Philosophy on taking pitches

Personally I don't like taking strikes, with the exception of the first lead-off and 3-0 of course, especially at the high school level. Most High school pitchers are taught first pitch fastball to get ahead in the count. If you've done your homework on a team and you know the high are very high that they throw the fastball first pitch to establish, then I like my hitter to jump on it if it's a strike.

Now, of all players, my son is extremely comfortable taking pitches and actually likes hitting with 2 strikes....drives me crazy....good thing he will probably end up a pitcher only....lol

Hih,

What is it you think would be gained by taking more pitches?

Have you actually looked at any numbers for HS hitters to see if your theory is in fact backed up by reality?

I’m not picking on you at all because your position seems to be a “normal” one. But I have looked at what’s going for HS hitters for many years now, and I can tell you there is no one philosophy that would work equally well for all HS players.

What I’ve seen as a tendency is, very good hitters who have a good sense of the strike zone, do very well being aggressive. That changes to some degree as players climb the ladder, but at the HS level, if everyone’s lumped together, the AVERAGE and below pitchers and hitters are far more often the rule rather than the exception.

I’m not sure why you’d have the hitters change their approach every at bat, but I can tell you that its much more common for hitters to only face the same pitcher twice in one game, and that would pretty much reset whatever paradigm you’re trying to establish.

I’m not understanding why anyone would want hitters to take until they get 2 strikes unless the goal is to have as many of the walk as possible. The trouble is, it would also likely cause the rate of K’s to climb as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Hit it hard:
Has anyone ever tried to the following method?

1st time through order- each guy gets first pitch to hit and then takes till he gets a strike if first pitch is a ball.

2nd time through order- each guy takes until he gets a strike

3rd time through the order- each guy gets first pitch or takes until he gets a strike unless he goes 2-0 and then he gets to swing.

Also, has anyone ever had certain hitters take until they get two strikes?

Thanks for your thoughts and ideas on this.

Some data points...
-Every HS coach I know hammers home to his pitchers to get ahead with a first pitch strike (usually a fastball).
-Most HS pitchers, particularly starters, are capable of accomplishing first pitch strikes more often than not.
-We have all seen the stats on how batting averages drop when the hitter is behind in the count.
-Most HS players, particularly starters, would much rather hit than walk and enjoy the game more when the bat is not taken out of their hands.

So, why would you want hitters taking more pitches? 1-0 is a GREAT hitters count. So is 2-0. And the second time through the lineup, a hitter should be MORE confident swinging at the first pitch because he's already seen the pitcher's stuff.

Now, there are some exceptions. Obviously, if we see a pitcher struggling to find the plate, we may encourage our hitters to take until he throws a strike. And with some smaller school leagues, I have seen starters with lack of decent control. Also, there are some hitters who are just more comfortable seeing a pitch before they start hacking. That said, I would much rather encourage a controlled aggressiveness from my hitters and teach them things about count zones and what types of pitches to look for in various situations.
Having a kid take until he gets two strikes puts them in a significant disadvantage. Again, some types of hitters can work the count that way and battle with reasonable success but in the short 7-inning HS game, I never agreed with that philosophy.

There is a local program that does things similar to what you described and they have reasonable success as a program but I think they do so in spite of that approach and I know that the boys generally do not enjoy playing the game like they should.
There are also many coaches who will take the approach of take-'till-you-get-a-strike if they are down late in the game to try to make something happen. I know I'll get disagreement here but, IMO, I don't like it.

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Some data points...
-Every HS coach I know hammers home to his pitchers to get ahead with a first pitch strike (usually a fastball).

LOL. Actually, its more like every coach at every level from kid pitch to the ML. The difference is, the higher the level, the more likely the 1st pitch might be something other than a good ol’ 4 seamer.

quote:

-Most HS pitchers, particularly starters, are capable of accomplishing first pitch strikes more often than not.

