Looking at things needing immediate improvement.

Yeah, one game should be enough of a sample size to draw a conclusion.

 

And pitching to contact is stupid. Throw the best pitch you can every time, with the goal of getting a strike without contact.

" I’ve kept score for more than 65,800 high school spring pitches over the last 15 years. Looking at all of them, the average strike percentage is 61.1% and the average 1st pitch strike percentage is 56.7%."

 

"Yeah, one game should be enough of a sample size to draw a conclusion."

 

Uh. What?

One game at the new school isn't remotely enough to draw any conclusions about those pitchers, statistically.

 

And it's essentially tautologically true that throwing strikes is a necessary component to being a successful pitcher, so while quantifying that something in the neighborhood of 60% strikes is standard, using both pieces of data to support the idea that pitching to contact is the best approach is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the numbers actually mean.

I believe OP was comparing one game stats to prior seasons averages. Using data to state what areas need improvement. "Pitching to contact" is a good thing, make them hit your pitch ahead in the count. Keeps pitch count down compared to striking everyone out.

I don't have the same volume and it was travel ball 9-13U but I tracked Batting Averages and OPB on Ball 1 vs. Strike 1 and not surprisingly there was a significant difference of about .125 on both stats over about 6 years and 500 games with 2 kids.  I had the thankless jobs of bookkeeper - stats & money.

 

Ball 1 turned a .250 hitter into a .375 hitter theoretically. 

 

There were tons of variables but I think it really came down to this:  Whoever was behind tended to "give in".  So pitchers that were ahead could nibble and batters chased more.  This was often made worse by the philosophy of not "going down looking".  Saw a lot of strikeouts because kids didn't want to hear from coach for looking at strike 3 so you could almost see the bat moving on any 2 strike pitch and many were no where near the strike zone.  Obviously when pitchers were behind they tended to come in more.  No revelation there.

 

What I do think is that as you advance up the level's the point where that happens is deeper in the count.  At 12 on a Ball 1 count pitchers tended to groove it more than they did it HS who did not come in as much until 3-1 or 2-0.  Very few would pitch backward either.

 

I do think that there is ample evidence statistically for the idea of baseball is a game of "firsts"  Lead off on - score more.  First batter out - more 0's,  and on and on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There were many organizational philosophies in pro ball, two of which apply to this thread.

 

1)  Throw a first pitch strike

 

2)  Get the batter out in 3 pitches or less

 

If I remember correctly, the stat they told us for first pitch strikes was 92% of the time if you throw a first pitch strike you will either get a strike (obviously), or an out.  Therefore of all first pitch strikes, only 8% get hit for base hits.  I'll take those odds.

 

Also, I would use the term "attack the strike zone" vs "pitching to contact".

For HS pitchers. One of the worst things you can do is live in the strike zone. Why? Because there is absolutely no reason to do so. You are not pitching to a ML strike zone. You are not pitching to ML hitters. You are not having your game called by a ML umpire. Throwing a strike does not mean your throwing a strike. Throwing a strike means you are hitting the location intended.

 

Most HS hitters chase. Most HS hitters dont see the ball late. Most HS hitters have an expanded strike zone. Most HS hitters expand that zone greatly down in the count. Find the strike zone that the umpire has and then assist him with the expansion of it. A couple of balls off of it on a consistent basis usually will do the trick. Why throw over the plate if you don't have to?

 

If a kid can't throw to location he can't pitch. He is a thrower. The ability to throw a ball is the same thing as the ability to throw a strike. There is no difference. He hit the intended location. Living in the zone will cause you to live on the pine. The best pitch of a sequence many times is the pitch that was called a ball but was actually a strike. If you live in the zone you make hitters comfortable. If you pitch you can dictate the at bat. And at the HS level if you can pitch you are going to have great results even with very marginal stuff.

 

Coach - All great points. as usual.  Most HS lineups rarely have more than 3-4 good hitters means that many will get themselves out if you let them.  The trick is not to walk them. 

