Goal for hitters and pitchers

Neither of those should be goals because achieving them (insofar as it's possible to do so) is the outcome of a quality approach, not an end of itself. Making either of them an actual goal is likely to be counterproductive.

Stats, I have never heard of a goal called, "See as many pitches as possible."  I am not trying to be a D, I am dead serious.  I get what your saying but I don't think a Old School Coach or a Stats Coach would actually label that as a goal.  Normally you are going to see a coach say 8+ pitch AB as a goal.  We have a Quality At Bat Chart we keep and 8+ pitch is considered a Quality AB.  I am not a big believer in OBP in HS Baseball because in order to have a high OBP you have to have a kid that has a great eye and is comfortable hitting behind in the count which is not par for the course in HS baseball.

Ask Biily Beane. He gave up  hundred RBI #4 hitter for rental pitcher.

Crazy!

Bob

Never heard of such a stat. Doesn't seem relevant to anything other than playing with numbers. As for Billy Beane, all those world titles he won should say how well Money ball works. Gotta be the most overrated GM on the planet.

6th most wins in MLB since he took over, bested only by the Angels, Red Sox, Yankees, Braves and Cards, 3 of whom have vastly more money to work with (not sure about "vastly" for the Braves and Cards, though both have more money). He's overrated in much the same way Jeter is.

I think the point is nobody gets more out of less than BB.   

Just ask the cubs. 

IEBSBL,

Well, it just goes to show, you haven’t heard everything, because it or something very close to it is heard all the time around here.

Since you’re so into QABs that you actually keep a chart on them, is an 8 pitch K looking higher quality than a weak grounder with 2 outs that an error gets made on and subsequently pushes a run across? I don’t know about you definition of QABs, but none I’ve ever seen would count the latter as a QAB.

If you don’t believe in OBP as a good measure of hitting performance, what do you believe in? I don’t mind if you don’t agree with anything I say, but I asked for what people used to measure what was going on, not what they didn’t. In truth I wasn’t asking that question in general, such as, “What metrics do you use?” What I wanted to know is what metrics you use to measure that “aggressiveness/patience” of your hitters.

Originally Posted by Golfman25:

…I think the point is nobody gets more out of less than BB.   …

It’s just that simple. And now that every team has a bunch of guys in the organization someplace who do much the same thing, i.e. use the numbers to ferret out value, what he does is even more impressive.

Stats,

I reported your responses.

It seems like once again you started a topic so that you could begin an argument.

Its gotten really old. Really old.

Agree with jac & IEBSBL,

Assuming we're talking about HS ball...

As a P, there is simple math that gives validity to the concept. Let's use a safe assumption that your starting P is your best available and your best bet to win would be to have him throw a complete game.  A well-pitched game is typically 4-5 hits and 2-3 walks per game with maybe one error.  This gives you, on average,one baserunner per inning which equates to four hitters per inning.  Using a 100 pitch limit, this allows for about 3.5 pitches per hitter.  So it is good for pitchers to be aware of that number just to illustrate the importance of efficiency.  But if that number were top-of-mind, the pitcher would be more inclined to throw to the heart of the plate all day and this usually turns an average hitting team into a very good hitting team.  To maintain effectiveness, the average HS P must mix speeds and location, work ahead in the count most of the time, be able to hit spots with some regularity and have some movement and/or deception.  Those things are the focus.  As jac said, the quality of the approach will produce the desired results of low pitch count, not a focus on low pitch count itself.  The metric doesn't have to go much further than the running pitch count per inning, number of BB's and balls hit hard.

Regarding hitting - Similarly, if the hitter has a good approach, looking for the right type of pitches depending on the count, adjusting the approach with two strikes, learning pitch recognition, building a sound compact swing, etc., he will be more capable of running up a pitcher's count if the AB dictates.  That's just one way to accomplish a good AB.  Another is to crush a predictable first pitch fastball.

cabbagedad,

Why is it that as soon as anyone even mentions stats, the 1^st thing that comes to many minds is how counter-productive it would be? I ‘d say the same thing if I thought for a second anyone would have that as the foremost thought in their mind prior to throwing a pitch, but I daresay it would take someone of extremely weak mental awareness who would do that, the same way it would be problematic for pitchers to concentrate more on a runner than the batter.

But I really don’t know what the big deal is. All I asked was how anyone who believed there was some validity to the thought that fewer pitches per batter for a pitcher were a good thing, measured it. You’re mental exercise in math is a great theory, but have you ever tested it to see if what you’re saying is what’s happening for the pitchers? I’m not advocating having some sort of contest where the pitcher with the lowest PPBA gets an award! All I’m asking is, what do you do to see if your pitchers are following what you believe should be taking place, and the same for your hitters.

All I see right now is people saying, “We don’t need no stinking stats!”

I'm not sure why. But for some reason I felt compelled to listen to a song I haven't heard in a long time ... Areosmith's, Same Old Song And Dance.

the only goal i have been aware from a pitch count perspective is 15 pitches or less per inning. if you can do that you will a whole lot of ball games.

to say 3 per batter seems silly and short sighted to me.

My RHP kid loves Ks.....especially the backwards kind but he just wants to get out of the inning with no runners on/no runs. Sometimes that works and sometimes he walks a few. Being an infielder too, he loves it when great plays are made behind him. Last year in the elite 8 we faced a n. atlanta team and their whole roster was coached with the QAB concept, they get the pitch they can handle and grind out hits/walks, consequently the starter left earlier than normal. They went on to win both games and we went home.

Stats,

   I never said stats were counterproductive or I didn't believe in theM, I never said I kne everything.  All I said was that I had never heard of a stat called, see as many pitches as you can.  Stats have to have something measurable and "see how many pitches you can see" is not measurable.  We reward our hitters with a quality AB when they see 8+ pitches and take a 0-2/1-2 count and run it to a full count.  I think ther is a relevance to being resilient at the plate when your back is against the wall.  

If it happens it's nice, but it should not be the goal.

Pitcher could wind up throwing too many pitches down the middle just to obtain the goal.  His PPAB could be one, but every one of the ABs is a hit.  Not a good thing.  Here's part of his line.  10 batters faced.  10 pitches, 10 hits, 8 runs, no outs.  He accomplished his goal of having a low PPAB count, but failed in every other measurable that really counts.

Batters may take a lot of pitches, but wind up getting struck out looking because they are trying to extend an AB.  Or they wind up with two quick strikes on them and wind up having to swing at an undesirable pitch because they have not swung at a really good pitch early due to trying to obtain the goal of seeing a lot of pitches.

Low PPAB by a pitcher and seeing as many pitches as possible as a batter are not bad things to have happen, but definitely should not be a goal within itself.

Originally Posted by cabbagedad:

I don't believe anyone said anything about stats being counter-productive, just that the goals you state in your OP would be.

Well, I don’t know how else to interpret you saying But if that number were top-of-mind, the pitcher would be more inclined to throw to the heart of the plate all day and this usually turns an average hitting team into a very good hitting team. It seems to me the 1^st assumption you make is some pitchers will be focused on stats to their detriment. Well, if in fact someone were thinking only of that rather than pitching, and they would then be inclined to do what you said, and the result was what you said it would be, I’d agree. But I wouldn’t even know how to go about proving what a pitcher was thinking, let alone how to figure out why, so it seems to me what you’re doing is making another guess with no proof.

And that’s fine! Heck, we all do it to some degree. But I still fail to see why anyone would see a pitcher wanting to get rid of hitters in 3 pitches or less as counter-productive. I’ve never agreed with the idea that HS hitters should be taking lots of pitches just to run up the count or see more of what the pitcher can throw.

I don't see where anyone is saying it's a big deal.  Folks are just responding to your post with their POV.

How is there a point of view when the question wasn’t asking for one?

"Believed there was some validity to the thought that fewer pitchers per batter were a good thing" is quite a different and softer statement than your original OP - "If you believe a pitcher’s goal should be to get rid of a batter in 3 pitches or less..."

Well, all I can say is you sure seem to be picking a nits, but I’ll accept it.

With pitchers, as I said, we keep them aware of and monitor the running pitch count and they know we will not go beyond what is considered a safe number for them on that day.  We preach hard on first pitch strikes (occasional hitter-specific exceptions), working ahead and minimizing wasted pitches.  We find a direct correlation to pitch count per inning and effectiveness, although there are certainly exception occasions there as well.  We teach that there are situations where weak contact is as effective as trying to K everyone.  Part of the education process is presenting stats such as MLB hitting stats by pitch count, which clearly illustrates the effectiveness of pitching ahead.  We don't use HS numbers for that illustration for reasons that have been beat to death here.

Ok, You monitor the running pitch count. I assume that’s a raw count where you believe say 80 is safe, and when he gets close to that you start watching closer.

How do you measure 1^st pitch strikes, and how do you factor in those “exceptions”? Do you monitor how many pitches are thrown in each count, and how do you show it?

I’d really be interested in seeing how you measure “effectiveness” related to pitch count per inning.

Why is it you don’t use HS numbers and instead use ML numbers? I’ve found more often than not, that the only reason HS numbers aren’t used is because so few people have them, not that they aren’t valid.

I don't see that anywhere either.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I use stats more than you would imagine and I'm pretty sure IEBSBL does as well.  I will say this, however...  These are HS kids and HS coaches.  There are certainly areas where expanded stats and new technology can be helpful but beyond all the usual points about HS stats being too small in sample size, range of competition too wide, biased or incompetent keepers, etc., there is also the POV that things at this level need to be kept reasonably simple to be most effective.

I’m sorry, but I find that paragraph very difficult to come to grips with. You say you use stats more than I can imagine, then say the sample size is too small. And as for the POV that things at the HS level need to be kept simple, why is automatically assumed that using stats suddenly complicates everything, and even if that were true, then why on earth do you use them so much?

I know you think I’m just arguing for the sake of argument, but that’s not true at all! Like so many others, you’re saying two very different things. I honestly believe lots of coaches out there either already use stats in many different ways, or wish they had them in order to use them, but just won’t admit it.

I’ve posted this link before, but this seems like a good spot to post it again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwrW2FWe_rg

As you can easily see, there are lots of different metrics that are very much in the range of being attainable by HS players during their time in HS. The regulars here get 100+PAs in the spring season, 75+ during the summer, and 50+ during the fall. That’s 175-250 a year. So by the time they’ve played 3 years, they’ve got 525-750 PAs, and that more than enough of a sample size for many hitting metrics, and would show a definite tendency for all but a very few.

Unfortunately, how many programs track their players from Fr thru their Sr years? I could do it to a fair degree, but since no one here uses the numbers as drop dead things, using only the V numbers seems to work for our purposes.

Originally Posted by old_school:

the only goal i have been aware from a pitch count perspective is 15 pitches or less per inning. if you can do that you will a whole lot of ball games.

to say 3 per batter seems silly and short sighted to me.

Well, at least on my part none of this has been about pitch counts, but why do you think its silly and shortsighted? All it is to me, is a matter of precision. Pitches per season, pitches per game, pitches per inning, and pitches per batter will all give the same final number. The difference is, by using the most precise, you have the ability to see how the numbers came about.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, where did you come up with 15 pitches per inning as the standard? How do you check your pitchers against your standard?