To help a super aggressive swinger become more patient, or a super patient swinger become more aggressive? Think HS age as opposed to 10 or 11U
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I think to answer that question, you have to drill down at least one level with the "why". Why is the aggressive swinger aggressive? Because that is his intentional approach or because he doesn't recognize very well or isn't the type of hitter who can think situationally? Is the patient swinger this way because he has a great eye and/or good situational awareness or because he is unsure, not fully confident or generally not a take-control competitor (not aggressive by nature)? Or does this player put a high premium or focus on drawing walks? Also, sometimes, the approach is due to instruction/advice/demand from previous coaches. Also, what level of success do they have with their approaches? With both, the cause behind the approach will dictate how difficult it is to coax adjustment.
How's that for a long non-answer? 
There are plenty of ways to work either toward optimal but you have to know what is behind the approach.
Stafford posted:
To help a super aggressive swinger become more patient, or a super patient swinger become more aggressive? Think HS age as opposed to 10 or 11U
A few years back I was asked to come up with a way to show aggressiveness/patience using pitches per PA and AB as the measure. Please see page 1 of attachment.
Shortly thereafter the same person asked me to only look at aggressiveness on 1st pitches. Please see page 2 of attachment. Not much after that he asked me to try to show it in some other very specific situations. Please see page 3 of attachment.
So how are you defining a “super aggressive swinger” as opposed to one who’s an aggressive swinger, an average swinger, a patient swinger, or a super patient swinger?
Attachments
Files (1)
Super aggressive would probably be Vlad Guerrero, but that's probably not the best example. Super aggressive to me would mean swinging at any pitch that was in or very close to the zone, regardless of pitch type.
The super patient batter only looks for fastballs in a particular zone until two strikes are on him. Only then will he expand the zone or swing at offspeed. Regularly goes deep in the count, and will sometimes walk or K without swinging.
Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
PGStaff posted:Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
No
PGStaff posted:Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
No as well
And there's no such thing as a great oppo hitter
Everyday Dad posted:PGStaff posted:Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
No as well
And there's no such thing as a great oppo hitter
you lost me here brother, most great hitters use the whole field...IMO.
old_school posted:Everyday Dad posted:PGStaff posted:Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
No as well
And there's no such thing as a great oppo hitter
you lost me here brother, most great hitters use the whole field...IMO.
I'll just put it this way. I'll agree, good hitters use the whole field. But great hitters pull predominantly.
Everyday Dad posted:PGStaff posted:Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
No as well
And there's no such thing as a great oppo hitter
This statement is interesting enough to merit it's own thread, IMO. I'd sorta like to see it separated as both this and the OP are interesting questions/statements to discuss.
Stafford posted:
Super aggressive would probably be Vlad Guerrero, but that's probably not the best example. Super aggressive to me would mean swinging at any pitch that was in or very close to the zone, regardless of pitch type.
The super patient batter only looks for fastballs in a particular zone until two strikes are on him. Only then will he expand the zone or swing at offspeed. Regularly goes deep in the count, and will sometimes walk or K without swinging.
So the act of swinging combined with the proximity of the pitch to the strike zone is the determining factor?
Everyday Dad posted:old_school posted:Everyday Dad posted:PGStaff posted:Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
No as well
And there's no such thing as a great oppo hitter
you lost me here brother, most great hitters use the whole field...IMO.
I'll just put it this way. I'll agree, good hitters use the whole field. But great hitters pull predominantly.
I would disagree. I could see where the majority of great power hitters are pull hitters, but most great hitters would let the pitch determine where they would hit the ball.
The key is in both cases pitch recognition. A batter should always want to swing and not take pitches. The approach should be yes, yes, yes, no.
If a player is too passive he either has the intention to take the pitch before it is released or he is not reading it correctly as a hittable pitch.
And if he is too aggressive he is not seeing that it is a bad pitch. Don't forget that a hitter only tracks the ball until about 20 feet before it reaches the plate, the rest is extrapolating the final 20. The hard part is not the pitch tracking (although with many beginner players it is) or the vision but the extrapolating job of the brain.