 

A local guy here taught the first ball - fastball hitting philosophy without exception.  He had a number of high caliber players but taught to the lowest common denominator which was the best pitch you will get to hit often is the first pitch in or near the zone by pitchers trying to get ahead. 

 

He also taught his pitchers much of what you say.  They were a keep it down and at the edge of the zone pitching staff.  He rarely had complete games opting to not let hitters see the same pitcher 3 times in a row.  Fresh arms and different looks - and he loved to go Righty/Lefty on you as well. 

Yes.  I think too many people take pitch to contact as a literal truth.  As a pitcher, would you rather throw 50% strikes and never allow contact, or 100% strikes and always allow contact?

 

As Coach_May pointed out, you want to throw the pitches that get you strikes, swinging or not, whether they're actually strikes or not by the rule book. And you don't ever actually want contact as a pitcher as long as you're able to do that, because if they don't make contact and you're getting a strike you can't lose.

The corollary to that, given that you obviously can't strike out everyone, is that when they do make contact, you want them doing it on your terms -- on your best pitches, when they're most vulnerable in the count. On 0-2 you want to throw a pitch that's not hittable, but will get you a strike (normally, because you expect them to chase it and be mostly unable to put it in play hard, if at all).  You don't want to throw them something they can actually hit because you're "pitching to contact" any more than you want to "waste one" in the dirt that they won't swing at. I see the latter way too often, too, "waste" pitches have to be balls that will get swung at a reasonable amount of the time, not balls I could still lay off of at 45.

luv,

 

Only looking at whether or not pitchers “pitch backward”, the truth is I see so few pitchers calling their own pitches, I’ve stopped blaming it the pitchers and now blame it on the coaches calling the pitches.

Coach_May,

 

I respectively have to disagree with the implication that HS pitchers shouldn’t try to throw a lot of strikes. I understand what you’re saying, but unless the person calling pitches is a complete fool and is calling the same pitches and locations without changing the pitch type and location often, HS hitters won’t be pounding the ball all over the park. In the end, giving up a BIP is better all-around than giving up free passes.

Hmmm. Let me figure thus one out. I can believe Stats who has never coached. Or I can believe Coach May, a very successful high school and travel coach (and I believe an associate scout for a MLB franchise) who helped many players get to the next level. My gut says go with Coach May. But hang around for the entertainment value of Stats and each confrontation he becomes involved.

RJM...you are too funny!

Stats - I think what Coach_May is saying (partially) is you don't have to throw over the "white" at most HS level games.  Hitters have expanded zones, umpires will allow the zone to expand, and the strike zone in general is larger.  I see too many pitchers that throw too many pitches that can / and should be hit hard, and they don't have to.  If you pitch near the zone, you will normally pitch ahead of the count, which I think was the main point in your OP.  I don't see kids getting "pinched / squeezed" by umpires at this level, causing them to fall behind in the count...just isn't happening.  If I kid can locate around the plate consistently the umpires will call strikes...if he missed wide by 3 feet, they won't. 

 

Pitching to contact is much to vague of a statement, and means different things to different folks.  I think HS pitchers take that to say "hit their bats"...I don't agree with that....a pitcher is always trying to miss the bat.

I don't buy the implied/sarcastic logic that you have to be a coach to have coaching-related opinions regarding baseball. To me, that happens all too often when a former professional athlete states or implies that the opinion of any sportscaster who has not played or coached in that sport professionally is instantly (deeply) discounted or invalid. In other words "unless you played or coached the sport, shut the hell up."

 

I think CoachMay and Stats make valid points.

I don't care for the sarcasm either. Don't think Stats ever implied the ball had to thrown over the middle of the plate. Whether its a fastball or an offspped pitch; the pitcher has to execute and hit the spot. I don't keep stats but know my son is much more successful when he pitches ahead in the count rather than pitches behind. A 3/0 count is generally going to result in a fat pitch. I generally understand pitching to contact to mean making them hit your pitch. Ahead in the count pitcher can venture a little further out and force weak contact.

Sorry batty but for stats its all about  the hunt for an argument.
It happens on every site he visits. 
He knows nothing about pitching..he knows exactly what he is doing.

