I am all for the patient approach. That does not mean the batter should avoid swinging at the first pitch...which is often the best pitch he will see.Originally Posted by dupree
I am all for the patient approach. That does not mean the batter should avoid swinging at the first pitch...which is often the best pitch he will see.
"As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome." - Noam Chomsky
Thats true the first pitch is usually the best one.
I also dont like the approach of not swinging in a 3-0 count. U know that you're prolly gonna get a fastball so i say swing for the fences dont just take the pitch and let the count go 3-1.
Beer. Now there's a temporary solution.
I would assume teams have stats on an opposing pitcher showing what the odds are that he'll throw a strike after missing with 3 balls. Adding that to the consideration of whose at bat, on base, number of outs, score of game...on and on, I'd then assume there's more calculation factored into whether or not to swing on 3-0, and less of a simple approach. Maybe.
According to a study conducted by Stanford U over I think either a 4-5 year period, based on the result (hit vs swing and miss or foul vs swing and hit into an out) 0-0 is the worst swing count in baseball from the hitters perspective. That only suggests one thing to me. Hitters are not as confident as swingers when the count is 0-0. For one thing, I see too many 0-0 count swings when the hitter cannot possibly have been looking for the ball where it was pitched. In other words, the hitter swung at a pitchers pitch. Might have been a strike but it was still a pitchers pitch. I often see hitters swinging at pitches out of the strike zone and way out of their sweet spot 0-0. That to me is the height of arrogance for a hitter. Sure tough guy....go ahead and swing ya' big dope.
Obviously, if you earn a reputation as a hitter for never swinging at the first pitch, pitchers will start to groove that pitch on you. However, at least my view of it is that 0-0, I was going to swing at a pitch if I had guessed right for pitch type and especially for location. I believe the hitter should narrow up his strike zone 0-0 and only swing if he gets a strike he can really do something with and that he is really prepared to hit. If not, let it go.
The best pitch the hitter is going to see is the one he is most prepared to hit and that pitch may well not be 0-0.
The study also suggests that all this bullshit about reflexes and the ability to react is just that....bullshit. Either you get the pitch where you need it to be, count on it and then do something with it when you get it or you don't. You can rely on reflexes later in the count as long as you have become conscience of protecting the plate, choke up on the bat.....whatever gets you more bat control. If you really have power as a hitter, you are still going to hit the ball out of the park if you hit it right....it you don't.....well...you don't.
As for the guys that can swing at anything and hit it....the Yogi Berra's of the world, they are few and far between and that sort of hitting suggests a perspective on hitting that few hitters have, not monster reflexes. Might suggest better hand eye coordination than other hitters. However all baseball players have better hand eye coordination than the average bear.
The biggest advantage of taking taking a lot of pitches these days is to run up the pitch count for the starting pitcher. That's the easiest way to get him out of the game, because most teams have a pitch count machine in their dugouts. If the guy goes beyond a certain number of pitches, he's gone--no matter how good he's pitching. Some teams like the Red Sox are pretty religious about this, while other teams are more flexible--depending on the situation. The Rays are an example of the latter. My own view is a starter should be stretched out if he is sharp--and relieved when he is not--regardless of pitch counts.
The other advantage is to the hitter as well. He has a better chance of getting on base, which means of not making an out--in saber terms. If you ever saw Ted Williams play, you would know the guy was a pitch count machine. He simply would not swing at a pitch out of the strike zone--no matter what the situation.And boy did he know the strike zone.That means he got a ton of walks, including intentional ones, which added greatly to his OBP and OPS numbers. Bonds had ridiculous OPS numbers in his Hercules PED period, when he was walking more frequently than even Williams or Ruth did. Teams refused to pitch to him with men on base.
I guarantee the Rays are on strict pitch counts too. David Price reached 120 pitches twice in 2012. He reached 125 pitches zero times.
About the only starter in the bigs that gets pushed beyond the normal limits anymore is Verlander.
