Too many strikes?

Yikes I would never say too many strikes! Never Never Never. Maybe too many groved balls over the middle of the plate up in the zone.

A good line score would be too many ground outs IMO.

BOF,
That's where the command comes in. If you've got good command you'll be able to stay down in the zone most of the time and only go up in the zone when you want to. That results in grounders. When you have control but not command a lot of the strikes are going to be over the plate and up.

If you've got good stuff, i.e. a good slider or good sink on the ball you'll probably get a lot of grounders even when you leave it over the plate. If you don't then that ball over the plate and up is going to get hit hard.

There are two types of "strike" pitchers- those who tally lots of hits and those who tally lots of outs. The main difference between the two is not how many strikes, but rather the "quality" of the strikes. A good strike pitcher will be able to throw balls outside the strike zone and draw swings. The best strike pitchers don't have too many walks- their strike out to walk ratio is good.

quote:

Lots of hits, very few walks.

I think you are on to something. IMO too many Pitching coaches get "overly" concerned with walks. To the point where their pitchers feel compelled to groove a pitch, when behind, to prevent the base on balls.

To me, a base on balls is BETTER than an extra-base hit, just about any time! If, as you suggest, the pitcher doesn't have great command, throwing off the plate isn't going to help him any as good hitters aren't going "out of the zone."

My son, whose a hitter 1st and pitcher very distant second, used to debate "the best approach" to use in this instance. It was always his personal pitching philosophy to "not get too hung up on walks" but to instead focus on NOT giving up extra-base hits!

Good point GBman. I think in part that's why one tends to see BB/9 go up as players go up each level. Their stuff is no longer good enough to get the hitters at the next level out in and of itself so they start to nibble more. Either they make the adjustment or perhaps the next level never comes.

I think that might be part of why BB/9 goes up. The other part is the strike zone shrinks as you go up. MLB K zone is tiny.

I agree that you can't throw too many strikes. Are there circumstances where you are purposely throwing out of the strike zone? Yep. But, my philosophy is you are more likely to get a guy out by throwing a strike than ball 4. The chances of him getting a hit are about 1 in 3. If you throw ball 4, the chances of him getting on base are 3 in 3. That doesn't mean you groove one down the middle of the plate, especially to a very good hitter. But you put it around the plate to get him to swing at your pitch, even with 3 balls.

So, I agree with BOF. Not too many strikes - too many balls grooved down the middle of the plate.

bballman,
That's what I said. Maybe BOF just said it better. You are right, I've talked to some MiLB umps and at the lower levels at least they have to have relatively large strike zones.

CADad, I wasn't disagreeing. I was more referring to this post:

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
Good point GBman. I think in part that's why one tends to see BB/9 go up as players go up each level. Their stuff is no longer good enough to get the hitters at the next level out in and of itself so they start to nibble more. Either they make the adjustment or perhaps the next level never comes.

I was just adding that in addition to nibbling too much, the strike zone often gets smaller as you go up. Therefore it's harder to throw strikes that batters just can't reach. You have to be very much around the plate and if your stuff isn't good enough, you are in trouble. That's pretty much what you were saying earlier.

The other difference is the higher you go, the better the batter's eye is. Those top guys just do not offer at borderline pitches. So, once again, your stuff better be good because your not going to get by on getting guys to swing at too many bad pitches.

I guess it's better to be either effectively wild or in command of the strike zone. Kind of hard to get results grooving fastballs down the middle unless you have some deception or movement.

So let's say we a have a staff that has decent but not great stuff and good control but not great command. That probably describes a lot of college staffs.

Should the pitching coach focus on avoiding walks or focus on working the corners knowing that it is going to result in a few more walks?

I don't have a good answer to that. I kind of think you have to focus on avoiding the walk and then be able to adjust in game if your pitchers start getting hit hard. Easier said than done.

Good question. Of course the strategy will vary from pitcher to pitcher, but generally speaking, I would say nibble the corners. Then depending on the hitter or situation, you would decide what to do. With men on 2nd and 3rd and the #4 hitter up, you keep nibbling and no biggie if you put him on. With no one on, 3 balls and the #8 hitter up, you go after him and hope your defense steps up. There are really unlimited situations that would dictate how you go after a batter.

