Skip to main content

61 replies

Two strike pitches

PU Pop Up Hitter dad1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by TRhit:
What has happened to the art of fouling off two strike pitches?



Originally posted by tfox:
Yes,take the decision out of the umpires hand.

This post is right down Pop ups alley, he calls me the other day to say he went 0 for 3 in intersquad, with one called third strike with the bases loaded. So I ask him what happened: "Dad it wasn't even close to a strike, everyone agreed". Well everyone except the most important person, THE UMPIRE!!! This happens way too much to him, the only time he has been ejected was same situation, called third strike and after an 0 for 4 game he decided to argue. We have discussed this before and he is adamant about not swinging at "balls".

He has good enough coordination to foul off most of these pitches and a good coach can tell a full swing at a bad pitch to reaching out trying to foul off a bad pitch. I don't care how good a defensive catcher he might be, but he won't go much further taking too many called third strikes. Evidently his current coach isn't too concerned about this, but as his dad, taking the third strike with two out and the bases loaded is terrible. I would rather see him take the bat off his shoulder and at least try. It seems too many umpires tend to make these "borderline" calls when the game reaches this point. By the way his count was 0 and 2, so Mr. Umpire could have let this one go as a ball.

TRhit's question seems to have sparked a good dialog but there seems to be only two opinions, my son's and TR's.
floridafanfloridafan5,000+ posts
A pet peeve of mine is when a player is effectively fouling off 2 strike pitches and a pitch is thrown that is outside by a foot or more and get rung up on a called 3rd strike. It's like: "You've been up here long enough, I am tired of looking at you...next!"

Best at bat of the day Sunday by my son and he gets rung up like that! Granted, it was by a fellow teammate who is a pitcher calling balls and strikes from behind the mound..lol!
Last edited by floridafan
P Prime91,000+ posts
quote:
We have discussed this before and he is adamant about not swinging at "balls".


Popup;

I have had this same "maddening" discussion with my son. He, however, has me thinking that he may be on to something.

Prime Jr. explained it to me this way. "Being blessed with very good or great strike zone awareness, provides a big advantage to a hitter. However, those decisions are made in milliseconds and the awareness software isn't all that discriminating." In other words, if you recognize strikes from balls early in the count, you can't really go to an alternate set of built in parameters for two strike situations. It just doesn't work that way in real time. To your trained eye, a strike is a strike and a pitch out of the zone is a ball ... that's it. You are making go (swing) or no go (check) decisions almost instantaneously.

Furthermore, he says, "why swing at a ball (we aren't talking border line, on the black here, but pitches inches or more out of the zone ... that's a bunch) that I have no chance to do anything with?" After all there is at least a 50% chance I will miss the pitch anyway, striking out. If I believe the pitch is outside the zone and I trust my strike awareness skills, then I have at least that same 50/50 chance it will be called a ball and I can live to see another pitch that hopefully, is one I can do something with, or take my base."

So, the question is, how do you preach "get a good pitch to hit" which is what all good hitters do, and then speak from the other side of your mouth when preaching "expand the zone with two strikes?

Frankly, after watching him hit all these years, I can no longer argue with his logic. He gets his occasional K looking, but far more often he recognizes pitches that he can drive (hitters strikes) or ones the can put in play with less authority (pitchers strikes).
T tfox100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Prime9:
quote:
We have discussed this before and he is adamant about not swinging at "balls".


Popup;

I have had this same "maddening" discussion with my son. He, however, has me thinking that he may be on to something.

Prime Jr. explained it to me this way. "Being blessed with very good or great strike zone awareness, provides a big advantage to a hitter. However, those decisions are made in milliseconds and the awareness software isn't all that discriminating." In other words, if you recognize strikes from balls early in the count, you can't really go to an alternate set of built in parameters for two strike situations. It just doesn't work that way in real time. To your trained eye, a strike is a strike and a pitch out of the zone is a ball ... that's it. You are making go (swing) or no go (check) decisions almost instantaneously.

Furthermore, he says, "why swing at a ball (we aren't talking border line, on the black here, but pitches inches or more out of the zone ... that's a bunch) that I have no chance to do anything with?" After all there is at least a 50% chance I will miss the pitch anyway, striking out. If I believe the pitch is outside the zone and I trust my strike awareness skills, then I have at least that same 50/50 chance it will be called a ball and I can live to see another pitch that hopefully, is one I can do something with, or take my base."

