Scorekeeper
Interesting JCincy. The truth is, I used to feel much the same way myself, until a very wise old fellow pointed out that while a catcher can have an effect, as far as the pitcher’s concerned, its really immaterial. The pitcher has to pitch whether the person behind the plate is Johnny Bench or Klaus Klutzhoffer.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Registered Dad
Originally Posted by scorekeeper
Interesting JCincy. The truth is, I used to feel much the same way myself, until a very wise old fellow pointed out that while a catcher can have an effect, as far as the pitcher’s concerned, its really immaterial. The pitcher has to pitch whether the person behind the plate is Johnny Bench or Klaus Klutzhoffer.
Hmmm... A few third strikes to the backstop and we can find out quickly how immaterial the catcher is.
Scorekeeper
Ii don’t know why people want to take errors out of the equation. In the end, a pitch can be only 1 of 2 things. Put in play or not, and each at bat ends up as either an out or not. You have to live with the results of BIPs because those results will change drastically depending on the defense.
If the coaches would spend more time teaching the defense how to make routine plays, there’d be much less difference in success. Unfortunately, few coaches have that ability, just as few coaches have the ability to teach pitchers how to throw strikes, or hitters how to hit them. IOW, it ain’t as easy as it seems.For what it's worth, at my son's age (9u rec), a "contact" pitcher who "just throws strikes" but doesn't have good velocity will give up a lot of runs (balls in play lead to errors). Pitchers with heat who are going for strikeouts are more successful... This is true at this age; as the defense gets better things will change.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Scorekeeper
Still doesn’t make any difference to the pitcher. What you’re saying is that a coach won’t call that 0-2 curveball because he knows if its low the catcher has a lousy chance of blocking it, let alone catching it. Well, that strategy may be the best one to ward off mistakes, but IMHO its exactly the wrong one to develop either pitchers or catchers.
People don’t learn physical things by not doing them. They learn by doing them over and over again, preferably under pressure. Why would a coach want a catcher behind the plate he couldn’t trust to block a ball in the dirt? What a great gift to the batter to let them know there’s little chance an 0-2 or 1-2 hook or CU is coming because there’s a runner on 2nd and Joey behind the plate can’t stop a pitch in the dirt with a bulldozer.
You’d be flabbergasted at how many coaches at the HS level won’t call those pitches in situations they’d be the most effective. I can’t say for sure about everyone, but I believe that’s another good reason to let the catchers call the games. They typically have far more confidence in themselves than their coaches, and would likely give it a try because they instinctively know that pitch will work if the pitcher can execute it decently.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Registered User
No, when I tell a kid to "pitch to contact", I what him to be..."The ultimate "pitching to contact" guy would be a pitcher that just grooves pitches and gets hit on the 1st or 2nd pitch."
Not at all, I only use the phrase when my pitcher, "can't hit the board side of a barn if he was standing inside of it". In that case, I'd rather have him throw it right down Broadway....No, we're describing a guy that throws a lot of strikes, but throws them in areas of the zone that batters don't hit well, in other words the periphery....and hope for the best.
In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011
Scorekeeper
This MAY be off-topic just a smidge, but that triggered something I’ve DISCUSSED many times over the years, and I thought I’d pursue it again.… Not at all, I only use the phrase when my pitcher, "can't hit the board side of a barn if he was standing inside of it". In that case, I'd rather have him throw it right down Broadway....
I know common beliefs are: 1) pitchers can throw the ball with the almost unerring precision of a professional dart thrower; and 2) baseball hitters will crush every pitch in the middle of their strike zone for extra bases, but how much truth is in either one of those beliefs?
The reason I ask is, when you expect a pitcher to ATTEMPT to “throw it right down Broadway”, are you really expecting that if he does, the ball will disappear over the center field wall, or is it a calculated risk that increases the chances of that happening from maybe 1% to 1.1%? And in the end aren’t you really saying that even a crushed line drive has a chance of getting caught, while a walk has none?
There’s so much hyperbole in baseball, sometimes its difficult to separate the fact from the fiction. So while I believe its somewhat “easier” for a hitter to hit a ball in the middle of his strike zone, I don’t believe its at all automatic, nor that the pitcher could do it on command even if he tried.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Registered User
At the HS level, I know that neither of these are at all true at......