You can train that by seeing a lot of pitches but even at the pro level many never learn it. So I would say you can improve it within some natural limits.
Ideally a hitter takes bad pitches and hits fat ones but if you don't have the best eye better slightly err on the too aggressive side. You want to eliminate the real bad chases like a foot outside the zone but generally if you teach a hitter without good pitch recognition to work the count that will lead to a high obp in little league but to letting hittable pitches going by and falling behind against better pitching.
So if you want to improve don't teach working the count but practice recognizing pitches. If your hitter is too aggresive see were he chases the most and eliminate that one side first. For example if he chases high throw him high pitches and mark a spot 20 feet away. But a marker there how high a letter high pitch is (with a broom stick) and then mark a belt high pitch. Then have a pitcher throw belt and letter high pitches so that the batter learns how a good and a bad pitch looks from 20 feet. You can also do the same with low or in out pitches.
PGStaff posted:Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
Marco Scutaro.
Without knowing where the pitches swung at were, does the attached at least give an indication of which hitters were the most aggressive?
Attachments
Files (1)
old_school posted:
Are you implying anyone of those is a passive hitter? They might have a good eye but each of those guys swings at least at 2/3rd of all pitches in the zone and probably more in non 0-0 or 3-0 counts.
A passive hitter is a guy that takes called strikes, laying off bad pitches is not passive.
If you want to be good take balls and swing at strikes unless they are at the very corners of the zone.
Dominik85 posted:old_school posted:Are you implying anyone of those is a passive hitter? They might have a good eye but each of those guys swings at least at 2/3rd of all pitches in the zone and probably more in non 0-0 or 3-0 counts.
A passive hitter is a guy that takes called strikes, laying off bad pitches is not passive.
If you want to be good take balls and swing at strikes unless they are at the very corners of the zone.
no passive hitting is virtually never the best option, but they are guys who use the whole field. somewhere above there was a conversation on pulling the ball is what great hitters do...I disagree completely. There is place to pull the ball and it should happen but great hitters IMO swing early in counts with the pitch they are looking for and use the whole field...often times with power.
Everyday Dad posted:PGStaff posted:Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
No as well
And there's no such thing as a great oppo hitter
That is not really true. Most power hitters have a slight pull tendency because they pull inside pitches and also pull middle pitches instead of hitting them up the middle but guys who pull everything are usually not that productive.
The best hitters are usually 40% pull, 35 middle, 25 oppo or so. So slight pull tendency but not a lot, but also consider that mlb pitchers throw outside a lot and a hard and low outside fastball is almost impossible to pull.
There are some extreme pull hitters though but they are usually low average hitters that get shifted a lot. They crowd the plate and hook the outside pitch.
Jose bautista is a good example of this he pulls almost 50% of his balls in play.
Trout and cabrera for example however have no pull tendency at all, they are basically one third each. They can turn an inside pitch but otherwise go with the pitch.
Hitters that can't pull at all are in trouble though.
It's a great discussion, but y'all keep talking about MLB players, and the best ones at that. How does the discussion translate to HSBB, and how can the players needing help be identified?
Well, I figger that is actually a good point y'all are makin' thar, Scorekeep.
Back to the original question, who is easier to help. I would say the aggressive hitter, as chances are he's the more skilled hitter. If nothing else, he's got confidence he can hit the ball. The passive hitter is often afraid to fail.
I see many more kids having a problem with being overly passive in high school ball than I do those being overly aggressive. It may be that's because more of the latter group are highly skilled than the members of the former group. Just a guess. And there are a couple things that tend to inflate the numbers of the "too passive" group. 1 - with all due respect to our Blue Brethren here at HSBW, too many HS Umps suck, and in many cases the passive group is getting penalized for having a better sense of the strike zone than the PU. (Though you can make the case they these players need to adjust to the umpire.) 2 - HS kids are generally coached to lay off soft stuff and swing at fastballs only until they have 2 strikes, and a kid can look awfully passive going to 0-2 while watching 2 slow curves drop float thru the zone for strikes. At the upper levels, hitters will sit on that pitch and hammer it.
Through the course of the thread, the OP has been "lost in translation". "Patient" has evolved into "passive".
Big difference.
You're right. In that case, maybe there is nothing to fix.
Interesting topic. Patient to passive is a sliding continuum, with "patient" equated with being effective and "passive" equated with being ineffective.
Sticking to the OP, I'd say that, in general, it is easier to "help" an aggressive, SKILLED hitter be more effectively patient...but even that takes time. An aggressive, unskilled hitter will likely fare more poorly. To anecdotally illustrate my point:
One local, outstanding HS with a premier reputation (I say this because I think it helps local umpires "go along" with their approach to hitting and calling balls and strikes) for being patient at the plate. Most years, I'd say all but their top 2-3 hitters take pitches until they get 1-2 strikes or a really fat pitch to hit. It is a team-wide approach and VERY EFFECTIVE and often emulated in-game, which never seems to work. One key outcome is that they "burn-through" the starter pretty quickly, who is often the best pitcher of the opposing team given most teams aren't as good as them. And if the opposing team only has 1 good pitcher available, the wheels come off quickly.
A skilled patient hitter probably knows when to get more aggressive, such as a huge/variable or a dominating pitcher with great put-away pitches (jump on an early FB). A relatively unskilled passive hitter has to work on pitch recognition and developing confidence in their swing.
As I noted earlier, I love discussions like this one simply for the sake of discussion. But sooner or later unless a discussion like this can be used to help improve individual players or the team, it’s of little real value. Of course there are experienced and knowledgeable people out there who can take a look at a hitter and with just that one look determine if he’s aggressive or patient and if he needs coaching to help him improve. But what about that inexperienced coach or parent who need more than one look because they don’t have the ability to tell a patient hitter from an aggressive one or if it’s causing them problems?
FI, how about a 1st year 12U HC who’s undoubtedly busier than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking-chairs? There’s little doubt at least 1 hitter on the team will be a patient hitter whose patience is holding him back, and at least 1 whose aggression is hurting him. With all the other things an inexperienced coach has to deal with, is it possible there’s a way he can use readily available statistics to at least identify who the patient and aggressive hitters are, if not tell who is having that patience or aggression translate into problems?
When I say “readily available” I’m talking about things like pitches per PA that can easily be found even if only paper and pencil are used, up to things like pitches contacted which almost all scoring programs can provide. Of course there are many other metrics available for ML teams, but if they aren’t available to that new HC they really don’t help him at all.
Everyday Dad posted:PGStaff posted:Is there such a thing as a great non aggressive hitter?
No as well
And there's no such thing as a great oppo hitter
You obviously didn't see me in the corporate slow pitch softball league.
Many of the greatest hitters are both aggressive and patient. Those two things go together well.
Kind of like looking for a good steak on the grill. You can be patient while looking them over, but when you find the one you want, you annihilate it.
Guess too much of anything, aggressive or patient, can get in the way. I like to think in terms of controlled aggression. That is something that kind of explains the act of hitting a baseball.IMO
Stats4Gnats posted:As I noted earlier, I love discussions like this one simply for the sake of discussion. But sooner or later unless a discussion like this can be used to help improve individual players or the team, it’s of little real value. Of course there are experienced and knowledgeable people out there who can take a look at a hitter and with just that one look determine if he’s aggressive or patient and if he needs coaching to help him improve. But what about that inexperienced coach or parent who need more than one look because they don’t have the ability to tell a patient hitter from an aggressive one or if it’s causing them problems?
FI, how about a 1st year 12U HC who’s undoubtedly busier than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking-chairs? There’s little doubt at least 1 hitter on the team will be a patient hitter whose patience is holding him back, and at least 1 whose aggression is hurting him. With all the other things an inexperienced coach has to deal with, is it possible there’s a way he can use readily available statistics to at least identify who the patient and aggressive hitters are, if not tell who is having that patience or aggression translate into problems?