If your pitcher nibbles too much and is walking a bunch of guys, or is too down the middle and is getting shellacked, well, it's not their day and you make a change and hope the next guy does better.

I have always believed you never want to throw too many strikes. Hitters get very comfortable when they know the pitcher is always going to be around the plate. And even more comfortable when they know they are always going to be in the zone. Its just as important to be able to hit your spots out of the zone as it is to hit your spots in the zone.

Put me in the camp with the "you can never throw too many strikes" guys; and the "quality strikes" guys. The key is to never let the hitters get that comfortable.

I want Hitters to be thinking that they are going to be seeing nothing but strikes ... but that they just don't know what type of strike, where it will be located, or how fast it is coming.

I'm a big believer in being able to throw 3 or more pitches to 3 or more locations each -- on command. When you can do this, you can leverage effective velocity: the difference between the perceived velocity of pitches.

Ex: An 80 mph fastball up and in looks like it is 84-86. Followed up with a 70 mph Change-Up down and away that looks to the hitter like 66 (a -20 mph change in perceived velocity). Followed up with a 75 mph Slider breaking in on the knees that looks to the hitter to be 78 (a +12 mph change in perceived velocity). This makes hitting very difficult. Keep the effective velocity between pitches at +/- 10 mph and it gets very difficult for hitter's to get comfortable.

Other things I believe in include:

-- The numbers show that most hitters get less effective the further behind they get in a count;

-- HS hitters are less effective when they can't predict what is coming, and as speeds and locations change;

-- If you get Umpires in the habit of calling strikes, you can then begin to move 1-2 balls off the plate, and they will still call strikes (the plate gets bigger for the good pitcher as the game goes on);

-- HS fielders lose their focus and edge with deep counts -- your defense improves the more strikes you throw.

-- When you get in a groove of throwing strikes, and getting quick outs on ground balls and pop-ups, the hitter's begin to press even more ... further reducing their effectiveness.

But I have always operated from the mindset that I want my Pitcher to go to the mound with the attitude that this is his field, and it is going to be a very long day for the other side ... and the knowledge and ability to back it up.

One simple idea to add that my son's program works on is fastball movement. Two-seams to the armside and four-seams away. As a high 3/4 RH pitcher movement did not come naturally so he has noticed how effective it can be.

A pitcher needs to locate and change speeds in order to be effective against quality hitters. That includes locating outside of the strike zone in certain situations. It is much easier to hit off a pitcher who stays in the strike zone. It is alot tougher to hit off a pitcher who can command in and out of the zone. To each his own.

southpaw,
I would guess we all believe in that. What I don't believe is that there are many pitchers who can do it. Maybe Maddux on a good day?

I'd ammend my comments to say that I don't disagree with Coach May; to me it is a matter of degrees. I see lots of young pitchers get to an 0-1, 0-2, or 1-2 count, and they waste pitches getting so far outside of the zone, even an average hitter won't chase. Next thing you know, they have let the hitter back into the count, and trouble comes.

I like a Pitcher to locate outside of the zone, but close enough to tempt the hitter to chase, and/or the Umpire to give him the call.

Related to this is the reality that the strike zone changes every day, with every Umpire. It may even change during the game.

I have always taught my Pitchers and Catchers to go out and define the strike zone in the 1st inning.

Ex: Set up at the knees and on the corner. Hit the mitt. Is it a strike or a ball (called or swining)? If it's a strike, move another ball of the plate. What do we get? Move another ball down. What do we get? Work your way around the "strike zone" to define what it is that day (what are they swinging at? what is the Umpire calling?) ... then pound the spots where you have an advantage.

