Looking at strike three, a good thing?

Fair enough. But he'll be 16 in February so is smack in the middle of his 10th grade class in terms of age, AKA 2017. He did play JV ball and caught every inning of every game and batted third. Etc. The day of his last JV game the V HC said "good luck today, you'll be with us from now on." Mostly agree with you about umpiring, and yes, he's just emerging into "higher level" umpiring. You're just incorrect about the age of most Sophomores.

jp,

Scouts and coaches don't always want to see the same thing.

One is most interested in winning games, the other is most interested in future potential.

however, to answer your question... It is much easier to swing than it is to swing at nothing but strikes.  Not many can make a living chasing pitches out of the zone when the pitching gets real good.  The best pitchers love to face undisciplined hitters. And even scouts notice and like disciplined hitters.

Often pitching statistics at the entry levels of professional baseball show lots of strikeouts and very few walks.  As those pitchers move up the ladder there Base on Ball numbers tend to increase at every level.  That is because there are less players/hitters chasing pitches.  Sometimes pitchers that walked very few hitters in rookie ball end up with high walk totals in AAA.  It's not so much that the hitters are more talented, they just have more experience and make less mistakes.  They force the pitchers to throw strikes. Once again, there are exceptions.  And there are always a few bad ball, free swinging hitters even in the Big Leagues.  Not very many though!

Originally Posted by bballman:

Stats, I hear what you are saying, but even with data on what happened on every pitch on every 3-2 count, that does not take into consideration whether that pitch was a 50/50 pitch or a pitch right down the middle belt high.  Until that can be quantified, you can't tell the effectiveness of taking or swinging at a borderline (50/50) pitch.  We can theorize about it, but you can't back up a theory using data without knowing whether every single 3-2 pitch was a 50/50 pitch vs. a definite ball or a definite strike.

It is true that the data on all 3-2 pitches does not in itself lead to any perfectly valid conclusions, but it does whittle the data down to something a bit more manageable than every pitch on every count. That means whatever conclusions are made are that much more valid. It’s a start, and it would be more valid than just theorizing with absolutely no proof other than memory of what was thought to have taken place.

I do have my own personal thoughts as to whether the entire thought about taking a 50-50 pitch on a 3-2 count is valid, but I’m not trying to convince anyone that what I think is true. I’m more than willing to let it be tested, but no one seems to want to do that. Rather than do what’s difficult and try to gather useful data, everyone seems to be willing to just theorize.

Here’s what I perceive we’re talking about. An event that happens on approximately 3-4% of all pitches in the game. A pitch on a 3-2 count. Then we also put more restrictions on it in that we’re only talking about 3-2 counts for batters that lead off an inning. I don’t have a clue on what percentage of all pitches that would be, but it wouldn’t be very large seeing as its only some percentage of the 3-4%. Then we’re talking about an event interior to that event, whether the pitch is in whatever the 50-50 zone is that no one can seem to define in such a way that the definition would be generally accepted.

I know this isn’t a large sample, but it is a sample. Of 14,621 at bats. 3,130 were leading off an inning. Of those, 420 ended on a 3-2 count, and they’re the only ones whose OBP might be improved by not swinging. Accepting that pitchers at all levels throw about 60% strikes, that would mean 168 would reach base on a walk if they didn’t swing. Of those 420, 52 got base hits, 164 walked, and 3 were hit by a pitch. So 219 reached doing nothing different, but 168 MIGHT reach employing the strategy of simply not swinging for any reason.

Yes, I could get more precision if I only considered the 50-50 pitches, but to me all that would do is reduce the improvement, if any, to such a negligible amount, I question whether it would be worth the trouble to get every hitter to add that strategy to their batting plan, not whether or not the plan has merit.

I love the mental exercise and the discussion, but I’d really like someone out there who has the numbers to even consider, to let us know what their numbers show. That’s why I thought PG would have them, since his organization gets to see scads more games than I do. I wasn’t saying the idea didn’t have merit. I just wanted to try to quantify what that merit would be.

Strike 3 looking. ABSOLUTELY NO!!!

