Try this one...incidently there is nothing new here. Most old timers know the longer you wait to hit the ball the lower your batting average.
This article tells you what the coaches and pitchers think about 0-0 and that the reason so many coaches tell pitchers to throw kockshots 0-0. So much of the philosophy of hitting strategy has changed because they're all going long ball and 100mph pitching.
JMO
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-importanc...strike-one-part-two/
I hate the take the first pitch stuff, it always puts our kids in a passive mode.It has never worked out well for us except maybe in a case where the opposing pitcher can't find the plate.
It seems to me that having a high number of pitches per-at-bat doesn't mean there is a "take-a-strike" approach. It means the batters have discipline.
I can't stand taking strikes. I'm with Coach May on this one. My son's HS coach every now and then puts the take on - way too much for my tastes.
Plate discipline means not swinging at stuff out of the zone (unless it is a pitch that can be hammered) but it ALSO means swinging hard at pitches that can be hit hard.
And if that pitch comes on 0-0, great!
The other thing about taking a strike I hate is that the 1-0 ad 2-0 pitches are even MORE likely to be juicy than 0-0. Not being able to take advantage of this seems really dumb!
I can't stand taking strikes. I'm with Coach May on this one. My son's HS coach every now and then puts the take on - way too much for my tastes.
Plate discipline means not swinging at stuff out of the zone (unless it is a pitch that can be hammered) but it ALSO means swinging hard at pitches that can be hit hard.
And if that pitch comes on 0-0, great!
The other thing about taking a strike I hate is that the 1-0 ad 2-0 pitches are even MORE likely to be juicy than 0-0. Not being able to take advantage of this seems really dumb!
Take a strike against a good pitcher and potentially you have 2 strikes and 4 balls left and the pitcher for all practical purposes has put the AB in his hands and out of yours.
Many posters have used the word discipline and that's what it comes down to. If you go up there giving away a swing there is a good chance that was "your" pitch that AB. Don't give up without a fight of what might be yours.
Many posters have used the word discipline and that's what it comes down to. If you go up there giving away a swing there is a good chance that was "your" pitch that AB. Don't give up without a fight of what might be yours.
I think I am pushing a big boulder up a very steep hill on this one. 
However,
If all 9 hitters go up there looking to hit the first good pitch, their opponents pitch count will be in the 30's/40's in the 5th-6th inning. (I know rz1 favors that approach.
)
The other aspect is that the more pitches you see in an AB, the more you learn for the next AB, for your teammates, and the better the chance you will see a mistake.
Maybe I am too focused on the game in Milb where pitchers don't blow one in the center of the plate to get ahead. You see change ups, curve balls, sliders and things that are straight but on the corners or up and down. Not to say there are not pitchers who try to get ahead and find plenty of hitters who punish them.
If a pitcher gets to the 5th inning at 80 pitches as opposed to 40, chances increase that you, or your teammate(s), are going to see a mistake.
But this approach isn't for every one, or most it appears. Our son told me that in 2005, one organization started having their minor league team take a strike. Got to be well known. Obviously the opposition poured first pitch fast balls in with regularity. He said it was amazing to watch how it impacted the mental approach of their hitters.
On the other hand, it is just about as demoralizing to a pitcher when he gets two strikes and can't get a 3rd, and gives up those two strike hits.
I will not forget the discussion with our son and what he learned by getting 3 AB's against Randy Johnson in Spring Training. For him, the first AB set up the second and third, as well as the pitch count that got Johnson out an inning early.
This discussion, and one posted in the hitting area on hitting with two strikes, is why baseball is such a great game, I guess.
However,
If all 9 hitters go up there looking to hit the first good pitch, their opponents pitch count will be in the 30's/40's in the 5th-6th inning. (I know rz1 favors that approach.
) The other aspect is that the more pitches you see in an AB, the more you learn for the next AB, for your teammates, and the better the chance you will see a mistake.
Maybe I am too focused on the game in Milb where pitchers don't blow one in the center of the plate to get ahead. You see change ups, curve balls, sliders and things that are straight but on the corners or up and down. Not to say there are not pitchers who try to get ahead and find plenty of hitters who punish them.
If a pitcher gets to the 5th inning at 80 pitches as opposed to 40, chances increase that you, or your teammate(s), are going to see a mistake.
But this approach isn't for every one, or most it appears. Our son told me that in 2005, one organization started having their minor league team take a strike. Got to be well known. Obviously the opposition poured first pitch fast balls in with regularity. He said it was amazing to watch how it impacted the mental approach of their hitters.
On the other hand, it is just about as demoralizing to a pitcher when he gets two strikes and can't get a 3rd, and gives up those two strike hits.
I will not forget the discussion with our son and what he learned by getting 3 AB's against Randy Johnson in Spring Training. For him, the first AB set up the second and third, as well as the pitch count that got Johnson out an inning early.
This discussion, and one posted in the hitting area on hitting with two strikes, is why baseball is such a great game, I guess.
I believe that opinions here as expressed have legitimate tradition in BB, but being situational as hitting can be, the article linked here
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-importanc...strike-one-part-one/
helps one to see that the sooner in an AB that the batter offers at has potential for more positve outcome, and consequently a BA that may mean the difference between keeping your job, going up, or being released.
As indicated Greg Maddux opinion is that the 1-1 count is the critical threshold for the pitcher and conversely so for the hitter. Consider that the next pitch can put the batter down 1-2 or up 2-1.
In my opinion the 2-1 count is the best count to swing at the next pitch.