BFS,

 

It’s not that disagree with what he said for ML caliber or even elite level HS pitchers. With my move from an elite team to one at a far lower level, I’m seeing pitchers that are at BEST average HS pitchers to whom it’s an accomplishment to throw any pitch in the strike zone, let alone be able to paint the black on command.

 

I do agree that any HS pitcher who throw his pitches near the strike zone will tend to be “rewarded”, and that’s true at every level of the game. I too see a lot of pitches that can / and should be hit hard but don’t need to be, but how much of that happening is simply because the average amateur pitchers don’t have the ability to hit anything like a spot?

 

I agree that Pitching to contact is much too vague for anyone to take literally. But I see it used as a cue many times in every single game I watch by the coaches, the players, and the fans as well. It’s been said that it would better to say pitch aggressively, but the truth is, that might have even more different meanings. L

 

But it’s all good because at least when there’s a discussion about it, we can be pretty sure there’s no one right answer.

I dont disagree withwhat he is saying necessarily but his purpose isnt here to help anyone.

I would usually stay away from these kinds of conversation but it's obvious in my 4+ years following this site who has an axe to grind with who.  With all due respect to all the parties, as I have taken recommendations from pretty much every one on this site, I think Stats was merely pointing out his opinion that pitchers should be/ better be able to throw a bunch of strikes to make the batter swing (either to ground out or fly out) and minimize his pitches, rather than walking a bunch of kids.  I may or may not be wrong, I'm just a parent.  I think he re-worded it to "pitching aggressively" which seem more reasonable as opposed to "pitching to contact".    

 

I strongly agree with Coach May in that "Living in the zone will cause you to live on the pine"...and with the converse of that living outside the zone will do the same. 

 

I don't know Stats but I do know the school he keeps the book for.  Starting pitcher (I'm only assuming possibly the ace since it's their first non-scrimmage game) saw 5 batters, walked 4 of them, threw 2 wild pitches and gave up one big hit before he was removed.  I'm thinking this is where this thread stems from.  Kid couldn't throw a strike, wasn't pitching the zone and batters weren't swinging.

 

The constant snark remarks or sarcasm to particular posters just gets old sometimes.    

 

       
       
I don't necessarily want back into this argument but batty I definitely want to take a moment to agree with you that anyone can have knowledge especially in this information age.  I know I am a far better coach now.than 25 years ago.  Not because of my coaching experience but because I had a son.  A son who decided to love baseball.  I was out I  teaching/coaching when my son came along.  Once he started playing I wanted to make sure everything I taught him was correct.  It lead to me doing tons of research that was not available years ago.  I would have gained that knowledge whether I was a coach or just a dad.  Now I have come out of coaching retirement and have blended the new with the old.  But point is you are right anyone who wants to put some time and effort in can become an expert.  You don't have to throw a ball 90 miles per hour to know how it's done!

There are only certain times that the pitcher needs to put that ball in play (DP), but reality is that most average HS players cannot do that.  

 

A pitcher needs to throw consistant strikes, period. Go after the batter, dont be afraid, if it is hit, of course the better the defense the more the pitcher has the opportunity to have his mistakes corrected.  Most average HS teams do not have solid defense.

 

Of course anyone can have knowledge, how you use that knowledge is most important.

 

 

 

 

I must have had a lot of fools behind the plate in high school and college. After getting the strike call on the corner I would work just outside the strike zone. If a pitcher is demonstrating good control he will get that call. Once getting that call high school hitters start swinging at pitches even further outside the strike zone. The typical high school hitter is over matched against a pitcher who is a college prospect.

 

I was watching an interview with Jim Palmer a few weeks ago. He said 40% of the swinging strikes against him were not in the strike zone. That's MLB.

havanajay,

 

If you know the school, you know how much these great kids have to work on. I was only looking at the one thing I thought would make the most improvement the quickest. The boys didn’t’ play the best defense in the world in that game, but they made fewer errors, both mental and physical than the other team. They didn’t hit the ball very well, striking out 8 times, only getting 7 total runners on 2 hits, 3 ROEs, 1 BB, and 1 reaching on a 3^rd strike WP. But hitting is a bit more complex to do as well as the average, than throwing a pitch in or near the strike zone.