BOB

Originally Posted by Consultant:

Strike 3 looking. ABSOLUTELY NO!!!

I happen to agree that watching a 3^rd strike is the most unproductive thing a player can do, but it’s pretty obvious a lot of folks don’t agree with you and I. Personally, I think that’s a big reason K’s have gone up so much in recent years.

Obviously, a called third strike isn't the "most unproductive" thing a hitter can do.

Beyond that, taking a marginal third strike, as part of a considered approach to hitting, isn't inherently a problem either. If it's a pitch you can't drive, and it's called a ball some percentage of the time, you should take 3-2 (at least some of the time) and be fine with striking out some percentage of the time when you take, because on net it's better to do so than to swing at anything that might be a strike (and thereby forego a lot of potential walks).

Originally Posted by jacjacatk:

Obviously, a called third strike isn't the "most unproductive" thing a hitter can do.

And what is? Hitting into a triple play? At least the batter in a triple play usually rips the ball pretty well.

Beyond that, taking a marginal third strike, as part of a considered approach to hitting, isn't inherently a problem either. If it's a pitch you can't drive, and it's called a ball some percentage of the time, you should take 3-2 (at least some of the time) and be fine with striking out some percentage of the time when you take, because on net it's better to do so than to swing at anything that might be a strike (and thereby forego a lot of potential walks).

You’re assumption is that all hitters have the kind of acute batting eye and focus to make a considered decision. It’s only my opinion and therefore not worth any more than yours, but I call Bull Puckey. When someone proves to me that hitters can’t and don’t drive balls not in the strike zone, I’ll change my mind. Until then, to me it’s a lack of hitting skills that don’t allow them to drive a ball they can get the sweet spot on. I’ve seen way too many great pitches way off the plate get pounded into oblivion to believe they were all lucky hits.

You're seriously going to argue that hitting the ball hard into a triple play is better than striking out with 2 runners on and no out.  Solid. FWIW, DP are a lot more common.

Every hitter has their own "zone" of balls they can drive.  That generally corresponds reasonably well to the strike zone (hence, why it's the strike zone), but there are certainly a host of exceptions, not the least of which might be good HS hitters vs lesser HS pitchers. But almost every good hitter has at least an implicit understanding of what pitches are (or should be) "his" pitches. Swinging at borderline pitches outside of that zone just to avoid taking a called 3rd strike is sub-optimal, and good hitters don't become good hitters by taking sub-optimal approaches as a matter of course.

Oh, and "great pitches way off the plate" that get "pounded" are almost by definition lucky. Joe Blanton is a career .108 hitter with no extra base hits, and he hit a WS HR in 2008. That didn't make him good, that made him lucky.

Quoting Ted Williams... Goes with his famous hitting chart.

Today I attended a catcher clinic produced by one of the best catching instructors in America. He was teaching the young players [catchers] how to enlarge the strike zone.

Their are three strike zones.

1. the umpires [which can change inning by inning]

2. the pitchers which is "large"

3. the hitters which is narrow.

As a hitter with 2 strikes, he needs to adopt to the situation. Is his team ahead or behind, is the umpire favoring the pitcher, is he an RBI mentally?

Their are usually 4 situations in a baseball game that will determine the outcome.

Taking a "called 3rd strike" maybe one of these situations.

Bob

Consultant, I just sent you a Dialog.

What would we call the player that struck out 50% of the time and walked the other 50%?

Guess we could call him the greatest lead off hitter that ever lived because there has never been anyone in history to have a .500 OBP.

Of course taking strike three is bad.  Especially when you don't have a full count.  But walking is good especially when leading off an inning.  I suppose somewhere there is a statistic for how many times strike three looking happens.  Without looking it up, I'm sure it  happens a lot. The best pitchers are hard to hit when they throw in the strike zone. They are almost impossible to hit out side the strike zone.

Once again, the 50-50 pitch is something out side the strike zone that could be called a strike. It is not easy to recognize all the time.  IMO one of the most important things a hitter should try to master is the strike zone.  And then that area within the strike zone that he can handle the best and worst.