When you say “HS pitchers”, are you including everyone from MS players on the HS team, all the Fr and JV players, and all the kids who get innings although not regularly? The reason I ask is, when most people say or hear “HS baseball”, what they’re really thinking is V baseball at an average or above program.

quote:

Originally posted by Stats4Gnats:

quote:

-Most HS pitchers, particularly starters, are capable of accomplishing first pitch strikes more often than not.

When you say “HS pitchers”, are you including everyone from MS players on the HS team, all the Fr and JV players, and all the kids who get innings although not regularly? The reason I ask is, when most people say or hear “HS baseball”, what they’re really thinking is V baseball at an average or above.

Yes, I am referring to V players and the next few words were "particularly starters" so I am talking about the P's who get regular innings. I also later stated a possible exception of smaller school leagues.
IMO, the approach the OP suggests would be even worse if you are talking JV. Yes, they need to learn proper approach and plate discipline, but more so, they need to hit, hit, hit.

quote:

Originally posted by cabbagedad:
Yes, I am referring to V players and the next few words were "particularly starters" so I am talking about the P's who get regular innings. I also later stated a possible exception of smaller school leagues.
IMO, the approach the OP suggests would be even worse if you are talking JV. Yes, they need to learn proper approach and plate discipline, but more so, they need to hit, hit, hit.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one!

The only reason I asked what I did was, very often questions like the OP are asked, but the person asking doesn’t say what his/her perspective is or what level of HSB they’re talking about. Without knowing that, answers are often given that really don’t very well answer the question.

I would not have a pitch taking philosophy on a HS team. Much more often than not, you'll score more runs with an aggressive philosophy, because you'll get almost as many walks. And a lot more hitting.

If you've got a player who consistently is stupidly aggressive, sit him.

Interesting, but counter intuitive to what I was teaching. My son and I would talk often about his at bats. My consistent theme throughout was centered on two questions:
1. (in regards to the pitch he hit) was that the best pitch you saw in that at bat?
2. What did you do with the best pitch you were going to see?

During SO yr on V, he took way too many pitches and put himself in the hole. Didn't take him long to realize that he was taking the best pitch he was going to see, and by default he was being forced to commit on some of the worst pitches.

By changing his attitude he started to understand more about the pitching situation and improve his decision-making about the pitches he was swinging at. For example, you can justify taking a 0-0 curveball because that is likely not the best pitch you are going to see, even if it puts you behind in the count 0-1. Yet, conversely, if you take that 0-0 fastball right down the middle simply because you thought you should be patient, you may have just missed the best pitch you were going to see. In both situations, you are sitting 0-1, but there is a huge difference in where you are sitting mentally.

As my son bought into this analysis, he learned how to be mentally prepared before his at bat (by observing a pitcher's tendencies), and more importantly, during his at bat.

I never got to the point of tracking it statistically, but his stats proved that he learned his lesson. Virtually every strikeout in his career came back to a situation where he was forced to hit a pitcher's pitch and he had missed his opportunity on the best pitch he saw in the at bat. Sometimes he had let the "best" pitch go, sometimes he "just missed it", and sometimes he fouled it off. Over time, those three went away and we enjoyed many more conversations about how he 'drilled' it, or drove it to the gap. Hitting became fun at that point. So, my point is that taking a pitch just to be patient was never an effective strategy. Finding the best pitch you are going to see in the at bat and doing something with it will lead to more success.

quote:

Originally posted by schwammi:
…I never got to the point of tracking it statistically, but his stats proved that he learned his lesson.

?????? If that means his stats got better and you ASSUMED it was because he’d learned some lesson you thought was important, while it may be true to at least some degree, its really quite a leap.

If you could go back in time, how would you have tracked it statistically?

quote:

Virtually every strikeout in his career came back to a situation where he was forced to hit a pitcher's pitch and he had missed his opportunity on the best pitch he saw in the at bat.