Yep, that's all I'm saying....praying, hoping, and wishing for.And in the end aren’t you really saying that even a crushed line drive has a chance of getting caught, while a walk has none?
To quote a great baseball philosopher, "Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical". So all I'm really trying to do is take some of the mental pressure off of my pitcher, by letting him know that I don't have a problem if he lets the hitter mash the ball.There’s so much hyperbole in baseball, sometimes its difficult to separate the fact from the fiction. So while I believe its somewhat “easier” for a hitter to hit a ball in the middle of his strike zone, I don’t believe its at all automatic, nor that the pitcher could do it on command even if he tried.
In my experience, too many times a young pitcher tries so hard to "nibble corners", or "keep the ball down and away", that they limit themselves to available locations to throw the ball, and in essence, shrink the strike zone that they're throwing at...simply because they're trying so hard for that strike out, or want so badly for that weak GB to the opposite side.
What we/they must remember, is that once the ball leaves their hand, the onus is now on the hitter to do something with the ball no matter where it's pitched. Everyday we see perfectly thrown pitches that are hit out of the park....
....and yet others "right down Broadway" that the hitter swings right through and misses, or pops up to the SS.
Oh, did I mention that I HATE giving the opposing team free bases....BBs is just one of the ways that they're given out. The more times we make the other team actually "work" for their bases, the more opportunities that we have for success....or so goes my belief.
In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011
Scorekeeper
I really think that’s what people are really WANTING, but in their hearts they can’t come to grips with allowing someone to hit the ball on purpose.
Like most things in baseball, a lot of what young players BELIEVE is true, isn’t, or is exaggerated by some adult.In my experience, too many times a young pitcher tries so hard to "nibble corners", or "keep the ball down and away", that they limit themselves to available locations to throw the ball, and in essence, shrink the strike zone that they're throwing at...simply because they're trying so hard for that strike out, or want so badly for that weak GB to the opposite side.
I know, but its like people don’t see when a mistake makes a batter look foolish, or a perfect pitch disappears like the Roadrunner.What we/they must remember, is that once the ball leaves their hand, the onus is now on the hitter to do something with the ball no matter where it's pitched. Everyday we see perfectly thrown pitches that are hit out of the park........and yet others "right down Broadway" that the hitter swings right through and misses, or pops up to the SS.
I’ve done a metric for many years I call “Pitcher Mistakes”, where a mistake is a Walk, Balk, HBP, WP, or an error made by the pitcher. While every player will make fielding errors, those other things are totally within the pitcher’s control. Then I present them I both mistakes per inning and innings per mistake. 2 seems to be the magic number for innings per mistake. More than 2.0 innings per mistake for pitchers who throw somewhat regularly it pretty darn good.Oh, did I mention that I HATE giving the opposing team free bases....BBs is just one of the ways that they're given out. The more times we make the other team actually "work" for their bases, the more opportunities that we have for success....or so goes my belief.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Registered Dad
I'd prefer a chance at a grounder to an infielder or a pop up over a walk any day. Besides putting the ball in play is significantly more exciting than a walk-a-thon.
Registered Dad
I've seen shaky or unreliable catchers totally rattle a some pitchers. I'm surprised you have not witnessed the same. Perhaps at the level of baseball you witness, there are no shaky catchers?
Registered User
I know what you're saying Cincy....I think once out of the LL level, we've all heard, or said to a catcher, "catch that and it's a strike"....as there are some umpires that will not call a pitch that ends up rolling around the ground a strike, regardless of where it crossed the plate.
Not saying that's right, but that's reality. Not too long ago, had to move a catcher to SS (he played both), because he "cost us" (my opinion) too many strikes, as he had trouble catching the pitch on the low-corner of his throwing hand side.
While I obviously can't say for sure, but I would assume that that would get into a pitcher's head....at least to some respect I would suspect.
In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011
Scorekeeper
Didn’t say I haven’t seen the same happen many many times. My meaning wasn’t that the pitcher wasn’t affected, but rather that he had absolutely no choice other than to not pitch to deal with it, and I seriously doubt many coaches would acquiesce to a pitcher’s demands to replace a catcher, simply because he wasn’t up to the pitcher’s standards.