 

Yes, the starter definitely had his problems, but I think a lot of that was nerves. For those interested, here are the 5 batters he faced.

 

BBBB – walk

WP-BBBB – walk

B – triple

BBBB – walk

C-WP-BBFB – walk

 

Granted his numbers dragged all the pitchers down. The other 3 were 60%, 59%, and 56% which are still very “weak” but at least acceptable, but between this game and the 2 scrimmages, a lot of room for improvement can be seen.

 

If the truth were told, I was tickled to death the game ended as it did, with an 8-2 loss. I know that sounds pretty silly, but this team was 1-26 last season, getting mercied 19 times, so getting to play all 7 innings after being down 5-0 in the 1^st was like a major victory to me.

 

As for "Living in the zone” causing a pitcher live on the pine, at least if he does that, there’s a chance he can have success and contribute to the team. However, if he lives outside the zone, the only thing he’s gonna contribute to is the opponent’s OBP.

 

But it’s all good because at least I think there’s general agreement that throwing a lot of strikes is a lot better than throwing a lot of balls.

I've use that phrase for younger kids when I coached little league because it seemed that at times a young pitcher would be afraid batters hitting the ball or afraid of hitting the batter. 

Now that my son is in high school he is not afraid to throw strikes.

I agree with you, trying to get them to hit the pitch does cut down on pitch count,  thats why little guys are taught that.

However, if you have no defense behind you (which the OP stated), why force a hit?

 

Stats,

Of course you have to throw strikes, but not every strike is called one and not every ball is called one either. Not sure of your point.

 

1-26 probably means they need a new coach. 

 

JMO

This year's coach is the new coach. It takes a couple of years to clean house and get the players to understand "this is how we do it now" and groom the kind of buy in by the players needed for success. 

 

Both my kids went through this. The baseball team had 17 losing seasons in 20 years. Year one for the new coach was sorting it out. They went 6-16. Next year my son was a soph. They came in second. They came in first the next two years. My daughter came into the softball program as a freshman following a team that went 4-18 in the coach's first year. Before his arrival the rumor was the softball team never had a winning season. They then proceeded to won four straight conference titles.

 

In both cases there were some upset parents of seniors who were cut as cancers in the program. They tried to get the coaches fired. No one gets fired for turning perennial losers in conference champions.

Applying statistical analysis to a 1-26 team is sort of like doing an autopsy on a bomb victim: the study might reveal specific details, but the horror of what happened is already plain to see. It may not be worth the bother.

Throwing strikes is hitting your spots. Throwing to location. Ask any quality hitter if they would rather face a guy who lives in the zone or a guy who selective pitches in the zone and out of it. A pitcher who is consistently in the zone better have over powering stuff against the hitters he is facing. And then he will still give up some solid contact. A pitcher who can throw to location will be able to expand the zone. He will be able to keep hitters off balance. He will get swings on pitches out of the zone. He will expand the hitters zone. Yes you can throw too many pitches in the zone. Just like you can throw too many out of it. If you can throw a fastball one ball off the plate knee high why would you throw the same pitch one ball on the plate in a 0-2 count? Its not a strike? Are you saying that pitch should be over the plate? If you can throw a slider down and away 3 balls off the plate in a 1-2 count why would you throw it over the plate? And what if that hitter is the 3 hole hitter with a RISP and he already swung at a slider earlier in the count off the plate down and away? Are you saying a pitch over the plate in that situation is a better choice? Because its about throwing strikes? How many scenarios you want where throwing out of the zone is an effective tool for a pitcher? I am not going to argue. I am just going to leave it alone. But anyone who thinks that being a quality pitcher means you throw strikes in the zone on a consistent basis doesnt know the definition of a BP pitcher.

Every MLB pitching staff was right at 60% of pitches outside the zone last year.

 

Couple that with the fact that batters across the league consistently swung at one-third of those pitches – and successfully put the ball in play on just 10% of those swings -- and it seems obvious that missing the zone is a deliberate and smart strategy.

 

At the HS level, I would expect to see good pitchers exceed this threshold, because younger hitters are more likely to swing at an even higher percent of non-strikes.

       
       
Nice job JP, where did you get your research?  Would love to look into it.

 

 

 

Here ya go:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.c...-outside-strike-zone

 

 

Have you ever wondered why kids with over powering stuff at the HS level don't have more success than they do sometimes? Why a guy with less talent has so much more success? One can pitch the other throws. Throwing the ball over the plate does not make you a pitcher. It makes you a BP guy. Throwing the ball to location, throwing secondary stuff to location, having the velocity to speed up the hitter's internal clock, at the level you are competing at, makes you a pitcher.

 

Pitching to contact does not mean throwing the ball over the plate and creating contact. That is called getting Shelled. Pitching to contact is throwing a change up in a fastball situation in the zone in a must strike situation. Throwing a sinker in the zone in a must strike situation. Throwing a fastball in the zone in a breaking ball sequence count. Pitching to contact is impossible (properly) when the pitcher can not pitch. Pitching to contact is not about giving in. Its about pitching to produce weak contact all set up by the pitch sequence to the hitter and location of the pay off pitch. Instead of throwing waste pitches out of the zone you are throwing sequence pitches in the zone.

 

Pitching to contact at the ML level is not the same as pitching to contact at the HS level. ML level defense. HS level defense. Ability of ML pitchers to sequence HS pitchers ability to sequence. ML strike zone, HS strike zone. If a HS pitcher is good enough to pitch to contact (properly) he will K alot of HS hitters. If a ML level pitcher pitches to contact properly he will produce weak contact and that is his goal.

 

As a HS coach I know that if we hit our spots we will be setting up the proper sequence for the desired result. #1 (A strike out.) - We don't have to make a play. #2 (Weak contact) - Make the routine play on a routine basis.

 

When a pitcher can not locate he can not set up the sequence. He is breaking the formula. FB OH L for a Strike. This is the first pitch of the at bat. The second pitch is all set up by the success of the first pitch. Or the failure. The ability to throw out of the zone effectively allows you to throw in the zone effectively.

 

As a hitter I want that pitcher in the zone. I want to know that he is going to work in the zone. I don't want to walk I want to hit. I don't want to have to worry about wether it's going to be a ball. I want to be comfortable. I will stop with this because I tend to post way too much when I start. But the ability to pitch is the ability to set up your next pitch with your last pitch. And that is impossible if the pitcher can not pitch. And pitching is not about throwing strikes in the zone. It's about throwing that pitch to that spot consistently. If you can do that you won't have to throw as many strikes in the zone. There is a reason it's called a strike. Because it's a good pitch to hit.

 

I guess it depends on how you define overpowering stuff.  85 or 86 is really good for hs but I wouldn't call it overpowering.   Once you get north of 90 then it is overpowering.   I personally have only once over many years seen one of these guys shelled.  Now of course there are times one of these guys just doesn't have it one day and they are actually throwing mid 80's rather than 90+ but that is a different story.  The guys I have seen who have draft type stuff really didn't need to locate.  But for the average hs pitcher location is critical.

Great post!

 

So, how do you propose they throw more first pitch strikes when it appears (in your mind) that they can't throw many strikes at all?

 

And how do they "pitch to contact" when they can't get the ball over the plate?

Of course the pitcher has to locate pitches. Don't think anyone ever said the pitch had to be down the middle. OP brought up fist pitch balls among other things. Getting behind in the count often leads to throwing the ball down the middle of the plate.

Ditto on the great post!

In my experience - and I've tracked the stat for many years - you like a good first strike percentage (say 52%), but once you start looking at guys with much higher first strike %, you're looking at guys with very high eras as well. A guy with a 60% first strike % is probably getting shelled. Note this is youth and HS level I'm talking about.