Should coaches or catchers call pitches?

[Fury_Mike]

Most pitchers 14 and under only have two pitches. Fastball and change. They think they have a rise. Especially their parents who tell their friends they have a private pitching coach. The rise….It’s typically just a high ball. Catchers at 10 and 12U need to understand location set up more than anything. As long as they know when to call for the change, let them call their own game. See what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are missing sooooooo many intangibles here.

you can say pitchers only have a FB and Change at 14 and under, but a critical component your missing is location. In addition, if all your seeing is FB and change, its more of a reflection of the level you playing (I mean no disrespect).

Base runners, inning, score, field conditions, where your at in the order, prior at bats info, wind, is it a bunting situation, slapper versus power, etc. Pitch calling is as much about the outcome your trying to achieve. I also believe that there are certain keys to read in a hitters stance and/or swing. I'm all for a catcher calling a game, if they can account for all of these components. How many games would a catcher have to catch to equal that of an experienced pitch calling coach?

 

[Fury_Mike]

Not exactly, and I apologize my addition to the conversation was lost on you. There's a difference is in the subtlety of what I'm describing more than just "shaking it off." I was trying to describe the constant back and forth the battery and coach have.
To put it another way. that hopefully meets your approval...
My opinion as to the conversation at hand which started as "who should call the pitches;" I believe it's best to be a very quick conversation initiated by the catcher, guided by the pitcher, and depending both players skill level and experience overseen by a coach or coaches. Ultimately it is however the pitcher's responsibility because they wear the stats so to speak.

They wear the stats, but the coach wears the wins and losses

 

[Fury_Mike]

Slapping is definitely a skill, that is not a good comparison. There are good, average, and bad slappers.

I am saying that absent any data your pitch calling is not better than random. That's it.

I assume you joking on the random comment. If that's the case, there's no need for anyone to call pitches. Just use a random system, tell the pitcher to let it rip, then duck.....

 

[Fury_Mike]

I want to say catchers/pitchers called the game for the US Olympic team.

probably not a fair comparison considering the experience level of Cat and Monica

 

[Westwind]

That Bombers catcher had a tough inning in the 4th. Easy for me to say sitting on my couch...

There were some balls on both sides I was a little surprised that they got dropped- not just catchers!

 

[radness]

This Thread seems more about how some people use only one way to measure productivity.
And how others will resource more ways to measure/evaluate productivity.

After all the brain does have more than one way to make decisions. This is why some people have a creative mind and some have a critical mind.
Some dont use both!

As an example human emotions can be Quantified= (measured). Things like body language, facial expression, and eye movement are part of the tools to quantify human emotion. From this example we already know there are some people that are incredibly lousy at reading emotional expressions of other humans.
How much so might be hard to quantify but we know there are some people that are lousy at it.

In this example the person who can understand/read/measure the pitchers emotional mental and physical level today. (And be able to look and read batters the same way) this person can pick up on emotional nuances may be able to read the situation better to make an important decision in the moment.
This may simply have to do with reading players that day, to say, start a game or need to be pulled.

 

[radness]

Waited to see where this thread post would go before I commented on these tools to measure pitches = (quantify)...
(since the thread is using the word quantify want to use the word quantify as much as I can quantify quantify quantify LOL... to participate )

Since the word quantify actually means to measure.
Here are tools,
As a catcher when I'm warming up pitchers,
I measure their ability of control that particular day.

By measuring there ability to control the ball
example, by 3 inch at a time, side of plate, edge of plate, off the plate is using a measurement to make an assessment for pitch calling during a game.

During the game if that control starts to get erratic. That is also an indication of measurement.

There are also other measurement indicators like being able to throw at a top speed.
Versus a pitcher who may be worn out and tired is not at the top of their speed game.
Also being able to take a look at spins and see if there is still a tight spin rate or not.
* These are different forms of measurement.
* That help determine pitch calling.

And the game has not even started yet!
While planning how to attack the batter's.
At this point it is not part of statistics that are numerically measured.
* if I had the tools to set up cameras and speed location indicators it would be measured with technical equipment instead it's measured within the brain. just had to say that...
Measured within the brain.

 

[Tatonka]

Have you ever heard the phrase/question..."You know it? He/she's got it."

"It" is one of those things you just know when you see. Some athletes have "it" some don't. Some catchers have "it" in spades and "it" can be a game changer. Some Coaches recognize "it" while some don't or they are just stuck on their own trip and think only they possess "it" and they refuse to accept "it" from a player. Sometimes it can be a battery that has "it" where the pitcher/catcher have a certain positive chemistry or relationship that gives them an edge when working together. Coaches who can recognize this, foster it and use it to their advantage will usually (IMHO) have an edge over those who utilize a random pitch calling system. Of course, given enough data the outcomes would be quantifiable. How many games or IP would be needed to create a statistically significant measure vs a random observation? Not sure, but I maintain that there are some cases where you just know "it" when you see "it".

 

[radness]

Have you ever heard the phrase/question..."You know it? He/she's got it."

"It" is one of those things you just know when you see. Some athletes have "it" some don't. Some catchers have "it" in spades and "it" can be a game changer. Some Coaches recognize "it" while some don't or they are just stuck on their own trip and think only they possess "it" and they refuse to accept "it" from a player. Sometimes it can be a battery that has "it" where the pitcher/catcher have a certain positive chemistry or relationship that gives them an edge when working together. Coaches who can recognize this, foster it and use it to their advantage will usually (IMHO) have an edge over those who utilize a random pitch calling system. Of course, given enough data the outcomes would be quantifiable. How many games or IP would be needed to create a statistically significant measure vs a random observation? Not sure, but I maintain that there are some cases where you just know "it" when you see "it".

Good read!
Especially like how you brought up a pitcher and catcher dynamic having 'it'. Certainly can happen!
Think can happen with an entire team!

'it' maybe the most important skill set

 

[GunnerShotgun]

I assume you joking on the random comment. If that's the case, there's no need for anyone to call pitches. Just use a random system, tell the pitcher to let it rip, then duck.....

Absent any data that is exactly what I am saying. Of course in the real world we do have data, at a minimum we know what the pitchers primary pitches are so that is a good place to start.

It's a hypothetical for discussion, I am not selling anything.

If everyone wants to think they are good at pitch calling that's fine. It's just confirmation bias...