Many moons ago, when my son was taking lessons, there were times when really good catchers would be there to catch, and times when there were some kids who couldn’t catch a cold. I told the PC I knew a few really good catchers who would jump at the opportunity to make $5 catching for a half hour lesson. He told me he had exactly who he wanted catching, then explained it to me.
“You see” he said, “Your son has to learn that his job is to do the very best he can to execute his pitches, no matter who calls them or who catches them. “Its something he has to learn, and he’s better off learning it here where we can all talk about it together to try to improve both him and the catcher.” Then he added, “Besides, those catchers are paying me to teach them how to catch and call games.” “That’s why they don’t get what they’re worth for catching”. “This way they both learn not just to play their position, they learn to work together and understand what each other is dealing with.”
Later on when someone totally different but with some ML chops said much the same thing, it changed my thinking forever about the role a catcher plays, even though I was one. No one on the field is alone. It takes a team. Is it easier to throw to Yogi Berra, Johnny Bench, Pudge Fisk, or Pudge Rodriguez? Heck yes! But I’ll tell ya, there ain’t a lot of those kinds of catchers around at the LL or even the HS level.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Registered User
Then, I really don;t want to discuss it. *grin*
We're talking about traits and characteristics of "pitching to contact" and statistical evidence of the "skill".
If there's not a standard definition or criteria, then what's the point of discussing something that means different things to different people? We might as well be debating "Tastes great" or "Less Filling".
In reality there are "degrees" of pitching to contact just like there are "degrees of power hitting", but the basis is some type of agreed upon standard.
By simplest definition it's just "% of pitches batters make contact with" or "% of pitches thrown that could be contacted" (in zone %).
But, that's just it. A "pitch to contact" pitcher could have a very similar "pitch location" chart as a "strikeout pitcher", with the difference being "lack of velocity/movement", so theoretically it could have very little to do with superior command/control and more to do with "couldn't miss bats even if he wanted to" ... which is NOT a skill.
No, a pitcher who "pitches to contact" will use movement and location AND change of speeds to acheive the desired results and it doesn't necesarily make the k non present, remember you have to get ahead early, so at that point you are pitching with the advantage.pitch to contact" pitcher could have a very similar "pitch location" chart as a "strikeout pitcher", with the difference being "lack of velocity/movement"
I'd go with gb to fb ratio being way over balanced to the gb. I remember Maddux having games where the ball never lofted to the of the entire game.
Your arguement seems centered on the idea that a pitcher who uses this approach is somehow deficient or a weaker pitcher, it also appears that your perspective is under hs travel...which makes sense. Let me tell you though, as your "generation" of players get into hs and college, you'll see that there are excellent and projectable guys who run through games at a very fast pace and get seemingly endless grounders...those may have a few that get through..but then you'll also see an increase in double plays and erasure of those singles that do get through.
In my experience, the kid who can command the zone with late movement, who controls game flow, is a "real fielder", studies the competition also tends to be one of the sharpest tools in the pouch..so when you run into one you'd never think;
"it could have very little to do with superior command/control and more to do with "couldn't miss bats even if he wanted to" ... which is NOT a skill"...not that you'll be convinced before that.....but I hope to be able to talk to you when you do see it, not for an I told you so, but to hear how the guy you saw do it, did it, looks like SK had his exposure...I think his reaction is very similar to how you'll react, as you know he isn't exactly the "pie in the sky" kind of fellow...certainly not one who doesn't believe in numbershe is also a guy who sees a ton of hs ball and described this outing as an example of pitching to contact...I won't doubt you when you see it either...whether you can quantify it as clearly as he did or not.
Last edited by jdfromfla; 06-10-2012 at 05:52 AM.
Scorekeeper
I’m glad you put quotes around skill.
The point of discussing it is to hopefully eventually come to some kind of generally accepted agreement. After all, there’s still debate about what BA or ERA is “very good”, but its still being measured.If there's not a standard definition or criteria, then what's the point of discussing something that means different things to different people? We might as well be debating "Tastes great" or "Less Filling".
Rather than “degrees”, I think its more of what a specific individual believes, which is why there are so many different metrics.In reality there are "degrees" of pitching to contact just like there are "degrees of power hitting", but the basis is some type of agreed upon standard.
I agree with the 1st but never for the latter because its not only pitches “in the zone” that can be made contact with.By simplest definition it's just "% of pitches batters make contact with" or "% of pitches thrown that could be contacted" (in zone %).
