"Pitch to Contact"

quote:

Does it mean let the other team put the ball in play, and not try to strike everybody out? How exactly do you do that? By not always trying for corners?

Good discussion, Rob. That's exactly what it means. But I tend only to hear it on TV from commentators who weren't pitchers back in the day. I know strikeouts are fascist :-) And there are certainly situations where as a pitcher you're really looking for a ground ball. But I never actually thought, "OK, now I'm going to pitch to contact" in college or pro ball; I just went after everybody with a game plan and the best stuff I had that day.

It means "stop nibbling and flood the strike zone." Usually, it is said to someone who is getting into bad counts 1-0, 2-0, 2-1, 3-1.

I would much rather a pitcher give up an 0-0 base hit than a 6 pitch walk. Not only does it keep his pitch count down, but it also keeps his defense awake and in the game.

I agree with both and honestly not a huge fan of the phrase. I think it's just one of the new popular phrases that is going around. I don't like it because I just get the impression of a kid hearing it and throwing too many down the middle.

1-2 count pitcher throws a waste pitch. 2-2 count pitcher now tries to be too fine and misses off the plate. Over the course of an outing this drives up the pitch count.

1-2 go after the hitter with a pitch for a strike vs a pitch to try and get him to chase.

Many times in a fastball count with a pitcher up in the count they waste a pitch. In these situations pitching to contact would mean throwing a change up for a strike which will either get you contact hopefully you can field or a K much earlier in the process.

Alot of these HS pitchers drafted are used to striking out alot of hitters. Up in the count they waste pitches trying to get hitters to chase. HS hitters will chase way more often than MIL and ML hitters. The strike zone at the HS level is much larger and way more inconsistent. They want to teach these pitchers that a ground ball in 1 to 4 pitches is way better than a strike out in 5 or 6 pitches.

In HS when you have a dominant arm you want the K's. The defense is not nearly as good as it is at the higher levels. Many times you drop off significantly on the hill when that dominant arm leaves the game. At the pro level you want to teach the pitchers how to get guys out by making them make contact on pitches they are not looking for. Driving down the pitch count and teaching them to "pitch to contact" not trying to be so fine and hence getting behind in counts which leads them to having to throw predictable pitches to tremendous hitters.

Pitching to contact... I never cared for that phrase either. If a pitcher has good stuff and good command that day, I don't want him pitching to contact, I would want him to dominate. Pitch counts get high when he gets wild. I've also never liked the term "waste pitch". The most dominating thing a pitcher can do is throw three pitches for a strike out.

That said I think there are times where a pitcher should think about pitching to contact. Only difference is, I think the time to do this is on 2-0 3-1 counts (Hitter counts). Mike Boddiker made millions throwing what he called "BP Fastballs" with a little sink in 2-0/3-1 counts. Get the ground ball and escape.

A lot depends on what type of pitcher is throwing. Some need to pitch to contact more than others. That's because they don't have a true knockout pitch. But when a pitcher has 2 strikes on a hitter he is one pitch away from contact or a strikeout. I'll take the strikeout in that case, everytime.

Pitch counts are a concern, but I'd rather my pitcher put up zeros for 5 innings than worry about pitch count. Besides if you name the best pitchers in any era, at any level, you will find some guys with high strikeout totals. That doesn't mean that nobody can do it the other way, but the best stuff usually ends up missing a lot of bats. I do agree that sometimes pitchers get caught up in nibbling too much.

Just my opinion, it's not the gospel!

Pitching to contact is another way of saying don't be afraid to throw strikes and go right after the hitter. When you pitch to contact though, you're not just throwing the ball down the pipe, you're looking for low strikes down the middle of the plate to try and induce groundballs. The purpose is to get quick easy outs, keep the pitch count low, and to keep the defense involved in the game and on its toes. A lot of times when a pitcher uses this approach they will be ahead in the count more often than not and when they get batters to 2 strikes they will use their strike out pitch.

The phrase is becoming abused. If you put it in the wrong context to some kids, they may start serving it up rather than risk a walk.

I asked my kid (HS) not long ago what he thought about 'pitch to contact'. He said that even on days when he can't hit his spots, can't throw his offspeed stuff well or feels he's just not getting the 'call', he won't throw something he knows may likely get ripped, unless it's 3-0.....

Pitching is somewhat about assuming and transferring 'risk' - walk, hit, run v. out. Instead he just adjusts his strategy to the situation. If no one is on, then walk may be OK. That's pitcher risk - his ER if runner scores. He might run some 2-seams down on the next batter looking for the DP. Maybe a changeup to induce a pop fly to stop the risp. With runners on, that's shared risk with the rest of the defense.

Otherwise, I believe the pitcher is out there to shoot for Ks unless opponent runs are on the line. From there, 'pitching to contact' is mostly about the best pitches for that situation for the team to best manage the risks.

I've always been perplexed by the balance between strikeouts and pitch counts. Obviously, the high strikeout pitchers on balance have a higher pitch count. Pitch-count rules favor "contact pitchers" but I'm guessing the scouts are not impressed.

SP_son and I were watching an interview once with Greg Maddux where he said that the perfect inning was 3 pitches, and 3 easy ground balls (back to the mound ideally). SP_son really took that to heart.

From that, he decided that his goal would be to get hitters out in 3 pitches or less. He (we) have viewed "pitching to contact" to mean getting the hitter to have to hit your pitch; with the goal being to get it off the end of the bat, or off the handle -- missing the fat part of the bat -- so as to create a ground ball or pop-up out in as few pitches as necessary.

Now ... when SP_son keeps his pitch count down to 10/inning or less, he is pleased; at 10-12 he feels pretty good; at 12+ he sees it as a lesser performance and challenges himself to be more aggresive at attacking hitters and making them hit his pitch the next time out.

As to Bum's point ... No, the scouts don't seem to be impressed by this. Recently, he threw a complete game WIN where he struck out the first 2 hitters of the game for his only 2 K's of the game; faced 9 hitters in the first 3 innings; scattered 6 hits, 4 of which were bloops, and allowed the only 2 runs in the 7th (a 5 out inning). He had thrown only 86 pitches. When it was over the feedback we heard was that he doesn't have enough power to win ... which he and his team had just done. We often get the impression that these days K = Pitching ... even if you get lit up between the K's.

all the college pitching coaches im hearing at clinics and reading are using this phrase. shoot for 3 pitches per hitter or not going beyond 1-2 counts.
i know that was also the braves philosophy with leo mazzone, maddux and glavine.
we've got a couple of junior pitchers right now that understand this concept. they were our 1 and 2 pitchers last year as 10th graders and had good seasons. they still get their share of k's on 0-2, 1-2 counts.

southpaw_dad,

I understand that line of thinking, but it might not work as the hitters start getting better. The pitches that are creating poor contact at one level sometime create solid contact at the next level. Those darn hitters are better at every level you move up. As important as keeping the pitch counts down, it only works when hitters are being retired. While this might work for your son, others might throw 10-15 pitches that result in 5 runs. It's great that your son sees this as being aggresive and attacking hitters. Making them hit his pitch is also great, but what's wrong with making them miss the pitch? I know... It's that pitch count thing! It's just a personal preference, If it were possible, I like pitchers who miss bats completely. Those would be the ones with the best stuff and they would also get the most "poor" contact. That doesn't mean the other way doesn't work. There are plenty of good pitchers who don't strikeout lots of hitters. It could be said that they pitch to contact, but I think that is just the result of things rather than anything else. The hardest throwers with the best stuff tend to get the most strikeouts. The others don't get as many strikeouts, but they are good enough to limit the solid contact.

Whether someone likes the phrase “pitching to contact” or not, I think most understand what it means. Also I think there are times/situations where pitching to contact is the correct thing to do.

It seems like every time small pitchers, lesser velocity, pitching to contact is brought up, Maddux’s name is mentioned. His size is what it is, but it’s been mentioned many times that Maddux threw 94 as a high school kid. Even though not big he was a dominate pitcher that was pretty much untouchable, striking everyone out in high school. That is what causes a high school 6’00 RHP to get drafted in the 2nd round! It wasn't because he was good at pitching to contact. It was because no one could hit him.

If someone takes a look at his career, you will see his best strikeout years SO/9 were from 1991 to 2000. Those were his best years, winning 4 Cy Young awards during that span and finished among the top 5 in Cy Young voting another 4 times. In other words, for the most part, his best years were his highest strikeout years.

Anyway, even though the concept of pitching to contact might make sense, is it really possible? One could say, it means the pitcher is filling the strike zone which will cause more contact and that makes sense. But it must be understood that hitters are up there to “make contact”. Hitters want good contact, pitchers want bad contact or no contact. Good stuff, quality pitches, create a lot of bad contact or no contact. To me “no contact” will always be more productive than any other type of contact.

In some situations no contact or the strikeout become even more important than other times. Sometimes throwing strikes and getting contact is the most important thing. ie. Relief pitcher comes in with a 2 run or more lead and the hitter can’t tie the game with one swing. We all know that the hitter can’t beat us, so that would be the time to fill the zone. If that hitter leads off with a triple, the pitcher changes, he needs a strikeout, and the walk isn’t quite as big a concern. Please understand that I am generalizing here and that every situation calls for different thinking.