That pretty much sounds like every strikeout that’s ever happened to anyone.

quote:

Sometimes he had let the "best" pitch go, sometimes he "just missed it", and sometimes he fouled it off. Over time, those three went away and we enjoyed many more conversations about how he 'drilled' it, or drove it to the gap. Hitting became fun at that point.

Are you trying to say that as he got older and better, he never let the best pitch in an at bat go, just missed it, or fouled it off? That’s a mighty big reach.

quote:

So, my point is that taking a pitch just to be patient was never an effective strategy. Finding the best pitch you are going to see in the at bat and doing something with it will lead to more success.

While I completely agree that taking pitches just to be patient is a pretty silly strategy, I honestly don’t understand how anyone could possibly hope to know which pitch in any at bat was the “best” pitch.

quote:

Originally posted by freddy77:
I would not have a pitch taking philosophy on a HS team. Much more often than not, you'll score more runs with an aggressive philosophy, because you'll get almost as many walks. And a lot more hitting.

If you've got a player who consistently is stupidly aggressive, sit him.

With the wide range of skills on a HS baseball team, whether it be the lowliest Fr team at the smallest of schools, or the most potent varsity juggernaut in the country, it seems almost a sure thing that no one hitting philosophy will work for everyone, but one. That would be for every hitter to become as competent as possible at learning “his” strike zone and identifying pitches that are in it or not.

Stats - wow....I am a little surprised you'd be the one calling me out. I know you have a solid system, and I am surprised you did not jump in with some percentages of strikeouts on fb vs curve for your teams. You are very detailed and precise, so I thought for sure you had some statistical insight that mirrored what I teach (or contradicted it).

While you are calling me out, he was a career .394 hitter at the varsity level, so you can imply what you want. I only know what we talked about in the car, and what I talked to my other players about. I maintain that hitting the best pitch you are going to see is the best approach.

As for lessons learned, he transitioned from a kid who historically led the team in walks to a kid who hit the first pitch. He learned that the patience that allowed him to walk at lower levels put him at too much of a disadvantage against the better pitchers.

As for your reply about every strikeout, not true. I have seen curveball for called strike 0-1. Change-up taken for 0-2 or 1-2. And fastball right down the middle swing and miss for a K. Reality was that the fastball was the best pitch and he missed it. My point was, if you take the best pitch (often 1st pitch FB) just to take a pitch, I think you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, we didn't chart this and Gamechanger does not have a way to track it.

So, you could make the argument that none of it matters and he might have been the same (or better) hitter had he always taken the first pitch, but I saw the transition he went through and I am convinced otherwise. But, that is just my opinion, and the philosophy I use with my teams.

FYI...same strategy can apply to 3-0. I have won more than one game by giving my hitter a green light on 3-0. It is never "automatic" take on my team because of my philosophy. If we are facing a tough pitcher with nasty stuff, that 3-0 fastball could easily be the best pitch the hitter is going to see. Based on that, my guys know that they will occasionally have the green light on 3-0.

Stats -- one more clarification. While we did not track 'the best pitch' statistically, we used it as a way to analyze every at bat. Historically, the at bats where he took 'the best pitch' looking were not as successful as the times he swung at it. Now, simply swinging at that pitch does not assure success because we had more than one discussion about the weak ground out on a change up because he fouled of the fb on the pitch before. Ultimately, you still need to be a good enough hitter to convert that pitch into a base hit (or in the words of Steve Springer - a QUALITY at bat), but I firmly believe that pitch selection is a crucial factor in a successful hitter.

I'd love to help you with your stats, but I am not quite sure how I would chart it because it depends on both pitch and location to assign a value of "best pitch". And it is complicated because you can't label any pitch as the best pitch until the AB is complete. But sitting in the car on the way home, it is pretty easy to look back and say you flew out to center on a high pitch because you took the FB down the middle on the pitch before.

quote:

Originally posted by schwammi:
Stats - wow....I am a little surprised you'd be the one calling me out.

