Looking at strike three, a good thing?

PG,

  I agree with what you are saying 100%.  Even as a HS Coach the only time I really cringe on a K is when there is a runner at 3rd with less than 2.

Interesting take PG.  I can honestly say I've never thought of it that way.  I can remember I used to always tell my son to go down swinging, to never put it in the umpires hand.  Now you have me at least thinking about it differently.  I'm not sure I have changed my mind as I tend to have a type A personality and would rather be in control of a given situation, but I can certainly agree that swinging at the third strike will almost certainly result in a less than .500 batting average.  I guess it all depends how much you trust your guy and how good his pitch / plate recognition is.

I can see your point PG

However percentage wise as a total for MLB pitchers is 62% strikes to 38% balls.

And I would think a lot of the balls pitched were intentional early in the counts

I think the OBP would be close to the same either way.

PG:

I mostly agree with you but have a couple of thoughts:

(1) 50-50 might be the wrong number (though it probably isn't far off).  To illustrate that taking (over time) is the better percentage choice, you stated that theoretically that strategy would lead to a .500 OBP, but because those pitches are hard to hit, you would not expect anything close to a .500 BA on swings at such pitches.  What I think you're ignoring is the percentage of 50-50 pitches that can be fouled off and spoiled, which when added to BA on the 50-50 pitch, might begin to approach that .500 OBP in terms of percentage play.  And you would have to add in the likelihood that a pitcher who has already gotten to a 3-ball count can make another "pitcher's pitch" on the next pitch, versus the likelihood that he'll miss, or make a mistake in the middle of the plate that your hitter can handle.  For that reason (and I'm guessing here at the percentage, though I'd guess it can be quantified), I would agree with your strategy, but tell hitters they should only take a pitch that they feel confident the umpire will call a ball at least 55-60% of the time.

(2). There is a reason I said "the umpire" above.  Context is everything.  The 50-50 pitch has to be defined by what you've seen THAT umpire consistently do in THAT game, and not the hitter's concept of what the strike zone is or should be.  Similarly, the batter's particular skillset is important, as is the context of the game itself?  What is the score?  Is it early or late? Do you have a high average, high contact hitter leading off?  Speed, or not so much?  Power?  Regardless of those attributes, has this player shown a good ability to spoil good pitches, or does he tend to be a swing-and miss guy?  I'd want to do a little mental calculus on all of those things as well, rather than having a blanket rule about taking the 50-50 (or even 55-45) pitch.  Maybe you have, in addition to the take sign, another that tells the hitter the 50-50 (or 55-45, or 60-40, or whatever you decide is the appropriate division for a particular hitter, with the key being that you have discussed this with each individual player, taking into account their individual abilities) rule is in play - which removes some of the stigma of striking out looking in such situations: the coach takes the bigger brunt of whatever "blame" there is, while the player is only responsible for making a reasonably close (to whatever percentage applies to him) strike zone judgment.

Obviously, what I suggest would,only work with players at fairly high levels: with players who've demonstrated fairly good and consistent abilities and strike zone judgment, and with umpires who are relatively consistent in their calls.

Okay, great topic PG.  Completely leaving BA out of it and only focusing on OBP. Wouldn't you have to factor in the OBP of balls put into play, versus a "hit" on the 50/50 pitch, and weigh the balls put in play % against the take %?  Make sense?

Or maybe just consider the defense's fielding % as part of the decision making process

I'm not sure I understand, lefthookdad.  Let me see though.  Are you saying we should measure BABIP (including ROE, not just BA) - not just for that individual swing/take decision, but for the entire AB - plus eventual walks, against swings and misses?  If so, I think we're getting at the same point.

Not sure...lol...we may be at the same end result....I may have confused myself!!!!!

I am thinking of just measuring the % of BABIP that turn into a runner on base, not just a "hit" that results in a runner on....in this case I believe we are talking about the leadoff guy, per PG's original post, that states over time the 50/50 take will result in a .500 OBP.  

PG's idea is definitely a new thought for me, but I am the type that likes to put the ball in play, because we all know funny things happen when you do.  I do believe that the odds may flux substantially in favor of taking when you know you are playing a good defense, again , one of those "things" to factor in the decision to take or not

My definition of a 50-50 is any pitch that could be called either way. In theory strike three half the time ball four half the time. As determined by the hitter!

