Taking Pitches?

[JGalt73]

snip

 

Look at what happens to OBP, though.

 

Very true. You can't walk until the fourth pitch.

[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?

 

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....

 

Yea, its hard. otherwise we'd all be in the major leagues, eh?

[bring stone back]

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.

 

I know, but there are times when Ortiz and Ramirez is up and the pitcher may try to throw a perfect pitch early and if they don't get ahead in the count, they'll do the old "intentional, unintentional walk."

[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....

 

Yea, its hard. otherwise we'd all be in the major leagues, eh?

 

What do you have to say to the statistics posted on the page before?

[stitchface]

I would say a .316 OBP is not something to strive for. I've never said you should never swing at the first pitch though.

[soccer10k]

I would say a .316 OBP is not something to strive for. I've never said you should never swing at the first pitch though.

 

I think the evidence above shows that it much better to put the first pitch of the at bat in play than the second through fifth pitches. And depending on your preference of OBP or SLG in the makeup of OPS, you could even make the argument that putting the first pitch in play is better than the second through eighth pitches (though I'm not going that far). At the ninth pitch, the OPS of .819 goes past that of the first pitch at .814.

[Geech]

I think the evidence above shows that it much better to put the first pitch of the at bat in play than the second through fifth pitches. And depending on your preference of OBP or SLG in the makeup of OPS, you could even make the argument that putting the first pitch in play is better than the second through eighth pitches (though I'm not going that far). At the ninth pitch, the OPS of .819 goes past that of the first pitch at .814.

 

The data shows what is happening but it does not show why it is happening. I don't believe this proves that swinging at the first pitch is actually a good hitting strategy.

[cubfan1955]

I know, but there are times when Ortiz and Ramirez is up and the pitcher may try to throw a perfect pitch early and if they don't get ahead in the count, they'll do the old "intentional, unintentional walk."

Ortiz and Ramirez are willing to take the old "intentional, unintentional walk" but the Cubs won't. They insist on swinging at pitches that are completely out of the strike zone. I don't know if they keep track but I'd bet the Cubs are near the league leaders in check swing strikes too.

[CubinNY]

I would say a .316 OBP is not something to strive for. I've never said you should never swing at the first pitch though.

 

I think the evidence above shows that it much better to put the first pitch of the at bat in play than the second through fifth pitches. And depending on your preference of OBP or SLG in the makeup of OPS, you could even make the argument that putting the first pitch in play is better than the second through eighth pitches (though I'm not going that far). At the ninth pitch, the OPS of .819 goes past that of the first pitch at .814.

 

No that is not what the evidence shows. It is really not that helpful to look at those data in isolation. At best they tell only a partial picture.

 

The likely reason the batting average is higher is because the batter was looking location and got it. That is great and all, but truely meaningful data would have to look at BA per count. I think it is pretty clear that getting behind in the count is likely to result in lower batting average then getting ahead in the count.

 

Like everything in life context is key. With most pitchers on most nights the best tactic is to try to work the count in your favor. However, if a pitcher is constantly getting hitters into pitchers counts, then the best tactic is to be agressive early in the count.

 

It's not an either/or thing.

 

The Cubs, with the expection of Muton and Walker, almost never work the count in their favor.

Edited June 8, 2006 by CubinNY

[goonys evil twin]

This is one of the worst threads in the history of message boards.

[RynoRules]

Situation dictates whether you should or should be first pitch swinging, methinks. When Aramis comes up with the bases loaded, he's looking fastball. If he gets that fastball on the first pitch, by all means swing away. If not, hang in there and wait for your pitch.

[JGalt73]

That is great and all, but truely meaningful data would have to look at BA per count. I think it is pretty clear that getting behind in the count is likely to result in lower batting average then getting ahead in the count.

 

Like everything in life context is key. With most pitchers on most nights the best tactic is to try to work the count in your favor. However, if a pitcher is constantly getting hitters into pitchers counts, then the best tactic is to be agressive early in the count.

 

It's not an either/or thing.

 

The Cubs, with the expection of Muton and Walker, almost never work the count in their favor.

 

Here's the data...

 

Here's how major league hitters (excluding NL pitchers) performed in the 2000 season ON the various counts:

        AVG  OBP  SPC    AB    H   2B  3B  HR  RBI    W   SO
On 0-0 .341 .345 .552 22031 7508 1471 154 955 4099    0    0
On 0-1 .327 .335 .519 14405 4715  897  85 565 2317    0    0
On 0-2 .168 .178 .248 12016 2013  331  44 184  941    0 5448

On 1-0 .346 .346 .585 14500 5019 1020 117 737 2718    0    0
On 1-1 .329 .334 .524 15339 5052 1002 109 590 2448    0    0
On 1-2 .183 .189 .274 23025 4208  786  92 380 1969    0 9832

On 2-0 .369 .367 .675  5544 2045  451  45 386 1254    0    0
On 2-1 .343 .343 .565 10776 3696  752  65 503 1884    0    0
On 2-2 .198 .202 .309 22770 4501  885  94 487 2172    0 8883

On 3-0 .428 .957 .825   383  164   39   4  35  231 4859    0
On 3-1 .345 .689 .632  4824 1663  356  40 316 1112 5437    0
On 3-2 .237 .483 .393 16104 3817  773  95 518 2227 7701 5124

 

Here's how major league hitters (excluding NL pitchers) performed in the 2000 season when passing THROUGH the various counts:

         AVG  OBP  SPC     AB     H   2B  3B   HR   RBI     W    SO
Thru 0-0 .275 .350 .445 161632 44381 8759 944 5656 23353 17969 29255
Thru 0-1 .243 .289 .382  73632 17889 3476 371 2015  8752  4245 18964
Thru 0-2 .185 .217 .281  27658  5119  923 107  509  2476   917 11537

Thru 1-0 .288 .411 .480  66007 18997 3814 419 2686 10515 13734 10306
Thru 1-1 .252 .329 .403  63348 15978 3198 352 1881  8095  6970 15168
Thru 1-2 .195 .249 .304  41929  8197 1618 176  861  4047  2731  1677

Thru 2-0 .307 .539 .537  19748  6058 1253 129 1009  3663 10104  2571
Thru 2-1 .270 .414 .446  32498  8790 1738 188 1202  4771  7975  6600
Thru 2-2 .209 .315 .335  33641  7033 1393 163  837  3684  5108 12400

Thru 3-0 .308 .776 .546   3437  1060  235  26  176   777  7288   460
Thru 3-1 .293 .605 .512  10054  2947  621  66  484  1827  8029  1606
Thru 3-2 .237 .483 .393  16104  3817  773  95  518  2227  7701  5124

 

"The hitter's OPS rose from .795 for all appearances to .891 when the first pitch is a ball and fell to .671 when the first pitch was a strike."

[Andy]

What jumps out at me is the NINE FIFTY SEVEN on base percentage on a 3-0 count, unbelievable.

[soccer10k]

What jumps out at me is the NINE FIFTY SEVEN on base percentage on a 3-0 count, unbelievable.

 

I would make a joke about how the Cubs dropped the OBP on a 3-0 count to .957 but that would require the Cubs to actually GET to a 3-0 count, which we know they never do.

[JGalt73]

What jumps out at me is the NINE FIFTY SEVEN on base percentage on a 3-0 count, unbelievable.

 

In the article they suggest this is skew because of the caliber of hitters you green light on that count.

Edited June 10, 2006 by JGalt73

[bobbyd20]

I learned when I was 13 years old that 0-0, 2-0, 3-0 and 3-1 were hitters count. My coach said that you should look for a fastball in a location that you can drive on these counts. If you don't see a fastball in that location, you keep the bat on your shoulder.

 

This means no getting fooled by a curve ball on these counts and hitting weak dribblers to second, no chasing pitches in the dirt, etc. Remarkably, I followed this strategy and became a much better hitter throughout the rest of my career (youth baseball through high school).

 

If a youth baseball coach in a small town in Illinois is smart enough to know the importance of working the count and not making outs on pitcher's pitches when the count is in the hitters favor, how come no one in the Cubs organization can grasp this concept?

 

It's really not that difficult.