Small Ball

[RollyInRaleigh]

None of it happens without the hitter and the mindset that the situation dictates. At 2-2, a hitter should be protecting and swinging at anything close. That needs to be the mindset in that particular situation. You shouldn't get caught looking at anything close.

[RedsManRick]

None of it happens without the hitter and the mindset that the situation dictates. At 2-2, a hitter should be protecting and swinging at anything close. That needs to be the mindset in that particular situation. You shouldn't get caught looking at anything close.

I'm not even sure what your first statement means...

The hitter know how he's going to approach a 2-2 count before he steps in the box, correct? Assuming you agree, that's where the decision tree comes in to play. Given a pitch that's "close", there are a set of things that can happen whether he chooses to swing or not swing. Assuming the choice to swing or not swing is based on whichever is likely to lead to the best result (and not based on some morality about "manhood" or "the right way to play the game"), we can look at the likely outcomes to determine the better decision. And, given the percentages of outcome likelihood in that model, swinging or not swinging comes down to taking on greater likelihood of making an out for a somewhat small chance of getting a hit.

But you seem to be suggesting (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that trying to hit the ball is morally superior to watching a pitch that's close -- the likely outcomes of your choice to swing or not swing are a secondary consideration. Personally, i don't see why trying to do something you're not good at and most likely failing (and not getting another chance) is morally superior to waiting it out and hoping for a better opportunity.

This seems awfully similar to the logic that bunting a guy over makes sense because you have to "try" and not just sit back and wait. There's a persistent bias towards action above inaction, even when action is proven to lead to worse results.

[Ltlabner]

This seems awfully similar to the logic that bunting a guy over makes sense because you have to "try" and not just sit back and wait. There's a persistent bias towards action above inaction, even when action is proven to lead to worse results.

Yep.

It's the same area of the brain that generates the notion that walks are dirty and represent a failing of the batter in some nutty way.

[jojo]

Save a 3-2 count, with two strikes, a normal hitter has to alter his approach like Randy is suggesting because in those counts he's not only battling the pitcher, he's battling the umpire as well. The count is definitely leveraged to the pitcher. Well maybe Keith Hernandez didn't have to but he had a reputation.....

That's a different scenario than expanding your strike zone just because runners are on base.

[RedsManRick]

Save a 3-2 count, with two strikes, a normal hitter has to alter his approach like Randy is suggesting because in those counts he's not only battling the pitcher, he's battling the umpire as well. The count is definitely leveraged to the pitcher. Well maybe Keith Hernandez didn't have to but he had a reputation.....

That's a different scenario than expanding your strike zone just because runners are on base.

Jojo, are you saying that an umpire is more likely to call a given borderline pitch a strike when the batter already has 2 strikes on him?

Couldn't you pretty easily account for that in my model by changing the ump call %s? If there's an 80% chance that the pitch is going to be called a strike, clearly swinging is the better option. If it's a 50% of being a strike, maybe not.

And what do you mean by "normal" -- a hitter with normal contact ability?

[jojo]

Jojo, are you saying that an umpire is more likely to call a given borderline pitch a strike when the batter already has 2 strikes on him?

No. I'm saying that if he does, you're SOL

Couldn't you pretty easily account for that in my model by changing the ump call %s? If there's an 80% chance that the pitch is going to be called a strike, clearly swinging is the better option. If it's a 50% of being a strike, maybe not.

Not while I'm in the batters box. Basically a hitter really should have a pretty good idea how he is likely to be pitched-there is no excuse to not know. But beyond that, considering how a specific ump is likely to call a specific pitcher on a 2 strike count is intellectual overload in a situation where there is already sensory overload (release point, location, velocity, spin, beak)...

And what do you mean by "normal" -- a hitter with normal contact ability?

By normal I mean not a freak like a Bonds or Pujols, a guy like Wlad who frankly is already swinging if the pitch is in the country, or a guy like Hernandez who was actually likely to get the close calls because his batting eye was considered above reproach.

[RedsManRick]

No. I'm saying that if he does, you're SOL

Not while I'm in the batters box. Basically a hitter really should have a pretty good idea how he is likely to be pitched-there is no excuse to not know. But beyond that, considering how a specific ump is likely to call a specific pitcher on a 2 strike count is intellectual overload in a situation where there is already sensory overload (release point, location, velocity, spin, beak)...[/quote]

So when the ball is in the air, the batter isn't doing some quick math that says "what are the chances this thing is a strike"? Hitters talk all the time about different umps calling things differently, so I know that's part of their internal swing/take calculus.

When the batter steps in the box, his approach to the at bat is already going to incorporate his perceptions about umpire bias. So when the borderline ball is headed his way, he's still making some estimate of the odds it's going to be called a strike -- essentially his standard strike zone judgment plus some umpire adjustment if he's deemed it necessary before stepping in.

By normal I mean not a freak like a Bonds or Pujols, a guy like Wlad who frankly is already swinging if the pitch is in the country, or a guy like Hernandez who was actually likely to get the close calls because his batting eye was considered above reproach.