Some might say you simply don't swing at any 50-50 pitches, but sometimes you have to protect.   If you are swinging at 50-50 pitches early in the count you probably are a poor hitter, or will be.

Of course the hitter needs to protect with 2 strikes.  However when it is a full count and you don't swing, you either walk, get hit by pitch or get called out on strikes.

Obviously there can't be any take sign given, you want the hitter swinging at strikes.  This type thinking has won many games over the years, but it takes special players. It goes on at the very highest levels and very few even recognize it.

Yes, the hitter can spoil the 50-50 pitch and foul it off, hit it fair, or miss it.  But for sure he will not make his living swinging at the 50-50 pitches.  I understand the 50-50 is hard to determine and it can change depending on who is calling it.  So the hitter has to make that decision.  However, when you think 50-50 no swing, the 100% strikes get easier to hit And you don't end up expanding the zone even more.

There is no perfect formula for any of this.  It only pertains to a hitter leading off an inning with a full count. If there is a 50-50 pitch with any other count the hitter has to protect. After all in any other count you don't reach base, but could be called out.  The big % of scoring when the lead off hitter walks. Not everyone can lay off that 50-50 pitch. IMO those that can and will, I want on my team. 

I too like hitters that are very aggressive.  So I don't really have a problem with the hitter swinging at the 50-50 strike.  My point is the hitter in that certain situation that has the balls to take a chance at a called strike three because it might help win the game, should be recognized for doing so. Truth is, I've never known a hitter who wanted to strike out with the bat on his or her shoulder.  It takes a special player to do it, and I was lucky enough to have some of them.

Just thought I would try to get people thinking about something out of the ordinary.

But what are your chances of either getting a hit or fouling it off, and seeing a better pitch, or a more obvious ball on the next pitch? While earlier in the count, when it counts for a strike I think of a foul ball as a victory for the pitcher, but when it becomes nothing but a wasted pitch on a 2 strike count, I think of a foul ball as a victory for the hitter.

PG, I'm going to have to let that soak in for a while. Completely different from my lifetime mindset. I've always told my son, and he's always been told by others, to not let the umpire decide the 3rd strike.

But when you have a lead-off hitter, 3-2 count, good eye, not an extra-base hitter. Hmmmm, something to ponder!

Like I said, I mostly agree, PG (and I definitely agree that having a hitter with the balls to not swing in that situation is a major plus, not just because of THAT situation but also because he will usually be a smart and disciplined hitter in ALL situations).  Just quibbling over what the percentages actually say, really.

First, I disagree that the equation is batting average on a well-located pitch (maybe .250 for a good hitter, closer to .200 for an average hitter) versus the theoretical .500 OBP on an "either way" take.  It should be BABIP+ROE for that swing (higher than BA) plus the BABIP+ROE for subsequent swings after a spoiled pitch, versus the .500 OBP.  And really, also the percentage chance of an obvious ball (1.000 OBP) on subsequent pitch(eS). Or, as I said in response to lefthookdad, BABIP + ROE + BB for the entire AB (not just that swing) versus the theoretical .500 OBP for the take on that one swing. The earlier in the game, and the closer the game is, the more I would like the hitter to err on the side of swinging in this situation, because there is also the additional expected runs scored for that percentage of balls that will be hit for extra bases, too.  Overall, I suspect that if we were to break it down and actually do the math, the take would have to be on a pitch slightly worse than a 50-50 pitch in order to make it worth not swinging as a rule.

I also disagree that it is the hitter's judgment ALONE that should be in play.  If the hitter believes a pitch in a particular location is a 50-50 pitch, but the umpire has clearly and consistently called the pitch in that location a strike,mother hitter should be swinging.  I also was not talking about a "take" sign, but a sign from the coach to the hitter that the coach believes it is a 55-45 (or whatever, depending on the hitter's skillset) situation.  Not a "take," just a coach highlighting a situation and reminding the player to swing wisely.  I realize this isn't necessarily the player PG was talking about and wanting on his team (the guy with the smarts and balls to know this and choose this himself), but I still think it would be good practice.

