Strike zone??

Get a good pitch to hit early in the count!

The pitcher has got only a ball. I've got a bat. So the percentage of weapons is in my favor and I let the fellow with the ball do the fretting.
--Hank Aaron

I have news for you-- the good pitchers feel they are in control not the hitter--simply said the hitter does know what the pitcher will be throwing

Ted Williams showed it best in his book. There are many pitches in the strike zone that a good hitter can hit, but how many of those pitches can he hit with authority?? You can swing at a first pitch fastball that is 2" low and 2" outside and hit it, but it won't do you much good if you hit a 4 hopper to the 2nd baseman.

Get a good pitch to hit and then rip it hard.

Narrowing the strike zone with the count in your favor and widening it when the count is not is, for me at least, an oversimplification of the thought process behind an intelligent use of what I learned as the 'selcetive hitter" approach. What pitch can I consitently hit for a line drive, home run, etc. That is the question to ask. Are you a belt high down the middle fastball hitter? OK, who isn't? Do you hit the outside knee high located pitch [fastball, curveball, whatever] better than the low inside located pitch? Can you catch up to the abs to letters high fastball? Are you often fooled on the low curveball, slider, forkball, etc. that breaks down in the dirt?

Only when a hitter has critically examined his own strengths and weaknesses at the plate in this manner can he begin to approach the idea of narowing the strike zone when he is ahead in the count. For me, at least, this approach goes back to Ted William's book The Science of Hitting. As a young Babe Ruth League player many years ago, TSW's all possible pitches in the strike zone chart on himself was a complete revelation to me. He showed those pitches in the true strike zone he could hit over .400 if he got them every at bat. He also showed those pitches in the true strike zone where he could not hit above .200 if he were to swing at those pitches. Ted Williams preached this approach to selective hitting, some say to a fault. He also advocated studying pitchers and their tendencies and educated guessing in certain situations. Those topics, however, are food for another day.

When the count is in his favor, a selective hitter should prepare himself physically and mentally to hit those pitches thrown in his predetermined comfort zone and take those pitches that he has trouble hitting even if they are in the strike zone. However, this is not something you can just think about and it will happen. This approach needs to be practiced in the bating cage and elsewhere by taking those pitches that are not in your comfort zone but are still in the true strike zone and only swinging at pitches in your comfort zone. As a hitter, you also need to practice hitting those pitches outside your comfort zone more consistently so that you hit .250 when you have to swing at those pitches instead of .170.

As to the issue of widening the strike zone, once the count reaches two strikes, the strike zone should not be widened beyond the strike zone but the "selective hitter" approach must now be discarded or, better put, redirected. The hitter must prepare to make contact with anything that is in the strike zone [which may be beyond the true strike zone depending on the umpire of the day and the side of the bed he got up on].

I am sure there are others who approach the situations I have described differently and I hope they add there thoughts on this potentially very informative thread. Again, I do not claim to be always right. But I am not always wrong either.

TW344

bbscout:

Sorry I stepped on your toes there and repeated your advice in a much more long winded manner. I started my post before I saw yours.

TW344

TW344,

I agree with most everything you said there. IMO it's called a hitter getting himself out. If a pitcher can throw a quality pitch on the black for strike one... you can get yourself out or wait for a better pitch.

Guess I've never seen the hitter who can hit every pitch equally well. However Icharo among the spray hitters and Pujols among the mashers do it about the best. They too take strikes at times.

I have used this example before but I think it serves us well here:

High school game --last inning bases loaded two out in the bottom of inning---pitcher has just walked the last batter and has now been removed--new pitcher--two out sacks full---first pitch gets drilled by the teams #3 hitter for a grand slam home run to win the game-- people in the stands with me are asking why didn't the batter take the first pitch ?--I asked the batter after the game and his answer was right to the point--the pitcher needs to get the first pitch over for strike more than I need to hit it and he has only one pitch--a low 80's fast ball so I sat on it--it was probably the best pitch I would see from him because he wanted to groove it--- great concept from a HS hitter

At the HS/Travel team level do you want your real good hitters taking strikes just to get the pitcher deep into the count---I don't!

Ichiro goes on to say.....

"The nature of batting is such that even if a pitcher gives you 10 tosses right down the middle, you're still not going to bat 1.000," he says. "That's just the way it is, and I accept that. Now, since pitchers don't just lob it in there like that, there are also times they're just going to outright beat you. I accept that, too. But now you've got the rest of your at-bats. Pitches I believe I should have been able to connect on for a hit but didn't for some reason are my mistakes. That's what I want to reduce."

Too many hitters wait for the pitcher to make a mistake.......I agree with Ichiro, a hitter should reduce their swing mistakes.....Learn how to hit more pitch speeds and locations....Widen your hitting zone....

I thought Ichiro spoke only Japanese?

BD

You do not want to acknowledge the example put forth above-- you are saying the same thing

TRhit, your posts are getting more and more unrecognizable.....Are you getting enough sleep?....

BD

On your best day you cannot keep up me or most on this site-- you are typical "internet troll" --no identity, a lot of gibberish and no foundation--very typical or so very typical--

For years we just said,'Protect the plate with two strikes'.

I say don't get to the two strike situation to begin with.....

Blue Dog:

There is a lot to be said for avoiding two strikes. At the same time, some of the best hitters I see almost hit better with two strikes than with one, unless it is 0-2.

I like to see aggressive hitting, but some guys swing at a lot of pitches that more than likely will produce outs. I guess this question is part of what makes hitting so difficult.

quote:

.......but some guys swing at a lot of pitches that more than likely will produce outs.

Jemaz, these guys don't know how to hit many pitch locations and/or don't know how to recognize pitches......The better your technique, the more choices you have to hit.....And, it helps not to have a third base coach yelling in your ear in-between pitches making you think.....

There are no good hitters.

A three in ten success rate is not good.

Since there are no good hitters, there are no good hitting instructors or theories of hitting.

All are bogus until they produce a .400 or .500 hitter.(and even 50% is mediocre)

This is very simple. As a batter you want to be able to hit your pitch, not the pitchers pitch. If your ahead in the count and there's a pitch on the outside corner and you prefer the ball middle in, why swing? What good will it do? You're probably not going to hit the ball hard. Wait for your pitch and hit it hard. You don't always have to work the count. If the pitcher grooves you a first pitch fast ball middle in and that's where you like it then swing. It's all about getting your pitch.

quote:

Since there are no good hitters, there are no good hitting instructors or theories of hitting.

Bobo, smart statement, IMO.....Some instructors are really bad and none are really good.....I firmly believe there is a better way of teaching hitting than what is currently taking place.....

And, that is why I am here posting.....It's my way of doing research to try to find that way....

The analogy is flawed IMO

Number one a hitter who hits over .300 in the pros is a "good" hitter
A hitter in college who hits over .350 is a "good hitter

Just because you say there are no good instructors, I am sure there are plenty good ones out there even if they do not meet the criteria of Blue Dog, does not necessarily mean there are no good hitters---I know and have seen many good hitters who never saw an instructor

On the other hand a good instructor cannot necessarily take a .200 hitter and make him a .300 hitter

Blue Dog is looking for the Holy Grail of baseball--there is always a better way to be found in time but that does not make the other methods bad--keep in mind that in baseball there is no one way to hit

ummm WillBoBo...by the standards of MLB for the last 100-plus years, 3/10 is good... everything is relative. if someone could only make contact with a golf ball 3/10 times (and it is on a tee) then you have some problems...

but by your comment, all batters are poor because of the 3/10... but you say 4/10 and 5/10 are good...???

then all pitchers must be great.. because on average they get 7/10 players out... so all pitchers are good?? yes? no?