But overall, you have three things that can happen when you throw the baseball… 1-Good contact… 2-Bad contact… 3-No contact (either ball or strike) I’m not sure what a hitters batting average will be when he makes contact (either good or bad contact) But I know for certain what a hitters batting average is when he makes no contact.

There are some pitchers at the highest levels of pro or college baseball that are successful without striking out a lot of hitters. But as a high school age player, unless you are pitching against the best high school hitters in the country, for the most part, you are going to need to punch out a good number in order to create a lot of interest for the higher levels.

The Aflac Game has, arguably, the top high school hitters and the top high school pitching prospects. The number of strikeouts is astounding each year. Those pitchers are not pitching to contact, yet as they get older and in professional baseball, they will learn when and where to pitch to “bad” contact. In the meantime the best pitchers in high school are guys like Jameson Taillon who struck out 16 or 17 against Cuba in the gold medal game recently. He is a much better prospect than the high school kids who are pitching to contact. Or maybe he too pitches to contact, but his stuff is so good there just isn’t much contact made.

None of this means anything. I actually believe that nearly every post made on this subject makes sense. The only reason that I’ve posted is because this is an interesting topic, not because my opinion is all that important. Bottom line, the ability to throw strikes is extremely important (contact or not).

quote:

Originally posted by ShepFPC28:
Pitching to contact is another way of saying don't be afraid to throw strikes and go right after the hitter. When you pitch to contact though, you're not just throwing the ball down the pipe, you're looking for low strikes down the middle of the plate to try and induce groundballs. The purpose is to get quick easy outs, keep the pitch count low, and to keep the defense involved in the game and on its toes. A lot of times when a pitcher uses this approach they will be ahead in the count more often than not and when they get batters to 2 strikes they will use their strike out pitch.

All good responses here. I agree with the above as to the definition of pitch to contact.

PG makes good points, there is good contact and poor contact, and there is nothing better than a 3 pitch strike out, but we all know that doesn't happen all of the time. Coach May's last paragraph is pretty accurate also. Often times than not though, most pitchers when facing tough hitters go deeper in counts, that is why the pitch to contact makes sense in keeping the count low, especially for youong pitchers (JMO).

All pitchers are different, I always considered son a pitch to contact guy more than a strike out pitcher, but that didn't mean make each hitter hit you each time you throw, there are times when it does become necessary. He is a ground ball sinker guy, which means he often times needs to pitch to contact (especially after handing out a freeby) to induce a DP, then he becomes the pitch to contact pitcher, producing the bloopy ball that is easily put into play to get out of the inning.

Good thread and good posts.

I want to see pitchers throw well enough so that the hitter has/or wants to commit his bat. Doesn't mean a fat fastball down the middle, but good enough the hitter can't easily ignore the pitch. Requires alot of focus from the pitcher and he can't be afraid and try to make the hitter miss (hard to steer a ball once in flight). Problem I see in HS are pitchers trying to get a hitter to chase a ball and they miss the plate by two feet; they lost focus and all they did was give the hitter more of a clue. Keep the ball around the plate and keep your teammates in the game, mentally and score-wise. Just throw quality pitches (doesn't mean every pitch is a strike) and most HS pitchers will be successful.

Inconsistent focus on the mound plagues many a HS pitcher. Most don't let up physically on the mound but often lose their mental edge when ahead in the count and figure they have it made with this hitter instead of finishing the hitter off. They quit thinking they are in a fight and go on cruise control.

Throw to contact...I never thought of the term as just letting the batter hit the ball. Rather I think of it as making batters hit a pitchers pitch not a hitters pitch. If you miss your spot, miss it where you want to miss it, not dead over the middle waist high. I love seeing alot of checked swings from hitters; often means the pitcher has just enough movement/location/deception to confuse the hitters. Really like the checked swing strikes.

Pitchers with the 90+mph heat are going to win nearly every battle in HS so they should attack the hitter aggressively. I want them thinking K's. Maddux became deadly when he mastered location and movement; was always faster than people gave him credit for. Hated when he left the Braves. Maddux had a killer instinct; he was an assasin versus Viking might be an analogy. Never saw him quit on the mound even when he was having an off day.

No matter the talent of the pitcher, if he is going lose the battle I want him to lose with his best pitch he has that day. Sometimes you are going lose due to a bad swing on a good pitch...tip your hat to the hitter and go on back to pitching. Just fight the battle on your terms. Usually hitters win by hitting mistakes, not good pitches, particularly the higher the level of baseball. Problem for pitchers is that a good pitch in HS may not be so good at the next level; they need to continually improve at each level.