I think the hardest part to understand is the 50-50 pitch, what is it?  The umpire definitely plays a role in that.  Lets say you can't tell what a 50-50 pitch is, then how would you know what a 55-45 pitch is?  This is where understanding the strike zone becomes vital, which helps any hitter.

Of course, the hitter can foul off the pitch and possibly get a better pitch to hit.  However most hitters don't make their living on two strike counts.  The OBP goes down on nearly every hitter with two strikes and only has an advantage on a full count.

Foul balls don't usually happen by design.  That foul ball has just as good a chance of being a weak ground ball or swing and miss.

Sure there is always the possibility of an extra base hit, but the main job of anyone leading off an inning is to get on base. To me it is a reason why every hitter has to understand how to be a lead off hitter. In other situations we would have our best hitter with a key runner in scoring position swing through a 3-0 count.  He had to understand his swing was going to be right in his wheel house no matter where the pitch was.  Theory being we would rather have him hitting with a 3-1 count in that situation rather than a weaker hitter with a 0-0 count. This takes some thinking as the natural thing is to make contact.  We didn't want contact with a pitch out of the zone.

Anyway, none of what I'm talking about is set in stone.  Every hitter, every situation is different.  My point was, one of the biggest so called no no's is striking out with the bat on your shoulder.  Kids hear about from when they start playing.  Truth is in some situations it is being done because someone is thinking about more than themselves.

Let's just say for kicks the 50-50 pitch is truly called a strike 50% and a ball 50%. that means your hitter in those situations will be on base 50% of the time and called out on strikes 50% of the time. That is a .500 OBP vs. whatever might happen by swinging. Not to mention this approach will make him a better hitter if the pitch is a strike. To me the biggest risk is in swinging at that 50-50 pitch. I can go with a 60-40 pitch too, but to me that is just as hard to describe.  As much as I like aggressive hitters I really appreciate disciplined hitters, too.

I have one player that could handle this approach, I kinda like it and will work on it this winter with him.

PG:

You have touched on a topic near and dear to my heart - instruction today is bent on not embarrassing yourself and the coach, not actually for maximizing production. It is very frustrating.

PG,

I have to admit that I’ve found a new reason to give you props! I tip my cap to anyone who goes out there and at least considers using the numbers to try to improve something.

I can’t say I think differently, but I can say I have questions that need answered before I’d say one way or the other. I hope you’ll indulge me and try to answer those questions.

The 1^st is pretty simple. What is the OPB for all the hitters you have data for on 3-2 counts? The 2^nd is even more simple. What is the OPB for all the hitters leading off an inning you have data for on 3-2 counts? The reason I ask is, it seems to me there must be some point where putting a plan into action is just not worth the trouble, but of course there’s no way to really know unless and until that plan is put into action so the results can be checked.

The next question’s pretty simple too. How many pitches in your database were thrown on 3-2 and what percentage were they of the total pitches thrown? I don’t have anywhere near the database you do, but out of 28,452 pitches over 8 HSV seasons our batters saw, 911 were on 3-2 counts, or 3.2%.

Do you do any metric similar to the attachment? I’ve been doing that and others for quite some time, as wells as breaking it down of each individual hitter. When looking at the individual breakdown, it becomes obvious that not all hitters perform equally in that situation, so it seems to me that before I’d instruct a hitter to take in that situation under the 50-50 criteria, I’d want to make sure it wouldn’t be reducing his performance.

I just can't agree with this. To close to take sums it up....and I am a big proponent of staying in the strike zone.

I am sure that somewhere in the bowels of an MLB stats organization they have this figured out, I certainly don't. In some situations batters are working to get rid of a starting pitcher and to me the guy that is up there fouling off pitch after pitch until he gets something to hit are the ones who impressed me a lot. Again situation driven, a lead off guy with no outs and a 1 run game then he might be looking at a close pitch.

Stats,

I don't have any actual numbers to go by.  It is just the way our teams played back when I coached. I don't need any history in order to know what 50-50 will produce in the long run. Once again, the only question is, what is 50-50.   Is it on the black, three inches off the black, or something else?  It can change depending on who's calling it. In the end it is all up to the hitter to decide. I love it when a lead off hitter with a full count takes a close ball four.  I also like it if he is rung up on that same pitch. The easy thing is to swing at that pitch.

