What makes a good hitter, a good hitter?

quote:

Originally posted by redbird5:

Copyright of redbird, inc. Not to be used without the permission of redbird, inc.

Bump to an old thread....any new comments on the subject?

For me, it is first and foremost hands.  Quick hands that stay on the same plane through the hitting zone.  If someone has quick hands it can bail them out of situations just like a pitcher will velocity.  The hitter with quick hands has more margin for error.   Some people have it naturally, and others develop it.

Excellent eyesight and an innate God given talent are often overlooked.

My son was a very good hitter in HS and College. He worked hard at becoming a good hitter. However, when I talk to him about hitting he said the biggest reason why he was a good hitter was attitude.

Preparation and practice aside; he had the attitude that he was going to get up to bat and hit the ball hard. That along with the belief and confidence; he new that he was prepared and he knew that he was a good hitter.

He would get up to the plate and swing with confidence with the sole purpose of hitting the ball hard, putting it into play and taking advantage of the other teams weaknesses.

Huge +1 on this... but also would emphasize that the proper preparation and practice are a critical piece of the equation that allows a player to own that attitude and confidence.

Yesterday (now about three or four weeks into regular HS practices) we started introducing more hitting drills that included mixed speeds and recognition.  Many struggled quite a bit.  Some (including returners) showed a distinct lack of confident attitude.  A few who have been working hard on this important aspect over the summer and fall quickly showed they had it.  It was a perfect illustration of the balanced necessity of hard work, practice with purpose and correct mental approach.  They are very much intertwined.

Oh, and I also agree with the aggressive aspect.  You're hittin' 'til you ain't.

I'll add - know yourself as a hitter.  Know your strengths and weaknesses.  Have a plan for success that fits you.  And "even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there".

skill and confidence/conviction

from an analysis perspective...for me…quality at bats

What makes a good hitter?

First, the ability to find the ball with the barrel -- Consistency.  Can he adjust?

Second, how hard does he hit it.  If he hits it hard, consistently, I'm less concerned about the difference between an exit speed of 80 or 85. 

Third, attitude and confidence.  Does he go up knowing the pitcher is meat or is he intimidated? 

Fourth, can he get the job done in situations. 

So its a combination of mechanics and mental makeup.  If he takes care of the above, the average and other stats will fall into place.   

Oops, I didn't look at the pre-revival posts... some very good ones not to be ignored.  Great thread to revive.

I think part of this comes from the batter being comfortable with striking out swinging.  Babe Ruth had a lot of strikeouts.

Depends on the level of play because it can be quite different above HS.

It can also be quite different among teammates.  For this I would use Buster Posey, Joe Panik, Hunter Pence and Pablo Sandoval as examples.  Very different but each has produced at the highest levels.

It seems we would have to start with a swing which is repeatable and one where the hitter is able to barrel the ball on a very consistent basis, with solid mechanics in the hitting zone.(Pence and Pablo show the "mechanics" part do not need to look the same, for sure.)  Also, having strong hands/forearms through the ball can be a big plus.

There is then the mental approach. Just as the pitcher is looking to set up each hitter, the good hitter should be doing the same with each pitch. 

The good hitter must have plate command(think Barry Bonds who might swing at a pitch out of the strike zone about 1 in every 100 pitches, or even less. Bonds was actually arrogant in terms of his command of the strike zone-and other ways.) The higher level above HS the better the command unless someone is gifted like the Panda, which 99%are not. Above HS, pitchers get better and better at commanding the zone and with multiple pitches. Hitters need to be the same.

In addition, a good hitter wants to see the pitcher's best, before he has 2 strikes. A good hitter who has seen the pitchers' best before he has 2 strikes is in command of that AB. In addition, the good hitter learns from pitch to pitch and adjusts somewhat to each but especially from AB to AB depending on where and how he is pitched and how the other 8 guys in the line up are being pitched.

My impression is some emphasize seeing the ball early and recognizing the pitch early also. Last year I talked with the Dad of a top college pitcher who indicated the opposing teams hitting coach was calling the pitches right out of the pitchers hand. Even then, the hitter still needs to do his part.

In essence, the good hitter above HS needs to be so well prepared that he does the physical and especially the mental part almost automatically.  He cannot be "thinking" his way through the AB but he truly is. His mental preparation started long before he stepped into the batters box so that when he does, he executes each AB almost naturally.

All the above, yet without mental toughness and the confidence ILVBB notes, you can forget it

ILVBB and Dad, I wonder if it is as much mental toughness as it is mental focus in terms of AB to AB..  Certainly, if a hitter is in a 0-20 slump, there is a mental toughness in those situation for sure. But from pitch to pitch and AB to AB, I would probably prefer to describe it as focus.  Really good hitters focus better than the most and they focus on the right things almost to the exclusion of anything else.

Good swing.

Good approach.