Oh sure. You're gambling above 120 pitches. That's usually the limit though some pitchers can stretch to 125 or so on a good day. Guys like Verlander. That's where pitch counts matter--around 120 and above.
Trouble is, the limit is now being set to 100 pitches--well below 120. That gets the starter out after 5-6 innings--in some cases, and puts burden on the bullpen. That policy sucks, because it gets middle relievers into the game that suck and can cost you the game. The Rays don't do that unless they have to. And there are enough times when you have to--when the starter doesn't have it that day.
Often it is not about saving an arm as much as it is about winning a baseball game. I know we all remember 2003 when Grady Little let Pedro Martinez go too long in game 7 of the ALCS.
From pitches 85 to 100, the batters had hit .230 off Martinez that year, but from 101 to 120 they had hit .370. Little should have been checking the satistics that game. It wasn't about saving his arm so much as logical checking of the statistics.
"As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome." - Noam Chomsky
Jeff Frye, who produced some pretty solid OBP numbers for a smallish 2B NEVER swung at the first pitch.
I didn't know where to put this, because it involves a rule/penalty and not strategy. There was a lot of talk about the penalty that Carlos Quentin should get for his part in the brawl that injured Greinke. Some people feel that he should be suspended for the duration of Greinke's injury. I agree with that. I hate these stupid bench clearing brawls. The games are long enough. I don't want to sit through that shit. The penalties should be mandatory and severe enough that batters will not think about charging the mound. The penalty structure I would recommend would be as follows:
1. 15 game mandatory suspension for charging the mound. Players will think twice before they will take almost a 10% cut in pay.
2. Any player to leave the bench or dugout should get a mandatory 5 game suspension.
3. If there is an injury in a brawl, the other party(ies) to the brawl get suspended for the greater of the duration of the injury or 15 games.
These measures should just about eliminate brawls. If they insist on fighting, let them go at each other in the runway or the parking lot. I don't want to see it.
The King of TalkSox has Spoken.
Questin was totally wrong in that situation. Sometimes batters are hit on purpose for various reasons.
You are sounding very PC. Guess you want fighting in hockey gone too?
You make some very valid points. But brawls are part of the game of baseball. Sorry it inconveniences you or prolongs the game. But that's just how it is.
Part of me agrees with you, but the problem can't really be solved unless something is done about pitchers hitting players with pitches. If a guy is throwing a 100 mph pitch directly at you--and not over the plate-- how are you going to defend yourself? I think it is more likely for players to get hurt when an opposing pitcher starts headhunting in response.
The other problem is that during a brawl, there are 9 players surrounding the charging player. So if a batter is defending himself after a headshot, he's fucked without the bench clearing out.
I believe that batters have to do a better job of not getting hit. Too many guys dig in with that body armor and don't even attempt to get out of the way. I'd let the pitchers police the game if their hitters get nailed. I'd keep the current warning and ejection system for pitchers.
The King of TalkSox has Spoken.
Hitters are not just digging in, they are diving over the plate. Besides Quintin did not even get hit in the head while diving over the plate. He is a card carrying asshole. I don't think I would change anything at this point. Although I would maybe not take it for granted that my catcher knows he is supposed to intercept the idiot on the way to the mound. I would also probably remind my timid as the day is long 1st baseman Agons that he is supposed to do more than show up ten minutes after everything is over and scratch around the mound for a bit.
A strategy point that came to mind in last night's game:
A lot of managers like to arrange their lineup with lefty and right hitters alternating as much as possible. The Yankees lineup last night was a perfect example. The main thing that this accomplishes is that it makes bullpen matchups more difficult for the opposing team. In the 7th inning Thornton came in and faced Gardner-Jeter-Cano. So he got to face two lefties but had a righty planted in the middle. Then Tazawa came in and faced Soriano-Granderson-A-Rod. Again there's the lefty hitter in the middle.
I don't know productive this strategy really is, no way of measuring I guess, but I do see the reasoning behind it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote