Still Fundamentally Bad

[series65cubsfan]

So is this why Sandberg almost never swung at the first pitch thrown? Growing up and watching the Cubs I never understood why pitchers just didn't groove a strike on the first pitch to Sandberg, because he never swung at it. However, IIRC most were called balls.

[sethuel1]

Its funny that no one ever complains when someone jacks a first pitch homer onto Waveland...

 

Haha!

[Houston_Cub_Fan]

Stoney used to say that if you swing at the first pitch, your swinging at what the pitcher wants you to swing at rather than the "ideal" pitch." By working the count you force the pitcher to come across the plate. Maddux has made a career out of making batters hit "his" pitch rather than "theirs." He usually has low pitch totals because "his" pitch is usually early in the count.

 

At least that's what i think.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

So is this why Sandberg almost never swung at the first pitch thrown? Growing up and watching the Cubs I never understood why pitchers just didn't groove a strike on the first pitch to Sandberg, because he never swung at it. However, IIRC most were called balls.

 

If pitchers grooved a strike on the first pitch, you would have seen Ryno swing at a helluva lot more of them.

[soccer10k]

Its funny that no one ever complains when someone jacks a first pitch homer onto Waveland...

 

Exactly. If a player swings at the first pitch and gets a hit, nobody criticizes him for it. But if he gets out, then he gets butchered. Many times, the pitch that a hitter swings at needs to be considered also. If it's a good pitch and a hitter just misses, then leave it at that and don't rip into him. But if a hitter swings at a horrible first pitch and gets out, then yes he should have let it go. There is a difference.

[rocket]

Its funny that no one ever complains when someone jacks a first pitch homer onto Waveland...

 

Because that was probably one of those few and far between times when the pitch was perfect enough to swing at.

 

But if someone hacks at the first pitch and creates an out, that's essentially the worst thing you could do with your at-bat (striking out eats up 3 pitches at least), and the hitter should definitely be criticized for it.

[moorecg]

Maybe one guy swinging at a first pitch isn't all that bad...but after one guy has seen one pitch and made an out, I hate to see the second guy swing at the first pitch...I also absolutely hate it when they swing at the first pitch on a new reliever....or a guy who has just walked a guy or two...I'm not sure how to get the stats...but I'd wager that there is a correlation between # of pitches seen per plate appearance and OBP. (Maybe I'm wrong...its a guess...but a good guess I'd think) And were all OBP fans right.

[moorecg]

Its funny that no one ever complains when someone jacks a first pitch homer onto Waveland...

 

And I'd disagree with this statement as well...I remember being unhappy with Corey last year for taking a big swing on the first pitch he saw...even though he did hit it out...I figured we were due for 4 more at bats with big swings at first pitches...and I was right.

[Soul]

Its funny that no one ever complains when someone jacks a first pitch homer onto Waveland...

 

And I'd disagree with this statement as well...I remember being unhappy with Corey last year for taking a big swing on the first pitch he saw...even though he did hit it out...I figured we were due for 4 more at bats with big swings at first pitches...and I was right.

 

It depends which pitch is the first pitch, and when the hitter decides first-pitch swing is the best approach.

 

Corey's problem was he had no clue what to do at the plate, so he figured his best guess would be the first pitch. Once pitchers figured this out, they made him look silly.

 

Other hitters know when to work the count and when to swing at the first pitch. Nobody complains when Pujols swings at the first pitch, because they know he's got a method of hitting that works.

 

I, too was frustrated with Cory even when he succeeded on the first pitch. And it was because I knew he just happened to guess right that time. There was never a sense he was actually getting better or beginning to understand how to hit. Other than the first half of 2003, Cory had as bad an approach at the plate as I've seen.

[MPrior]

Given a choice between swinging at a good first pitch and letting the good first pitch go by, I'd hope the Cubs players swing at the good first pitch every time.

 

That's not the choice. Most first pitches are not great pitches to hit.

Well, I agree that most first pitches aren't great pitches to hit. But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

I said that it's stupid to take pitches just for the sake of taking pitches. What are the benefits of doing so that you spoke of?

 

I think the contention here isn't about whether or not to swing at good first pitches. If a pitch is a great one to hit, you should probably swing at it in just about any situation. However, I think what Goony was saying is that taking pitches, in a generalized, decontextualized sense, has intrinsic value. First, it runs up pitch counts, which we've already mentioned and discussed. Secondly, though, it allows you and your team to see more of the pitcher, and see which pitches are working and which aren't. Thirdly, the more pitches you take, the more pitches you'll see. And the more pitches you see, on average, the more good pitches to hit you'll see, for two reasons: one is the obvious; if we assume a certain percentage of all pitches are "good" pitches, then the more pitches we see overall, the more "good" pitches we'll see, just as a matter of percentages; the second is that once you get deeper in the count, you're more likely to run into hitter's pitches. And lastly, taking pitches leads to more walks, which we'd all agree can be helpful.

 

Sorry for the treatise; I'm just trying to point out why taking pitches, on the whole, is a good thing to do. None of this is to say, though, that you shouldn't swing at flat fastballs over the heart of the plate or hanging breaking balls up in the zone. Obviously players should swing at those in any count.

[Outshined_One]

My take is as follows...

 

I don't see much strategy and attention to scouting reports from our hitters at the plate. Typically a guy will go up there seemingly with the sole intention of hacking away until he gets a hit. If a pitch even seems to be close to their zone, they'll take a swing at it, even if it turns out to he a slider that's low and away or something along those lines. There doesn't seem to be much of an intelligent approach when it comes to this team at bat. If the batter gets behind, more often than not, he'll panic and just keep trying to foul pitches off instead of letting certain pitches go for balls (which drove me NUTS with Corey).

 

The arguments in this thread goes both ways. Jamie Moyer might not be able to crack 85 mph any more, but if he's throwing his stuff for strikes and no one's swinging at it, he'll have a nine pitch inning. However, if a pitcher is wild and his pitches are going all over the place, then taking a couple of pitches would be a smart idea.

 

I don't think a number of guys on this team don't read the scouting reports on pitchers. It is different when you're at the plate as opposed to when you are watching on TV, I understand, but it would help if some guys could keep certain facts in their mind when up there and try to formulate some plan of attack. Instead, it just seems to be, "If you get a pitch that you think looks good, make contact!" That tends to hurt, especially when it comes to the soft-tossing lefties, where everything they throw looks like an eephus pitch down the middle of the plate.

[Jehrico]

I think as a hitter, you should go up to the plate looking for your pitch. Swinging at an eye-high fastball or a curveball 12 inches off of the plate on the first pitch because you determined before you stepped into the box is one thing. If the pitcher has been hanging breaking balls in the meaty part of the zone, and the hitter is looking for one to jack, and he gets it on the first pitch, there's nothing wrong with that either.

 

When you're in the late innings, and the other team's reliever hangs a meaty breaking ball over the plate, you don't pass on a gift like that for some silly notion of running the relievers pitch counts up.

 

Now, if you have a starter who is really in his groove, I think the best strategy is to go up there, take some pitches, and make him work to try to get the out. Don't give him anything, and make him hit the plate. If it's the 8th or 9th inning against their late relief corps, you swing at a good pitch when you get one.

[RynoRules]

My huge problem - besides the fact that few of them work the count - is that they don't "shorten up" with 2 strikes. This allows you to get some wood on the ball, and may be foul a few off until you find that "good pitch". Grace was one of the best I ever saw at doing it.

[rawaction]

The key to hitting is recognizing your own strengths. If you can't hit a ball hard, there's really no reason to swing with less than 2 strikes.

[USSoccer]

I think it's one thing for guys like Lee and Ramirez to see a good pitch early and swing-they have the ability to hit HR's and consistently hit for extra bases. I'm pretty comfortable with their plate discipline. It's quite another thing for everyone else in the lineup to hack away. Guys like Cedeno, Barrett and Pierre have no reason not to be selective.

[cjbucks]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Cubs take 7 walks and score 16 runs on Monday??

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Its funny that no one ever complains when someone jacks a first pitch homer onto Waveland...

 

Because that was probably one of those few and far between times when the pitch was perfect enough to swing at.

 

But if someone hacks at the first pitch and creates an out, that's essentially the worst thing you could do with your at-bat (striking out eats up 3 pitches at least), and the hitter should definitely be criticized for it.

 

No, it's not the worst thing to swing at a first pitch. It depends on the pitch and the batter's preferences. If he mashes anything on the inner half and that's where the ball is, go for it. This isn't MVP 2005. You might get one chance to hit your pitch in an AB. Just b/c someone doesn't crush a HR doesn't mean it was a bad pitch to swing on. Sometimes you just don't execute.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Cubs take 7 walks and score 16 runs on Monday??

 

I wouldn't read too much into that. The ump's strikezone was tiny.

[cjbucks]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Cubs take 7 walks and score 16 runs on Monday??

 

I wouldn't read too much into that. The ump's strikezone was tiny.

 

So of the 2 games the Cubs have played this year we can assume that the other 160 are going to be like the 2nd game?

[BigbadB]

One of the big reasons I'm not fond of first pitch swinging, is because for every out made on a first pitch swing, you've just extended the starting pitcher's outing. There are 27 outs in a game. What's the average amount of hits/walks/HBP in a game? 10? 12? Probably closer to 12. 12 would add up to a 1.33 WHIP, so that sounds pretty good. That's now 39 trips to the plate average. 3 pitches per at bat, minimum, and this pitcher is gased.

 

Let's just assume that the opposing pitcher is Cy Young. If Cubs hitters make 27 outs on 27 pitches, you'll never get Cy out of the game. If each hitter sees 54 pitches (27 x 2), now you're only at 54. Double it again for an average of 108 (or 4 pitches per at bat), which includes ZERO at bats where someone reached base, and Cy is going to be leaving the game early. The earlier you get the starter out of the game, the better chance you give the offense. Outside of the set up man and the closer, who are pretty much money on most teams, the rest of the bullpen are a bunch of guys not good enough to start, and not good enough to secure the best spots in the pen.

 

I watched crap pitchers go late in games against the Cubs because their pitch count was extremely low. I'm not saying it should always be that way, or hitters should always let the first 1 or 2 go right on by.

 

If you go back through last years game logs, you will find an eerily similar pattern where the Cubs starter left earlier in games than the opponents starters, and a lot of runs scored on the Cub bullpen in those games.

 

Why do Cub pitchers get knocked out so early, so often? The other team is being patient and letting the pitcher throw more pitches. I'd like nothing more than to see the opposing team swing at the first pitch against Zambrano in every at bat. But, the sooner the opposing team can get Zambrano out of the game, the better their odds. Pile up the pitch counts and hope he runs out of gas in the 5th or 6th. Meanwhile, Casey Daigle (who?) and whoever else looked like Cy Young against the Cubs recently pitch late into a game and we don't see the other teams crappy relievers.

 

It's not foolproof, but the Cubs seem to be to the extreme opposite of this philosophy. The pitching staff walks too many guys, and the offense swings too early in counts too often. I'll never knock Lee or Aramis for first pitch swinging, since they are premier hitters. Everyone else should be waiting on "their" pitch, not swinging at the "pitchers" pitch.

[BigbadB]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Cubs take 7 walks and score 16 runs on Monday??

 

I wouldn't read too much into that. The ump's strikezone was tiny.

 

So of the 2 games the Cubs have played this year we can assume that the other 160 are going to be like the 2nd game?

 

I think the 2nd game is a closer reflection of what to expect. Pitchers are not in midseason form. Do you expect Zambrano to be as sloppy as he was in game 1 all season long? I sure don't.

[cjbucks]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Cubs take 7 walks and score 16 runs on Monday??

 

I wouldn't read too much into that. The ump's strikezone was tiny.

 

So of the 2 games the Cubs have played this year we can assume that the other 160 are going to be like the 2nd game?

 

I think the 2nd game is a closer reflection of what to expect. Pitchers are not in midseason form. Do you expect Zambrano to be as sloppy as he was in game 1 all season long? I sure don't.

 

So by game 2 they are in midseason form and the rest of the season will be like game 2. OK I get it.

[BigbadB]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Cubs take 7 walks and score 16 runs on Monday??

 

I wouldn't read too much into that. The ump's strikezone was tiny.

 

So of the 2 games the Cubs have played this year we can assume that the other 160 are going to be like the 2nd game?

 

I think the 2nd game is a closer reflection of what to expect. Pitchers are not in midseason form. Do you expect Zambrano to be as sloppy as he was in game 1 all season long? I sure don't.

 

So by game 2 they are in midseason form and the rest of the season will be like game 2. OK I get it.

 

Now it appears you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. The Cubs scored 16 runs in game 1 and they scored 6 runs in game 2. Over the couse of the season, do you think the Cubs will average closer to 16 runs scored, or 6 runs?

 

No, pitchers will not be in midseason form in game 2.

[cjbucks]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Cubs take 7 walks and score 16 runs on Monday??

 

I wouldn't read too much into that. The ump's strikezone was tiny.

 

So of the 2 games the Cubs have played this year we can assume that the other 160 are going to be like the 2nd game?

 

I think the 2nd game is a closer reflection of what to expect. Pitchers are not in midseason form. Do you expect Zambrano to be as sloppy as he was in game 1 all season long? I sure don't.

 

So by game 2 they are in midseason form and the rest of the season will be like game 2. OK I get it.

 

Now it appears you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. The Cubs scored 16 runs in game 1 and they scored 6 runs in game 2. Over the couse of the season, do you think the Cubs will average closer to 16 runs scored, or 6 runs?

 

No, pitchers will not be in midseason form in game 2.

 

Actually I'm ok with either. Sorry I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just think it's a little premature to be making a lot of assumptions on how the season is going to go based on 2 games.

[BigbadB]

Actually I'm ok with either. Sorry I'm not trying to be argumentative - I just think it's a little premature to be making a lot of assumptions on how the season is going to go based on 2 games.

 

LOL. I would be okay with either, also. And I agree that it's too early in the season to make any assumptions.