Yes, they “could”, but its not very likely since there’s a finite number of pitch locations a batter will see as being worthy of swinging at. I believe it depends more on the sequences and location of pitches than the velocity or movement. IOW, even Verlander throwing 102 every pitch will lose its effectiveness in making batters miss, just as a great curveball pitcher or any other type of pitcher the same. So I think a lot of the “skill” comes in the calling of the pitches.But, that's just it. A "pitch to contact" pitcher could have a very similar "pitch location" chart as a "strikeout pitcher", with the difference being "lack of velocity/movement", so theoretically it could have very little to do with superior command/control and more to do with "couldn't miss bats even if he wanted to" ... which is NOT a skill.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Registered User
Why are we trying to make this so difficult? I use "pitch to contact" to mean the same thing as when I say, "Hey, just throw it and let's see how far he can hit it"......
I'm not trying to get, or expecting the pitcher to do anything in particular, simply not try to be too cute, and stop trying to pick the corners....or in simplified terms, "walk another guy and you're out of the game!!"
There's no stat, no metric, no nothing for it, it's simply a term/saying used to hopefully take a little pressure off of a pitcher, and to let him know that it's OK if the hitter pounds the ball.
Same as when I yell out the the pitcher after he gives up a HR, "So what, you did your job, you threw a strike....now go throw another". Why does there always have to be some sort of number associated with anything and everything in a baseball game?
How about when I tell a hitter, "C'mon man, base hit right here...you can do it", should that have some sort of metric or number attached to it to tell me if I should or shouldn't encourage a kid? Yes, I know the kid wants to get a hit also, and that I'm probably being redundant, and that the odds are not in our favor....but what, I say nothing, stand there with my arms crossed, and let him guess what I'm thinking? Hell, it's youth baseball...not chess, or poker.....
In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011
Scorekeeper
If that’s really true, and I truly believe it is, why not just say that so there’s not one iota of confusion on anyone’s part?
Again, why not just say that?I'm not trying to get, or expecting the pitcher to do anything in particular, simply not try to be too cute, and stop trying to pick the corners....or in simplified terms, "walk another guy and you're out of the game!!"
That’s great, as long as the guy knows for sure what you mean. I’m a huge believer in meaningful communication, and to me that means both people must clearly understand what the other is saying. But, unless you can say for absolutely sure that every player on the field understands what you mean, especially the pitcher, then all you’re doing is providing noise, not instruction or guidance, and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. Much of the “noise” at a ball game is really meant to be just noise, but how does a player tell?There's no stat, no metric, no nothing for it, it's simply a term/saying used to hopefully take a little pressure off of a pitcher, and to let him know that it's OK if the hitter pounds the ball.
Well, that’s not my doing, since its been that way for well over 150 years. lolSame as when I yell out the the pitcher after he gives up a HR, "So what, you did your job, you threw a strike....now go throw another". Why does there always have to be some sort of number associated with anything and everything in a baseball game?
That’s nothing but encouragement, and you’re not trying to tell him how to go about it. Well, youth baseball or not if a hitter doesn’t think his coach wants him to get a hit, there’s a real communication problem taking place, which is why doing that is really nothing more than noise, accomplishes little or nothing, and may be that everyone is a lot better off if the coach would say nothingHow about when I tell a hitter, "C'mon man, base hit right here...you can do it", should that have some sort of metric or number attached to it to tell me if I should or shouldn't encourage a kid? Yes, I know the kid wants to get a hit also, and that I'm probably being redundant, and that the odds are not in our favor....but what, I say nothing, stand there with my arms crossed, and let him guess what I'm thinking? Hell, it's youth baseball...not chess, or poker.....
But hollering for the pitcher to pitch to contact is an instruction, and to me that’s something very different. Its like telling the batter to “just make contact”. That’s an instruction and can and is measured to see what hitters do in 2 strike situations. Don’t you want to know if your hitters consistently fail to make contact on 0-2 or 1-2 counts? C
Measuring the things that take place is something that should always be done. After that its up to each individual what they will and won’t look at. Its only information, not the Holy Grail nor the answer to any life altering question. Its just information.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Registered User
When we're discussing "pitch to contact", my assumption is that we are determined to find something differentiates that from just "throwing strikes and hoping for the best".I’m glad you put quotes around skill.
My contention with the whole thing is that "pitching to contact" is being viewed as a "lost art" or "real pitching", when I'm not even convinced it exists, let alone being a skill, let alone being the highest form of skill (real pitching).
Everyone, at this point, should know that the most valuable outcome for the defensive team is an out where a chance for a runner is nil or very close to it (i.e., a strikeout). More BIP equals more hits. The REASON why "pitch to contact" pitchers are 'successful' is because they don't allow many walks, and they also get more DP due to more BIP. They pale in effectiveness to strikeout pitchers that also allow few walks. Let's not pretend they're anywhere near the same level of talent, skill, or effectiveness.
As I said before Verlander is an 8 WAR pitcher, Buehrle is a 3.5 WAR pitcher, and Buehrle might be the most successful "pitch to contact" pitcher ever. Ever. Mark Buehrle. League average BABIP. League average HR rate. Does well because [1] throws a lot of IP, [2] limits walks. There is nothing magical about his pace or ability to limit hits or HR, even though broadcasters love to talk about it.
I'm not discussing anything BA or ERA, not in 2012 that is. We have better metrics. *grin* We don;t have better metrics because of varying beliefs, some have better metrics because they're more informed (I didn't say smarter, or better, just more informed). There's no way a person could be informed of both wOBA and BA and choose BA.The point of discussing it is to hopefully eventually come to some kind of generally accepted agreement. After all, there’s still debate about what BA or ERA is “very good”, but its still being measured.
Last edited by CircleChange11; 06-10-2012 at 03:04 PM.
Registered User
I tell my pitchers, literally, and often loud enough for both teams to hear, "The only way this guys gets on base is if he hits it off the fence." It's also at an age group where a walk is 10 times more likely than a ball of the fence, and a walk is often just as dangerous as a triple *due to higher levels of SB, WP, PB, etc).
I don't yell the same thing in HS nor did I think the same thing at college.
If people did NOT refer to "pitching to contact" as if it were a revered skill or trait I would be just fine with chalking it up to "strike throwing". But, that's not the case. Lots of people talk about it as if it we "real pitching" or "smart pitching", when it may be more of a "lack of stuff" than an "actual skill". Throwing strikes IS a skill, a very valuable one. But, I don;t know many people that view throwing strikes and pitching to contact as being the same thing. Pitchers that get shelled throw strikes as do Justin Verlander and Strasburg.
That's level appropriate. At the higher levels grooving one and giving up a HR could be blamed just as much on the pitcher and the batter. At the higher levels, I have told pitchers "You can;t expect to hit his bat and have good results". In other words, they're throwing pitches in areas where any batter can hit it well.Same as when I yell out the the pitcher after he gives up a HR, "So what, you did your job, you threw a strike....now go throw another". Why does there always have to be some sort of number associated with anything and everything in a baseball game?
I had this same experience with my son last Saturday. He's been dominant all year, but was leaving pitches up in the belt to letter areas, and gave up 6 2-strike hits, when those are most often down in the zone k's. Throwing strikes at high enough levels isn;t enough.
Let's not be silly. You're not treating the batter as if he can get a single whenever he wants as some type of skill. If the batter gets jammed and bloops one over the 2B head, would you really think "Damn that kids got the 'get a hit right here' skill'?" No.How about when I tell a hitter, "C'mon man, base hit right here...you can do it", should that have some sort of metric or number attached to it to tell me if I should or shouldn't encourage a kid?
When I talk with batters we focus on 2 things during the game: [1] swinging at good pitches, [2] hitting the ball incredibly hard.
I try to get the kids to focus on what they can control, and not what the defense controls. I don;t necessarily want my guys viewing a 6-hop dribbler for a single as being inferior to a line out to the CF where the OF couldn't get out of the way even if he wanted to.
Rather than even look at "hits", I would strongly prefer looking at "pitch location" and "batted ball velocity". Neither are really available at the youth levels, so I look at "line drives", "deep fly balls" and "hard ground balls". Hits are more of a function of defense, unless we really want to believe that the batter intentionally struck the ball at the exact point in time so that it would be a half-step out of the fielder's range.
What I am discussing are whether the results are cause of skill or luck/randomness.