I wasn’t at all trying to “call you out”, but I can understand how you might take it that way, and apologize if that’s how you took it.

quote:

I know you have a solid system, and I am surprised you did not jump in with some percentages of strikeouts on fb vs curve for your teams. You are very detailed and precise, so I thought for sure you had some statistical insight that mirrored what I teach (or contradicted it).

I would gladly do that, if I had the data to do it with. Evidently you haven’t read enough of my stuff to know I don’t believe in charting pitch types or locations. At least without the help of the technology the ML uses. Because of that, I have never, nor will I ever gather or analyze that kind of data. Others can do it all they wish, but I’ll just stick to things I can guarantee a 95% or better chance of accuracy and validity.

quote:

While you are calling me out, he was a career .394 hitter at the varsity level, so you can imply what you want. I only know what we talked about in the car, and what I talked to my other players about. I maintain that hitting the best pitch you are going to see is the best approach.

Again, I wasn’t at all “calling you out”. In fact, I have no doubt at all that as a player he progressed at a far above average rate. But the point I was trying to make was, there’s no way anyone can pick out any single factor as the one and only thing that caused a leap forward. Or back for that matter.

As for the “hitting the best pitch you are going to see philosophy”, if you’re trying to use that as some kind of cue or encouragement to the players, that’s one thing. But trying to say the best approach is something that’s impossible to do because going back in time isn’t possible, and without going back in time, there’s no way to compare the pitches. So either you’re meaning something you aren’t saying, or I’m totally misunderstanding you.

quote:

As for lessons learned, he transitioned from a kid who historically led the team in walks to a kid who hit the first pitch. He learned that the patience that allowed him to walk at lower levels put him at too much of a disadvantage against the better pitchers.

That’s something that seems “normal” to me in today’s low level game, and to me it seems as though it would create “lookers” rather than “swingers”. But why do you suppose he started out that way? I seriously doubt it was something he dreamed up all by himself because most kids play the game to swing, not look.

quote:

As for your reply about every strikeout, not true. I have seen curveball for called strike 0-1. Change-up taken for 0-2 or 1-2. And fastball right down the middle swing and miss for a K.

But you don’t know whether the pitch thrown was thrown in that location on purpose. Properly set up, a FB right down the middle may well be the pitcher’s best bet. But the real truth is, when there are 2 strikes on a batter, he’s at a disadvantage no matter what, because now that K becomes a possibility.

quote:

Reality was that the fastball was the best pitch and he missed it. My point was, if you take the best pitch (often 1st pitch FB) just to take a pitch, I think you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, we didn't chart this and Gamechanger does not have a way to track it.

I never disagreed with your point. In fact, my personal feelings are, hitters shouldn’t lock themselves into a “here and here only” mentality, because it reduces the possibilities.

They don’t have a way to track it because its not possible to compare pitches the way you want to do it without some input from the user. Now if you want to set up the matrix for which pitch is the “best” pitch, it would be a piece of cake to do, but since what you believe and what I believe may be 2 different things, it would be pretty silly to hardwire it into a program.

Try figuring out which pitch in this sequence is the “best” pitch.

2SFB down the middle missed. Curve down the middle fouled. 4SFB down the middle fouled. CU down the middle missed.

quote:

So, you could make the argument that none of it matters and he might have been the same (or better) hitter had he always taken the first pitch, but I saw the transition he went through and I am convinced otherwise. But, that is just my opinion, and the philosophy I use with my teams.

I would never argue that always taking the 1st pitch is a good idea any more than I’d argue always swinging at the 1st pitch was a good idea. I’ll ask again. How was it that he became a “taker” and had to change? Was it his coaches or was it you that led him down that path?

quote:

FYI...same strategy can apply to 3-0. I have won more than one game by giving my hitter a green light on 3-0. It is never "automatic" take on my team because of my philosophy. If we are facing a tough pitcher with nasty stuff, that 3-0 fastball could easily be the best pitch the hitter is going to see. Based on that, my guys know that they will occasionally have the green light on 3-0.

Well, taking on 3-0 is something that can be examined with great precision, so if you say you’ve tracked all the 3-0 counts where the batter didn’t take and you’ve won games because of it, all I can say is, how many games has it cost you?

Since 2007, here’s what’s happened on 3-0 counts, i.e. the 4th pitch finished the AB.

ROE – 2
Hits – 15
Outs – 26
Walks – 282
Ball No AB - 3

Now one way to look at it is, the BA on 3-0 is .349, but the OBP if taking makes that pale in comparison, so why even consider it in a “game on the line” situation?

quote:

Stats -- one more clarification. While we did not track 'the best pitch' statistically, we used it as a way to analyze every at bat. Historically, the at bats where he took 'the best pitch' looking were not as successful as the times he swung at it. Now, simply swinging at that pitch does not assure success because we had more than one discussion about the weak ground out on a change up because he fouled of the fb on the pitch before. Ultimately, you still need to be a good enough hitter to convert that pitch into a base hit (or in the words of Steve Springer - a QUALITY at bat), but I firmly believe that pitch selection is a crucial factor in a successful hitter.

I’m sorry, but I’m totally confused. If you don’t track something, how can you analyze it?

Not only do I not see a way to track it, I don’t’ see a way to identify it, so I’m just a bundle of confusion.

quote:

I'd love to help you with your stats, but I am not quite sure how I would chart it because it depends on both pitch and location to assign a value of "best pitch". And it is complicated because you can't label any pitch as the best pitch until the AB is complete.

Evidently you have the same misgivings I do, and that’s reassuring.

quote:

But sitting in the car on the way home, it is pretty easy to look back and say you flew out to center on a high pitch because you took the FB down the middle on the pitch before.

What do you say when he took a FB down the middle on pitch 2 but screamed a high pitch into the gap for a triple? And that’s the problem. Without tracking every pitch and the results, then looking at the good things as well as the bad, its all nothing but conjecture and looking at things in a way that will fulfill what it is you’re looking to prove/disprove. This numbers stuff isn’t as simple as it looks. LOL!

I've talked with my son over the years at length about this issue.

In my opinion, it goes far deeper than "taking" pitches, or even about pitch selection. It all starts with pitch recognition, I believe. This is something we don't talk about much, but the higher the level, the harder it is to recognize the pitch. Without recognizing the pitch correctly, "pitch selection" is almost moot.

Finally, strike zone judgment also enters into the equation. Once the pitch is correctly recognized, now the question is whether or not the pitch is in the zone. On a 0-0 count, some pitches in the strike zone should be taken. But a pitch that can be driven should always be swung at,regardless of the count.

I've learned a lot about this talking with my son. He has always had a very good approach to his at-bats. Baseball America last year said he had the best strike zone judgment in the ACC, but I think his advantage is that he recognizes pitches well, perhaps because he is a catcher.

I'm not a fan of "taking a strike." I am a fan of swinging hard at pitches that can be hit hard.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
I've talked with my son over the years at length about this issue.

In my opinion, it goes far deeper than "taking" pitches, or even about pitch selection. It all starts with pitch recognition, I believe. This is something we don't talk about much, but the higher the level, the harder it is to recognize the pitch. Without recognizing the pitch correctly, "pitch selection" is almost moot.

Finally, strike zone judgment also enters into the equation. Once the pitch is correctly recognized, now the question is whether or not the pitch is in the zone. On a 0-0 count, some pitches in the strike zone should be taken. But a pitch that can be driven should always be swung at,regardless of the count.

I've learned a lot about this talking with my son. He has always had a very good approach to his at-bats. Baseball America last year said he had the best strike zone judgment in the ACC, but I think his advantage is that he recognizes pitches well, perhaps because he is a catcher.

I agree in general, but have some reservations about pitch recognition. I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that while both pitch recognition and location recognition(whether the ball is in the strike zone or can be hit hard) are both very dependent on how instinctual the ability to recognize them has become.