Pitching is hard stuff; that's why they make the big bucks and get the W-L record beside their name.

No, I never really pitched. I always could easily throw strikes but.... I was trying to throw it past them but it just didn't happen. Think Christmas tree being lit up. Later on I learned a nasty slider and a good screwball and had a blast throwing BP but preferred being behind the plate. Always liked the mental aspect of pitching just never really had the overpowering velocity or mechanics to last long on the mound; I always thought I could hit the stuff I threw. Not a good sign for a pitcher.

our philosphy we teach our pitchers is never have your fastballs touch the white of the plate. throw your breaking pitchers over the plate unless 2 strikes - then throw it for a strikeout.
the more accurate term is pitch for soft contact.

How about trying the moniker "Situational Pitching" on for size? Is this a better fit for what we are talking about? People talk about situational hitting all the time; in recent years, I have come to think about situational pitching ...

Nobody on -- "Pitch to contact", with the goal of inducing a ground ball or pop-up in 3 pitches or less. If you can overpower the hitter; go ahead and blow him away with 3 pitches. Attack the hitters. Don't waste pitches. The goal is to get 3 outs while expending as little effort as possible. Use location, movement and changing speeds to keep hitters off balance and making poor contact.

Runner on 1st (or 1st & 2nd) and less than 2 outs -- Let's pitch for the ground ball with the goal of turning 2. Give that dead pull hitter something to roll over; or jam that guy who likes to lean in and extend his arms. Pitch for the GB or the K, and stay away from likely Fly-Ball pitches.

Runner(s) in scording position, no force, less than 2 outs -- Time to pitch for the K. Time to reach inside and find the foucs and the will to strike him out.

What do you think?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
OK, someone explain to me what this actually means.

I was talking to a friend whose son just finished a successful season pitching at the AA level. At one point in the season they were trying to teach him to "pitch to contact." I've heard the phrase before, but never had it explained to me.

I went back to read over your question. Not really understanding why a successful pitcher in AA needs that advice, other than he may go deep into the count or doesn't allow the defense behind him much work.

I guess than that the best question to ask him would be "why" do they want to do that, but Coach May pretty much summed it up.

To me when you tell a kid to pitch to contact, you're really asking him to recognize that the game's outcome is based on the number of runs scored, not the number of K's he runs up. The mindset of piling up personal statistics is often counterproductive to the team goal of winning.

1- and 2-pitch outs are the best thing a pitcher can have. There are ways to get them. E.g., if you have a hard boring fastball, start it in the hitting zone and let it hammer the batter (now swinging) on the fists. If you have a tailing, sinking fastball, again start it in the heart of the zone, draw the swing, and let the guy nub it off the end of his bat.

Strikeouts have their place. If you're a dominant HS guy and you're at the bottom of their order, you can probably just blow them away and move on. If you throw two fastballs and the guy looks overmatched, finish him off and get on to getting the next out. But going through the heart of any order against kids armed with metal bats, I'd like to avoid showing them my K approach/pitches unless the situation calls for it. Leave something they haven't yet seen for that later inning sitiuation where you really need the K.

E.g., man on 3d and only one out. If you have a killer slider, do you think your chances of getting the K are better if the batter has seen it 5 times already, or if he's seen it only once, or not at all?

Trying to pile up K's will lead to more walks, higher pitch count innings, and shorter outings (in terms of innings). Jameson Taillon has the stuff to strike out anyone and everyone, but most of us don't have that luxury.

No matter how one pitches, he will see plenty of contact. Missing bats is the most important thing. Of course, it is great to get that one pitch out, whether someone is pitching to contact or not, that can happen.

Pitchers need to be able to miss bats. It might save pitch count if they are able to get poor contact. Ground ball pitchers at the higher levels is a very good thing. Most of the MLB groundball pitchers are low 90s sinker guys.

High school pitchers who don't strikeout high school hitters might be good for the high school level, but they will probably need better stuff than that to be successful at the next level.

Situational pitching does exist. Ex... Man on 2B with no outs, pitcher wants the ball hit to the left side. He should try to pitch accordingly until he is behind in the count. Remember that good hitters are also aware of that same situation. Baseball is truly a great game!

You do the best you can with what you bring to the table. My interpretation of pitching to contact is not trying for the strikeout until you get two strikes on the hitter. You do the best with what you've got but when you do get ahead with two strikes on a hitter, strikeouts are gold and you go for it.

Some pitchers can make hitters miss their fastballs and some can't. It is a combination of velocity, movement and deception. If it is easy to time a fastball, e.g. some pitchers with a long arm action, then they usually aren't going to miss bats with the fastball and they need to recognize that they need to develop an offspeed pitch that they can use to get the strikeout.

Very ironic that this comes up on 3 major boards nearly simultaniously.
I think it mis-named, but a tremendous pitching strategy..I consider it to be the most intellectually mature approach to pitching, one that in one hand seems to fore go stats but trusts the integrity of the team. I think without 2 specific pitches in their degrees of variety the thought train wouldn't exist. Those pitches being the 2 seammer with the sinker and cutter varients and the change (Preferrably sinking or dropping).
I think the hallmark is setting up pitches with early strikes that display late movement, attacking the batter in the zone in locations that make solid bat strike impossible or unless your name is Vlad or Albert impossible. I don't believe that this strategy precludes strike outs, I believe that looking at the lesson of Maddux (Who had over 3000 k's), it doesn't necessitate a particular tunnel vision approach (PG, he was known in the Brave years for his very low pitch counts and extremely short complete games, another hallmark of PTC and yes with that, avg'd double digit k's per outing)..the idea is still to get outs, yes you aim for less over all pitches, quicker innings and a much more involved defense..but dude...if you can get a k get a k.
One thing I've also seen common to this thread on the 3 boards, an almost sneering derision at the kids who want to work this way..like they aren't "power pitchers" or have sub-par heat..well I know my kid has been very successful with it at the high school level (And he was very sought after at the D-1 level) and his subsequent endevors in college and TPM's kid was drafted into the pros as a solid sinker baller.
Look at the pro's, I see this approach working fine and dandy with the creme of the league..Halliday, Peevy, Carmona, Zambrano (Well Carlos has sort of lost focus). I see several different types of pitching, there is the mystify them types like Dice-K and Wakefield (Both ends of that spectrum) blow them away fellows in which Tim Lincecum and Beckett lead the way and the "pitch to contact" crowd led by those I mentioned. All got them into the bigs with success, each has proponents and detractors, I don't think it debatable that the strategies work.
For Steve who coaches at the High School level, I would think it (Pitching to contact) a most sensable way to approach his team pitching philosophy because he isn't likely to have more than one certified smoke thrower (Upper 80's to 90) in say a 5 year stretch and throwing junk constantly has a whole grab bag of unhappy side effects (Walks, hbp's high pitch counts..etc). So with that thought I'd just have to tip my cap and encourage the pursuit of that philosophy as imo solid and thinking in the best interests of his pitchers and fielders.
The body of this is copied from a response I made on this topic on LTP..looks like one of 2 areas where Steven and I don't see eye to eye

In my very limited experience, it seems bb people focus on the thing they can quantify. Speed.

It seems as far as college recruiting goes - with the roster limits maybe - coaches are trying to determine how to work with it. As far as I can tell, they are scrambling around with 2011's and 2012's, trying to secure the kids that throw the hardest. Verbals are a dime a dozen around here.

quote:

Originally posted by jdfromfla:
I think it mis-named, but a tremendous pitching strategy..I consider it to be the most intellectually mature approach to pitching, one that in one hand seems to fore go stats but trusts the integrity of the team. I think without 2 specific pitches in their degrees of variety the thought train wouldn't exist. Those pitches being the 2 seammer with the sinker and cutter varients and the change (Preferrably sinking or dropping).
I think the hallmark is setting up pitches with early strikes that display late movement, attacking the batter in the zone in locations that make solid bat strike impossible ....

Really good points, JD! OK, so you've just softened my line on "pitching to contact"; it's really not such a bad thing :-)

jd,
great post. the success i've had has come from pitching and defense. ive had 6 or 7 really,really good high school pitchers over the last 7 years.2 of them being the 11th graders ive got now. the reason they've been good is because we dont walk people. one of them became a d1 pitcher. he only walked 11 his senior year here which let him pitch 83.3 innings because of low pitch counts. by the way he struckout 116 hitters that year. pitching for contact doesnt hurt strikeout pitchers. my sophmore that went 6-2 as our #1 last year walked under 10. we've only got 650 students and our athletes are 2 and 3 sport players. its the real world.

coach ellis,
everytime i try to post on ltp when i hit submit the sign in page shows back up after ive already signed in. i tried to respond to your private message and it did the same thing. im a learner and like feedback. this is a great site with great feedback but you have different people on your boards which allows for even more learning experiences. help!

JD ... Great Post! You actually said what I fumbled and stumbled around in my earlier attempt.

Steve Nebraska, the 100+ mph Pitcher who can strike out 27 major league hitters on 81 pitches, is a fictional character (The Scout - a great movie). Hitters are going to hit the ball. It just seems to make sense to train Pitchers that it is their job to dictate how hard the ball can be hit, and where it can be hit, by how they attack the strike zone and the hitters.

I've seen many young Pitchers who can blow the ball by inferior hitters in HS and local league action, struggle and fail when they encounter superior hitters at WWB and USA Baseball events. In contrast, I've seen the "pitch to contact" guys who have learned how to attack hitters the way JD proposes excel in these environments. They get their ground balls and pop-ups, and their superior defenders make the plays. They still get their K's, but more importantly they get 3 outs faster and more efficiently.

I was always taught that Baseball is a defensive game:

-- It is the only major sport where the defense starts with the ball.

-- There are 9 defensive players on the field at one time, against a maximum of 4 offensive players.

-- The offense must navigate the bases in a pre-defined pattern, and the defense knows the pattern.

-- The offense must navigate a minimum of 4 bases in order to socre 1 run, and they only have 3 outs within which to get this done.

-- The Batter (offense) can be put out in 3 strikes, but does not get a free base until the Pitcher (defense) throws 4 balls.

In my mind -- for whatever that's worth -- When you "pitch to contact", attacking the hitters and the strike zone, you take advantage of the built in advantages to the defense. When you take the Steve Nebraska approach, you turn the game into a 1-on-1, or 1 versus 9 game, giving the offense back some advantage; and I've never had a Steve Nebraska, Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnseon, Tim Lincecum or Josh Beckett on my teams.

To be clear, I love watching a Pitcher ring up K's as much as anybody else; but I am equally fond of the 3 pitch inning; and I have long believed that the fewer pitches you have to throw, the fewer bad things can happen.

The best of all worlds: find a power arm, and teach the kid how to attacke the strike zone and the hitters. Lots of K's ... lots of dribblers ... lots of quick outs.

This is an interesting discussion. Lots of very good points being made. Pitching to contact is something that many preach. People here are doing a good job of describing it. Usually things in pitching relate to hitting as well. How about hitting to contact… contact hitters who are tough to strikeout vs power hitters who strikeout more often. What’s best? The hitter who doesn’t strikeout a lot and also hits for power? Bottom line, I think all pitchers understand this… Walks will kill you! And really run up the pitch count.

Everyone understands the concept of pitching to contact. It probably becomes more important the higher the level gets. I would still almost always take the guy who misses the most bats. Most outs are on contact, not strikeouts. However my belief is that, for the most part, the guys who strikeout the most hitters also induce the poorest contact, as well as having the best stuff and missing the most bats. Even the best MLB pitchers will get close to 2/3 of their outs on contact. However, can someone name a MLB pitcher who as a high school pitcher didn’t dominate (strikeout) a very large number of high school hitters? Please understand that I’m talking about talent, not necessarily what works best for any individual pitcher or what might be best in any given situation.

Here are some stats from the 2009 MLB season. Note the innings pitched which should relate to pitch counts. Especially among strikeout pitchers.

Verlander (Pitched more innings than anyone in MLB) 1st in MLB in Ks - 19-9 record

Halladay (2nd in MLB in innings) 9th in MLB in Ks – 17-10 record

Hernandez (3rd in MLB in innings) 7th in MLB in Ks – 19-5 record

Wainwright (4th in MLB in innings) 8th in MLB in Ks -19-8 record

Sabathia (5th in MLB in innings) 12th in MLB in Ks – 19-8 record

Greinke (6th in MLB in innings) 3rd in MLB in Ks – 16-8 record

Haren (7th in MLB in innings) 6th in MLB in Ks – 14-10 record

Lincecum (8th in MLB in innings) 2nd in MLB in Ks – 15-7 record

Other top strikeout pitchers who threw over 200 innings (W-L)

Vasquez – 4th in MLB in Ks (15-10)
Lester – 5th in MLB in Ks (15-8)
Beckett – 10th in MLB in Ks (17-6)
Jimenez – 11th in MLB in Ks (15-12)
Burnett – 13th in MLB in Ks (13-9)
W Rodriguez – 14th in MLB in Ks (14-12)
J Johnson – 15th in MLB in Ks (15-5)
Garza – 16th in MLB in Ks (8-12)
Billingsley – 17th in MLB in Ks (12-11)
Weaver – 18th in MLB in Ks (16-8)
Dempster – 19th in MLB in Ks (11-9)
Cain – 20th in MLB in Ks (14-8)

Pitchers who threw 200 innings and struck out more than one an inning

Verlander (19-9)
Lincecum (15-7)
Greinke (16-8)
Vasquez (15-10)
Lester (15-8)

All those mentioned above combined represent the MLB’s top 20 strikeout pitchers in 2009

Just to even things out, here are the top 10 MLB pitchers who threw over 200 innings with the least number of Strikeouts. With their (W-L) record. Obviously there are some very good pitchers on this list as well.

J. Lannen – Washington (9-13)
N. Blackburn – Minnesota (11-11)
Pineiro – St Louis (15-12)
Buehrle – White Sox (13-10)
Duke – Pittsburgh (11-16)
Garland – Dodgers (11-13)
Guthrie – Baltimore (10-17)
Marquis – Colorado (15-13)
Arroya – Cincinnati (15-13)
Davis – Arizona (9-14)

A strikeout pitcher will throw more pitches in a game

The "pitch to contact" guy will throw fewer pitches

The bottom line is "OUTS"---what works for each individual pitchers is the key

Keep in mind that there are 8 guys on the field working behind every pitcher so K's are not always critical--but them the Angels in the last two games seemed to have miss the defensive aspect

quote:

coach ellis,
everytime i try to post on ltp when i hit submit the sign in page shows back up after ive already signed in. i tried to respond to your private message and it did the same thing. im a learner and like feedback. this is a great site with great feedback but you have different people on your boards which allows for even more learning experiences. help!

raiderbb,
I PM'd Steven on LTP for you to make sure he knows about your issue.

EDIT: I see you've successfully posted on LTP so either Steven took care of you or the problem magically cleared up.

quote:

Everyone understands the concept of pitching to contact. It probably becomes more important the higher the level gets. I would still almost always take the guy who misses the most bats. Most outs are on contact, not strikeouts

I know this PG, that pitching at a Perfect Game Showcase or Tourney, you'd better be working ahead or you are going to be lit up. A PTC pitcher is agressively going to his spot with late movement so if swung on early a grounder is the desired result, if taken you sit in advantage with a 0-1, 0-2 counts so they can't sit on your stuff and you've got them in a defensive position (Why Maddux had so many k's), this is where a good wipe out sinking change or other late moving pitch, is such a powerful weapon, the batter is all about protection and is susceptable out of the zone on low hit probability stuff..it's what Rivera does with his cutter..can't take it, can't hit it. In a PG tourney (Ft Meyers) I've seen CG's from guys who used it and at Jupitor, I've seen it work well in two inning stretches. As you know even flame throwers get hit in those places but working aggresively early gives the very best opportunity of sustainable success. I mean even if you light up the gun, being known for solid pitching skills is another very positive trait to be recognized for to set yourself even further apart. I would certainly have it as advice for a kid going to one of those events.

jd,

I know where you're coming from. However, I see pitching to contact being most important when the hitter is ahead in the count. When you can get a ground ball or pop up on 2-0, 3-1... it is gold!

BTW, I've been to a few of those events you are referring to. My suggestion would be to bring your best stuff and show it off. The very best pitchers in these events and those that become the highest draft picks, tend to dominate hitters and fair ball contact is not the norm.

I do understand that not everyone has that type of ability. Also, the higher level you go to, the more likely there will be more contact! Both soft and hard contact!

Then there is professional baseball. The biggest hurdle for a young professional pitcher is not how talented the hitters are... It is how advanced they are. Many pitchers will have great K-BB ratio in the rookie and A levels. AA hitters tend to be more patient and make you throw strikes. AAA hitters are even smarter and pitchers with low walk totals in the lower levels, all of a sudden have high walk totals. It isn't that the pitcher all of a sudden lost control... It's because the hitters are much more polished. At the lowest levels hitters simply tend to swing at more pitches.

Taking this to the high school level... Hitters are nowhere near as polished as they will someday be. Good pitchers with good stuff don't really need to outsmart hitters. The best pitchers simply blow away the majority of high school hitters. Arguably the best High School prospects (Pitching and hitting) we select to play in the Aflac game each year. This year's game, the pitchers struck out 27! That has actually been one of the lower strikeout totals in Aflac Games. Granted the pitchers are trying to blow away the hitters and they don't have to worry about pitch counts.

That said, you sure do bring up some valid points. I can't argue those points, at all. I just think pitchers need to do what they do best. It's really all about throwing strikes early in the count.

There's a concept that's new to me but has been around a while and it correlates very well with pitching success. It is called A3P and it means something like attack within 3 pitches. The goal is for the ball to be put in play within 3 pitches or, and this is important, get 2 strikes on the hitter. The higher the percentage the more successful the pitcher as long as they aren't giving up too many home runs in doing so.

PG, I think the basis of what you are talking about is that velocity is king. It is the first thing that scouts look at when evaluating pitchers and it is the first thing you look at in a PG Showcase evaluation or tournament. Top velocity is the the thing that stares you in the face. It is also the thing that will get you tons of K's at the high school level.

Like it or not, to get to the next level, a certain level of velocity has to be achieved. Seems to me (and I am not an expert for sure), a kid who throws 90+ and gets 14 or 15 K's in a 7 inning game will be looked a differently than a kid who throws 84 and gets 14 or 15 K's in a 7 inning game. In fact, I think a kid who throws 90+ and gets hit will get a higher rating and get looked at over a kid throwing 84 with effeciency, just getting hitters out.

If I'm wrong, let me know. Not to say a lower velocity pitcher can't make it to the next level in some form, they just won't get the high profile looks that the hard throwers will. Velocity is king, regardless of whether or not people want to admit it. Throw hard and you will get noticed.

I'm certain it's a factor of many tens of times more tourney and showcase attendance in front of me PG

My son was always referred to as a contact pitcher. He was about 87 tops, had a really good change-up and not much of a breaking ball. Didn't quite average a K/ining. Never threw many pitches. Only twice did he ever go over 100 in 7 innings. Usually around 85-90. He wasn't trying to be a contact pitcher, but he threw lots of strikes. Luckily he had a ton of arm side run and a little sink. His sr. year, in the 3rd round of state playoffs he shutout the opponent allowing two hits on 59 pitches. Game only lasted about 1hr and 10min.

As a scout velocity did rule! However, contrary to popular belief... As a coach, I absolutely loved those guys who could fill the strike zone with good stuff.

For the most part, you can keep score by keeping time and our goal was always to spend more time hitting and less time in the field than the other guys.

All else equal, a 90+ pitcher is going to miss more bats than an 84- pitcher. The lower velocity pitcher will by definition "pitch to contact". I don't know what any of this means.. is it the fault of the higher velocity guy that his pitches are missing the bat?

I would take the pitcher with the most strikeouts per 9 innings and the fewest hits allowed per 9 innings. Seems pretty simple to me.

Lots of great stuff in this thread. I sure can't argue with any of this logic.

At the end of the day, if they can't hit it, they can't score; and good things will generally happen for your team. Also, if they can't hit it hard because of movement, location, or deception, they won't score much; and good things will generally happen for your team.

SP_son and I were talking about the WWB Championships tonight over dinner. A good buddy of his, and sometimes teammate, will be Pitching there. He is a blue chip, power pitcher (88+), high in the PG rankings. We are excited about the opportunity to see him awe the crowd ... and likely the guys who have to try to hit him.

SP_son will be pitching there as well. At typically 10mph less than his friend, the reaction is often more one of amazement when the two boys produce records and key stats that are virtually identical. As we laughed about it over dinner, SP_son took a serious moment and said "the most important thing is to look at our WHIP's."

He learned some time ago that if he can keep his Walks + Hits per inning pitched at, or below, 1 ... it gets very hard for the other team to score many runs. He pitches with the mindset that it is his job to get the hitters to hit soft, fieldable balls to his defense, in as few pitches as possible ... so as to produce quick & easy outs. The GB, FB, and K all count the same.

For sure, I'll take a Steve Nebraska any day; but if he's not available, give me a bulldog who takes the mound with the mindset that "these bases are mine, and you can't play on them" ... and that pitches with the confidence that his 9 can beat your 1 all day long. It's two different ways of getting the job done, but the Wins all count the same.

Southpaw dad, yes, but the connotation is always that it's an either-or proposition. Either the high velocity guy that can't pitch or the low velocity guy that can. I don't buy into that assumption--at all. In fact, I believe the high velocity guys more likely also will have pitchability.

Hi Bum ... Good comment. I am not one who puts forth the either-or proposition, although you are right it seems to be put forth a lot ... both ways.

A high velocity guy who can't Pitch -- throw strikes, hit spots, change speeds, and get guys out -- won't make it very far. What is the old line ... give good hitters enough opportunities and they can time a 747.

My point is the opposite ... as I think JD put forward ... it seems that there is often a bit of a predjudice against the low velocity guys. When they succeed, they are lucky, or the other team had an off day.

Granted, the high velocity guy has a higher margin for error. The faster your mistake is moving, the lower the probability of it getting hit.

Whether you are a fire-baller, or a "crafty lefty", you have to be able to Pitch. I think everyone involved in this thread agrees that Pitching is more than velocity; but still, reaching the max velocity your gene pool offers should be a goal for every Pitcher.

All I'm saying is that K's are great, and there are game situations where the ability to punch out a hitter is important; but there are 8 other guys out there who are supposed to be able to get guys out as well.

To me, the measure of a good Pitcher is the ability to consistently get guys out and win while expending the least amount of effort possible. If he does this at 90+, great; if he does it at 80+, that's great too ... recognizing the 80+ guy has less margin for error.

It's about getting guys out, keeping teams from scoring, and giving your team a chance to win. I think we can all agree on that.