Taking Pitches?

[CubfaninCA]

Not every player is suited to take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. See a good pitch to hit and put a good swing on it....depending on the situation I don't care if it's the 1st pitch or 8th pitch.

 

Maybe the Cubs should invest in guys who take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. Those guys tend to be better hitters. They'd also help get to the bullpen much sooner in games when the opposing pitcher is on.

 

Who on the Cubs takes the most pitches? Their best hitter, Derrek Lee. Coincidence?

 

Well, they can replace the centerfielder, but who else you want gone from the starting lineup?? lee? walker? cedeno? Aram? Barrett? murton?? jones??

[bring stone back]

Not every player is suited to take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. See a good pitch to hit and put a good swing on it....depending on the situation I don't care if it's the 1st pitch or 8th pitch.

 

Maybe the Cubs should invest in guys who take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. Those guys tend to be better hitters. They'd also help get to the bullpen much sooner in games when the opposing pitcher is on.

 

Who on the Cubs takes the most pitches? Their best hitter, Derrek Lee. Coincidence?

 

Do you think Jeff Francoeur is a good hitter? He's a notorious first pitch swinger.

 

Have you seen his average?

 

Batting average on this board...that's blasphemy. I thought the only meaningful statistic was on base percentage. (sarcasm intended)

[Andy]

Not every player is suited to take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. See a good pitch to hit and put a good swing on it....depending on the situation I don't care if it's the 1st pitch or 8th pitch.

 

Maybe the Cubs should invest in guys who take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. Those guys tend to be better hitters. They'd also help get to the bullpen much sooner in games when the opposing pitcher is on.

 

Who on the Cubs takes the most pitches? Their best hitter, Derrek Lee. Coincidence?

 

Do you think Jeff Francoeur is a good hitter? He's a notorious first pitch swinger.

 

Have you seen his average?

 

Batting average on this board...that's blasphemy. I thought the only meaningful statistic was on base percentage. (sarcasm intended)

His .252 average is iffy at best. His .268 OBP is absolutely awful. (Pierre's is better)

[BigbadB]

Cubs:

 

29th in runs scored, ahead of only Kansas City

25th in hits

30th in Walks (I'd give them credit for being tied for 29th, except that Cub hitters have been intentionally walked more times than the Royals, the team they tied for last with)

 

29th in pitches per plate appearance.

 

4 MLB teams have walked more than 100 times more than the Cubs.

 

The Cubs are at the bottom of many other offensive categories, and it's not really just coincidence. Today's pitcher is not the next coming of Roger Clemens. He's a 28 year old never will be. But, at least the Cubs made every effort to give him something he can relive with his grandchildren.

[rocket]

Batting average on this board...that's blasphemy. I thought the only meaningful statistic was on base percentage. (sarcasm intended)

 

When discussing 1st pitch swingers and their success, batting average is probably a better indicator than OBP.

 

But seriously, OBP is way better than batting average.

[BigbadB]

Batting average on this board...that's blasphemy. I thought the only meaningful statistic was on base percentage. (sarcasm intended)

 

Oh cool. Personal insults to attempt to win a debate. How original. =D>

[bring stone back]

Batting average on this board...that's blasphemy. I thought the only meaningful statistic was on base percentage. (sarcasm intended)

 

Oh cool. Personal insults to attempt to win a debate. How original. =D>

 

yes, since that was a personal attack directed towards you personally.

[BigbadB]

Not every player is suited to take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. See a good pitch to hit and put a good swing on it....depending on the situation I don't care if it's the 1st pitch or 8th pitch.

 

Maybe the Cubs should invest in guys who take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. Those guys tend to be better hitters. They'd also help get to the bullpen much sooner in games when the opposing pitcher is on.

 

Who on the Cubs takes the most pitches? Their best hitter, Derrek Lee. Coincidence?

 

Well, they can replace the centerfielder, but who else you want gone from the starting lineup?? lee? walker? cedeno? Aram? Barrett? murton?? jones??

 

The manager, the general manager, the hitting coach, the vice president.

 

And I broke a vow to no longer discuss baseball with you to answer that question, so I shall now call it a night and go hit myself in the head with a hammer.

[soccer10k]

I think how many pitches a batter takes, at least with the starter, is determined upon the situation and the period in the game.