Case: In a game against a bitter rival, our battery figured out early that the Umpire was giving them a good 2 balls off the plate, and 1 to 2 balls below the knees down and away from Righties. Our Pitcher was SP_Son, who has a good 2-seam tailing FB, and who can hit a target. Our Catcher shifted with his feet and body to establish a target inside his body, but 2 balls off the plate, and they proceeded to throw 65 fastballs, 2 curveballs, and 1 change-up over 7 innings, as they dispatched a team of right-handed pull hitters.

They moved the ball around a little, just to keep the hitters honest, but they lived on that outside "corner". If the hitter's did not swing, the pitches were called strikes. If they did swing, there was little they could do with them.

If that is considered locating off the plate, I'm with you 100%. I just hate seeing kids "waste" pitches by getting so far off the plate the hitter's won't bite, and the Umpires don't even have to think about it.

As for the number of kids who can learn to pound a mitt, I am an optimist on this front. I believe kids can learn darn near anything if you teach them to expect that they can do it. Teach a kid repeatable mechanics, and teach him to aim at a target the size of a dime in the palm of the mitt, and it is amazing what kids can do. I'm not saying that it does not require work and practice; but I think more kids can learn to hit spots with predictable frequency than we often give them credit for.

Just my thoughts ...

I believe every pitch should have a purpose. I don't believe in waste pitches. I believe the pitcher should start out the game and try and define the strike zone. A fb two balls off the plate is a ball. Its not a strike. But if you start there and the catcher does his job and you hit your spot and its called a strike then its a strike. If you can consistently hit that spot it will continue to be a strike. Is it over the plate? Is it throwing in the zone? No.

If you start there and its called a ball move in one ball a ball off the plate. What happens now? Work from there. When a pitcher has earned an advantage based on the count take advantage of it. In a 0-2 1-2 2-2 count why throw over the plate for a strike when you can throw a pitch a ball off the plate? Or throw a pitch that starts off in the zone but ends up out of the zone? Now if the strike zone has been established the size of a shoe box maybe you have to throw more strikes in these situations. But if you are getting a ball off the plate why would you throw over the plate when the pressure in on the hitter and you have gained the advantage.

Throwing strikes is very important. Throwing balls is too. If a pitcher throws a strike on every pitch he throws and he is facing a quality opponent he is going to get lit up. That is simply throwing too many strikes.

I think there is room in baseball for "effectively wild" to an extent.

One thing that can definitely take some of confidence out of a hitter is a little bit of fear of the pitcher. Even against a good pitcher, the thought that you could take a fastball to the ear hole will have a hitter tiptoeing into the box a little bit.

Well said CM. Every pitch should have a purpose, and a good "ball" can serve a great purpose. It is hard to beat that 2-strike Curveball or Change-up that starts in the zone and breaks out of reach of the bat.

I expect we are more in agreement than not. I think that the more a Pitcher proves he can attack the corners of the "zone of the day" with a full compliment of pitches, the more pressure he puts on the hitters. Then, that close miss, or the pitch that breaks out of the zone is all the more devastating.

I just hate seeing guys get ahead in the count, only to give away the advantage by getting so far off the plate that hitter's won't chase, Umpires are expecting a "ball", and the Pitcher becomes just as predictable in his pattern as if he was trying to throw all strikes.

What do you think about Strike:Ball Ratios? I have always liked to see a minimum of a 2:1 Strikes to Balls, with the goal of getting up to 3:1 or even 4:1. I do think that it is hard to get much higher than 3:1 or 4:1 without living too much in the heart of the zone that a good hitting team can take advantage. What do you think about this metric?

spdad,
When you find a pitcher who can get to 4:1 with anything but fastballs down the middle let me know. I'd like a piece of the signing bonus. Against strong competition 2:1 tends to be the ideal ratio. 3:1 doesn't often work that well and 4:1 is BP. Videotape some of your pitchers "consistently hitting their spots", don't just watch, and you'll be more than a bit surprised at where the pitches actually end up.

I looked at the pitchers with the best WHIP and the pitchers with the lowest BB/9 ratios in MLB and although they were all close to a 2:1 strike to ball ratio, none of them actually was as high as 2:1. The highest strike to ball ratio in MLB is about 2.2:1. 3:1 and 4:1 are not the least bit realistic against decent competition.