Too close to take is fitting for Old School and I can't argue that thinking. Actually I believe in that also most of the time. Except when my lead off hitter has a three ball count. Then IMO it should be "not good enough to swing at" and get myself out. Pitchers love to throw to the too close to take guys.

Basically the biggest difference between MLB and AAA hitters and those in the lower levels... The higher the level the more strikes they swing at and the less balls they swing at. I'm pretty sure anyone who has been at those levels would agree.

According to one saber metric calculator

PG in right on

OBP .452

BA .218

The BA for 3-2 is lower than the other non 2-strike counts because it's possible to strike out 3-2. BA should be higher 3-1 or 2-0 because the penalty for taking a pitch is substantially less, and hitters therefore are more inclined to do so while only swinging at the better (for the hitter) pitches.

This is a very interesting topic.  I never considered deliberately taking the close 3-2 pitch.  

You are also right about the higher levels swinging at strikes and taking more balls.  I learned that I only broke my bat when I extended the zone.  I adjusted because I got sick of walking back to the dugout with a 10 inch piece of wood in my hands.

www.BaseballByTheYard.com

Okay, I'm following you, and you have my full attention.  I agree it would take a special leadoff hitter in this situation to understand how the percentages will ultimately work in his favor over time.

What other situations would you want somebody taking a 50/50 pitch that could result in a K looking as a quality at bat?  Possibly a guy who hits into doubleplays alot if you are trying to comback in a game?

Really not that surprising that hitters would get themselves out with the philosophy of don't put it in the umpires hands, especially for anyone that is not a top end hitter all the way through HS.

I believed that evolved as much from kids hoping to walk rather than trying to hit.  I used to cringe when coaches went crazy on kids that were taking good approaches and taking tough pitches and getting rung up.  Turned them all into wild hackers at 2 strikes.  Once they got to 2 strikes they were moving the bat as soon as the ball came out of the pitchers hand.  Saw way too many swinging 3rd strikes on 58' curves.

This goes hand in hand with the first ball - fastball hitting philosophy.  Same coach would go off if a fastball came at 0-0 and was called a strike.  The fact that it was at the knees on the corner never concerned him. So there were a lot of weak rollover grounders on first pitches. 

I used to call it coaching to the lowest common denominator.  If you treat everyone as your 9 hitter you are taking your best hitters and damaging their approach and potentially making them less effective.  I always thought it was important to instill confidence at 2 strikes that good contact can be made and that the zone should not be overly expanded - with the possible exception of <2 out R3. 

Getting a good pitch to hit is the best way to solid contact - why would you toss that away just because you have 2 strikes?  More defensive, shorten up etc. sure but never take a called 3rd strike - to the point where you are just swinging for fear of hearing it.  Never bought it.

Very interesting thought process.  My son is normally the #2 or #3 hitter....and makes very good contact (2K's in over 100 AB's last spring in HS).  He refuses to get walked...and rarely will even have a swinging strike....both K's were looking.  He's never been a leadoff hitter...but obviously does leadoff some innings.  He's always had the mentality that walks are a wasted AB....so he'd very rarely....or never take a 50/50 pitch on a full count....he'll almost always at least put it in play even if it's a bad pitch.  That being said, his BA last spring was .448......his OBP was .500, so obviously if he took a few more walks...instead of just being happy to get ground ball outs, his OBP would be much more impressive.  We'll discuss this in the next couple days.  Thanks PG....always good stuff from you.

fenwaysouth,

Probably only in that situation, but some might think there are other situations. Some might say most every situation.

How about bases loaded, winning run on 3B, full count?  Remember we are talking about something that is 50-50.  Truth is, that really doesn't exist because pitches end up being called 100% strikes or 100% balls.  Even I would have a hard time telling a hitter to take strike three with the bases loaded.  However in theory, by percentage, it might be the right thing to do. A success rate of .500 in that situation is good. Much better than the success rate of swinging at something outside the strike zone.

We actually see this exact thing (take border line strike 3) happen a lot.  In fact, it happened a lot in the recent World Series.  I too am impressed when a hitter fouls off several pitches with two strikes.  Usually, not always, they are fouling off strikes or have less than a full count.  It is only the full count that gives you .500 OBP.

It is fun to discuss this stuff.  There is no I am right and everyone else is wrong about it. It's all about thinking, and that is a good thing IMO. Contrary to what some might think, I believe this is an aggressive way to play.

this is a good thread.... It has me thinking; should every lead off hitter in an inning take at 3-1... ??? 

I'm betting there is data that says take all 50/50 pitches.  Unfortunately, you cannot define 50/50 pitches.  A pitch is either a ball or a strike. It's just a swing thought.  It's like saying a hit is as good as a walk.  It would be just a saying.

But this is still a good thread.

THIS.

You can't ask hitters to think in the batter's box in terms of 50/50 pitches in the way we're talking about it here and expect that to translate into good results.

Good hitters think in terms of driving pitches they can crush (even if they're balls sometimes), and taking pitches they can't (even if they're strikes some times). They also adjust their approach to the situation at hand, so leading off with a 3-2 count should result in fewer swings for most hitters since they should usually be less willing to swing at marginal strikes in that situation (unless you're a Vlad Guerrero type). But you can't hamstring them by asking them to think in terms of 50/50 pitches and making decisions like that in the batter's box.

Great thread. Gets you thinking. As my 2017 deals with HS and travel umpires of widely varying quality and consistency, being inconsistent is the norm. Many of that "class" of umpires it seems love to "punch-out/ring-up" a non-swinging batter on a full count, or any other count with 2 strikes. So, sitting on a 50-50 ball on a full count and hoping for the ball/walk does not seem to be a good idea. But I have no data to suppory my statement. I agree that, in theory, and especially with better/more consistent umpires, a strong case could be made to take on a marginal pitch.

As others have noted, recognizing a 50-50 pitch when 1 strike away from sitting can be challenging in itself. I'd say hacking at a close pitch on a full count might generally perceived in a more positive light than getting a backwards K.

Originally Posted by PGStaff:

I don't have any actual numbers to go by.  It is just the way our teams played back when I coached. I don't need any history in order to know what 50-50 will produce in the long run. Once again, the only question is, what is 50-50.   Is it on the black, three inches off the black, or something else?  It can change depending on who's calling it. In the end it is all up to the hitter to decide. I love it when a lead off hitter with a full count takes a close ball four.  I also like it if he is rung up on that same pitch. The easy thing is to swing at that pitch.

Wouldn’t you like to know what the numbers really are? The reason why I asked the questions I did is because I thought you had access to loads of data from all the games played under your auspices.

Too close to take is fitting for Old School and I can't argue that thinking. Actually I believe in that also most of the time. Except when my lead off hitter has a three ball count. Then IMO it should be "not good enough to swing at" and get myself out. Pitchers love to throw to the too close to take guys.

That’s quite a bit different than the full count you discussed in the OP.

Basically the biggest difference between MLB and AAA hitters and those in the lower levels... The higher the level the more strikes they swing at and the less balls they swing at. I'm pretty sure anyone who has been at those levels would agree.

What you’re saying is ML hitters have a better understanding of the strike zone than those at lower levels, and I wouldn’t argue that because it’s logical. More experience should produce a higher skill level. But I’d think the real difference was in the percentage of balls made contact with compared to the number swung at. Here again, I can only look at the data I have, but you should have vastly more than I. And the players you see should be of a much higher general caliber than what I see, so they should be swinging at a much higher percentage of strikes, just as I’d expect college, MiL and ML players to do.

Well, in my view, you can't look at any data surrounding this unless you include data that would include 50/50 pitches.  Any data surrounding 3-2 counts might count for something, but not what the percentages are when taking a 50/50 pitch - unless you know how many 50/50 pitches a batter faced in a 3-2 count.  You can't count all pitches in a 3-2 count because they are not all 50/50.  Sometimes a batter will take a pitch right down the middle on a 3-2 count.  Sometimes batters will swing at a pitch clearly out of the strike zone on a 3-2 count, so all ABs cannot be counted in this scenario.

The only way you can do it is to have Pitch FX or something similar to track 3-2 pitches and quantify them into a 50/50 pitch.  The problem then is, a pitch is either a strike or a ball.  What is a 50/50 pitch anyway?  I think we all intuitively understand what it is (I'll know it if I see it), but to quantify it, you have to define it.  So, would it be a pitch in which 1/2 of the ball is in the strike zone and 1/2 is out?  Would it be a ball that is just barely touching the strike zone?  

I hope you get what I'm saying.  People ask for data to support this theory, but aside from possibly MLB, there is no data out there to support or deny any of it.  Even using pitch data to see exactly where the ball came across the plate, you would then need to define a 50/50 pitch in empirical terms because Pitch FX (or whatever) would only see pitches as a ball or strike - unless otherwise defined.

I am going to guess PG is talking about the more experienced umpires than you might find at a your typical 13U tournament.  In my area a HS game is worth $70+ while a 13U is worth $35 or $40. 

It is a winnowing system to get to the higher level's of baseball for the umpires as it is with the players.

One other factor.  HS has 1 game...13U tournaments you can catch a guy doing his 4th game of the day.  On a 90 degree humid day is anyone surprised his zone might be bigger than it might normally be?   

These things are accounted for in good showcases and HS leagues and I think that is the level of ball this thread is focused on. 

Um. My son is a 2017 or 16u player and plays in showcase tournaments (not high-end ones yet)...

OK...so maybe you held him back or something.  I was guessing he was about 14 pushing 15 and might have been born after May 1.  Either way he was a freshman in the spring and he is in NOVA which is generally good HS baseball.  So unless he is a horse he probably played JV ball as a Freshman and he is just coming out of the local "travel" circuit. 

I will politely submit my point still holds about the umpiring and that he is just emerging into the playing level this thread is addressing.

bballman,

You’re correct that the fewer factors that get accounted for, the less precise any conclusion would be. But you’re also correct that Any data surrounding 3-2 counts might count for something. The problem is, it’s very difficult to get that data for any level other than MLB.

I hate to bring this up again because I know there’s a lot of folks out there who hate the thought of it, but until pitches not swung at are called with the same technology used to track where they’re at, it will literally be impossible to take into account the main factor that bears on what happens, the umpires.

You’re also correct that as of right now only MLB has the capacity to generate ACCURATE data. But just because there’s no way to get accurate data, it doesn’t mean all data pertaining to the topic is of no use. FI, it wouldn’t be difficult at all to compute OPB on 3-2 counts. That chart Everyday Dad posted was close, but it showed what happened AFTER each count, not what happened on each count. IOW, it appears that it only takes in what happened on each At Bat not on each pitch in a certain count. All those little things affect the numbers.

The more information about the subject, the easier it is to root out an answer.

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.

You guys are good!

Yes I believe all and any information is valuable.  I've said before that there is no definition of what a 50-50 pitch is.  It only matters to the hitter and the umpire.

If I had to describe a 50-50 pitch guess it would be the pitch outside the strike zone that can, and sometimes is, called a strike.

I really don't care how people do things these days. I'm mostly interested in talent now days.  The level where we used these things was highest level small college baseball. It's really more of a thought process than anything else.  Hitter understanding his job, the situation, and the potential results.  I would only disagree with the thought that hitters shouldn't think. Though I know there are some great hitters who don't think a whole lot.

Also, the idea is to learn the game.  There are kids that hit .600 in the local 13 year old league, but they will have to change to be able to ever hit at a much higher level. This brings me to another pet peeve... that old saying... "If it aint broke don't fix it"

Young kids might hit like crazy against soft throwing pitchers and weak fielding teams. Then that same approach makes them a very poor hitter when they see what is out there.  Kind of like that BP star that can't hit in the games.  When everything about the game is faster, the flaws become very obvious.  Maybe they should have been fixed earlier on, rather than basking in the young boys short term success.

Really interesting thread. Reminds me why I love this site. Two thoughts:

- SOME players, like Matt Carpenter, Cardinal leadoff hitter, should swing. Great eyes and able to foul them off.

- ANY leadoff hitter at PG Jupiter should swing - because I THINK scouts prefer aggressive hitters over passive hitters.

If that second one is true, PG - shouldn't we coach them when they're young - to swing?

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.