I still don't see why you automatically need to be swinging at a close pitch, especially if you know that it's a close pitch that you stink at hitting. You very well might be better off taking your chances with the ump. I'm not advocating that the batter should be taking the pitch -- just that there's still a decision to be made and it isn't as cut and dry as some would suggest, particularly in cases with a poor contact hitter at the plate.

[*BaseClogger*]

Off-topic but something that just occurred to me--Rick, have you ever thought about writing and contributing articles?

[RedsManRick]

Off-topic but something that just occurred to me--Rick, have you ever thought about writing and contributing articles?

Thought about it, but I'm not terribly good at thinking through things on my own or producing content on a schedule. I need the back and forth to help develop my points. That's what I find really fun -- exchanging perspectives and learning from each other through the process of "argument" or "debate". Of course, the downside of that is that some people don't like the debate style and take disagreements personally -- especially on message board where inflection and tone can be nearly impossible to convey. Too often, the discussion eventually breaks down before anything is accomplished.

[*BaseClogger*]

Thought about it, but I'm not terribly good at thinking through things on my own or producing content on a schedule. I need the back and forth to help develop my points. That's what I find really fun -- exchanging perspectives and learning from each other through the process of "argument" or "debate". Of course, the downside of that is that some people don't like the debate style and take disagreements personally -- especially on message board where inflection and tone can be nearly impossible to convey. Too often, the discussion eventually breaks down before anything is accomplished.

I understand. I was just thinking that you could use some of your discussion from here as inspiration for an article topic...

[RollyInRaleigh]

I'm not even sure what your first statement means...

The hitter know how he's going to approach a 2-2 count before he steps in the box, correct? Assuming you agree, that's where the decision tree comes in to play. Given a pitch that's "close", there are a set of things that can happen whether he chooses to swing or not swing. Assuming the choice to swing or not swing is based on whichever is likely to lead to the best result (and not based on some morality about "manhood" or "the right way to play the game"), we can look at the likely outcomes to determine the better decision. And, given the percentages of outcome likelihood in that model, swinging or not swinging comes down to taking on greater likelihood of making an out for a somewhat small chance of getting a hit.

But you seem to be suggesting (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that trying to hit the ball is morally superior to watching a pitch that's close -- the likely outcomes of your choice to swing or not swing are a secondary consideration. Personally, i don't see why trying to do something you're not good at and most likely failing (and not getting another chance) is morally superior to waiting it out and hoping for a better opportunity.

This seems awfully similar to the logic that bunting a guy over makes sense because you have to "try" and not just sit back and wait. There's a persistent bias towards action above inaction, even when action is proven to lead to worse results.

At 2-2, the odds are pretty good that if you leave the bat on your shoulder on a close pitch, you aren't going to get another chance. No doubt you are going to get fooled sometimes and basically freeze. Good pitchers are going to do that to you.

Honestly, I think we simply live on different planets when it comes to a lot of the game. Not a bad thing, but I'm just afraid that my perception of what happens in the batters box is much different than what yours is. For me there is no time to think. You can formulate in your mind what you think is coming at you, but, you pretty much have to be ready to react at whatever is coming at you. It's a split second thing. Recognize, react, and let your skills take over. I don't think there are many good hitters that go to the plate, thinking about drawing a walk. The main concern is to get a good pitch to hit and drive it somewhere. If you draw a walk, that's fine, but the emphasis has to be to swing the bat. As the Dominican's always say, "You can't walk off the island. You have to hit your way off."

[RedsManRick]

At 2-2, the odds are pretty good that if you leave the bat on your shoulder on a close pitch, you aren't going to get another chance. No doubt you are going to get fooled sometimes and basically freeze. Good pitchers are going to do that to you.

Great, that's a starting point. I put the odds of not getting another chance at 50-50 earlier. What would you put those odds at?

And if you swing at a pitch you wouldn't normally swing at because there's a chance it will be strike 3, what are the odds you're going to get a hit or a foul?

My point is that in that circumstance, for some hitters (particularly ones who aren't very good at making contact even in when their instincts tell them to swing), the odds of getting another chance by keeping the bat on their shoulder is better than the odds that something good will happen if they swing.

Honestly, I think we simply live on different planets when it comes to a lot of the game. Not a bad thing, but I'm just afraid that my perception of what happens in the batters box is much different than what yours is. For me there is no time to think. You can formulate in your mind what you think is coming at you, but, you pretty much have to be ready to react at whatever is coming at you. It's a split second thing. Recognize, react, and let your skills take over.

I think we're on the same page, generally speaking. I don't expect a guy to do calculus in the .1 of a second he has to make up his mind. But you seem to be asserting that with two strikes, guys should go against their natural instincts and swing at anything that looks close. I'm not sure I understand how a player changes his approach while being reactive and instinctual.

I don't think there are many good hitters that go to the plate, thinking about drawing a walk. The main concern is to get a good pitch to hit and drive it somewhere. If you draw a walk, that's fine, but the emphasis has to be to swing the bat. As the Dominican's always say, "You can't walk off the island. You have to hit your way off."

If you honestly believe I think guys should go up there looking for a walk, then you haven't read much of what I've written on this board. Everything I've said is centered around getting a pitch you actually can drive and not swinging at stuff you can't. Obviously the point is putting the bat on the ball, but if you aren't very likely to hit the pitch well, swinging at it may not be a good idea.

[lollipopcurve]

I still don't see why you automatically need to be swinging at a close pitch, especially if you know that it's a close pitch that you stink at hitting.

If in fact you've decided you won't swing at pitches on the outside corner, why would you confine this approach to 2-strike counts, when it would make the most sense to protect the plate?

And if you show that you're willing to give a portion of the plate to the pitcher -- because "you stink" at hitting pitches there or whatever -- they'll work you there relentlessly, and you better adjust or you'll be looking for work.

[RedsManRick]

If in fact you've decided you won't swing at pitches on the outside corner, why would you confine this approach to 2-strike counts, when it would make the most sense to protect the plate?

You wouldn't. That's the point. If you don't swing at the pitch normally, there's probably good reason for it. Swinging at it with 2 strikes means you're conceding that the at bat is likely going to end poorly. Obviously if it's quite likely to be a strike, swinging is the better option. But if it's borderline, maybe not.

And if you show that you're willing to give a portion of the plate to the pitcher -- because "you stink" at hitting pitches there or whatever -- they'll work you there relentlessly, and you better adjust or you'll be looking for work.

Yep. "Adjusting" would be a good idea. But not all weaknesses can be fixed by mere adjustment. Dunn isn't going to learn better hand-eye coordination any more than Jeff Keppinger is going to learn to hit the ball 500 feet. In the meantime, voluntarily doing what you're not good at is probably not the best way to maximize your production. And yet some players are able to be effective players despite having weakness that they never correct. Most pitchers aren't able to exploit hitters' weaknesses so easily on demand. Unless maybe that weakness is always swinging at a 2-strike slider that he can't handle...

[SteelSD]

If you honestly believe I think guys should go up there looking for a walk, then you haven't read much of what I've written on this board. Everything I've said is centered around getting a pitch you actually can drive and not swinging at stuff you can't. Obviously the point is putting the bat on the ball, but if you aren't very likely to hit the pitch well, swinging at it may not be a good idea.

There isn't a player in baseball who actually goes up to the plate looking for a Walk. I understand you know this, but I'm trying to figure out exactly who thinks a ballplayer can make it to the Show and survive while hoping for nothing more than the hope of a free pass every time out.

Everything you've posted on the subject of approach is spot-on. Everything. In fact, it's classic Ted Williams' philosophy. And you've also adjusted it for hitting style by probability.

Ted Williams' three basic rules:

1) Hit only Strikes

2) Never swing at a ball you're fooled on or have trouble hitting.

3) After two strikes, concede the long ball to the pitcher and shorten up on the bat and try to put the head of the bat on the ball.

Now, item three doesn't read "protect the plate on close pitches". But even if it did, that's something a bat control specialist like Williams could do even if he choked up on the bat, but when we have a Hitter who's already susceptible to low-and-away pitches who has a poor OOZ contact rate, choking up in order to protect the plate isn't going to help one iota because it further exposes that weakness. For the rest of the board...

We have a couple hitters over the last four seasons:

Hitter A: 41.4% Out of Zone Contact rate
Hitter B: 68.2% Out of Zone Contact rate

Now, knowing that Hitter A swings 17.7% of the pitches he sees outside the Strike Zone and that Hitter B swings 19.0% of the time (a nearly negligible difference), which one of those Hitters do we actually want swinging at "close" pitches?

Hitter A produced the 6th lowest OOZ contact rate in 2008 for all MLB full season qualifiers. Only 7 hitters saw a lower percentage of first-pitch strikes over a full season versus Hitter A. Hitter B was one of those 7 Hitters, BTW. Kinda' wipes out the idea that Hitter A is seeing a goodly amount of early-count strikes he should be swinging at, and especially when we add the fact that Hitter A saw a fewer percentage of Strikes last season than only three players. Hitter B ranked 14th in that regard.

Both Hitter A and B have the first two components of the Ted Williams' philosophy, but only Hitter B can actively enable the third step due to plate coverage (and they won't do it by choking up on the bat). With a two-Strike count, it's pretty obvious that Hitter A needs to be patient and take chances while trying to work the count back to the point where he'll see something he can hit while Hitter B can be pretty confident that he can make positive contact with the kind of "close" or "borderline" pitches he's likely to see in a two-Strike count.

I'm not sure I understand how a player changes his approach while being reactive and instinctual.

He can't. You obviously understand that a hitter has only 4 to 5 tenths of a second to decide to swing after a pitch leaves the Pitcher's hand. Due to simple biometrics, a taller hitter may have even less time to decide and the idea of a "close" pitch only functions within a realm beyond a hitter's ability to judge. The hitter identifies the pitch as a ball or strike in about the first five to ten feet after the ball travels out of the pitcher's hand and he can only adjust after that if he has almost-unique bat speed or slows his bat to the point that contact is likely ineffectual (See: Keppinger, Jeff).