Last edited by CircleChange11; 06-10-2012 at 03:07 PM.
Registered User
There's "not one iota of confusion on MY players' part". It's not like we don't practice, have classroom sessions, and spend plenty of time going over philosophies and game strategies. I find that sometimes little reminders or reinforcement of those help.If that’s really true, and I truly believe it is, why not just say that so there’s not one iota of confusion on anyone’s part?
Because IMO, one is a positive reinforcement, and one is a negative one. I'd rather use the positive.Again, why not just say that?
Every player on MY team, does "for absolutely sure....understands what [I] mean, especially the pitcher".That’s great, as long as the guy knows for sure what you mean. I’m a huge believer in meaningful communication, and to me that means both people must clearly understand what the other is saying. But, unless you can say for absolutely sure that every player on the field understands what you mean, especially the pitcher, then all you’re doing is providing noise, not instruction or guidance, and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. Much of the “noise” at a ball game is really meant to be just noise, but how does a player tell?
Are you sure? If you're not using only the same stats and metrics that they were using 150 years ago, or developing new ones on your own...well, then that is your doing to some extent.Well, that’s not my doing, since its been that way for well over 150 years. lol
Possibly....got a stat to support that theory?That’s nothing but encouragement, and you’re not trying to tell him how to go about it. Well, youth baseball or not if a hitter doesn’t think his coach wants him to get a hit, there’s a real communication problem taking place, which is why doing that is really nothing more than noise, accomplishes little or nothing, and may be that everyone is a lot better off if the coach would say nothing.
No it's not. "Instruction" is detailed information of how to do something. In the "pitch to, or just make contact", I could care less how they do it....as long as they get it done.But hollering for the pitcher to pitch to contact is an instruction, and to me that’s something very different. Its like telling the batter to “just make contact”. That’s an instruction and can and is measured to see what hitters do in 2 strike situations. Don’t you want to know if your hitters consistently fail to make contact on 0-2 or 1-2 counts? C
So every time I say "pitch to contact", I should note whether that batter hit the ball or not? Doesn't seem too fair to the pitcher.Measuring the things that take place is something that should always be done. After that its up to each individual what they will and won’t look at. Its only information, not the Holy Grail nor the answer to any life altering question. Its just information.
He could have thrown it, "right down Broadway" and the hitter whiffed right through it....and as a result, the pitcher, failed to "pitch to contact".
Seems like a silly "stat" to me.
In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011
Registered User
Here's another way of looking at it, from Dan Blewett Sports Performance...
....I believe you've been in and around the game enough to know that what he says here is very true, and why I dislike BBs.When a pitcher walks a batter, it tells us that he has at least a momentary inability to control his pitches. Even if he misses by a few inches, he is not physically executing his mental plan. So, when a pitcher walks one or more batters, especially within one single inning, he is more susceptible to allow those runs to score via base hits because he has shown that his control is fallible, and if his control is fallible he is more likely to throw easily hittable pitches.
Hitters make the situation worse for the pitcher, as they tighten up their zone of acceptable pitches to swing at. Any high-level hitter who has just witnessed one or multiple walks is going to swing at fewer borderline pitches, thus forcing the pitcher to either regain the ability to throw quality strikes repeatedly, something he is unlikely to do with a momentary control lapse, or bring the ball over the middle of the plate. Either way, the hitter will swing less at pitches on edges of the strike zone, and be more aggressive at hittable strikes. Because the pitcher is also more likely to fall behind in the count when he is demonstrating shaky control, the hitter regains more advantage at the plate.
If you want to say or relate it to being the same as "throw strikes" fine, I simply disagree with that. A pitcher trying to "throw strikes" low and away is doing just that, but to a much small zone than the pitcher throwing to where the hitter can make "contact", and therefore, is attempting to follow your direction of "throw strikes", but he's just not given himself as much opportunity to do so.
Well of course I was being "silly" when wrote that (actually facetious), and why I continued to write the, "I know the kid wants to get a hit also, and that I'm probably being redundant, and that the odds are not in our favor" part....that you managed to leave off.Let's not be silly. You're not treating the batter as if he can get a single whenever he wants as some type of skill. If the batter gets jammed and bloops one over the 2B head, would you really think "Damn that kids got the 'get a hit right here' skill'?" No.