The reason I say that is, there’s so little time to determine the type of pitch and add to that knowledge the location and then come to a reasoned conclusion to either swing or not and where to put the bat. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but to assume it’s a process as simple as adding 1+1 and coming up with 2 isn’t reasonable.

quote:

I'm not a fan of "taking a strike." I am a fan of swinging hard at pitches that can be hit hard.

There ya go.

quote:

What do you say when he took a FB down the middle on pitch 2 but screamed a high pitch into the gap for a triple?

I would say, "nice hit"...and then say "what happened on the pitch before"?. He always had some great excuse, to which I would usually reply "you got lucky...you are lucky you got another pitch to hit".

There is no real science to this. I was just replying to a question about forcing kids to take pitches by explaining my philosophy.

Your stats for 3-0 are intriguing. If you assume that the 282 would have happened no matter what (since the hitter is looking FB right down the middle), the stats seem to support a .577 batting average. So, if I have a guy at the plate who can't hit a curve to save his life, then maybe a 3-0 FB gives him a 50-50 shot at a base hit. Depending on the situation, it made sense to me to give a green light, although I did not have any statistical support, just a gut feel. Pretty neat that you could pull some real life experience into the conversation.

Now, I have to ask - what is a "Ball No AB"?

quote:

Originally posted by schwammi:
I would say, "nice hit"...and then say "what happened on the pitch before"?. He always had some great excuse, to which I would usually reply "you got lucky...you are lucky you got another pitch to hit".

There is no real science to this. I was just replying to a question about forcing kids to take pitches by explaining my philosophy.

Well, I know people don’t like to admit how much luck is involved in baseball, but its there. All anyone can do is try to remove as much luck as possible by honing skills to the highest degree possible to IMPROVE the odds, never to remove them.

quote:

Your stats for 3-0 are intriguing. If you assume that the 282 would have happened no matter what (since the hitter is looking FB right down the middle), the stats seem to support a .577 batting average. So, if I have a guy at the plate who can't hit a curve to save his life, then maybe a 3-0 FB gives him a 50-50 shot at a base hit. Depending on the situation, it made sense to me to give a green light, although I did not have any statistical support, just a gut feel. Pretty neat that you could pull some real life experience into the conversation.

If stats weren’t intriguing, I assure you I’d find myself another hobby.

The great thing about have actual numbers to look at, even if they only represent a tiny sample, is that it allows folks like yourself to project. When that happens there’s always some degree of enlightenment that takes place, and that’s always a very good thing.

If you want to see a breakdown of all 3 ball counts, go to each link and do a find on “threeb”.

http://www.infosports.com/scor.../images/cbatting.pdf
http://www.infosports.com/scor...images/cpitching.pdf

quote:

Now, I have to ask - what is a "Ball No AB"?

I considered just leaving that out because I was pretty sure I’d get the question you asked. Its not that I worry about it, but rather that I’ve answered it so many times over the years.

It used to be that I used the letter “X” to denote any PA that ended with the last pitch being a ball but the AB not being complete. FI, 2-2 count with 2 outs and a runner on 2nd who gets thrown out. Same thing for a HBP. When I went to computer scoring, I changed it a bit so that an “X” means HBP only and a “Y” would show those other things so I could more easily separate them.

Its complicated, but works pretty well in general for me.

We have a very simple philosophy on this matter. 0 strikes - We are looking for a pitch we can drive. No need to swing just because a pitch is a strike, we want to get something we can drive in the gap. 1 strike - We are looking for a pitch we can barrel up. Doesn't need to be something we can drive, but we had better be able to put a good swing on the ball. 2 strikes, look away (middle to 6 inches off plate) and wait.

We put so much more time into pitch selection than hitting mechanics and I think we have been better for it. Since we have simplified this approach, our OBP has gone up, our SLG% has gone up.

Our kids go to bat with one simple plan, have a quality at bat. Quality at bats do not always end in getting on base because there is a lot chance when a ball is put in play.

This seems to have worked well for us. Good discussion!