I hate the foot off the plate because we're afraid otherwise the ball might slip back over the plate also.



This is the pitch distribution for a MLB pitcher. Do you think he is consistently hitting his spots? He's got a nice little cluster low and outside that he's hit but overall he hasn't hit his spot too often at all.

Pitchers whom do not live on the black have less advantage.
Coaches that project walk fear and proclaim this onto pitchers do a psychological dis-service to the Pitchers!

http://www.drmikemarshall.com/...dDoNotMindWalks.html

First - history is made. I agree with Yardbird.

quote:

Originally posted by southpaw_dad:
-- If you get Umpires in the habit of calling strikes, you can then begin to move 1-2 balls off the plate, and they will still call strikes (the plate gets bigger for the good pitcher as the game goes on)

This is a huge point missed by some pitchers (and coaches). Having been there, there is nothing worse for an umpire to have to try to call a game with an “effectively wild” pitcher (no such animal from a umpire perspective). If a pitcher is constantly crossing up his catcher, he is also crossing up the umpire. An ump looking for a down and away pitch on the corner is not going to get a good look at a pitch up and in. Now a pitcher hitting his spots is going to start to get those borderline calls as the game goes on. The ump wants nothing more to move the game along and get home. The only two people at the field that will know it was not over the plate is the ump and the catcher and when this happens – guess what? It is a strike.

Strikes aren't always over the plate.

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
I was going through the linescores for a college game and it struck me that it looked like the pitchers were throwing too many strikes. Lots of hits, very few walks.

It seems to me that although a pitcher has to throw strikes, if they don't have great stuff or great command, they have to be out of the zone often enough to make the hitters hesitate a bit. Otherwise the hitters will treat it more like BP.

This could be due to many things.

While coming to the the conclusion that they throw too many strikes may be valid we are lacking other important information. Based on my experience when you see the box score numbers (High Hits/Low Walks) you spoke of, it is usually a result of any combination of the following.

LACK OF COMMAND

1. Inability to establish the inner half and move feet....especially early in the game.

2. Inability to throw off-speed pitches for strikes. Especially on occasional first pitches. It's pretty tough to succeed and throw alot of first pitch fastballs.

3. Is the pitcher 1-0, 2-0 or 3-1 too often?

4. What kind of stuff are they featuring? In college IN GENERAL AND CERTAINLY NOT ALWAYS guys that throw in the mid to upper 80's get whacked unless they have good command. If you throw above it, avg colleges guys can't catch up, nor do they see it that often. If you throw below it college guys don't see it that often as well and tend to get too anxious and get themselves out.

5. Are they tipping pitches?....Are infielders moving and as a result tipping pitches?

6. Are there too many FB's with runners on base.....are there too many FB's in this situation because they don't know how or are not taught how to hold runners.....

Speaking of........To anyone reading this.....What is holding runners?

IMHO there are just too many other things that could lead to the bad numbers in the box score you mentioned.......And heck, it just might be as simple as IT WAS JUST ONE OF THOSE DAYS.......

Low,
Don't have great stuff, or great command. Stuff includes off speed pitches. Didn't you just repeat what I said in a little more detailed fashion?

I do agree that it could have just been one of those days. Hitting is contagious.

CADad:

quote:

It seems to me that although a pitcher has to throw strikes, if they don't have great stuff or great command, they have to be out of the zone often enough to make the hitters hesitate a bit.

Sorry....it's just that above comment doesn't make sense....I know what you are trying to say but what you said contradicts itself.

What you are saying is that if you don't have good stuff or good command then you better throw the ball out of the strike zone occasionally......get hitters to chase stuff out of the strike zone....feed on a hitters aggressiveness......Well if they don't have good command you are telling a guy with good control (because he is throwing too many strikes) to miss when he wants to.......Problem is you just said he doesn't have good command.....how is that possible for him to do because of his poor command

It's hard enough to convince young guys to pitch to contact. Which means throwing strikes is a priority. When we pitch away from contact or try to create swings and misses then we tend to create too many deep counts. We cannot defend walks. If they put it in play at least we have a chance to get outs.

