be added to the list of "why's" a coach would prefer to call pitches.  None of these by themselves are probably worthwhile arguments, but as the list builds, I think a case could be made.  Besides, my then senior would have preferred to go after a few more KO's than he was allowed to - he understood the situations pretty well but he is a teenager and is apt to go off course a little when the juices get flowing.  Nice program with good kids but no way the majority of them were ready to go out into the cruel world on their own.  Remember when he was a sophomore and got called up mid-season to bolster the varsity staff - at that point he probably had little understanding of the "big picture".

2017LHPscrewball posted:

I was sort of treating these items as incremental items that can be added to the list of "why's" a coach would prefer to call pitches.  None of these by themselves are probably worthwhile arguments, but as the list builds, I think a case could be made.  Besides, my then senior would have preferred to go after a few more KO's than he was allowed to - he understood the situations pretty well but he is a teenager and is apt to go off course a little when the juices get flowing.  

Well, let’s go back to the OP for a second.

  “…Like most other tasks involving different factors, there will be some more important than others, and I’d really like to see if they can be identified….”

 The reason I was looking for those factors is to try to figger out why it seems to be so difficult to teach players how to do it.

 You’ve listed some reasons you think make coaches the best person to do it, with your son looking for KO’s when another course of action would be better for the team because of “juices flowing”. It’s a bit off topic but let’s look at that for a bit.

 How does a coach go about “allowing” a pitcher to go after K’s? What does he say to the pitcher? “You’re not to strike anyone out today!”

 And what if the pitcher does go after more K’s? Usually that means more pitches which means going less deep into the game for the starter. How many times do you think it will take him to learn to control those juices if he keeps getting yanked early on? And how long would one of these “out of control” sessions last? There’s a break after ever half inning, and if things get too bad the coach has “visits” he can use.

 Nice program with good kids but no way the majority of them were ready to go out into the cruel world on their own.  Remember when he was a sophomore and got called up mid-season to bolster the varsity staff - at that point he probably had little understanding of the "big picture".

 It looks like it to us grownups, but let’s face something. When Jr gets a driver’s license, he’s pretty much out in the cruel world on his own. Maybe not to the point of earning a living and being responsible for a family, but he’s being given the responsibility of life and death decisions which is a lot more important than whether or not he tries to K a batter instead of trying to get him to ground out.

 My son got the “call” as a 15YO soph and had absolutely no idea what the “big picture” was. Not because he was too immature, but because the HC didn’t take the time to explain it to him. I was there when the VHC gave him the news. “You’re starting tomorrow’s game for the varsity.” “Do whatever you need to do to get ready.”

 The next day he started his 1^st V game. There was no pregame meeting to discuss strategy other than to make sure he knew the main rule for pitchers on that team. “Don’t shake off a pitch or you’ll be pulled.” So the boy started a game with pitches being called by someone who didn’t know much about him other than he got a lot of batters out. Is that the way it happens on every team with every coach? I certainly hope not, but it does happen.  

 But even if it is true that kids can’t be trusted to keep their adrenaline and testosterone from controlling them, what about calling pitches is so difficult to teach or learn?

I guess it is like driving.  My 2017 is a "good" driver, but he really hasn't been placed into all the various situations and hasn't had near enough "near misses" to give call him an "experienced" driver.  Maybe that is what the coach is thinking - I can hear it now..."he and the catcher could probably get 80% of the calls correct, but getting from 80% to 95% takes 20 years".  I guess if you are looking for possible explanations, I'll propose that most coaches simply believe they have a greater grasp of the situation through years of experience which they simply cannot teach fully to a varsity staff.

I will credit the coach with having a pretty good feel for what the individual pitchers could execute on and even what might be working, or not working, on any particular day.  These considerations impacted the pitch call so a pitcher could say after first inning that "such and such is working today" and that pitch might get included a few more times than normal.  But as always, the coach preferred to remain in control.

I will add that the coach discussed certain pitch sequences and provided his belief as to how a certain sequencing was used to trick or confuse the batter.  Not simple change in speeds, but more like three pitches, different speeds, different locations and then adjust based on batter's response.  So I guess he was "teaching" how to call pitches, he just didn't hand over the reins.  May be a subtle difference but would not want a coach to simply blurt out pitches without having discussed his rationale many times beforehand.

I suppose we could go back and forth for all eternity and neither would be able to convince the other of his point of view, and that often happens when tradition, opinion, and fact collide. Unfortunately I’m one of those folks who needs proof rather than conjecture to sway him. The proof could be as simple as the coach calling all pitches for pitcher A without exception one game, then allowing pitcher A and the catcher to call pitches the next game, then comparing what took place.

 The way most HS baseball seasons are set up makes it very easy to do something like that because early in the season the games don’t have a lot of impact on post-season play, so there’s a lot of experimentation going on trying to find the pieces then trying to figger out how to best arrange them. Calling pitches is just another piece of the puzzle like figuring out which players is best at short or hitting in the #3 batting position.

 A lot of how different people approach different things depends a great deal on beliefs. I don’t believe if a team flipped flopped back and forth from the coach calling pitches on game to the batteries doing it on their own the next, there’d be any substantial benefit when the coaches did it. I also don’t believe that calling pitches is so difficult, players can’t be taught how to do it if the “teacher” really puts forth an effort. And even if it were a difficult thing to pass on, there's no way it should take 10 years.

 It’s too bad there isn’t a “How to Call Pitches Effectively” primer that could just be handed to someone that told them all there was to know about it. Instead, everyone seems to have their own idea about what to call and why, and they all claim their way works. To me it seems that if there were so many different ways to accomplish the same thing, it might not make a great deal of difference how it was done.

 I really would like to know what changed the tradition of players calling pitches to coaches calling pitches though. Something caused the tradition to change and I’d like to know what it was.

Being a hitter's father I'll take a different jab at it.  The hitter is not only competing against a pitcher, a fellow peer of similar age and experience. But is also competing against a much more experienced and seasoned veteran probably twice his age and with twice the hitter's life experience. I'm referring to the coach in the dugout calling the pitches.    Trying to reverse engineer the pitcher's hitter's psychology is a subject that comes up quite a bit at my dinner table.

Florida State Fan,

 No one is disputing that it’s common for coaches to call pitches. At least I know I’m not. I’m only trying to find out what benefit, if any, there is to it. Since you’re taking the perspective of the hitter, let me ask a couple questions of you.

 Does your boy perform better or worse when he faces pitchers getting their signs from a coach relayed by the catcher as opposed to from the catchers without coming from someone else?

 Assuming your boy performs above average as a hitter, how do you account for his successes when coaches are calling the pitches and his failures when it’s only the catcher?

 I realize BA is a pi$$ poor metric to measure performance, but for the sake of the discussion let’s use it. Let’s say your kid is a .400 hitter against pitchers who have coaches calling the pitches. What do you think his BA would be if he only hit against pitchers who called their own pitches?

 When you’re “trying to reverse engineer the pitcher's hitter's psychology”, how do you do that?

The WHO is not important to us. Just pointing out how difficult hitting is and the fact pitchers always have the advantage.  Throw in the coach now you have a second a third dimension to the hitter's problems.   Just as pitchers tip their pitches hitters tip their demeanor.    Key for hitters I believe is not missing good pitches.   

Florida State Fan posted:

The WHO is not important to us. Just pointing out how difficult hitting is and the fact pitchers always have the advantage.  Throw in the coach now you have a second a third dimension to the hitter's problems.   Just as pitchers tip their pitches hitters tip their demeanor.    Key for hitters I believe is not missing good pitches.   

 I sure don’t disagree that the pitchers have almost all of the advantages.

 It sure looks like you do believe the who is important since you believe if a coach is calling pitches it causes the hitter more problems. What interests me is, what additional problems do you think it causes?

 Look, let’s say a pitcher is pretty good and has a good 4SFB, good 2SFB, a really good CU, and a pretty decent curve. Assuming he can consistently hit one of 4 locations, in/up, in/down, away/up/ and away down, there’s only so many different possibilities. Are you saying a coach is much more likely to pick the combination that will give the batter the most trouble because he can much better see what the batter is tipping off about themselves, even though he’s 40-90’ further away than the catcher?

 What are some of the tips hitters give, and why can’t the catcher pick up on them?

Just an an FYI, both the pitcher and the hitter have received scouting reports on each other.

Coaches call pitches because it's their job to win, and if the wrong pitch is called, it's on them, though the pitcher sometimes doesn't execute what pitch he is told to throw.

JMO

Maybe because the coach gets to hold the big clipboard with all the notes on it?

Had a funny experience with one team.  All the defensive players had those wristbands with the defensive plays on them.  The catcher's likely included pitches also and would get the sign, check wristband, and call the pitch.  Pitcher could not wear the wristband.

Every time a defensive play was called, the pitchers (more than one) would take off their cap and look at the cheat sheet they had put on the inside of the cap.  This was a solid academic school also.  I figure if a pitcher cannot "memorize" a few basic defensive plays, then he's got no chance of memorizing the scouting for 10-12 players.

Other than in professional baseball, its not the catchers job to know everything about everyone. Impossible.

The funny part is that usually there are signs within the signs, as stealing signs is very common.

2017LHPscrewbal,

You’re correct. The coach gets to hold the big clipboard. So does he check the clipboard before every batter?

 I think it just a bit strange that in the ML where there’s access to every bit of information possible the coaches seldom call pitches, but in amateur ball where even at the big D1 college level that information is at best “spotty” they do, and even at the levels going down where the information is even worse they do it even more.

 I keep asking the same things. Other than for communication between the P and C, why are pitches called, how much of a benefit is it, is there any proof other than opinion and conjecture backing it up, can pitchers execute correctly consistently enough to take advantage of any benefit, even if a pitch is called correctly and executed perfectly what is the likelihood the hitter will hit it solidly what is the likelihood the hitter will hit it solidly anyway?

 I guess if I’d never watched a BP where everything is done to make it as easy as possible for the batter to hit the ball solidly I wouldn’t question anything about pitch calling. But even the very best hitters in the world don’t hit every pitch they swing at solidly in BP, and the pitchers are trying their best to lay the ball in for the hitter.

 I suppose it’s my “naysayer” attitude coming out where I don’t believe pitchers are nearly as accurate as most believe, or hitters as susceptible to a pitch against their trends as most believe. I also don’t see a lot of coaches consulting notes as they’re calling pitches. In fact, I can’t remember any coach doing that, but I’m sure there must be some.

Just so you know Stats, those notes are not just notes but also include stats on the hitters.  

College, pitching coaches get raises  and keep their jobs for their staffs era.  So they are going to do whatever they can to help not only their staff but themselves.  College catchers after 3,4 years are familiar with the hitters, but everything falls on the coaches.

Once again, ML catchers are ML catchers because they make it their business to know each hitter and teams pay scouts to provide that info to the team.  Don't compare apples to oranges.

And yes, many pitchers can't execute properly every pitch, that's where the pitching coach comes in.  The better the pitcher executes pitcher, the better the program he will get into, the higher he will get drafted.

Calling pitches in HS, is a good lesson in taking responsibility and a better understanding of the game, but after that, more than likely in college, it's on the pitching coach.

In addition to what TPM said, good/great pitchers can absolutely execute their location, and if they don't, they are going to get rocked.  Especially at the JC/D-1 Levels.  High school, not nearly as much.  Son got away with a lot during HS, but he said, once he started pitching at the JC Level, he had to keep the ball down.  If he got the ball up, he got shelled. 

Since he had an incredible year this year, .84 ERA during the regular season, 1.04 after his post season start, I am going to assume he "hit his spots."

rynoattack posted:

In addition to what TPM said, good/great pitchers can absolutely execute their location, and if they don't, they are going to get rocked.  Especially at the JC/D-1 Levels.  High school, not nearly as much.  Son got away with a lot during HS, but he said, once he started pitching at the JC Level, he had to keep the ball down.  If he got the ball up, he got shelled. 

Since he had an incredible year this year, .84 ERA during the regular season, 1.04 after his post season start, I am going to assume he "hit his spots."

Do you know if his coach called his pitches?

Even though you’re on my blocked list I’m looking at this post because RYNOATTACK referenced it and I wanted to know what he was referring to.

 I had taken the time to respond but I’m deleting it and instead just saying this. If a team has a quality PC who takes the time to gather information on opposition hitters, devises a plan to take advantage of that knowledge, shares it with the pitchers and catchers, and calls pitches based on that plan, it’s wonderful. I still question how much better the team will do because of it, but at least there’s an effort being made to teach.

 Here’s my final question. What percentage of all colleges do that, keeping in mind there are a lot more colleges than major DI’s. Give the percentage of all HS teams who do that as well, keeping in mind Fr and JV are HS teams too. And what percentage of amateur teams not covered by the general categories of College and HS teams have that luxury?

rynoattack posted:

In addition to what TPM said, good/great pitchers can absolutely execute their location, and if they don't, they are going to get rocked.  Especially at the JC/D-1 Levels.  High school, not nearly as much.  Son got away with a lot during HS, but he said, once he started pitching at the JC Level, he had to keep the ball down.  If he got the ball up, he got shelled. 

Since he had an incredible year this year, .84 ERA during the regular season, 1.04 after his post season start, I am going to assume he "hit his spots."

 Either you’ve never caught or really studied closely where pitchers throw the ball.  Watch a game on TV sometime and really pay close attention to how much the C has to move to catch pitches.

 Are the better pitchers able to locate better than poor ones? Absolutely, but it isn’t like they’re hitting the pocket of the mitt on every pitch or most pitches. The difference is, the better pitchers don’t miss as many times or by the same amounts. The difference is so small it’s hardly noticeable, the same way the difference between how a .300 hits the ball and a .250 hits the ball is so small.

 Very very few pitchers can allow the ball to be consistently in the upper half of the zone and do well whether it’s in the ML or the 1^st season of kid pitch, but I think “shelled” is a bit of an exaggeration.

 What’s your definition of a “spot”?

 What happens if a pitcher want’s to throw a FB low and away and hits his spot within an inch but for some reason it was straight as an arrow and 5% slower than normal. Or how ‘bout if he want’s to throw a curve down and in and does, but instead of 2,000 spins it only has 1,500?

In our 35 years of International baseball, our catchers [age 14-18] called every pitch. In the dugout was the pitching coach's, all played in the MLB. There are most important questions which the catcher can visualize.

1. Hitters placement in the batters box. "on or off the plate", standing in the same hole as other right handed batters, "up or back" in the box; open or closed stance; hands low or high; bat wrap or angle; is he on his heals or balls of his feet?

2. The wind, the sun, the distance to the fences. How many outs, score, inning. All factors.

3. Can the pitcher change his pitch, if necessary. Is it a steal or bunt situation. Do my infielders relay the signals.

4. History of the umpire. Wide or narrow strike zone.

These are a few, many more. "Change speeds and location". Move the hitter's feet!!!!!

Bob

Goodwill Series and Area Code games

TPM posted:

rynoattack posted:

In addition to what TPM said, good/great pitchers can absolutely execute their location, and if they don't, they are going to get rocked.  Especially at the JC/D-1 Levels.  High school, not nearly as much.  Son got away with a lot during HS, but he said, once he started pitching at the JC Level, he had to keep the ball down.  If he got the ball up, he got shelled. 

Since he had an incredible year this year, .84 ERA during the regular season, 1.04 after his post season start, I am going to assume he "hit his spots."

Do you know if his coach called his pitches?

Yes.  They did at his HS, and at his JC.

Stats4Gnats posted:

rynoattack posted:

In addition to what TPM said, good/great pitchers can absolutely execute their location, and if they don't, they are going to get rocked.  Especially at the JC/D-1 Levels.  High school, not nearly as much.  Son got away with a lot during HS, but he said, once he started pitching at the JC Level, he had to keep the ball down.  If he got the ball up, he got shelled. 

Since he had an incredible year this year, .84 ERA during the regular season, 1.04 after his post season start, I am going to assume he "hit his spots."

 Either you’ve never caught or really studied closely where pitchers throw the ball.  Watch a game on TV sometime and really pay close attention to how much the C has to move to catch pitches.

 Are the better pitchers able to locate better than poor ones? Absolutely, but it isn’t like they’re hitting the pocket of the mitt on every pitch or most pitches. The difference is, the better pitchers don’t miss as many times or by the same amounts. The difference is so small it’s hardly noticeable, the same way the difference between how a .300 hits the ball and a .250 hits the ball is so small.

 Very very few pitchers can allow the ball to be consistently in the upper half of the zone and do well whether it’s in the ML or the 1^st season of kid pitch, but I think “shelled” is a bit of an exaggeration.

 What’s your definition of a “spot”?

 What happens if a pitcher want’s to throw a FB low and away and hits his spot within an inch but for some reason it was straight as an arrow and 5% slower than normal. Or how ‘bout if he want’s to throw a curve down and in and does, but instead of 2,000 spins it only has 1,500?

I don't think that I need to define what "hitting his spot" means.  I used a simple example of my son's experience.  I am not an expert on the subject, so I will defer to you as the one who knows what he is talking about.  I was trying to add something to the discussion, not get into a battle on the minutia...

Good for you Ryno!

rynoattack posted:

I don't think that I need to define what "hitting his spot" means.  I used a simple example of my son's experience.  I am not an expert on the subject, so I will defer to you as the one who knows what he is talking about.  I was trying to add something to the discussion, not get into a battle on the minutia...

 I’m not trying to draw you into a battle! I’m trying to find out what’s true and what isn’t.

 Why are you afraid to define what you mean by a spot? Here are some examples of what people typically perceive as spots.

 The 1^st is what I believe pitchers should realistically be able to consistently hit as a spot. Not hitting the A,B, C, or D which are the strike zone, but hitting anywhere in that quadrant. Each quadrant is 8.5” because it’s half the plate, plus 2 balls which is about 6”. That’s more than 210 square inches.

 https://images.search.yahoo.co...gif&action=click

 This 2^nd one shows what many believe pitchers can consistently hit and is prolly the one most people think of when they think about spots a pitcher can hit.

 https://images.search.yahoo.co...png&action=click

 This last one is what some honestly think pitchers can hit on demand.

 https://images.search.yahoo.co...gif&action=click

 So when you say your son can hit spots, which is closest to your idea of a spot? Even better, ask your son which of the 3 is the closest to his idea of what a spot is.