So, the question is, how do you preach "get a good pitch to hit" which is what all good hitters do, and then speak from the other side of your mouth when preaching "expand the zone with two strikes?

Frankly, after watching him hit all these years, I can no longer argue with his logic. He gets his occasional K looking, but far more often he recognizes pitches that he can drive (hitters strikes) or ones the can put in play with less authority (pitchers strikes).



Jr is right to a degree BUT you also must recognize tendencies in your league or umpires.At some point you have to know what is a CALLED strike and what is not.

Balls clearly out should be left alone but balls that are called strikes more often than not need to have a bat put on them.
P Prime91,000+ posts
quote:
Balls clearly out should be left alone but balls that are called strikes more often than not need to have a bat put on them.


I agree, however, the problem comes in the semantics, what and WHO defines "clearly out" consistently. Sure it differs from Ump to ump, inning to inning, pitcher to pitcher some time. Trying to make a living hitting a baseball within those parameters is little to vague to act on in the time allowed .. IMO The mind, and then body, will react in a precise manner, every time, only it has been trained that way, every time.

Do you think if you expand to include close pitches on strike two, that you can then not do it on the earlier counts?
Last edited by Prime9
T tfox100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Prime9:
quote:
Balls clearly out should be left alone but balls that are called strikes more often than not need to have a bat put on them.


I agree, however, the problem comes in the semantics, what and WHO defines "clearly out" consistently. Sure it differs from Ump to ump, inning to inning, pitcher to pitcher some time. Trying to make a living hitting a baseball within those parameters is little to vague to act on in the time allowed .. IMO The mind, and then body, will react in a precise manner, every time, only it has been trained that way, every time.

Do you think if you expand to include close pitches on strike two, that you can then not do it on the earlier counts



This is precisely the point of the thread.Seems like with today's players that the effort isn't even there and players of the past were able to "protect" with 2 strikes.


My son has a good eye.He is young,only 11 last season but he only struck out 7 times last season (rec ball)and atleast 4 of them were looking.All on the same pitch that is a called strike in his league at least 90% of the time.(low and just outside)He adjusted later in the season and was able to stay alive by smacking that pitch into the fence.He ended up drawing more walks than strikeouts(8) with 5 homeruns.


Although young,he understands the strike zone very well and is very much like your son and doesn't want any part of swinging at the low outside pitch but he soon figured out that with 2 strikes,he was sitting very quickly if he didn't learn to do something with it.Granted,this is rec ball so pitching is not near what he will be seeing in the very near future.
Last edited by tfox
P Prime91,000+ posts
tfox;

low and away (definitely not a strike) is commonly called a strike at the younger levels.

The difference being a hitter learns that is ALWAYS a strike by most all the umps at that level. Adjustments of moving up on the plate and taking it to right can and should be made.

At higher levels, more velocity or a somewhat tighter strike zone, although more ambiguos, makes those adjustments on strike two a little more challenging.... hence the debate.
T tfox100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Prime9:
tfox;

low and away (definitely not a strike) is commonly called a strike at the younger levels.

The difference being a hitter learns that is ALWAYS a strike by most all the umps at that level. Adjustments of moving up on the plate and taking it to right can and should be made.

At higher levels, more velocity or a somewhat tighter strike zone, although more ambiguos, makes those adjustments on strike two a little more challenging.... hence the debate.



I totally agree on all accounts but it is possible to have the ability to stay alive on not so good pitches that have a better than average chance of getting you called out.



IMO,having this ability will just make you a better hitter and it needs to be worked on.
G greenmachine10+ posts
quote:
I believe our son at this level still believes hes going to get one down the middle. What he doesn't seem to realize is what pitches is he calling as catcher? Everywhere but down the middle.


Interesting thing I heard from Scott Rolen once. He said something like he could count on both hands the number of at bats during an entire season where he did not get at least one hittable pitch "down the middle." He said it might be a fastball, curveball, slider, or change or whatever. But almost every at bat there was one pitch that did not catch the corner and went down the middle.

As a hitter I took this knowledge and developed a philosophy to analyse my at bats each time. If I strike out, I first ask myself if I missed my "one pitch." If I did, then I obviously put myself in a hole for the ab. If I didn't, its usually because I was too agressive out of the strikezone. I didn't let the pitcher come to me whether I chased early in the ab or I was trying to protect with 2. I feel like if I never get that one pitch, I should at least come out of the ab with a walk.
C cabbagedadHSBaseballWeb member since 2011
For our HS hitters, I ask what their approach is. If they have a a solid one (rare) and it works, I usually leave them alone. If not, I usually use the following as a base..

With less than 2 strikes...
I like to determine dead center spot of a hitter's favorite pitch and draw a zone around that spot that is about 2/3 size of the actual strike zone. This is that hitter's "drive zone" - not so small that he can't be aggressive but not so big that he is swinging at pitches he can't drive hard.

With 2 strikes... (except full count)
For most hitters, change to regular strike zone plus one ball (adjusted by the ump of the day) and get the bat on the ball any way you can. Depending on the hitter, usually move a couple inches closer to the plate to protect the likely pitch just off the outside and know to fight off inside or turn and take one.
Some exceptions to be made with power guys, pure pull guys and those with exceptional zone awareness.

Full count...
Regular strike zone, hit it hard if you can.


I make a few colored cardboard cutouts for visuals.
Last edited by cabbagedad
F freddy775,000+ posts
I'm skeptical about intentionally fouling off marginal two-strike pitches--possibly, this is a skill to be expected of punch-and-judy hitters whose default approach is playing pepper. Possibly. Definitely do-able on the sandlot vs. lob-pitching (but two fouls and yer out).

But not by any normal athlete (Ty Cobb is dead) who takes normal cuts against game-speed pitching.

Coaches, with your team watching (to imitate game pressure), get in the cage against an erratic pitching machine and try it yourself. You're trying to center up the strikes on a round bat, and off-center the marginal pitches. Making swing decisions in milleseconds...changing your intent in milleseconds (center the ball? off-center the ball? swing on time? swing late to foul it off?)... give it a try and report back.
Last edited by freddy77
C cabbagedadHSBaseballWeb member since 2011
quote:
Originally posted by BlueDog:
If you can purposely mis - hit a pitch and foul it off, then, just use that talent to square it up and crush it.....


Because if a pitch is in a "pitcher's pitch" location, it may be a strike but in a place that you cannot crush regardless of talent. You may be able to get a bat on it enough to foul off and stay alive for the next pitch, hopefully either more clearly a ball or more "crushable".
I'mJustADadI'mJustADad10+ posts
I have 2 boys playing at the high school level.after a lot of years mandating they "look for a good pitch to hit" I have now changed my theory to "look for a pitch you can hit good"..Lots of thought and reasons behind this. I can probably write for an hour.
A. your lucky if you get one good pitch
B. you have to be able to hit a pitchers mistake
C D E F. you can't count on an umpire knowing what a strike is or looks like. if the umpire was any good he wouldn't be here umpiring games...etc
G. taking a first pitch curveball is a great theory but if it's hanging and you can whack it I say "LOOK FOR A PITCH YOU CAN HIT GOOD"!
floridafanfloridafan5,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by I'mJustADad:
I have 2 boys playing at the high school level.after a lot of years mandating they "look for a good pitch to hit" I have now changed my theory to "look for a pitch you can hit good"..Lots of thought and reasons behind this. I can probably write for an hour.
A. your lucky if you get one good pitch
B. you have to be able to hit a pitchers mistake
C D E F. you can't count on an umpire knowing what a strike is or looks like. if the umpire was any good he wouldn't be here umpiring games...etc
G. taking a first pitch curveball is a great theory but if it's hanging and you can whack it I say "LOOK FOR A PITCH YOU CAN HIT GOOD"!


"Look for a pitch you can hit good" or "Get a good pitch to hit"...

Is a hanging curveball a good pitch to hit? I would argue yes...it is in fact a pitchers mistake.

The reason that I like "get a good pitch to hit" is it implys an activity on the part of the batter to create a situation where he is more likely than not to get a pitch that he can hit well.

To me, this can involve spoiling pitchers pitches (or the expanded strikezone of a generous ump), and then hit a line drive into the gap...or get a walk.

Look for a pitch you can hit good, works fine though!
Last edited by floridafan
Previous

Add Reply

Post
Baseball Sale Canada

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×