Some kids are born hitters. They require little or no instruction they can just flat out hit. Now how do you explain this? If hitting is to technical how do you explain a kid just being able to do it?

Coach May--

Amen to that !!

A 3/10 success rate is terrible in any sport.

The relative nature of the game is to lower expectations until they meet the current talent level.

My point about instructors being as sub-par as hitters was to point out that even with instruction, hitters are not performing well.

With the exception of catchers gear, gloves and the right of way while fielding a ball, all changes to the game have been in favor of the hitter. Hitters have gotten worse over the course of time.

I was being kind in saying that ,400 or .500 would be better, but still mediocre.

Pitchers have it fairly easy in order to be good, if not great. If they stay ahead in the count and keep the ball in the park, they are great pitchers.

BOBO

When is the last time a MLB hitter hit .400?

I sure hope you are not a scout because you won't be signing any players with the mind set

I will also take some of the stuff you are smoking.

Ted Williams hit .407 in 1953 in a limited number of at bats (110).

In 1941, Williams batted .406

If I were a GM, I'd have a team that played good fundamental baseball.

BOBO

I can read also-- I was hoping you would tell me, with all your infinite wisdom, something I did not now

I see it this way--Williams was a great hitter, one of the greatest ever

With your reasoning, or lack thereof, where does that leave Mantle, Mays, Frank Robinson, Al Kaline, Clemente and many others too many to name--in todays era where do you put Pujols--he has not hit .400 or .500 yet

Mantle for one told me that he felt that he was a terrible hitter.

He said, "I struck out enough times to make five seasons worth of at bats."

Concerning all the batters mentioned, the pitchers win 7 out of ten battles. They are not good hitters. (Just better than the rest of the talent of the era.)

And what does that mean ?---cmon BOBO--get real--a hitter averaging over .300 today is a better than good hitter-- and you know it---

I truly have lost faith in your baseball acumen

And by the way watch the tall trees

I guess in time a .200 hitter will be Hall of Fame material if we keep lowering expectations.

BOBO ( my fingers keep trying to find the D key instead of B but I grab them before it happens)

Where did I say .200 hitters

Read what is posted or dont read at all

And like I said watch the trees--the roots of trees in Florida do not grwo deep into the earth-- you better alert the tree people that you cite

You didn't mention .200 hitters, I did.

The premise remains that if we contunue to lower standards of greatness then greatness will mean nothing.

(I checked the Ted Williams stat in 53 because I knew Willie Mays was hitting .477 at Minneapolis in 51.)

BOBO

No need to debate anymore-- you went south a few posts back---your logic is off the wall--was Minneapolis in the majors ever >????

Bobo, the more the standards are lowered, the better TRhit looks.....

You said it right....There are no good hitting instructors....Hitting instruction in baseball is in the dark ages......

WillieBobo... 3/10 is bad in any sport? you have got to be kidding?... I am not saying that a .300 hitter is awesome... but if you hit .300 with guys in scoring position, or over a season with 45+ bombs... surly you did some good in the RBI column.. and that is what wins games.... so every player in MLB has been awful sicne Williams... come on, that is silly....

so golfers should sink the ball on a par three in one (ace) at least 3/10? No. Why? because everything is relative...

and you are saying pitchers are great now? because of what hitters are hitting at? You had better contact MLB because they are saying pitching is watered down... and not enough quality pitchers out there....

bobo... you are looking at stats too close... what if a hitter just creamed the ball for ten straight at bats... outfielders made some over the shoulder catches, over the wall saves, diving plays... but the balls were hit on a rope...is that hitter a porr hitter for that series because he went 0-10...?

Blue- who is a good hitting instructor?

quote:

You said it right....There are no good hitting instructors....Hitting instruction in baseball is in the dark ages......

Bluedog, can I quote you on that? If only all those parents spending a fortune knew that. It's like public education hiring non certified teachers to teach math. Just not gonna be good results!