 

In the first couple innings, a batter should try to take more pitches to see exactly how a pitcher is throwing that day. Is he accurate or wild? How good are his various pitches? Those things should be figured out early in the game. Obviously if a pitcher throws a pitch that the batter likes on the first pitch of the at bat, then by all means the batter should swing.

 

In the later innings, deciding to swing at the first pitch or not should be determined by the tendencies of the pitcher the team should have noticed over the course of the game. If you see the pitcher throwing a majority of first pitch fastballs (or any other pitch) then you should go up looking for that pitch. If you get it, swing. If you don't get what you expect, then don't swing.

 

If you notice that a pitcher is throwing a lot of strikes, you should go up to the plate looking to swing if a decent pitch comes. No point in sitting there and taking two pitches if the guy is throwing strikes because you are quickly going to find yourself in 0-2 counts and the pitcher is going to eat you alive more times than not.

 

On the other hand, if a pitcher is having a problem finding the strike zone and is getting three ball counts and walking a bunch of batters, don't swing at the first pitch. Make him throw you strikes. In this case, then it is smart to take a pitch or two because you aren't likely to find yourself in a quick 0-2 count. You are more likely to find yourself in a 1-1 or 2-0 count.

[BigbadB]

Batting average on this board...that's blasphemy. I thought the only meaningful statistic was on base percentage. (sarcasm intended)

 

Oh cool. Personal insults to attempt to win a debate. How original. =D>

 

yes, since that was a personal attack directed towards you personally.

 

It's my opinion that you can believe whatever you want to believe. If you believe that the best way to score runs is to have all 9 guys in the line up bunt every time up, more power to you.

 

You can share your opinion that the current Cubs approach to hitting is the best way to score runs, but the standings, the stats and the durability of the opposing pitcher seems to dictate that this is not the case.

 

Do you have some sort of evidence that aggressive hitting actually produces winning results? I really hope that it's just an aberration that the Cubs will eventually score 10 runs a game with this aggressive approach they preach. Instead, I see shut outs and 1 run games, and I'm tired of them. I want them to put patient hitters that have a high on base success rate.

 

To me, the aggressive approach isn't working. What is your evidence that it is working?

[stitchface]

Have you ever played baseball? Swing at something only if you can hit it hard....good concept but it's not quite that easy.

 

But the great hitters do it better than the bad hitters. therefore its something to strive for - if you can't recognize pitches, you will not be a major league hitter. Have you ever hit in the major leagues? Just because something is difficult does not mean its not the right approach or goal.

 

and btw, the condescending tone adds nothing to your arguments.

 

My condescending tone? Yet you try to get real tough with your "I'm not looking up anything for you."

 

I have not hit in the major leagues but have hit against pitchers who have played in the major leagues at a fairly high level. You get maybe 3/10 of a second to recognize ball vs. strike. It's far too simplistic to say go up there and swing only if you can hit the ball hard. Put a good swing on a pitch you think you can is all you can do.

 

"real tough"? - LOL, whatever. Look up your own stats or continue to be ignorant. Basically you know you're wrong so you try to diminish the statistics that will prove you wrong before they are posted.

 

I don't think its simplistic at all. That's how you become a great hitter -you recognize pitches you can hit and lay off the others.

[stitchface]

Not every player is suited to take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. See a good pitch to hit and put a good swing on it....depending on the situation I don't care if it's the 1st pitch or 8th pitch.

 

Maybe the Cubs should invest in guys who take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. Those guys tend to be better hitters. They'd also help get to the bullpen much sooner in games when the opposing pitcher is on.

 

Who on the Cubs takes the most pitches? Their best hitter, Derrek Lee. Coincidence?

 

Do you think Jeff Francoeur is a good hitter? He's a notorious first pitch swinger.

 

no, he's not a good hitter at the major league level.

[bring stone back]

Batting average on this board...that's blasphemy. I thought the only meaningful statistic was on base percentage. (sarcasm intended)

 

Oh cool. Personal insults to attempt to win a debate. How original. =D>

 

yes, since that was a personal attack directed towards you personally.

 

It's my opinion that you can believe whatever you want to believe. If you believe that the best way to score runs is to have all 9 guys in the line up bunt every time up, more power to you.

 

You can share your opinion that the current Cubs approach to hitting is the best way to score runs, but the standings, the stats and the durability of the opposing pitcher seems to dictate that this is not the case.

 

Do you have some sort of evidence that aggressive hitting actually produces winning results? I really hope that it's just an aberration that the Cubs will eventually score 10 runs a game with this aggressive approach they preach. Instead, I see shut outs and 1 run games, and I'm tired of them. I want them to put patient hitters that have a high on base success rate.

 

To me, the aggressive approach isn't working. What is your evidence that it is working?

 

I can't use the Cubs as the prototype. I'd consider the Yankees and Red Sox pretty aggressive and it seems to work well for them.

 

Let's just get better hitters. Problem solved....world series here we come.

[CubfaninCA]

Not every player is suited to take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. See a good pitch to hit and put a good swing on it....depending on the situation I don't care if it's the 1st pitch or 8th pitch.

 

Maybe the Cubs should invest in guys who take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. Those guys tend to be better hitters. They'd also help get to the bullpen much sooner in games when the opposing pitcher is on.

 

Who on the Cubs takes the most pitches? Their best hitter, Derrek Lee. Coincidence?

 

Well, they can replace the centerfielder, but who else you want gone from the starting lineup?? lee? walker? cedeno? Aram? Barrett? murton?? jones??

 

The manager, the general manager, the hitting coach, the vice president.

 

And I broke a vow to no longer discuss baseball with you to answer that question, so I shall now call it a night and go hit myself in the head with a hammer.

 

whatever man...

 

you know losing lee REALLY kills the offense. I'm sure you've been following how the Cards are doing w/out Pujols. Maybe Jocketty should get ripped apart for having no backup plan.....

[stitchface]

Not every player is suited to take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. See a good pitch to hit and put a good swing on it....depending on the situation I don't care if it's the 1st pitch or 8th pitch.

 

Maybe the Cubs should invest in guys who take 6 or 7 pitches per at bat. Those guys tend to be better hitters. They'd also help get to the bullpen much sooner in games when the opposing pitcher is on.

 

Who on the Cubs takes the most pitches? Their best hitter, Derrek Lee. Coincidence?

 

Do you think Jeff Francoeur is a good hitter? He's a notorious first pitch swinger.

 

Have you seen his average?

 

Batting average on this board...that's blasphemy. I thought the only meaningful statistic was on base percentage. (sarcasm intended)

 

oh, more condescending remarks! How clever!

[Geech]

I can't use the Cubs as the prototype. I'd consider the Yankees and Red Sox pretty agressive and it seems to work well for them.

 

Boston and the Yankees are among the Major League leaders in unintentional walks.

[JGalt73]

Interesting data from BP...

 

The first two pitches are more than 100 points of OPS better for the hitter than pitches three, four, five, and six. Slugging, in particular, dips sharply, almost 175 points worth between one-pitch PAs and six-pitch PAs. Batters start to gain ground again at the seven-pitch level, and have equalled their production when putting the first couple of pitches in play once the plate appearance goes for at least nine pitches.

 

Contrary to the traditional sabermetric support for patience, seeing such a swing towards the pitcher suggests that aggressively going after pitches early in the count may be a viable strategy for some hitters.

 

Pitch #      PA    AVG  OBP  SLG   OPS
 1     286,695   .323 .316 .497   814
 2     334,951   .319 .316 .491   807
 3     340,944   .267 .269 .411   681
 4     371,885   .227 .333 .346   678
 5     304,844   .215 .346 .333   679
 6     193,051   .211 .374 .326   700
 7      79,250   .223 .405 .354   758
 8      29,939   .231 .418 .370   788
 9      10,797   .237 .427 .392   819
10       3,743   .229 .419 .379   798
11       1,393   .258 .442 .438   880
12         515   .290 .485 .491   976
13         176   .242 .426 .394   820
14          61   .239 .368 .391   760
15          28   .222 .464 .778  1242
16          11   .333 .455 .778  1232
17           4   .500 .750 .500  1250
18           2   .000 .000 .000   000
19           1   .000 .000 .000   000
20           1   .000 .000 .000   000

[bring stone back]

Have you ever played baseball? Swing at something only if you can hit it hard....good concept but it's not quite that easy.

 

But the great hitters do it better than the bad hitters. therefore its something to strive for - if you can't recognize pitches, you will not be a major league hitter. Have you ever hit in the major leagues? Just because something is difficult does not mean its not the right approach or goal.

 

and btw, the condescending tone adds nothing to your arguments.

 

My condescending tone? Yet you try to get real tough with your "I'm not looking up anything for you."

 

I have not hit in the major leagues but have hit against pitchers who have played in the major leagues at a fairly high level. You get maybe 3/10 of a second to recognize ball vs. strike. It's far too simplistic to say go up there and swing only if you can hit the ball hard. Put a good swing on a pitch you think you can is all you can do.

 

"real tough"? - LOL, whatever. Look up your own stats or continue to be ignorant. Basically you know you're wrong so you try to diminish the statistics that will prove you wrong before they are posted.

 

I don't think its simplistic at all. That's how you become a great hitter -you recognize pitches you can hit and lay off the others.

 

Yes, since everything in baseball can simply be put into statistics, right?

 

The problem with your logic is that you're using great hitters as your benchmark. Unfortunately, there are only a handful of them in all of baseball. Like I said before, it's not that easy and if it were, everyone would hit over .350.

[stitchface]

see? You should have looked it up before you dismissed it. But then since you believe pitch recognition is impossible and shouldn't be strived for, why not just hack at everything?

[Geech]

snip

 

Look at what happens to OBP, though.

[bring stone back]

I can't use the Cubs as the prototype. I'd consider the Yankees and Red Sox pretty agressive and it seems to work well for them.

 

Boston and the Yankees are among the Major League leaders in unintentional walks.

 

Do you think the presence of players like A-Rod, Jeter, Ortiz, Ramirez, etc. help that number? Maybe they're pitching around these guys while the Cubs really have nobody to pitch around right now.

[stitchface]

Have you ever played baseball? Swing at something only if you can hit it hard....good concept but it's not quite that easy.

 

But the great hitters do it better than the bad hitters. therefore its something to strive for - if you can't recognize pitches, you will not be a major league hitter. Have you ever hit in the major leagues? Just because something is difficult does not mean its not the right approach or goal.

 

and btw, the condescending tone adds nothing to your arguments.

 

My condescending tone? Yet you try to get real tough with your "I'm not looking up anything for you."

 

I have not hit in the major leagues but have hit against pitchers who have played in the major leagues at a fairly high level. You get maybe 3/10 of a second to recognize ball vs. strike. It's far too simplistic to say go up there and swing only if you can hit the ball hard. Put a good swing on a pitch you think you can is all you can do.

 

"real tough"? - LOL, whatever. Look up your own stats or continue to be ignorant. Basically you know you're wrong so you try to diminish the statistics that will prove you wrong before they are posted.

 

I don't think its simplistic at all. That's how you become a great hitter -you recognize pitches you can hit and lay off the others.

 

Yes, since everything in baseball can simply be put into statistics, right?

 

The problem with your logic is that you're using great hitters as your benchmark. Unfortunately, there are only a handful of them in all of baseball. Like I said before, it's not that easy and if it were, everyone would hit over .350.

 

No, but hitting success sure can. Is it really that hard to see that what separates hitters' success is pitch recognition? It doesn't matter how many great hitters there are - rank all the hitters and you will find that those that recognize hittable pitches are the most successful. If you can hit a ball off the ground like Vlad or Nomar, more power to you. Most people can't.

[stitchface]

I can't use the Cubs as the prototype. I'd consider the Yankees and Red Sox pretty agressive and it seems to work well for them.

 

Boston and the Yankees are among the Major League leaders in unintentional walks.

 

Do you think the presence of players like A-Rod, Jeter, Ortiz, Ramirez, etc. help that number? Maybe they're pitching around these guys while the Cubs really have nobody to pitch around right now.

 

or maybe those guys are really great hitters because they select pitches they can hit and don't swing at those they can't? Come on, these guys aren't walking 300 times a year.

[Geech]

Do you think the presence of players like A-Rod, Jeter, Ortiz, Ramirez, etc. help that number? Maybe they're pitching around these guys while the Cubs really have nobody to pitch around right now.

 

That's why I specified unintentional walks. Even if that were true, though, Boston and the Yankees have nearly double the Cubs' number of unintentional walks. Even when you take league difference into account, they're clearly at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[bring stone back]

see? You should have looked it up before you dismissed it. But then since you believe pitch recognition is impossible and shouldn't be strived for, why not just hack at everything?

 

At no point did I say it was impossible. What I did say is that it is very hard to recognize.

 

I really like how you take one thing I say and take it to the extreme without actually reading the post. Well done....