Conversely, the 1-2 count to my way of thinking is a good batters count, though the batter may not see as good a pitch, but we are dealing with the psychology of pitching versus the psychology of hitting. That means the pitcher may offer garbage at 1-2 and make a mistake...where at 2-1 he will put the ball somewhere in the hitting zone for sure.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-importanc...strike-one-part-one/
helps one to see that the sooner in an AB that the batter offers at has potential for more positve outcome, and consequently a BA that may mean the difference between keeping your job, going up, or being released.
As indicated Greg Maddux opinion is that the 1-1 count is the critical threshold for the pitcher and conversely so for the hitter. Consider that the next pitch can put the batter down 1-2 or up 2-1.
In my opinion the 2-1 count is the best count to swing at the next pitch.
Conversely, the 1-2 count to my way of thinking is a good batters count, though the batter may not see as good a pitch, but we are dealing with the psychology of pitching versus the psychology of hitting. That means the pitcher may offer garbage at 1-2 and make a mistake...where at 2-1 he will put the ball somewhere in the hitting zone for sure.
quote:If all 9 hitters go up there looking to hit the first good pitch, their opponents pitch count will be in the 30's/40's in the 5th-6th inning.
Actually, Infield, the pitcher might be knocked out in the third, after baseballs flew all over the park!
Since 2004, I guess I have watched upwards of 75 or so games in Milb. Upwards of 150 college games.
I just don't remember hitting being this easy so clear cut and defined. Sure don't remember those hitters knocking too many guys out by the 3rd with that first good pitch approach.
From discussions with infieldson, he sure didn't think those first pitches from Johnson, Homer Bailey, Eric Hurley and guys throwing 92-99(101 for Bailey) gave you much time to think about whether this is a good hitters pitch. The more he saw of them, though, the easier it got.
We are not going to solve this on the HSBBW.
Little doubt I am in the minority. I have seen guys with the talent be able to hit the first good pitch in college and Milb. But I don't think they were the majority of the hitters.
Maybe our son wasn't one of them, but he was still able to hit nearly .300 so maybe even stats aren't always true.
I just don't remember hitting being this easy so clear cut and defined. Sure don't remember those hitters knocking too many guys out by the 3rd with that first good pitch approach.
From discussions with infieldson, he sure didn't think those first pitches from Johnson, Homer Bailey, Eric Hurley and guys throwing 92-99(101 for Bailey) gave you much time to think about whether this is a good hitters pitch. The more he saw of them, though, the easier it got.
We are not going to solve this on the HSBBW.
Little doubt I am in the minority. I have seen guys with the talent be able to hit the first good pitch in college and Milb. But I don't think they were the majority of the hitters.
Maybe our son wasn't one of them, but he was still able to hit nearly .300 so maybe even stats aren't always true.
High School Baseball Web. Do most pitchers attempt to get ahead in the count by throwing a first pitch strike in HS? Is the first pitch usually a fb for a strike? So why not be looking for that on the first pitch? And if your sitting on first pitch fastball for a strike on the first pitch and you get it why wouldnt you try and mash it?
Now if that first pitch is a ball or a curveball - change up then all you have to do is take it and start your process all over again. If the pitcher shows that he can start batters off with an off speed pitch for a strike and he shows a pattern of doing this you change your approach. Usually what happens if the team is agressively attacking first pitch fastball for a strike the pitcher has to change his approach. Now the hitters are dictating to the pitcher instead of the pitcher dictating to the hitters.
Now if the pitcher has to start hitters off with off speed pitches and he can not throw them for strikes you gain another advantage. The scenarios are endless. I am talking HS baseball. If a team sits there and takes first pitch all day long the hitters will be constantly behind in the count. The pitcher can come back with whatever he wants to come back with on the second pitch. The hitters become defensive and the pitcher gains the advantage.
Frankly I could careless what the milb or ml preaches when it comes to this discussion. I coach hs hitters and I teach what is successfull for high school hitters. You send the message to the other team that if they think they are going to throw fastballs over the plate for strikes on the first pitch and work ahead that they are going to have to change that game plan. We are not going to sit there and take first pitch fastballs for strikes and allow the other team to dictate to us how the game is going to be played.
Taking pitches to drive up the pitchers pitch count is a passive approach. How about driving up his pitch count by making him pitch to more batters every inning because we are hitting baseball all over the park?
Im not trying to argue. Im just speaking from my experience as a high school coach. If a milb or ml coach wants his guys to take alot of pitches then thats his team and he can do what he wants to do. I would rather have my guys go up to the plate looking to hit and not looking to take pitches for the sake of driving up a pitch count. I think your more likely to get a good pitch to hit on 0-0 than you are 0-1. jmho
Now if that first pitch is a ball or a curveball - change up then all you have to do is take it and start your process all over again. If the pitcher shows that he can start batters off with an off speed pitch for a strike and he shows a pattern of doing this you change your approach. Usually what happens if the team is agressively attacking first pitch fastball for a strike the pitcher has to change his approach. Now the hitters are dictating to the pitcher instead of the pitcher dictating to the hitters.
Now if the pitcher has to start hitters off with off speed pitches and he can not throw them for strikes you gain another advantage. The scenarios are endless. I am talking HS baseball. If a team sits there and takes first pitch all day long the hitters will be constantly behind in the count. The pitcher can come back with whatever he wants to come back with on the second pitch. The hitters become defensive and the pitcher gains the advantage.
Frankly I could careless what the milb or ml preaches when it comes to this discussion. I coach hs hitters and I teach what is successfull for high school hitters. You send the message to the other team that if they think they are going to throw fastballs over the plate for strikes on the first pitch and work ahead that they are going to have to change that game plan. We are not going to sit there and take first pitch fastballs for strikes and allow the other team to dictate to us how the game is going to be played.
Taking pitches to drive up the pitchers pitch count is a passive approach. How about driving up his pitch count by making him pitch to more batters every inning because we are hitting baseball all over the park?
Im not trying to argue. Im just speaking from my experience as a high school coach. If a milb or ml coach wants his guys to take alot of pitches then thats his team and he can do what he wants to do. I would rather have my guys go up to the plate looking to hit and not looking to take pitches for the sake of driving up a pitch count. I think your more likely to get a good pitch to hit on 0-0 than you are 0-1. jmho
Coach May
I am with you 100%---at the HS level the best pitch in each at bat may be the first pitch---plus I want our hitters to be aggressive---we want the other team back on their heels on every pitch
Also with regard to getting the pitcher to throw more pitches you can do that by getting men on base and hits get men on base---on offense you want to make things happen and you cannot do that by taking pitches
I am with you 100%---at the HS level the best pitch in each at bat may be the first pitch---plus I want our hitters to be aggressive---we want the other team back on their heels on every pitch
Also with regard to getting the pitcher to throw more pitches you can do that by getting men on base and hits get men on base---on offense you want to make things happen and you cannot do that by taking pitches
Coach May,
let me ask you this.
Our son is currently working as an assistant on a local high school team.
Two of their players are very talented. One is committed to a Pac 10 school. They have a Jr. who is even better.
Each of them has exactly the approach being discussed and they are wonderful high school hitters. Our son is trying to work with them, as the head coach has suggested so they become better two strike hitters, so they are less reliant on first pitch hitting. The idea is to get them better prepared for college.
The head coach is completely supportive. The players see no reason to change. What they are doing works.
Is the job of a high school coach to help get your players ready for the next level, if they can play at that level? Does the coaches job end by winning in high school?
let me ask you this.
Our son is currently working as an assistant on a local high school team.
Two of their players are very talented. One is committed to a Pac 10 school. They have a Jr. who is even better.
Each of them has exactly the approach being discussed and they are wonderful high school hitters. Our son is trying to work with them, as the head coach has suggested so they become better two strike hitters, so they are less reliant on first pitch hitting. The idea is to get them better prepared for college.
The head coach is completely supportive. The players see no reason to change. What they are doing works.
Is the job of a high school coach to help get your players ready for the next level, if they can play at that level? Does the coaches job end by winning in high school?
I'm not going to claim to have any real expertise in this area. But I always like to learn a little more and so I often go to hear good coaches speak at clinics, camps, etc...
A few years ago I listened to one of the most successful HS coaches in our area speak about hitting. His teams are fairly regularly ranked in the top-50 in the country by BA, USA Today, etc... He has had dozens of players go onto college and pro ball including some at the very top D1 schools now. And his teams have won plenty of titles over the years.
I remember he said that in his HS program, hitters are taught to not swing at a pitch they haven't seen yet from that pitcher. By default, that means they won't swing at the first pitch in their first AB.
I doubt its followed 100% but it made sense to me and I sure couldn't argue with the results.
It seems to me if I'm a HS coach and I see a team where the hitters are gonna chase 1st pitch all day long that they are now going to see a wide variety of 1st pitches and I would guess I'm going to get a lot of ground balls that day. Last week I watched a D2 college game where one team was clearly taking this strategy and got absolutely chewed up by the other team's pitcher on 1st pitches.
A few years ago I listened to one of the most successful HS coaches in our area speak about hitting. His teams are fairly regularly ranked in the top-50 in the country by BA, USA Today, etc... He has had dozens of players go onto college and pro ball including some at the very top D1 schools now. And his teams have won plenty of titles over the years.
I remember he said that in his HS program, hitters are taught to not swing at a pitch they haven't seen yet from that pitcher. By default, that means they won't swing at the first pitch in their first AB.
I doubt its followed 100% but it made sense to me and I sure couldn't argue with the results.
It seems to me if I'm a HS coach and I see a team where the hitters are gonna chase 1st pitch all day long that they are now going to see a wide variety of 1st pitches and I would guess I'm going to get a lot of ground balls that day. Last week I watched a D2 college game where one team was clearly taking this strategy and got absolutely chewed up by the other team's pitcher on 1st pitches.
I have always believed that the AVERAGE HS pitcher wants to get a first pitch strike more than the hitter needs to hit it---and in many cases they will take something off his fast ball
quote:It seems to me if I'm a HS coach and I see a team where the hitters are gonna chase 1st pitch all day long
JBB: that's not what we are saying. Nobody is saying hitters should chase first pitches, we are saying don't let a first pitch go by if it is one that can be hit hard. Big difference.
I believe baseball is situational at every level. I am not a big proponent of black & white absolutes in baseball [such as NEVER take a first pitch strike or ALWAYS take a first pitch strike] because the exception to the rule tends to meet you in the conference/state finals.
If the discussion is high school, I believe that knowing what the "average" high school pitcher will do will not help that much. What your hitters need to know is WHAT WILL THE STARTING PITCHER WE ARE FACING TODAY DO. If you have faced him before or scouted him, you know the answer to that question. You have [or should have] an overall team strategy regarding this pitcher. If the pitcher deviates from his predicted approach, your team strategy should be adjusted accordingly. That is simple enough and is just good baseball.
If, on the other hand, you have never seen him before and know nothing about him, what are your instructions to your first three hitters? If it is, "Let's be agressive in the strike zone and not swing at bad pitches" are you advising patience at the plate? No you are not. If it is, "sit on fastball and don't swing at any breaking pitch until he gets it over," you have counseled some patience at the plate; at least in regards to a breaking pitch. So you have a "situational" take a first pitch strike strategy. It is just that the first pitch strike you want your hitters to take is a breaking pitch. But how do they know when this pitcher is throwing a breaking pitch if they have never seen him pitch before? The answer is, until he throws one or more, they don't. So are there confident two strike hitters you could bat first or second in the lineup willing to be sacrifical lambs for both the team's and their own future at bats against that pitcher that could take a few pitches while everyone else closely observes this pitcher and his delivery, ball movement, arm angle, etc.? Would that knowledge early on in the first inning be at all valuable for your hitters for the remainder of the game?
And this is just one 'situational' aspect of seeing a pitcher for the first time. We could go on and on but why bother?
TW344
If the discussion is high school, I believe that knowing what the "average" high school pitcher will do will not help that much. What your hitters need to know is WHAT WILL THE STARTING PITCHER WE ARE FACING TODAY DO. If you have faced him before or scouted him, you know the answer to that question. You have [or should have] an overall team strategy regarding this pitcher. If the pitcher deviates from his predicted approach, your team strategy should be adjusted accordingly. That is simple enough and is just good baseball.
If, on the other hand, you have never seen him before and know nothing about him, what are your instructions to your first three hitters? If it is, "Let's be agressive in the strike zone and not swing at bad pitches" are you advising patience at the plate? No you are not. If it is, "sit on fastball and don't swing at any breaking pitch until he gets it over," you have counseled some patience at the plate; at least in regards to a breaking pitch. So you have a "situational" take a first pitch strike strategy. It is just that the first pitch strike you want your hitters to take is a breaking pitch. But how do they know when this pitcher is throwing a breaking pitch if they have never seen him pitch before? The answer is, until he throws one or more, they don't. So are there confident two strike hitters you could bat first or second in the lineup willing to be sacrifical lambs for both the team's and their own future at bats against that pitcher that could take a few pitches while everyone else closely observes this pitcher and his delivery, ball movement, arm angle, etc.? Would that knowledge early on in the first inning be at all valuable for your hitters for the remainder of the game?
And this is just one 'situational' aspect of seeing a pitcher for the first time. We could go on and on but why bother?
TW344
Rob - I realize that. Replace the word "pitch" with "perceived strike" in my sentence.
I like the coach's strategy that I referred too. It makes a lot of sense to me.
I like the coach's strategy that I referred too. It makes a lot of sense to me.
JBB: Still not quite the same - there are lots of strikes on the first pitch that should be taken. Not all strikes can be hit hard!
It comes down to the question of whether a hitter should take a fastball right down the middle if it is a first pitch.
It comes down to the question of whether a hitter should take a fastball right down the middle if it is a first pitch.
Rob,
Again, I think the response varies on the situation.
If it is the first pitch of the game with an unknown pitcher, I don't see why not.
If it is the 5th inning and it is still the same pitcher, the answer is no, depending on the hitter and situation.
If the pitcher has just walked 2 guys on 9 pitches and you have your #9 hitter up, probably.
As can be seen from my posts, our son takes a lot of first pitches, and always has. He seems fearless with 2 strikes and has always had a very low strikeout number and ratio. One summer, he went 156 AB's without a K.
On the other hand, he seems to study the game and situations.
While in the NECBL, his team played Team USA.
Pitcher for Team USA that night was projected to be the #1 pick in the draft. He was taking his final warm up pitches, with about 50 guns coming up each time in the stands. Most everything was 95-96. Our son figured that with the guns, and what he was seeing, he would get a first pitch fastball grooved.
Sure enough and he lined it right back by the pitcher's ear.
Next AB, he got hit right in the backside with an 85 mph fastball.
I really like what TW344 has to say. My view is that each hitter in a lineup is different. To have them all trying to smoke that first good pitch won't work if they don't see one and can't adjust when they are down 0-1; 0-2. To have them all taking the first pitch/first strike won't work either for the same reason. Again, I am leaving out the top hitters because they can hit usually in any count.
Rob, I love to use OSU as an example. From what I have seen, they appear to have excellent advance scouting reports, and the players to execute them well. Any opponent that has a strategy to be very aggressive early in the count will pay a price in my view because they will adjust around it with curve balls, change ups and pitching to corners.
Maybe it is the difference between high school and college, but, from the high school ball I see in Northern CA, I don't believe there are many pitchers who groove first pitch fastballs, with something off, to get ahead.
Again, I think the response varies on the situation.
If it is the first pitch of the game with an unknown pitcher, I don't see why not.
If it is the 5th inning and it is still the same pitcher, the answer is no, depending on the hitter and situation.
If the pitcher has just walked 2 guys on 9 pitches and you have your #9 hitter up, probably.
As can be seen from my posts, our son takes a lot of first pitches, and always has. He seems fearless with 2 strikes and has always had a very low strikeout number and ratio. One summer, he went 156 AB's without a K.
On the other hand, he seems to study the game and situations.
While in the NECBL, his team played Team USA.
Pitcher for Team USA that night was projected to be the #1 pick in the draft. He was taking his final warm up pitches, with about 50 guns coming up each time in the stands. Most everything was 95-96. Our son figured that with the guns, and what he was seeing, he would get a first pitch fastball grooved.
Sure enough and he lined it right back by the pitcher's ear.
Next AB, he got hit right in the backside with an 85 mph fastball.
I really like what TW344 has to say. My view is that each hitter in a lineup is different. To have them all trying to smoke that first good pitch won't work if they don't see one and can't adjust when they are down 0-1; 0-2. To have them all taking the first pitch/first strike won't work either for the same reason. Again, I am leaving out the top hitters because they can hit usually in any count.
Rob, I love to use OSU as an example. From what I have seen, they appear to have excellent advance scouting reports, and the players to execute them well. Any opponent that has a strategy to be very aggressive early in the count will pay a price in my view because they will adjust around it with curve balls, change ups and pitching to corners.
Maybe it is the difference between high school and college, but, from the high school ball I see in Northern CA, I don't believe there are many pitchers who groove first pitch fastballs, with something off, to get ahead.
ID - fair enough - I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote. But we seem to continue to talk past each other for some reason.
I never said "be very aggressive early in the count." That isn't the question. The question was whether to always take the first pitch.
I never said "be very aggressive early in the count." That isn't the question. The question was whether to always take the first pitch.
Rob, if the question is whether each hitter always takes a first pitch or takes a strike, the answer is a no. I meant to say that in my last post by the discussion that, in my view, you don't have all 9 hitters doing the same thing since there is such variability on skill levels with 1 and 2 strikes.
long but interesting read...I am a pitching coach but its gives you the hitters perspective as well.
The Hardball Times
The Importance Of Strike One (Part One)
by Craig Burley
October 11, 2004
Baseball Think Factory regular and professional pitcher Carlos Gomez (aka “Chad Bradford Wannabe”) is responsible for bringing to my attention the most shocking, stupefying stat I have ever seen in all my years of following baseball. One day last year, around playoff time as I recall, he mentioned to me that less than 8 percent of first-pitch strikes turn into base hits.
Say what now?
It's true, actually. The figure for 2003, as I calculated from some wonderful data provided by Tom Tippett at the Diamond Mind Weblog, is 7.3%. Those figures do not include pitchers hitting; presumably if you throw in the pitchers as well it would be a couple tenths of a percent worse for the hitters.
That's just shocking. 92.7% of the time, if you throw a strike to the opposing hitter, you get either a 0-1 count or an out.
Now if the hitter manages to hit your first strike in fair territory, he does pretty well, as hitters batted .341/.348/.555 on 0-0 counts in 2003. Overall, these hitters (i.e. all major league non-pitchers) hit .268/.337/.430. So making fair contact on 0-0 generates some pretty good results!
All of this leads to some baseball people shying away from counseling a truly aggressive approach by pitchers. In fact, these sorts of numbers, and the resulting anecdotal evidence that “first-pitch hitters” do well, tend to lead to hitting coaches to encourage their hitters to jump on the first pitch, because hitters generally do so well when they hit that first pitch (that's hit the first pitch, not swing at the first pitch – ideally, a follow-up study to this one will focus on hitters, incorporate swinging strike/called strike data, and look at where hitters could benefit from being more or less patient).
But more than three-quarters of the time, that first strike from the pitcher is taken, swung through or fouled off. So in fact, looked at carefully, the pitcher still retains a massive advantage when that first pitch is in the strike zone. Why? Because once a pitcher gets to 0-1, hitters hit just .239/.283/.372 against him from there on out.
What Tippett's terrific table (say that three times fast!) doesn't do is to combine the analysis of first-pitch strikes (i.e. where the ball is put in play on 0-0, and where the count goes to 0-1). But it's instructive to do so, so let's compare the results of first-pitch strikes versus first-pitch balls...
0-0 Strike .261/.296/.411
0-0 Ball .280/.385/.459 (ignoring intentional walks, which start out 1-0 97.3% of the time)
And that is a pretty substantial difference. Let's imagine that we have two pitchers, both of whom are otherwise perfectly average but one of whom always throws a strike on the first pitch, while the other always throws a ball. The first pitcher, the “strike one” pitcher, has an expected ERA of about 3.60. The second one, the otherwise perfectly average one who always throws a ball on pitch one, has an expected ERA of about 5.50. He'll also pitch about 12% fewer innings (without taking into account the higher pitch counts that would result from starting 1-0).
Now there are some limitations to this data; it doesn't include hit batsmen (which would be a category all their own) and more crucially, it doesn't take into account pitches out of the strike zone that end up as swinging or foul strikes. But it is instructive on the massive difference between the first strike and the first ball. Put another way, I constructed a set of custom linear weights (using a method shown to me by Tangotiger) that took into account only unintentional walks (since IBBs almost always go 1-0, 2-0, 3-0) and ignored all other events as well. The result? The expected runs produced from each plate appearance beginning with a strike decreases by .029. The expected runs produced from each plate appearance beginning with a ball increases by .040. So that's a difference of .069 runs on the scoreboard, from one pitch.
Now there are also additional benefits to throwing first-pitch strikes, other than just those bare results. Strikes also end plate appearances early; therefore preserving a pitcher's freshness and allowing him to face more hitters. Johnny Sain, the legendary pitching coach who has left dozens if not hundreds of disciples throughout baseball, said that the best pitch in baseball was the one-pitch out. Certainly the ideal result for a pitcher isn't the strikeout, but the one-pitch out. Even putting that to one side, though, surely the notion that strike one (no matter if it's put into play, swinging, called, foul, or what have you) is worth two runs a game is enough to encourage pitchers to throw first strikes more often? (Pitchers threw first-pitch strikes 57% of the time in 2003). Now if that perfectly average pitcher threw first-pitch strikes 80% of the time instead of 57%, his ERA would decrease by about 0.64. If every pitcher on a team did it, it would save that team about 100 runs a year, or ten wins, turning average teams into pennant contenders.
All this got me thinking about what the benefit of getting a strike versus a ball is at each of the counts. I need full pitch-by-pitch data to establish this properly, particularly because of the foul strikes on 2-strike counts, but I have compiled an estimate of it for each count. This data won't be strictly accurate, because it separates each count from its context (it's different to go to 3-2 by ball, ball, ball, strike, strike than it is by strike, strike, ball, ball, ball but my method treats them as equivalent) but it gives a general overview of what can be expected at each count. As a result, all these are approximate numbers because I don't know how many 1-1 counts come from being 1-0, and how many from being 0-1. If you don't understand the importance or implications of that detail, don't worry, because it can't possibly be a very large difference. So the data I'm now compiling isn't perfect, but it's close to right.
I'll present that data, which I'm still trying to tweak, in an article next week. If you want a sneak preview, I can only say that the amazing thing about the data is that the third *smallest* difference in outcome between a ball and a strike occurs on 0-0. (Throwing a strike on 0-1 and 0-2 is less advantageous). The biggest difference, of course, is on 3-2, where throwing a ball instead of a strike costs you well over half a run (remember, the effect of foul balls is not counted here, which would reduce the advantage a fair way).
This is not to say that the 0-0 strike is unimportant; throwing a strike is always important. Nor is it accurate to say that it's less important than on other counts – since every at-bat has a 0-0 pitch, the cumulative effect of all 0-0 pitches is greater than that of any other count except 3-2. But the count (other than 0-0 and on 3-2, where more analysis is needed to account for foul ball problems) where the most difference can be made, the place where pitchers simply throw too many balls and not nearly enough strikes, is 2-2. Pitchers quite simply appear to cost themselves huge numbers of runs throwing too many balls on 2-2 and trying (presumably) to get hitters to chase. The difference in ultimate results between 2-2 and 3-2 is so massive, and there are a fair number of 2-2 counts. As a result, consistently throughout 2003, pitchers were eventually punished by sitting back, pitching conservatively and letting the hitter back into the count at 2-2. At any rate, all this and more will be covered in Part Two.
So until next week, remember to stop trying to strike everyone out... get some ground balls. It's more democratic.
References and Resources
I'd like to thank Carlos Gomez for inspiring this article and providing its central, motivating idea. Also Tom Tippett, for publishing the data that made this analysis possible.
Craig Burley is also a Batter's Box author and can be contacted via e-mail.
The Hardball Times
The Importance Of Strike One (Part One)
by Craig Burley
October 11, 2004
Baseball Think Factory regular and professional pitcher Carlos Gomez (aka “Chad Bradford Wannabe”) is responsible for bringing to my attention the most shocking, stupefying stat I have ever seen in all my years of following baseball. One day last year, around playoff time as I recall, he mentioned to me that less than 8 percent of first-pitch strikes turn into base hits.
Say what now?
It's true, actually. The figure for 2003, as I calculated from some wonderful data provided by Tom Tippett at the Diamond Mind Weblog, is 7.3%. Those figures do not include pitchers hitting; presumably if you throw in the pitchers as well it would be a couple tenths of a percent worse for the hitters.
That's just shocking. 92.7% of the time, if you throw a strike to the opposing hitter, you get either a 0-1 count or an out.
Now if the hitter manages to hit your first strike in fair territory, he does pretty well, as hitters batted .341/.348/.555 on 0-0 counts in 2003. Overall, these hitters (i.e. all major league non-pitchers) hit .268/.337/.430. So making fair contact on 0-0 generates some pretty good results!
All of this leads to some baseball people shying away from counseling a truly aggressive approach by pitchers. In fact, these sorts of numbers, and the resulting anecdotal evidence that “first-pitch hitters” do well, tend to lead to hitting coaches to encourage their hitters to jump on the first pitch, because hitters generally do so well when they hit that first pitch (that's hit the first pitch, not swing at the first pitch – ideally, a follow-up study to this one will focus on hitters, incorporate swinging strike/called strike data, and look at where hitters could benefit from being more or less patient).
But more than three-quarters of the time, that first strike from the pitcher is taken, swung through or fouled off. So in fact, looked at carefully, the pitcher still retains a massive advantage when that first pitch is in the strike zone. Why? Because once a pitcher gets to 0-1, hitters hit just .239/.283/.372 against him from there on out.
What Tippett's terrific table (say that three times fast!) doesn't do is to combine the analysis of first-pitch strikes (i.e. where the ball is put in play on 0-0, and where the count goes to 0-1). But it's instructive to do so, so let's compare the results of first-pitch strikes versus first-pitch balls...
0-0 Strike .261/.296/.411
0-0 Ball .280/.385/.459 (ignoring intentional walks, which start out 1-0 97.3% of the time)
And that is a pretty substantial difference. Let's imagine that we have two pitchers, both of whom are otherwise perfectly average but one of whom always throws a strike on the first pitch, while the other always throws a ball. The first pitcher, the “strike one” pitcher, has an expected ERA of about 3.60. The second one, the otherwise perfectly average one who always throws a ball on pitch one, has an expected ERA of about 5.50. He'll also pitch about 12% fewer innings (without taking into account the higher pitch counts that would result from starting 1-0).
Now there are some limitations to this data; it doesn't include hit batsmen (which would be a category all their own) and more crucially, it doesn't take into account pitches out of the strike zone that end up as swinging or foul strikes. But it is instructive on the massive difference between the first strike and the first ball. Put another way, I constructed a set of custom linear weights (using a method shown to me by Tangotiger) that took into account only unintentional walks (since IBBs almost always go 1-0, 2-0, 3-0) and ignored all other events as well. The result? The expected runs produced from each plate appearance beginning with a strike decreases by .029. The expected runs produced from each plate appearance beginning with a ball increases by .040. So that's a difference of .069 runs on the scoreboard, from one pitch.
Now there are also additional benefits to throwing first-pitch strikes, other than just those bare results. Strikes also end plate appearances early; therefore preserving a pitcher's freshness and allowing him to face more hitters. Johnny Sain, the legendary pitching coach who has left dozens if not hundreds of disciples throughout baseball, said that the best pitch in baseball was the one-pitch out. Certainly the ideal result for a pitcher isn't the strikeout, but the one-pitch out. Even putting that to one side, though, surely the notion that strike one (no matter if it's put into play, swinging, called, foul, or what have you) is worth two runs a game is enough to encourage pitchers to throw first strikes more often? (Pitchers threw first-pitch strikes 57% of the time in 2003). Now if that perfectly average pitcher threw first-pitch strikes 80% of the time instead of 57%, his ERA would decrease by about 0.64. If every pitcher on a team did it, it would save that team about 100 runs a year, or ten wins, turning average teams into pennant contenders.
All this got me thinking about what the benefit of getting a strike versus a ball is at each of the counts. I need full pitch-by-pitch data to establish this properly, particularly because of the foul strikes on 2-strike counts, but I have compiled an estimate of it for each count. This data won't be strictly accurate, because it separates each count from its context (it's different to go to 3-2 by ball, ball, ball, strike, strike than it is by strike, strike, ball, ball, ball but my method treats them as equivalent) but it gives a general overview of what can be expected at each count. As a result, all these are approximate numbers because I don't know how many 1-1 counts come from being 1-0, and how many from being 0-1. If you don't understand the importance or implications of that detail, don't worry, because it can't possibly be a very large difference. So the data I'm now compiling isn't perfect, but it's close to right.
I'll present that data, which I'm still trying to tweak, in an article next week. If you want a sneak preview, I can only say that the amazing thing about the data is that the third *smallest* difference in outcome between a ball and a strike occurs on 0-0. (Throwing a strike on 0-1 and 0-2 is less advantageous). The biggest difference, of course, is on 3-2, where throwing a ball instead of a strike costs you well over half a run (remember, the effect of foul balls is not counted here, which would reduce the advantage a fair way).
This is not to say that the 0-0 strike is unimportant; throwing a strike is always important. Nor is it accurate to say that it's less important than on other counts – since every at-bat has a 0-0 pitch, the cumulative effect of all 0-0 pitches is greater than that of any other count except 3-2. But the count (other than 0-0 and on 3-2, where more analysis is needed to account for foul ball problems) where the most difference can be made, the place where pitchers simply throw too many balls and not nearly enough strikes, is 2-2. Pitchers quite simply appear to cost themselves huge numbers of runs throwing too many balls on 2-2 and trying (presumably) to get hitters to chase. The difference in ultimate results between 2-2 and 3-2 is so massive, and there are a fair number of 2-2 counts. As a result, consistently throughout 2003, pitchers were eventually punished by sitting back, pitching conservatively and letting the hitter back into the count at 2-2. At any rate, all this and more will be covered in Part Two.
So until next week, remember to stop trying to strike everyone out... get some ground balls. It's more democratic.
References and Resources
I'd like to thank Carlos Gomez for inspiring this article and providing its central, motivating idea. Also Tom Tippett, for publishing the data that made this analysis possible.
Craig Burley is also a Batter's Box author and can be contacted via e-mail.
Thx turnin2, was reluctant to put the whole article up did not want to use up cycles due to cost.
JMO
JMO
I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability. I have two players signed with ACC schools one with NC State the other with UNC. They rarely see a first pitch strike. In fact they rarely see a fastball much less one over the plate. Their approach is much different than the approaches of the rest of my players. Where you hit in the order , how you are pitched and the quality of the guy on the hill that day will have alot to do with your approach that day.
My son actually looks off speed ie curveball or change on first pitch. He rarely swings early in the count in hs. Usually he is in a 2-0 3-1 count before he swings. The same can be said for our other kid.
The coaches job is to win and teach his players how to win at the level of the game he is coaching. Im sure their college coaches will teach them the approach they want them to have. A hs team that takes the first pitch strike will not be as successfull as the hs team that punishes the first pitch strike. Granted their are first pitch strikes you will want to take. A great located fb at the knees on the outside black may indeed be a strike but it may not be the pitch you were looking for so you take it.
The fact is a cockshot down the heart on the first pitch is a pitch you need to hammer. Having a team approach where you take the first pitch strike regardless of what kind of strike it is , is a recipe for failure as a team.
I will leave the college coaching up to the college coach. He will teach the approach he wants the guys to have. I will teach our guys what approach they need to have to be successfull in hs because that is what I coach. If a pitcher throws you a cockshot and you take it thats just not good baseball period. Every kid is going to have a different approach for the most part. How are you pitched? Where do you hit in the order? How were you pitched in your last ab? Whats the situation in the game? How good is the guy on the hill?
We are just going to have to disagree on this one and that is fine with me. My son hit over .500 the last two years in hs and is the all time hr record holder at our hs with 26. He has over 100 hits and 100 rbis in hs so far. His approach works for him. When he gets to college Im sure he will have to make some adjustments. They all will regardless of what they are taught in hs. But your not going to convince me that taking a cockshot on 0-0 is a sound approach for a hs team to take. So we will have to just disagree.
My son actually looks off speed ie curveball or change on first pitch. He rarely swings early in the count in hs. Usually he is in a 2-0 3-1 count before he swings. The same can be said for our other kid.
The coaches job is to win and teach his players how to win at the level of the game he is coaching. Im sure their college coaches will teach them the approach they want them to have. A hs team that takes the first pitch strike will not be as successfull as the hs team that punishes the first pitch strike. Granted their are first pitch strikes you will want to take. A great located fb at the knees on the outside black may indeed be a strike but it may not be the pitch you were looking for so you take it.
The fact is a cockshot down the heart on the first pitch is a pitch you need to hammer. Having a team approach where you take the first pitch strike regardless of what kind of strike it is , is a recipe for failure as a team.
I will leave the college coaching up to the college coach. He will teach the approach he wants the guys to have. I will teach our guys what approach they need to have to be successfull in hs because that is what I coach. If a pitcher throws you a cockshot and you take it thats just not good baseball period. Every kid is going to have a different approach for the most part. How are you pitched? Where do you hit in the order? How were you pitched in your last ab? Whats the situation in the game? How good is the guy on the hill?
We are just going to have to disagree on this one and that is fine with me. My son hit over .500 the last two years in hs and is the all time hr record holder at our hs with 26. He has over 100 hits and 100 rbis in hs so far. His approach works for him. When he gets to college Im sure he will have to make some adjustments. They all will regardless of what they are taught in hs. But your not going to convince me that taking a cockshot on 0-0 is a sound approach for a hs team to take. So we will have to just disagree.
quote:But your not going to convince me that taking a cockshot on 0-0 is a sound approach for a hs team to take. So we will have to just disagree.
Coach, if I thought this entire thread was about whether to take 80 mph fastballs thrown in the center of the plate about thigh high(I assume that is a cockshot), we could have saved a lot of bandwidth.
I don't see many like that in high school in Northern CA. Above high school, pretty much none.
I don't have anything to add... I've just enjoyed reading the posts. Good stuff.
The original poster was asking what people thought about an approach of taking the first strike. There are strikes that are better left alone in an 0-0 count and there are strikes that are good pitches to hit. My response was to the question asked. Having an approach with an automatic take on the first strike you see was what I based my responses on.
quote:Usually he is in a 2-0 3-1 count before he swings.
I'm really not meaning to pick at anyone, but this comment stuck out to me.
This is the type of count in college that experienced pitchers can really chew up a young hitter on. Conversely, its the type of count in college that young pitchers can get hammered on.
Few experienced college pitchers get beat badly in this count.
Now what count would any pitcher rather have on a batter. 0-1 1-2 or 2-0 3-1? So you chew up hitters if you get behind in the count rather than up in the count?
I would much rather be sitting there 2-0 or 3-1 as a hitter than down in the count. As a pitcher I would rather have the batter down in the count. But hey if you feel you can chew up hitters better when you are behind in the count 2-0 3-1 just constantly throw balls and get behind in the count. Then you can chew them up.
Experienced college pitchers will have the advantage over inexperienced college hitters. But not because they get behind in the count. But for the sake of argument what is the better count for these hitters if its not 2-0 or 3-1? What counts do they tend not to get chewed up on vs these other counts?
I would much rather be sitting there 2-0 or 3-1 as a hitter than down in the count. As a pitcher I would rather have the batter down in the count. But hey if you feel you can chew up hitters better when you are behind in the count 2-0 3-1 just constantly throw balls and get behind in the count. Then you can chew them up.
Experienced college pitchers will have the advantage over inexperienced college hitters. But not because they get behind in the count. But for the sake of argument what is the better count for these hitters if its not 2-0 or 3-1? What counts do they tend not to get chewed up on vs these other counts?
Coach May - I'm really not interested in getting in a prolonged argument with you. Just not interested.
Of course a pitcher would rather be ahead in the count. I never said otherwise. Re-read it PLEASE!
But the fact is that a good college pitcher fully understands the mindset of a HS home run hitter in these situations and will take advantage of it. Conversely, an experienced college hitter will be quite patient in this situation as well. Pretty simple. If you don't believe it, you will see it beginning next year.
You can say whatever you want, I won't be arguing back. You get the last word.
Of course a pitcher would rather be ahead in the count. I never said otherwise. Re-read it PLEASE!
But the fact is that a good college pitcher fully understands the mindset of a HS home run hitter in these situations and will take advantage of it. Conversely, an experienced college hitter will be quite patient in this situation as well. Pretty simple. If you don't believe it, you will see it beginning next year.
You can say whatever you want, I won't be arguing back. You get the last word.
JB Im not trying to argue or get the last word. I happen to agree that an experienced college pitcher will have the advantage against the inexperienced college hitter even in bad counts. They will use the hitters agressiveness in these counts to their advantage. There is a learning process that all hitters and pitchers must go through. The point I have been trying to make is that taking the first strike as a rule of thumb is not a good approach for a team.
I see a ton of college games every year. Ive already seen a few this year. I have seen the young hitters sitting on the 2-0 fb only to get out on the 2-0 change. I understand what you are saying. No argument from me on that.
I see a ton of college games every year. Ive already seen a few this year. I have seen the young hitters sitting on the 2-0 fb only to get out on the 2-0 change. I understand what you are saying. No argument from me on that.