When I say “readily available” I’m talking about things like pitches per PA that can easily be found even if only paper and pencil are used, up to things like pitches contacted which almost all scoring programs can provide. Of course there are many other metrics available for ML teams, but if they aren’t available to that new HC they really don’t help him at all.
It doesn't take a genius or brilliant coach to recognize, after a short period of time, a young player who is super aggressive or super patient. And, if a coach is that new or inexperienced that he can't recognize this, it would be highly unlikely that he could properly interpret any set of numbers on a spreadsheet and then act upon it with relevant, helpful coaching techniques. Later, at a level when everyone involved has a reasonable level of advanced baseball competency, then those numbers may be useful as an added tool to compliment/confirm/bring to question what that coach/staff is already seeing and acting on.
There are plenty of teaches to address either. Like I said in my previous post, the key is determining why, what type of aggressive or patient, and finding out what the hitter's thought process is. There are plenty of drills and instructions to improve pitch recognition, strike zone awareness, proper count/situation awareness, mental approach, focus, etc. Of course, having the right swing mechanics and physical skill set to allow one to succeed against the opponent's pitching is a necessity as well.
Exactly, and I don't think there was any mention of using metrics in the OP. Using Stats' FI of a 12yo coach, when I coached at that level we had almost 6 weeks of practice before opening day, followed by just 16 regular season games. Clearly any coach waiting on statistics before figuring out which hitters needed help with what would be guilty of grievous coaching malfeasance.
cabbagedad posted:It doesn't take a genius or brilliant coach to recognize, after a short period of time, a young player who is super aggressive or super patient. And, if a coach is that new or inexperienced that he can't recognize this, it would be highly unlikely that he could properly interpret any set of numbers on a spreadsheet and then act upon it with relevant, helpful coaching techniques. Later, at a level when everyone involved has a reasonable level of advanced baseball competency, then those numbers may be useful as an added tool to compliment/confirm/bring to question what that coach/staff is already seeing and acting on.
There are plenty of teaches to address either. Like I said in my previous post, the key is determining why, what type of aggressive or patient, and finding out what the hitter's thought process is. There are plenty of drills and instructions to improve pitch recognition, strike zone awareness, proper count/situation awareness, mental approach, focus, etc. Of course, having the right swing mechanics and physical skill set to allow one to succeed against the opponent's pitching is a necessity as well.
No, it doesn’t take a genius to recognize one of those hitter types, but your assumption that all coaches and all parents look for that seems very optimistic to me, and that goes for a great many things someone experienced would see or look for. It’s a bit difficult to apply coaching techniques when you don’t know there’s something there that might require that coaching. That’s why I firmly believe having those numbers available can be an enormous help. I think sometimes you very experienced coaches and parents forget what it was like when you weren’t very experienced. 
I think for a prospect it is way better to be too aggressive. Scouts do consider approach and an advanced approach gets a plus but still talented hitters with no plate discipline or a plan at the plate get drafted high because teams think they can fix that.
Longenhagen of fangraphs gets asked a ton why there isn't a grade for plate discipline and he always says that the amateur level is too different to evaluate patience.
Thus plate discipline is usually a side note on the hit tool like "hit tool plays up due to advanced approach" or vice versa "raw free swinging approach needs improvement".
JCG posted: Exactly, and I don't think there was any mention of using metrics in the OP. Using Stats' FI of a 12yo coach, when I coached at that level we had almost 6 weeks of practice before opening day, followed by just 16 regular season games. Clearly any coach waiting on statistics before figuring out which hitters needed help with what would be guilty of grievous coaching malfeasance.
What difference does it make whether metrics were mentioned in the op?
It seems to me that your idea of what metrics are is extremely limited. It also seems to me that you believe unless a metric is normalized by a large sample it’s not valid.
If you can identify something by eye it can also be identified by metrics, as long as it can be defined and tracked. Why do you think there’d be “waiting on statistics “?
Dominik85 posted:
I think for a prospect it is way better to be too aggressive. Scouts do consider approach and an advanced approach gets a plus but still talented hitters with no plate discipline or a plan at the plate get drafted high because teams think they can fix that.
Longenhagen of fangraphs gets asked a ton why there isn't a grade for plate discipline and he always says that the amateur level is too different to evaluate patience.
Thus plate discipline is usually a side note on the hit tool like "hit tool plays up due to advanced approach" or vice versa "raw free swinging approach needs improvement".
Why is plate discipline more difficult to determine for amateurs than professionals? How is it determined for professionals?
But here I am once again wondering how an amateur parent or coach is supposed to work on a problem in this area if there’s no way to identify it as a problem.
Let me provide a situational description. Patient hitter is now asked to pinch hit with runners on. You don't want the patient hitter to walk in this situation. He makes good contact and has some power.
If this player is starting, and getting 4 AB's per game, he is patient, hits ball in the zone he is looking for, goes deep in the count, takes walks, and sometimes goes an entire AB without swinging (sometimes walks sometimes K's).
But in a one AB situation, you want this kid to take a hack at the first fastball he sees in the zone. His nature and approach is to be patient, but that is not what you want in this situation.
Is the player behind him an automatic out who can't be subbed out? Otherwise I don't see what's wrong with a walk in that situation, though it's not specific enough.
Runners 1st and 2nd, nobody out, early in the game: a walk is a great outcome.
Runners 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, late in the game: yeah, you want the kid to be aggressive and take his hacks.
Stafford posted: Let me provide a situational description. Patient hitter is now asked to pinch hit with runners on. You don't want the patient hitter to walk in this situation. He makes good contact and has some power.
If this player is starting, and getting 4 AB's per game, he is patient, hits ball in the zone he is looking for, goes deep in the count, takes walks, and sometimes goes an entire AB without swinging (sometimes walks sometimes K's).
But in a one AB situation, you want this kid to take a hack at the first fastball he sees in the zone. His nature and approach is to be patient, but that is not what you want in this situation.
Thanx for giving us something to use for context.
I hope I’m reading this correctly. Please allow me to paraphrase. You’re saying he’s “patient” because he sees lots of pitches(pitches per PA), draws more walks than the average player on the team, and doesn’t swing at a high percentage of pitches he sees(number of pitches swung at / number of pitches seen).
So if I could get those metrics for every player on the team using those criteria, I’d be able to rank the hitters from most patient to most aggressive. Does that sound correct?
geeezuss
Aaaaaanyway...
Stafford, you did say in OP to think HS age. So, I guess, using JCG's second scenario, I would make an in-game suggestion to look for his pitch early rather than late, making him aware that the P wants to get to the next batter and may work around him. But, it sounds like this hitter has success due to his patient approach and good pitch selection. So, i'm not sure how smart it would be to get him too far out of his usual hitting approach. We do several situational hitting drills and they include R3 or R2, R3 less than two out... attack hitter's pitches early, something a bit up in the zone that you can drive/ get past the infield. This would apply to your situation as well.
Stats4Gnats posted:JCG posted: Exactly, and I don't think there was any mention of using metrics in the OP. Using Stats' FI of a 12yo coach, when I coached at that level we had almost 6 weeks of practice before opening day, followed by just 16 regular season games. Clearly any coach waiting on statistics before figuring out which hitters needed help with what would be guilty of grievous coaching malfeasance.
What difference does it make whether metrics were mentioned in the op?
It seems to me that your idea of what metrics are is extremely limited. It also seems to me that you believe unless a metric is normalized by a large sample it’s not valid.
If you can identify something by eye it can also be identified by metrics, as long as it can be defined and tracked. Why do you think there’d be “waiting on statistics “?
Whatevs.
You can't walk off the island.