Good pitch recognition.

Good attitude.

Every time this kind of thread gets goin’ there’s always a ton of what those with a lot of baseball knowledge believe are great answers, and this thread is no different. Trouble is, like the original poster, those who generally ask about it don’t have a great deal of baseball knowledge. So what ends up happening is all kinds of opinions are thrown out there, but there are darn few ways to measure what’s goin’ on to verify those opinions.

How are a good swing, good approach, good pitch recognition, good attitude, mental toughness, good focus, confidence, how hard the ball is hit, or so many other things measured? For that matter, how is a QAB measured, since there are about as many way to do that as there are people looking? And how does one know if the opposing pitcher is a quality pitcher or an average one?

Folks like the original poster aren’t looking for subjective things they haven’t got the experience to use. They’re looking for some kind on number they can look at and get a good idea. Personally, I think the hitters who do the best job of leaving their team in a better position after an at bat than before are the best hitters. I don’t care how they project! I care about what they do for the team.

Oh boy, now that is a good one. Question the input of most  everyone else and come up with a mostly  subjective concept that you try and cast as something other than subjective.  Are you suggesting that over the course of a game and season the better the process does not also associate with the better the result? Or are you saying those who are not able to execute an AB as well will still end up improving the team by their AB more often than those who execute an AB  well?

If a hitter does most of the things in your first paragraph at a higher level, don't you think it is statistically more likely than not they will also achieve your measurement, more often that not.  If they don't do the things well which others brought forward, baseball pretty much shows over time they won't be making their team better after each AB, compared to the guys who do. Above HS, that is even more obvious, which is why I talked about and made  that distinction and  combined it with the further distinction that a beautiful approach and swing like Posey and the approach and mechanics of a Pence both get the same result more often than not, measured within a game of .300 being darn good.

Stats, looks like somethin' is goin' wrong with my eyesight or my 'puter, 'cause it looks like you been seein' all kinds of stuff in the OP that I jes ain't seein' there.

But what's it matter how anybody answers a question from the last decade anyway?

At the risk of making Stats pull his hair out, my answer six years ago, and today, is:

I wish the heck I knew. But I know one when I see one ... and I know one when I hear one.

jp24, when our son was in his 2nd year of Milb, his team had a 3rd rounder and a 5th rounder who had pounded the ball all through college and their short season experience in Milb.

By early June in A ball, both were hitting below the Mendoza line and heading south from there with every AB.  We went back for a one week visit. During that time we would get to the park early and watch the hitting instructor work with each.  He literally tore down and rebuilt each swing, both of which were metal bat swings and long.

What seemed to come out of this was that both were so talented coming through college and even short season that they could get away with swings which just did not work as the pitching improved. So, 2 guys who in short season usually made their team better by their AB's were now on the opposite side, even though they were doing nearly everything identical to the prior year.  Nothing changed on their side. Everything changed on the quality of the pitching/scouting and the holes in their AB's were being consistently exploited.

Well, the short version is the hitting instructor rebuilt both swings.  It worked great for one and didn't work at all for the other. Within 12 months, one was released and the other was an All Star in the High A Florida league. Do we define a good hitter by results, as Stats suggests and if so, how does that kid get defined the following year when he is doing everything exactly the same but the higher level of talent gets him the opposite results?

Infielddad, I'm with you on this.  Mental focus.  I saw a good example of it from my son this past fall.  Faced an upper 80's pitcher with a nasty curve ball.  Had struck out the previous 8 that he faced.  Had a 10 pitch at bat against the kid and he was on every pitch that he threw.  Finally smoked a line drive to right center off a curve that was caught.  He's had similar at bats, but I asked him a few questions after this one and this is what he stated:

- he knew the kid was tough and was committed that he was not going down like everyone else

- said he could see a little frustration, and he also called it fear, on the pitchers part as he could not get a ball by him

It was almost like a hyper-focus that showed during that at bat.  Again, I've seen it before, quite a few times, but I'm starting to see it more regularly.  

A 300 hitter means that he has hit 3 out of 10 at bats.  That makes a good hitter.

Actually, the guy who makes the most out of each of his at bats, IMO, is a good hitter.

I absolutely get this. And I don't disagree. But I would say that there are 'good hitters' who top out before making the Show. In fact, I'd go further: With few exceptions, only the BEST of the BEST hitters get that far.

I revived the thread because in another OP of mine we are discussing a post I read about a 9th grader who didn't make his high school team.  The general consensus was that he must not have hit well, regardless of how he plays...which begs the question what makes a kid a good hitter?  So, rather than posting the question I searched the archives found this post and wasn't satisfied with the answers listed so I resurrected it.

I think this may just be one of those things TPM refers to frequently that I just have to live through to understand.  Because my kid is only 12 I don't get it yet because he hasn't seen really good pitching yet...we don't know his exit speed, nor do I feel the desperate need to go find out.  We don't know how he will respond to a kid throwing 90+...I think he has seen 75 maybe, but once again, not rushing out to radar 12 year olds.

My son asks me frequently how he did that day/game/practice and I usually just turn it around on him and ask how HE thought he did, what comments coach had for him...I know enough to know that I don't know enough to answer with anything other than it looked good to me.  Just trying to gain some more information on what is considered "good".

LOL, guess we will get hammered by the board together ;- )

1. Current coach will NOT allow radar guns...and I'm not getting one for a 12 year old, who is playing 12u, with drop 10 bats...exit speed likely useless at this point.

2. If that is the definition of very good pitching then no worries, son prefers the fast pitchers, he says the ball goes a lot farther, sometimes over if it's a fast pitcher. 

3. By your definition son is a very very good pitcher himself...food for thought on that one! (experienced HS catcher told him he was high 60's low 70's, no radar proof though)

4. Agree unbiased instrument would be helpful, but likely not yet.

"My son asks me frequently how he did that day/game/practice and I usually just turn it around on him and ask how HE thought he did, what comments coach had for him...I know enough to know that I don't know enough to answer with anything other than it looked good to me.  Just trying to gain some more information on what is considered "good".

CaCo,I would interpret this section as a question about the AB's, not whether your son is a "good hitter."  Measured in that way, he may have gone 0-5 and had terrific AB's and he may have been 3-3 and had terrible AB's. Baseball can be that way.

  My view on this type of  measurement is how were his AB's in the context of what his coaches wanted him to do in BP or in a game situation.  If they were in a tight game with a runner on 2nd and no outs, with his job being to hit behind the runner to advance him, whether the AB was good or not depends on how he did his job.  If he pulled the ball for a hit between short and 3rd, it looks good in the score book  and feels good, but did he do his job?

A few years back a college coach was telling me about a practice drill they were doing. His best hitter intentionally would not conform to the drill even though he was crushing the ball.  The coach kicked him out of practice.

Perhaps the best answer for your question of "good" is whether your son executed his AB as the  game situation dictated, or, in practice, to execute what the coaches wanted at that time.

Originally Posted by infielddad:

Oh boy, now that is a good one. Question the input of most  everyone else and come up with a mostly  subjective concept that you try and cast as something other than subjective.  Are you suggesting that over the course of a game and season the better the process does not also associate with the better the result? Or are you saying those who are not able to execute an AB as well will still end up improving the team by their AB more often than those who execute an AB  well?

I didn’t question anyone’s input! In fact, if anything I acknowledged their efficacy. What I’m saying is, it’s impossible for most to understand the process, let alone quantify it. How would you quantify the process with helping the team? And I am saying that it’s entirely possible for some who doesn’t execute as well as others to help the team.

If a hitter does most of the things in your first paragraph at a higher level, don't you think it is statistically more likely than not they will also achieve your measurement, more often that not.  If they don't do the things well which others brought forward, baseball pretty much shows over time they won't be making their team better after each AB, compared to the guys who do. Above HS, that is even more obvious, which is why I talked about and made  that distinction and  combined it with the further distinction that a beautiful approach and swing like Posey and the approach and mechanics of a Pence both get the same result more often than not, measured within a game of .300 being darn good.

I don’t care about levels above HS because that’s the “moment” I live in. I couldn’t care less how a player projects. I’m concentrating on the game and what’s taking place to help the team win. I’ve seen a heck of a lot of games won because of the hitting of the less than average player, and a lot lost by the failure to hit of the super stud.  

Originally Posted by JCG:

Stats, looks like somethin' is goin' wrong with my eyesight or my 'puter, 'cause it looks like you been seein' all kinds of stuff in the OP that I jes ain't seein' there.

But what's it matter how anybody answers a question from the last decade anyway?

The question is timeless! Evidently you don’t bother to listen to what the run-of-the-mill fan says. I hear variations of that same question many times over a season, and those questions don’t come from baseball savvy people. However, those who pass themselves off as baseball savvy almost always have some metric they feel is the best indicator, seldom going into a soliloquy about form or attitude.

Originally Posted by jp24:

At the risk of making Stats pull his hair out, my answer six years ago, and today, is:

I wish the heck I knew. But I know one when I see one ... and I know one when I hear one.

Why would I pull my hair out because you can’t quantify what you believe? That’s not my problem.

Well ASMI would tend to agree with him...they have 9 guidelines for youth baseball pitchers and #7 is Avoid using radar guns.  Our coach will not allow one on the field....if you want to radar your kids pitching, or whatever, you have to do it during your own time.

I suspect what you say about the swing getting slower for the slower pitchers is dead on.  I have seen him swing faster at the truly fast balls, and I have seen a sub 50mph kid rule the mound because kids either couldn't hit the slow moving balls or they had piddly little hits to the infield.