Strikes are a good thing. If I'm throwing a ton of strikes then I have good control. If I'm throwing alot of strikes and giving up alot hits and hard hit balls then I have poor command.

It doesn't contradict itself. If you don't have good command you don't have to try to throw outside the zone. Trying to work the corners will result in plenty of balls outside the zone.

Now you've said something contradictory. First you say that throwing strikes is a good thing. Then you say that throwing a lot of strikes and giving up a lot of hits and hard hit balls then you have poor command. That's right but that's throwing strikes and it isn't good unless you are getting very lucky.

quote:

Originally posted by LOW337:

It's hard enough to convince young guys to pitch to contact. Which means throwing strikes is a priority. When we pitch away from contact or try to create swings and misses then we tend to create too many deep counts. We cannot defend walks. If they put it in play at least we have a chance to get outs.

I have been trying to follow this topic and do agree with somethings said, but I don't think as a pitcher your job is to try real hard to pitch out of the zone on purpose often to create swings that will miss. Walks are unacceptable, always, I thought it was better for the pitcher to produce a hit to put the ball in play, better chance of getting an out, and to keep his pitch count low as possible.

I never heard that too many strikes is a bad thing. But I do agree that one needs to try to get them to chase when it's called for.

As far as the above graph, I don't think that the pitcher was trying to pitch out of the zone, but just an example of how hard it is even for a ML pitcher, with control and command to stay within the ML zone, which is the size in most cases of a shoebox (small one).

Lot of good points by many. Here is my take.

Strong believer in throwing strikes and pitching to contact ( to me this means the pitcher's job to to make the hitter commit his bat). The problem with throwing too many strikes is a bit of a misleading statement...problem isn't too many but what type and where.

Looking at the plate in 25% sections, the problem with too many strikes is when the pitcher is focused on throwing to the middle 50% of the plate. Get too many strikes there the pitcher get rocked as even when his pitch starts there and then moves he is still close to the middle of the plate. Outer 25% sections (inside/outside) is where you need to live and accordingly you'll miss the plate occasionally but if the pitch starts over the plate then moves off, the hitter usually is forced to commit the bat because the pitch originally looks like a strike. Now as a pitcher you've pitched to contact but effectively dictated what type of contact the hitters can consistently make. Now you're pitching versus throwing.


Can most HS pitchers do this...perhaps a few but most will struggle somewhat with this. Now the thinking part of baseball starts; is the problem just lack of control/command or alot of movement that is taking the ball to the middle of the plate or off the plate. Catcher can adjust and work with the movement problem but control/command is tougher unless there is a pattern or certain pitch that is a problem. A pitcher can compete with less than his best stuff but it will require focus,thinking and pitching versus throwing....that and a desire to compete when on the mound.

Pitchers often get into trouble when they try to make hitters miss...can't be done. Does this mean they can't try to SO a hitter in a given situation..no, but that is done by execution and focus in making the pitch cause once it leaves your hand its up to the hitter.

Don't believe in waste pitches at all. Every pitch should have a purpose. Sometimes you have a to show a pitch occasionally to hitters even if you can''t throw if effectively at first; sometimes it will be to set up another pitch. A pitchers control and command can vary throughout a game and sometimes a pitch he didn't have early will be there later in the game; that's one of the reasons catching is so fun and so hard at the same time. Just a small part to the beauty of baseball as nothing is static.

JMO

Every pitch should have a purpose. My son's college pitching coach used to make them throw a waste pitch often (out of the zone) on a 0-2 count. In discussion one day, he told husband that waste pitch always has a purpose.

I am not sure how one can determine that a pitcher threw too many strikes in a game by looking at the boxscore. Can you tell what they threw by looking at those stats? Off speed, FB? Did the ball have movement?

milb umpires have very small strike zones, this is how the pitcher learns to adjust to the ML game. I've never seen anything that large, sometimes I can't even figure out what the zone is supposed to be, especially if he is waiting for the more dominant guy to establish the zone.

But I understand why this would be brought up, makes for a good discussion.

The pitcher should never have to nibble each pitch to get strikes, the better hitters pick up and you are most likely going to have a bad outing.

Have you ever gotten on the bump?

Bear ... Is your question directed to anyone in particular, or to the group in general? If you're asking the group as a whole; Yup -- been there.

I was a guy of limited athletic ability; with a burning passion for the game; an extremely competitive spirit; and a Coach who taught me to believe in myself and my teammates. A "Soft-throwing" lefty with an attitude. I was the guy everyone could crush ... from the bench, or the on-deck circle. Things changed once they stepped up to my plate.

Personally, I hated throwing balls. I hated it when my Catcher had to move his mitt. Every pitch had a purpose ... to get an out, and to make every hitter's time at bat as frustrating as possible. I loved making guys throw helmets and bats, and making opposing Coaches chew on their kids to "hit the ball" and other such tidbits of wisdom.

I never wasted a pitch. I might knock a guy down, but the pitch was never wasted

My shoulder gave out my senior year in HS, and in college I moved over to the Rugby pitch; where having the attitude that this is my field, and your day to get your butt kicked is considered an asset.

I've had the pleasure of working with young pitchers with varying levels of talent, but I have always taught them to take the mound with the same attitude -- today, I am your problem. I have also worked to instill the confidence that they can put any pitch where they want it, when they want to. As I have said in earlier posts ... and others have stated as well ... it is amazing to see what kids can learn to do when you first teach them to believe it is possible.

Some backdrop behind my contributions to this discussion.

Caveat: I am not a pitcing coach. I am not a coach. I was not a pitcher. My son is not a pitcher. My point of view is from behind the catcher.

That said,from my experience and within the limits of my memory, the most succesful pitchers I have seen, especially at the collegiate level, are those who get the third strike from a swing rather than a "call."

quote:

Originally posted by Bear:
Have you ever gotten on the bump?

Every day.

I have and I know how few, far between and special the outings are where you can even feel like you are hitting your spots. Most of the time you are finding ways to make whatever you have that day work.

I just watched a kid this weekend show good control. 1 ip, 1h, 2bb. The stats don't imply good control but it was there. He was trying to work the corners and wasn't getting the calls and then either had good enough stuff or was facing weak enough hitters that he could pound the zone when he got behind. I also watched some other kids throwing strikes to hitters who overmatched them. Lots of runs.

Dan Hudson speaking about his 2009 season where he spent time at both A ball levels, AA, AAA and the big leagues.

"I get the most out of my stuff." said Hudson, who issued a mere 43 walks in 2009, including his stint with the White Sox. "I try to throw wherever the catcher sets up."

"You can't nibble around the zone, so I follow the goal our organization preaches: Throw first-pitch strikes and try to throw two of the first three pitches for strikes."

"Attacking hitter, getting early contact and not giving away any pitches lets you stay in the game longer."

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.co...s&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

"and try to throw two of the first three pitches for strikes."

That doesn't say try to throw every pitch for a strike. He throws where the catcher sets up. Catchers set up off the plate at times. Sometimes you throw a purpose pitch such as a fastball just up out of the zone on 0-2 or a curve that breaks into the dirt trying to get a swing. In both cases you are trying to get a swing and if you don't get one hoping to set up the next pitch. It isn't giving away a pitch. Given his strikeout numbers he's got serious stuff at least for minor league ball.

quote:

Originally posted by LOW337:
Dan Hudson speaking about his 2009 season where he spent time at both A ball levels, AA, AAA and the big leagues.

"I get the most out of my stuff." said Hudson, who issued a mere 43 walks in 2009, including his stint with the White Sox. "I try to throw wherever the catcher sets up."

"You can't nibble around the zone, so I follow the goal our organization preaches: Throw first-pitch strikes and try to throw two of the first three pitches for strikes."

"Attacking hitter, getting early contact and not giving away any pitches lets you stay in the game longer."

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.co...s&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

I got to go with Low on this, and no, I have never been on the bump.