Hitter's average vs Pitcher's average

bobby vidal 2:

Welcome to the site. Your opinion and related questions might ultimately get a better and more civil reply on the Statistics forum but I will see if I can start something here.

First off, I believe you are giving the modern day pitchers too much credit and the modern day hitters not enough. Baseball has been around a long time [since the mid-1800s no matter which origin myth you believe in]. The .300+ batting average has been a measuring stick for determining the "better" MLB hitters for a long time.

However, it is an undeniable fact that over time the better MLB hitter's seasonal and career averages have declined fairly significantly. There were several players during the first half of the last century that hit .400+ for a season more than once. The last player to hit .400 for a season was Ted Williams in 1941. Though some have flirtd with it during a season since TSW did it [Georg Brett, Tony Gwinn, Ichiro to name the better known] no one has done if for the full season.

There are a variety of "expert" explanations for this some of which I will merely state here but with which I do not necessaily agree. More international players who are taught at youth levels to be free swingers and therefore when they reach the majors strike out a lot more and fail to put the ball in play each at bat; the emphasis on the home run and the RBI by MLB scouts and organizations rather than a runs produced analysis that would more accurately reflect a player's contribution to his team's wins; the evolution of relief pitching where in the old days the starters had more complete games and 30 wins in order to be considered a good pitcher was not unheard of compared to the modern day starter that consistently goes 5 complete innings and is considered a "good, quality starter" by most MLB organizations.

And finally, your most controversial point as it relates to those who post mostly on this forum. Your statements that "most hitters are not disciplined enough to focus on what they cannot do" and "What would happen if hitters took it upon themselves to fill in the holes in their swing or even to find where those holes might be."

Ted Williams wrote a book that included a graph type chart of a strike zone and pointed out that if a pitcher threw a pitch in Ted's portion of the strike zone Ted would hit over .400. But if a pitcher threw a pitch in *for Ted* the pitcher's portion of the strike zone Ted would hit under .200. (The name of the book is The Science of Hitting and I would highly recommend it if you seek more insight in how a great hitter thinks].

Barry Bonds, likely a cheater as to home runs but still not a bad for average MLB hitter, has said that any pitcher can get him out if he just pitches him the right location. The problem is, no pitcher can pitch the right place every pitch he throws and when he doesn't the hitter wins.

The point I am making is very simple. If a hitter is batting below .300 at anything less than the MLB level, he has got some "holes to fill" before he will have great batting average success at the next level. Even if a hitter is batting above .400, he should still work to "find where those holes *in his swing* might be" to prepare for the next level. The first step is to identify those pitches in the strike zone you cannot hit well. Then you might start working on *herein lies the controversy* adjustments to your swing so that you might hit better for average at the next level.

What do you think?

TW344

Quote by TW344: "Ted Williams wrote a book that included a graph type chart of a strike zone and pointed out that if a pitcher threw a pitch in Ted's portion of the strike zone Ted would hit over .400. But if a pitcher threw a pitch in *for Ted* the pitcher's portion of the strike zone Ted would hit under .200. (The name of the book is The Science of Hitting and I would highly recommend it if you seek more insight in how a great hitter thinks]."-End Quote Welcome Bobby Vidal 2 and your knowledge and input is valued here. I believe this is the chart TW344 speaks of and great for instructional purposes. peace, Shep

I have used this graph for 5 or 6 years with the kids I have coached. With the kids who have shown a desire to improve recognize (or have recognized) that without plate discipline, they would get themselves out. All the pitcher had to do was provide the pitch. This chart, combined with a couple of other things, is a great weapon for a hitter.

Mark

I know I'm late on my reply. I'm working out of town and not settled in with an internet connection.

First thing, I do think I was a little strong on the MLB "ego" thing. But I still think there is some limitation imposed on hitters by previous "schools of thought". I noticed on Ted William's chart that there is only 3 and 1/2 pitch locations that would result in a 400 average... right down the middle of the strike zone. I never played minor league baseball, but it seems to me that it's possible to hit some of the other pitches for hits also. Would it be going to far to say that maybe the Ted William's chart is limitting what hitters believe they are capable of accomplishing.
I'd like to hear what Latimer Guerrero thinks about Ted william's chart.

Shepster, thanks for the chart. It gave me some insight on how Ted William's saw things.

And thank You TW344 for welcoming me to this site.

-bobby vidal 2