Hit the ball in the air.

       
       
caco...  no one is arguing against the line drive.  I am sure that is a given with all of us.  The line drive is king.  The question at hand is if you miss should you error on the side of ground ball or fly ball.  And really the original post suggested hitting the ball in the air - this includes line drives!  P.S. you do force me to call BS on you here a little...  my son played with a top notch 9u team that played the best teams from northern illinois including the baseball hotbed from the chicago burbs.  Trust me fly balls were anything but routine even at 9u let alone 8u!

Where is the Sports Science guy when you need him.  

 

So let me give it a whack - I will define a line drive as a ball hit in the air that is less than 20' high from the ground that reaches the outfield on a HS field which I will define as 150' from Home plate.

 

For simplicity the infield is then a 150 square from home plate to 150 feet past first and third and then behind 2nd base.  This is an extremely generous area.  The outfield (again for simplicity is 175+ foot pie shape).  I did not do the math in detail but the outfield is at least 50 percent larger than the infield and has half the defenders.

 

So here is the punch line.  More space defended by fewer players.  Any well hit ball is much more likely to fall in, get through etc.  It is common sense. 

What Kyle wrote made it sound like coaches were instructing kids to hit ground balls, I maintain that wasn't what my kid was taught.

 

As for the ability to catch fly balls...rec ball 8u yeah nearly an automatic free pass to first if you get one really up in the air.  Travel ball 8u/9u...they are there because they can catch and were tired of playing on the teams with the boys who couldn't.  9u was a HUGE adjustment for hitters that had previously banked that if they got it up in the air they would get to first...and things really got exciting when the outfielder not only caught the ball but shot it back to first for a double play on the kid who mistakenly ran to second. 

 

Anyone from another baseball hotbed want to chime in here?  When did the outfield start catching the pop-flys 90+% of the time?

So my question is, are you more likely to get more line drives by telling players to hit the ball in the air or by following Coach May's advice to punch the ball in the face?

 

I would guess the latter.

Either that, or you have the patience of a saint.  I have known the player I mentioned earlier since he was 9.  He's never going to get it, but he's a smart kid and he can contribute in other ways.  If not for those ground balls, he would have never reached base.

Son played on 9U AAU champ in VA.  We started seeing layout catches at that age from the top tier.  Anything you'd consider routine was caught.  Line drives were a matter of getting there.  You'd see the occasional bad route but these kids instincts were really good.

The ball that was the last one to become fairly routine was the line drive right at them.  Especially sliced balls.  Saw more than one Right Fielder break toward the gap only to have the ball twist toward the line and have him spun around.  At 9U you'd see about half get eaten up by that.  Took until 11 for almost all outfielders to become proficient at freezing, opening and reading that ball off the bat.

 

When you played a weak team the most obvious difference was in the outfield play.  If flares dropped, hits didn't get picked up cleanly etc.  it could get very ugly.  Bad teams might have a solid arm or two and even a competent middle infield but the corner outfielders were usually terrible. 

We played against the Frosh programs of at least 7-8 schools ranked in the top 30 in California. Outfield defense was seemingly the LAST thing these kids were taught. Many of these coaches seem to use the OF as a place to stash their bats, defense be damned. Infielders overwhelmingly made plays against us, OF was an adventure. 

 

Its a reason HS stats can be so deceiving. Many kids on our team have batting averages / slugging % .50-100 points lower if these kids in the OF took their first step back and had a clue how to run a good route. It was like Little League all over again, but at the high school level. Was shocking to watch - and we are playing in the middle of the hotbed of talent. 

Facts are facts.  At most levels: fly balls are outs & ground balls are outs.  Line drive are hits 70% of the time.  So focus on the line drives.   

Exactly.  Pick a pitch and square it up, barrel it up, hit it in the face, knock the snot out of it -- whatever you want to call it -- just hit the ball hard and the results will take care of themselves.

Certainly the latter although the ground will slow it up and their are more fielders per area as luvbaseball mentions above.

Also a less than hard hit ball (not meaning a popup or lazy fly ball) has a much better chance of becoming a hit in the air than on the ground.

I see my kid mash it in the ground with no luck, yet put a softer uppercut swing and gets the barrel on it in the air, and it is a nice line drive over the infield. 

My advice. Lay off the low pitches and become a better hitter.

And of course mash it as coachMay says

Teaching some kids to hit the ball on the ground is not "teaching the wrong way to do things." It's maximizing your hand. I've got some kids that have zero pop but play great defense. I've got one kid that's all speed but no pop. These kids need to put the ball in play in a variety of ways to try and get on base. They're not going to play college baseball, but they can be big contributors in high school, so why not maximize their game for that level? 

 

HS teams are made with 6-9 in the lineup. My goal with some kids is to find their way on so the mashers can drive them in, or we can steal bases, or we can put pressure on the defense/pitchers. We talk about the fact that teaching all kids the same mechanics is ridiculous, so is teaching them all the same approach.

 

If you want to teach your 6-9 to try and straight mash, even when they can't, and when they nut a ball it's a mediocre F7, so be it. I just see how that's beneficial to the team.

 

I teach kids to do what gives them the best chance to succeed at this level, and whatever the highest level they hope to play will be, but I'm also realistic about talents.

       
       
Disagree completely.  And I can't help but notice a lot of 'I' in there.  It's not about what will help 'me' win more games.  My goal should be to get everyone ready for the next level.  Whole I realize they won't all get there its still my goal.  Same way I wouldn't teach a kid to be a tricky soft tosser.  Got to work on mechanics and chase the almighty mph.  If it doesn't happen for them at least I will know I tried.  And honestly if you are incapable of hitting a line drive how can you possibly be playing high school baseball??  Whatever anyone else does is their business.   I will never encourage kids to beat the ball in the ground.

You make a good point. Not all kids are capable of driving the ball into the gaps or over the fence.

 

But the flip side, favored by quite a few baseball folks -- and what I think many on this thread are rebelling against -- is just as bad: having everyone trying to hit the ball on the ground.

 

It's the same thing with bunts. Some coaches have everyone bunt, when there are some kids who should almost never bunt. Funny story on that topic from a few years ago: CA Southern Section Division 1 baseball game, a power-hitting first baseman, no. 3 in the lineup/four-year varsity starter (who now plays for a PAC-12 school), gets the bunt sign from the head coach with runners on second and third and two outs. Maybe the coach thought they'd catch the defense napping . . . who knows? Anyway, he dutifully bunts and is thrown out at first. Inning over. The hitter heads back to the dugout and the team's hitting coach, with a big smile on his face, jokes to the hitter: "Don't you know you're supposed to bunt that foul?!"

Just checked my twitter...  what did I see?

And at what point in that young mans career do You decide that he is just a lost cause? He's never going to be a hitter so I'm going to maximize my chances of winning at the expense of his development. Don't throw the ball run it back in. Don't worry about actually learning how to hit. We just need to teach you to not to strike out. When do You make that choice for that kid? 

 

That mentality is why we have so many kids limited by coaches who are more concerned with winning today that the can't kids when tomorrow. You get a possible higher winning percentage. The player gets short changed for your gain. If your strong enough to hit a ground ball your strong enough to hit a line drive. 

When it comes to production, I look at OBP more so than AVE. Runners turn into runs. Getting on base by error is equal to getting on with a base hit imo. I keep it simple and tell them to wait for a pitch they can drive. Ground ball? Fly ball? I don't concern myself with it as long as it's hot. They tend to get the mental edge the next AB. FWIW, when I'm in the 3rd base coach's box, I do verbally suggest "line drive". Just a reminder what we are trying to accomplish majority of AB's. This simply one coach's opinion.

Coach May, I have great respect for your opinions and contributions on this site. That said, I can tell you I have both coached and watched this player since day one of his baseball life. He enjoys the game and loves playing with his friends, but he is an inferior hitter. He plays on a varsity team that fields 12 total players. Twice this season they have played with 10 (and won both games)

This young man is a senior and will be definitely successful at his next level....but it won't be baseball. He knows it and has no issues with it. His teammates and coaches respect any contribution he makes in the game. The fact that he can't hit does not detract from his place on the team.

Not sure if you caught the part about my throwing BP after practice for those that want to hit (I've done this for the past 10 years), but this young man stopped coming years ago. He just didn't see the point and, quite frankly, had other interests. When that happens, you have to move on and deal with what's left.

The coach of my son's team is the longest tenured coach in our area. He is respected by many, hated by a few, and he has never had a losing record. He has also never had more than 16 rostered players. He always manages to maximize his team by utilizing every kid's strengths and masking their weaknesses. He doesn't need to apologize for that to me, or anybody else for that matter.

So anyway, that's my two cents. Take care and have a great night.

       
       
I am even more puzzled now...  if the kid gave up trying years ago why is he playing?  This makes no sense to me.  I don't care if (and I have a hard time believing this) he gives you a better chance to win based upon whatever it is he CAN do.  I would never play a kid who has given up.  Would much rather play a kid who works hard and wants to succeed in all aspects of the game.  And by the way not being able to hit at all AND not.being willing to work at it would definitely detract from his position on my team.

       
       
If you are going that route perhaps woba would be better.  But I still like BA at the youth and high school level and I will tell you why.  There are a lot of bad pitchers out there and if you wait them out - especially if you can foul a couple off - you will get that walk.  Many soft hitters do just that.  But when you face good pitching they disappear.   Then you depend on the kids who can actually hit!

Originally Posted by 2020dad:

If you are going that route perhaps woba would be better.  But I still like BA at the youth and high school level and I will tell you why.  There are a lot of bad pitchers out there and if you wait them out - especially if you can foul a couple off - you will get that walk.  Many soft hitters do just that.  But when you face good pitching they disappear.   Then you depend on the kids who can actually hit!

 

I by woba you mean Weighted on Base Average, I disagree. The main reason is because the factors used are ML factors, and from past experience using ML metrics using such factors I’ve found they just don’t work well for lower levels. Why not simply use OPS, or even better RBA? If you’re looking to see which hitters are actually being productive, use Clint Hurdle’s productivity chart, and if you’re looking to see which hitters are moving runners, use MRUs.

 

As for BA, it never has been and never will be a good metric when compared to others, no matter what the level.

Haha when I'm talking about how I teach, it's the only pronoun I can use. And I (we? us? you guys?) am not talking about teaching a kid to simply beat the ball into the ground. As a matter of fact we teach the opposite, although it's a little more specific than "hit the ball in the air," but that's the goal. My point is that teaching every kid to "turn and burn and let the chips fall where they may" is no more right to me than teaching some kids that putting the ball in play is better than taking a 2-0 swing every pitch. That's my point. Sorry I couldn't clean up my pronoun usage to make you believe I'm a team player more.

 

And you might want to count the "I"s in your own post. 

 

 

       
       
My point was not so much about the pronoun and more about it should be our goal to teach the right things to every kid regardless of how well they are currently doing rather than compromising their future for our win...  thus the 'I' comment.  Perhaps I could have been more clear.  And I mean that sincerely I was probably not clear on what I was trying to convey.

       
       
Well that is your OPINION and you have a right to it.  I still disagree and I think I gave a pretty good reason why.  That having been said the other thing we need to keep in mind is that these seasons are short and as has been suggested here before sometimes no metric is good cause of too small a sample size.  Sometimes the eye test is still best at these levels.  I think i have a pretty good feel for who can hit and who can't on our team and I doubt I would be swayed much by a 10 game sample size.

Welcome to small town baseball.  12 total kids on the Varsity roster.  JV has forfeited at least once that I know of, because they couldn't field enough players for a team.  This HS has never had a freshman team.

 

Gotta have nine to play coach.  You want the "best" nine out there.  The kid isn't a good hitter, but he can hold down an outfield corner.  You do the best with what you have.

Hey, how 'bout we get back to the subject?

 

I started my comments based on a posting somebody else made and I think we all kind of hijacked the thread.  Apologies to the original poster.  For the record, I am a big proponent of hitting the ball in the air (I count line drives in this category) and hitting it "in the mouth".

Originally Posted by 2020dad:

Well that is your OPINION and you have a right to it.  I still disagree and I think I gave a pretty good reason why.  That having been said the other thing we need to keep in mind is that these seasons are short and as has been suggested here before sometimes no metric is good cause of too small a sample size.  Sometimes the eye test is still best at these levels.  I think i have a pretty good feel for who can hit and who can't on our team and I doubt I would be swayed much by a 10 game sample size.

 

Your reason is “there are a lot of bad pitchers out there”, so you can get away with a lot of things you can’t against good pitchers, so you need to depend on kids that ‘can actually hit”? Well how does wOBA pick out who can actually hit, any better than any of the metrics I mentioned?

 

Sample size, smanple size! If the scorer’s any good, the numbers accurately reflect what’s taken place, regardless of the sample size, and I’d be large sums your “feel” isn’t nearly as accurate. The problem isn’t which metric is used or what the sample size was, the problem’s that most people like yourself won’t define the criteria they use so others can see what kind of job they’re doing.

 

For example. If you really believe the “eye test” is still best, then make a metric of it so everyone can see how the measurement is being made and how they’re doing. Then you don’t have to use anything else or worry about the sample size.

Originally Posted by GHHS-2016LHP:

…For the record, I am a big proponent of hitting the ball in the air (I count line drives in this category) and hitting it "in the mouth".

 

What metric do you use to measure that? Can you post an example? And what do you do with the information?

Sorry Stats, I left my protractor in my other pocket protector.

       
       
I see you woke up on the wrong side of the bed again stats!  'People like me' know that a couple weeks of games even a full high school season really is still a small sample size.  Even with master statsmen like yourself a small sample size by any other name is still a small sample size!  And yes stats even your thoughts are still just opinions as much as you would like to think they are absolutes!

Please never take a post from me as an attack on you or anyone else. I apologize if my posts or a post comes off this way. I respect everyone's opinion and their right to voice it. My approach to hitting is no different than my approach to fielding. Or running the bases. Or any part of the game of baseball. For instance. You can teach kids to field the baseball in a standard way. They will probably make less errors. They will probably get to less balls to make errors on. But it's much easier to teach. It doesn't take as much athletic ability to do. Get in front of the ball, reach, bend, gator, transfer, step and throw. Or you can teach your players to be athletic players who play through the baseball. Attack, glove, transfer and throw. One approach is safer. Allows for more routine plays to be made without errors "initially." That will never transfer to the next level. That will never allow the player to be the best he could have been. The other approach will. You just have to be willing to live with the growing pains. Be willing to actually teach it. Like base running. You can micro manage the game from the 3B box. Teach your players to watch you. Or teach them to run the bases as their own coach. Learning to read gloveside throws, backhand throws, hard approaches, soft approaches, ball in front of you, ball behind you, etc. That split second where they are waiting for you to tell them what to do vs them making the call based on experience of having to make the calls.

 

What we are talking about here is taking a kid and teaching him to produce ground balls vs teaching him how to actually hit. Why would you do that? Because hitting ground balls produces more opportunities to win at the level you are playing. Because it's easier for a kid to just put the ball in play than it is to teach him how to actually hit. Now at what point does a player reach the point where he is that guy? When he is a freshman in HS? When he is the scrub on the 12u team? When he is the little kid on the 9u team? Oh your fast and you have no power if you just learn how to slap it in the dirt you will reach much more than if you try to crush it.

 

My point is that you can take a kid with the same amount of ability and teach him to attempt to produce line drives just as easily as you can attempt to teach him to produce ground balls. It's crazy to me. We have coaches teaching QAB mentality to 9u players. See pitches. Don't swing on 2-0 3-1 counts. Work BB's. Take HBP. Foul it off and work counts. And the kid learns how to actually hit when?

 

Hitting is not a job. "Do your job." I get so sick of hearing this at the youth and HS levels. It's not a job. It should be the most fun part of the game. Get up there and look to mash the baseball. Have some fun. Hunt a pitch. Hunt the pitcher. Hammer a mistake. But now it's a passive approach being taught these young kids all in the name of giving us a better opportunity to win the game. So when do they actually learn how to hit the freaking baseball?

 

Fouling off cock shots and taking balls and getting rewarded by the coach for a QAB is BS. Teaching kids to just put the ball in play is BS. Teaching kids to squat on ground balls because you don't want them to make errors harkens back to the days of teaching outfielders to take a knee and keep the ball in front. Play the freaking game. Attack the game. Hit the ball in the face. Throw the freaking ball. I would rather you throw it in the stands than bounce it out of fear. I would rather you K looking to mash than hit a routine gb on a weak as s swing because you were afraid you were going to K.

 

Now maybe I could won a few more games. But my players wouldn't have been who they were. And they sure wouldn't have had as much fun. And I can live with that. All day long. Now that is just my opinion. It's not an attack. And I certainly won't take any negative responses as an attack on me. I believe in teaching players to hunt the game. Attack the game. Run as fast as you can. Throw it as hard as you can. Hit it as far and hard as you can. And have some fun. That is all.

This needs to be on a poster in my son's HS locker room.

http://www.hittingmental.com/2...-should-hitters.html

 

This is the basic idea we've stolen and tweaked and what we teach. Hitting the ball in the air is too generic to me for all kids to grasp. We track ball flights. The balls that are mashed are usually 5,6,7s. Some 4s as well. Overall this is our entire approach to what we want to do with a ball. 

 

To continue the debate, we do have cases where we can live with other approaches. I have a kid that is going to school on a track scholarship next year. 6.31 60yd. He excels hitting groundballs to the left side and bunting for a hit. He then steals 2b. Freak show fast. He still squares up line drives as well, that's what we want. But I would much rather him err on the groundball side of the equation as his "pop" is minimal, and a deep F7 is his max potential.

 

Sure, I could get him in the cages and try and rebuild and do different things, but the reality of it is, in the time I have to spend with him (8 hours a week max by rule divided by 60 kids), this is the approach that works best. His extra time is dedicated to track for the most part. It's just the way it's worked out, and he and I and the team are fine with how he plays.

 

So while I agree with all that's been said about teaching kids to straight rake, there are exceptions to almost every aspect of baseball, barring only a few. 

For a minute there, I thought you were going to start quoting Crash Davis (right before he left Annie's house that first night).

 

Believe me coach, I'm neither offended nor put-off by your postings....quite the opposite.  It's a message board and a place where baseball folks to go exchange ideas/help each other out.  If you're ever in my neck of the woods, stop on by.  The beer is always cold, the pool is always clear and the company ain't half bad.

Originally Posted by GHHS-2016LHP:

Sorry Stats, I left my protractor in my other pocket protector.

 

Waddaya need a protractor for? All ya need is a piece of paper and a pencil. Divide the paper into 3 columns. Write the player’s names in the 1^st column, mark plate appearance at the top of the 2^nd column, and Balls in the Air at the top of the 3^rd column. When if a player has a plate appearance, put a mark in column 2, and if he hits it in the air put a mark in column 3.

 

When you’re done you’ll have an accurate list of which players are doing the best job according to your standards.

I love to read your post, always so insightful at many levels. Already saved this one. You should write a book on all these threads that you comment on. It would be a great resource for coaches to rely on. 

If only some of those kids could have been coached by Coach May.

Maybe they wouldn't have quit or become one dimensional.

Maybe they would have become the best they could have been.

Maybe they would've all gone pro.

Originally Posted by 2020dad:

I see you woke up on the wrong side of the bed again stats!  'People like me' know that a couple weeks of games even a full high school season really is still a small sample size.  Even with master statsmen like yourself a small sample size by any other name is still a small sample size!  And yes stats even your thoughts are still just opinions as much as you would like to think they are absolutes!

 

Didn’t wake up on the wrong side of the bed at all. I’m just saying that if the sample size accurately portrays what took place, it doesn’t matter if it’s small or large. It’s what people do with it that matters. If someone is ignorant enough to try to project what a 16YO player will be when he’s 24 based on any sample size, that’s their problem. However, if someone has set his standards and is looking to see who’s doing the best job of meeting them, it doesn’t matter if the sample number of PAs is 1 or a million.

 

I’m very aware that my thoughts are only opinions, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. What you’re trying to say is that your “eye test” is a better measurement than the data coming from any sample size. That amounts to saying the only valid sample size is one taken after a player is finished playing.

 

It may seem to you as though I’m angry about something, but actually it’s only that I’m sick and tired of people throwing out small sample size as a reason to ignore facts when they have no sample size at all to even consider, then attack me because I actually have some data to consider. I keep waiting for you to define what “good hitter” is so I can test your theory. For all you know, what you’re saying is true, no matter what the sample size, but you’re so reluctant to actually define what it is you believe in terms that can be measured no matter what the sample size is.

 

Have courage! I’m not out to make you look good or bad! All I’m trying to do is find out how much merit there it to what you’re positing. Personally, I’d love to give our HC another metric he could use to evaluate his players objectively.

I've always been a supporter of the line drive or "hitting the middle half of the ball". A couple years ago I spent time watching MLB games charting swings in a completely unscientific (feet up with a beer, clip board and pencil) study. My criteria were simply: was the swing under the ball (including complete misses, pop ups, fly balls most home runs etc), on top of the ball (again complete misses, fouls, ground balls foul and ground balls fair) or in the middle of the ball (line drives). After several games the results showed 60% of swings were under the ball. The remaining 40% was pretty evenly split between on top and in the middle.

An extreme example came during a Brewers game. The first batter of the inning steps up and his first swing results in a pop foul out of play. His next swing is a repeat. 3rd swing the same and his 4th swing results in yet another pop foul only this is playable and caught by the catcher. 4 swings all under the ball resulting in an out. The next guy comes up and essentially does the same thing only he pops the the ball up on 5 straight swings resulting in an out when the 5th pop foul was also caught by the catcher. The numbers: 2 batters. 9 swings. 9 pop fouls. 2 outs.

I thought about this and came away with the following. The balls were at different heights during swings and yet these guys were good enough to consistently swing "under" the ball. So my question was if they are skilled enough to make that adjustment why can't they make another adjustment and hit the ball consistently in the middle? Or are they so dialed in that hitting under for them was automatic?

Again, theses 2 guys are an extreme example but interesting to say the least.

 

Or maybe I should create my own algorithm....