Last edited by mudvnine; 06-10-2012 at 05:16 PM. Reason: Grammar....
In memory of "Catchingcoach" - Dave Weaver: February 28, 1955 - June 17, 2011
Scorekeeper
Not determined, but let’s say searching for truth.
Well, I’m sorry if I ever gave the impression that that’s my view of pitching to contact. Obviously you, I, and Mud have completely different ideas about what it is though, and that’s the whole issue.My contention with the whole thing is that "pitching to contact" is being viewed as a "lost art" or "real pitching", when I'm not even convinced it exists, let alone being a skill, let alone being the highest form of skill (real pitching).
There’s no pretense about it at all. I readily admit that a pitcher like Verlander is a valuable commodity, but he’s also an extremely rare one. So should he be the standard or should a pitcher like Cliff Lee be? I submit that when both are performing at their peak, either one would be welcomed by any team on earth.Everyone, at this point, should know that the most valuable outcome for the defensive team is an out where a chance for a runner is nil or very close to it (i.e., a strikeout). More BIP equals more hits. The REASON why "pitch to contact" pitchers are 'successful' is because they don't allow many walks, and they also get more DP due to more BIP. They pale in effectiveness to strikeout pitchers that also allow few walks. Let's not pretend they're anywhere near the same level of talent, skill, or effectiveness.
I truly wish you’d refrain from throwing out metrics that can’t be used at all levels, and WAR is definitely not one that can. To make your point, Verlander is a “better” pitcher than Buehrle, and if I had the choice, I’d pick Verlander. And perhaps one day all ML pitchers will be of Verlander’s caliber, but since that’s not only not likely in the near future at the ML level, but even less likely that pitchers as dominating as he is will be commonplace at any level blow that, I don’t get the point.As I said before Verlander is an 8 WAR pitcher, Buehrle is a 3.5 WAR pitcher, and Buehrle might be the most successful "pitch to contact" pitcher ever. Ever. Mark Buehrle. League average BABIP. League average HR rate. Does well because [1] throws a lot of IP, [2] limits walks. There is nothing magical about his pace or ability to limit hits or HR, even though broadcasters love to talk about it.
wOBA doesn’t even exist in my world because I’m not a fantasy guy or a sabermatician, and it can’t exist in any world other than MLB because they’re the only one with the data to compute it. So, since a person in my world CAN’T hope to use wOBA, it CAN’T be a “better” metric.I'm not discussing anything BA or ERA, not in 2012 that is. We have better metrics. *grin* We don;t have better metrics because of varying beliefs, some have better metrics because they're more informed (I didn't say smarter, or better, just more informed). There's no way a person could be informed of both wOBA and BA and choose BA.
But, no matter what the outcome, I find discussions like this one to be very informative, and allow me to see things from other perspectives than mine, and that’s always a good thing.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Registered User
Seeing that Cliff Lee put up K:BB ratios that are so rare as to be historical, he's not a good example. In 2010, his K:BB was over 10 which is so gawdy one has to chuckle at it. Cliff Lee is a tremendously interesting example in that in 2005 he basically decided (or made mechanical adjustments) to stop walking batters.
His BABIP is .295, right in the average range. So even, uber-control Cliff Lee doesn't supress BABIP. He thrives by walking far fewer than league average. He hasn't been above 2.0 BB/9 since 2006 (league average is around 3/1 BB/9). His HR rate is much below league average which makes him about twice as valuable in a FIP-based value system as opposed to a Runs Allowed value system.
Someday I hope he writes a book on what exactly he did to turn his career completely around.
The point is ... it's not about getting batters to "hit the ball", it's about "not walking them". Not walking them is THE skill. Getting them to hit the ball ISN'T.
IO sure as heck wouldn't use BA at the HS or youth levels, not given the disparity in scorekeeper and defense quality. What's an error and what's a hit is highly dependent, as is the disparity in team defense.wOBA doesn’t even exist in my world because I’m not a fantasy guy or a sabermatician, and it can’t exist in any world other than MLB because they’re the only one with the data to compute it. So, since a person in my world CAN’T hope to use wOBA, it CAN’T be a “better” metric.
Since walks at youth levels are so valuable, OBP should be king of youth baseball.
Same here. My overall intent is to get people to look at the situation and not see "allowing batters to hit the ball" as being a "good skill". It's not for the vast majority of pitchers., plus many of them aren't doing it by choice. But, it's the lack of walks that is the real benefit.But, no matter what the outcome, I find discussions like this one to be very informative, and allow me to see things from other perspectives than mine, and that’s always a good thing.
Scorekeeper
Since I’m not privy to those classroom sessions and no longer attend practices, I can’t honestly say if what you’re saying is true or not. I assume it is because you say so and I believe you, but as to whether or not there’s really no confusion or not, that’s a question for the ages.
Just shows you how perspective changes things. To me, a coach hollering “Hey, just throw it and let's see how far he can hit it" is much like in the old days when we’d hear someone holler that the batter swing like a rusty gate or the pitcher has a rag arm. They were terms used to diminish those players while giving confidence to the opposition.Because IMO, one is a positive reinforcement, and one is a negative one. I'd rather use the positive.
Like I said, I accept that you believe that, but I’ve been around HS age kids a little to long not to have at least a sliver of doubt.Every player on MY team, does "for absolutely sure....understands what [I] mean, especially the pitcher".
All I’m doing is presenting what was always there, at least at the ML level. Sometimes it seems that many of the things I come up with are new, but they really aren’t. They’re new to the level I’m doing them, but not at all to baseball. And I suspect that as more and more people take advantage of scoring apps like GameChanger that has all that data available someplace, they’ll understand what I’m talking about. Heck, while I’ve had the capacity to do many many things few others at the HS level could ever hope to do, the data my program puts out now is so superior and there’s so much more of it, it amazes even me.Are you sure? If you're not using only the same stats and metrics that they were using 150 years ago, or developing new ones on your own...well, then that is your doing to some extent.
Not a stat, but certainly a very strong belief.Possibly....got a stat to support that theory?
That’s one form of instruction, but as they say, there are many ways to skin a cat.No it's not. "Instruction" is detailed information of how to do something. In the "pitch to, or just make contact", I could care less how they do it....as long as they get it done.
Well, you could do that if you wanted, but I don’t see any purpose in it, unless you wanted to know the answer. But I can certainly tell you what your pitcher was doing when he was having “problems”, if you define what those problems are. Maybe it would change the way you call pitches.So every time I say "pitch to contact", I should note whether that batter hit the ball or not? Doesn't seem too fair to the pitcher.
He could have thrown it, "right down Broadway" and the hitter whiffed right through it....and as a result, the pitcher, failed to "pitch to contact".
Seems like a silly "stat" to me.
The pitcher who’s afraid to throw strikes, will soon be standing in the shower with the hitter who's afraid to swing.
Who is advocating for that? The game described here was a "dazzleing performance", Maddux won 350+, very obviously there is a definition disconnect.My overall intent is to get people to look at the situation and not see "allowing batters to hit the ball" as being a "good skill".
I don't think a coach can stand on the top step and mandate the approach either.
It is a style, an approach. Just like you have guys who try to strike out folks in different ways...Beckett vs a Matt Garza or a Rich Harden. It isn't a common approach and better named as pitching to poor contact because that is what happens when it's done right. Heck Glavine and Maddux both created zones clearly off the plate in which they consistantly got called strikes, they, as you mentioned walked very little so the hitter as a rule, was off balance in his plate approach..they could never settle and sit on a pitch or location..unless it was outside the zone (.."might just as well be swinging if it's close"..AND when I as a pitcher, can get the batter to this thought I've won). Maddux viewed it very simply, he said that every pitch he wanted to be very high quality and that he had done is job if he was quality enough to do better than 200 ip per year. Another benefit of this style is low pitch count, which translates into ip. If a pitcher was "just puttin er in there", the hitter is balanced, relaxed and rakin. What you describe as "allowing batters to hit" is what I call a pitcher ceding his primacy, just like nibbling...now in the pro's you won't be there if you have that approach at all, guys like Maddux and Lowe and the Mike Morgans...had much longer than average pitching careers.
IMO SK's reaction was very similar to this;
http://www.letstalkpitching.com/phpB...+love+pitching
Which is more the "norm" when seeing someone successfully pitch to contact or "poor contact".
Last edited by jdfromfla; 06-11-2012 at 06:35 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks