When a coach is assessing batters for his team (college) is power or average preferable? I realize the coach would prefer to have a player with both tools, but what would be the next best option. Do coaches prefer a batter who is a good situational hitter that hits the gaps with a high batting average/OBP or a batter that flies out a lot but hits a homerun every 10 to 20 AB (hopefully with bases loaded).
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I can't speak to how certain coaches may recruit, but I've never seen a statistical analysis that doesn't heavily support the notion that OBP > SLG, for what it's worth.
The position the player plays has a lot to do with the type hitter preferred by college coaches although there are exceptions in many cases. Most coaches certainly prefer a power guy at first base and like a guy with at least extra base power at third base and left field. A shortstop or second baseman can easily get by if he is a high average guy as opposed to a power bat since the glove is very important at those positions. It also has to do with what type of offense the coach likes and whether the home park is a power hitters dream or does it have distant fences. There is no one answer to this question.
Coaches want to have some power in the line up as well as those who are good at getting on base. It seems to me that college coaches and levels above really like the OPS number (On Base Percentage + Slugging Percentage). If a player maintain a high OPS number, they're going to be an excellent contributor whether they hit for average or are a slugger.
I like the way you framed the question, and I'll go out on a limb and say that college coaches like both - but what they look for is bat speed and a good, hands to the ball approach.
If a prospect knows HOW to hit, they will be interested - knowing that some will be gap hitters and some will be power hitters.
I like the way you framed the question, and I'll go out on a limb and say that college coaches like both - but what they look for is bat speed and a good, hands to the ball approach.
Ditto to jp24's response on hands and bat speed. I'd add someone who is coachable, and has some degree of foot speed that has the potential to take that extra base.
As a recruit, I'd look to a hitting coach who gets results. How many of his current players hit above .300 or hit for power or both. My wife and I were at a midweek D1 game (A10 vs ACC) last week where we know a lot of the players. The A10 team's lineup had 8 of 9 starters hitting over .300. Their results and approach was impressive. They were kept at bay by the starter (lefty off speed pitcher), but then they really starting getting aggressive. They put on a hitting clinic.
I believe there are some baseball people... coaches, fans, etc.. who prefer to get a run without a hit. I really believe that. First guy walks and either steals second or reaches on a pass ball. Second batter sacrifice bunts him over or even better - hits backside behind the runner for a ground out that moves him over to third. Third guy hits a fly ball to get him in. Great coaching and a self-fulfilling prophecy. 2 outs, no hits and a 1-0 lead. I think some coaches just love this type of play.
Another coach keeps the leadoff guy planted at first after a walk because his 2 hole batter is a lefty. With him being held on first, he lets lefty swing away and encourages him to pull it in that big hole between 1st and 2nd. He gets a hit and now there are two on base. 3rd batter gets a hit because pitcher is throwing strikes for fear of walking them loaded. Hit scores one runner and now there are runners on 1 and 3rd no outs and cleanup comes to bat. He takes it deep and it's now 4-0, no outs and the bullpen has two arms throwing. Game over.
Now, it won't always happen in the way I described in the second scenario. But I bet with a leadoff walk, if you let your next three guys swing away, you have just as good of a chance of scoring one run as you do with the get'em on, get'em over, get'em in philosophy.
Stafford, I would be surprised if there are many college coaches who "prefer" to score a run without a hit. In the West, schools like UCLA, Irvine, Oregon, Fullerton, etc certainly practice a small ball approach which allows that to happen, but they are doing it with awfully high quality players/hitters, including guys hitting #3/4 in the line up who will bunt, hit and run/hit behind runners and all that is "small ball."
Why I think that is becoming very relevant in college ball is your second suggestion of guys scoring from 2B on a base hit. BBCOR has brought a new element to college hitting.
Outfielders play so shallow now that it seems like far more hits to the outfield with a runner on 2B does nothing more than advance a runner to 3B.
In my opinion, Stanford is one of the programs which is struggling in W/L's and it is because of BBCOR. Their batting average is well above their opponents and the hits are also more than opponents. They end up leaving so many guys on base especially against the Friday/Saturday guys they have faced, who are plenty good.
I think those who have commented on college coaches looking at hand speed and bat speed are very much on the right track. Add to that, however, is the fact college coaches are also looking at guys who are very pure hitters and who barrel baseballs and do it consistently. Hitters with hand/bat speed who consistently barrel the baseball are now at a premium because it so often takes 4 hits in an inning to score a run in college games, especially against the better pitchers, with the BBCOR bat and the positioning of outfielders so shallow.
infielddad: So, even with fast 60 times they can't get runners home? If the premium is on guys who can barrel it up and maybe hit a double, then they should do regular bp, bat exit speed, and "live" simulation bp or games at camps first, second and third. And drop the 60 altogether.
My suggestion would be that a player who cannot handle HS level pitching, and who does not show at the very least the prospect of developing power sufficient to play at the college level, is not a college prospect as an offensive player.
The ratio of HS players to college opportunities is such that doing one or the other is not enough. I think that to be in the higher echelon you should have both.
There are always going to be exceptions, but just bear in mind that they are exceptions and not the typical rule that would apply to your typical son. Examples of exceptions might be the "real deal" catcher, or the high speed guy who they hope can at least slap the ball through the infield and get on base to become a disrupter. Great catchers are so rare that some subpar offensive output can be tolerated if you are one. As for the speed guys, I would guess Billy Hamilton was pretty heavily rccruited before going pro out of HS and I've certainly seen guys cut from that cloth get taken on with the hope they can hit enough to get on base.
