Help with pitching to small strike zone

[Greenmonsters]

The batter was lost already idea: It's the truth (you actually lost them earlier, same as the last play rarely loses the game) and it helps you throw your best pitches because you no longer care about "screwing up" but only about your plan to make a good pitch.

It prevents the HR or triple; big hits happen most often on the 3-2 count.

....in favor of a walk, maybe. My pitchers do well with knowing they are finished with "the mistakes," done, and can now go for it..

What in the wide world of sports are you talking about? One of the best and most frequently made suggestion on the DFP site is to question what you are being told or taught. Although you obviously know and care about the FP game, you reduce your credibility when you state something as fact when really its an opinion and you don't clarify it as such and/or fail to provide substantiation of the premise.

I don't believe most big hits come on 3-2 counts. I don't believe the hitter is lost if you get to a 3-2 count. What do I base my opinion on? My personal experience and, absent similar FP softball data, MLB averages by pitch count for 4 recent years as represented on the following website: Baseball Coaching, About Us

I can't verify the validity of the data because I don't know the source but it appears consistent w/ average splits i've seen previously (I used the referenced site because I could easily copy and paste the data from it for view here)

Count 2000 2007 2008 2009
First Pitch .336 .344 .337 .338
1-0 .343 .341 .339 .340
2-0 .360 .350 .355 .368
3-0 xxxx .396 .370 .395
0-1 .324 .324 .339 .317
1-1 .325 .327 .329 .332
2-1 .340 .339 .339 .339
3-1 .344 .368 .350 .352
0-2 .160 .164 .160 .156
1-2 .178 .170 .179 .171
2-2 .195 .191 .194 .189
Full .234 .230 .227 .233

Admittedly, this is average (H/AB) data, rather than "big" or extra base hit data (which i couldn't find easily) but I don't think its a stretch to conclude that more extra base hits result from counts other than 3-2 if only simply because the average is significantly higher in all other counts except other 2-strike counts. And as far as having lost a batter when reaching a 3-2 count, the data clearly show that there are only 3 other counts where the pitcher is more heavily favored.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with my opinion, I don't believe there'd be an arguement that actual data provide valuable insight. I'd love to see similar data specifically for FP, but wouldn't expect it to vary significantly. I could be wrong though.

 

[sluggers]

Green, perhaps you should read the title of the thread and the first post.

The scenario is (1) the umpire has a very tight strike zone and (2) the count is 3-2 on the batter. So, if a pitcher is going to make sure the batter is not walked, the pitcher will have to throw a ball over the white of the plate. Rather than throw the batter a good pitch to hit, the pitcher should nevertheless try to throw a pitch on the corner of the strike zone. If the umpire has a tight strike zone, it is likely the pitch will be called a ball.

In order to encourage the pitcher to pitch at the edge of the zone, Screwby is suggesting that the pitcher consider the batter "lost" already.

Your stats, of course, don't address the size of the umpire's strike zone. So, they really don't have anything to do with the scenario as presented in this thread.

I suspect if the scenario were that the umpire has a large strike zone, Screwby's advice would be different.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Green, perhaps you should read the title of the thread and the first post.

The scenario is (1) the umpire has a very tight strike zone and (2) the count is 3-2 on the batter. So, if a pitcher is going to make sure the batter is not walked, the pitcher will have to throw a ball over the white of the plate. Rather than throw the batter a good pitch to hit, the pitcher should nevertheless try to throw a pitch on the corner of the strike zone. If the umpire has a tight strike zone, it is likely the pitch will be called a ball.

In order to encourage the pitcher to pitch at the edge of the zone, Screwby is suggesting that the pitcher consider the batter "lost" already.

Your stats, of course, don't address the size of the umpire's strike zone. So, they really don't have anything to do with the scenario as presented in this thread.

I suspect if the scenario were that the umpire has a large strike zone, Screwby's advice would be different.

Sluggers - I wasn't disagreeing with Screwbie's advice, just 1) the statement that most "big hits happen most often on the 3-2 count" and 2) the concept or mental approach re a 3-2 count that "The batter was lost already idea: It's the truth (you actually lost them earlier, same as the last play rarely loses the game)"

I won't argue that it would be more useful to have data specific to a) FP b) extra base hits by hitting counts and c) big-zone, little-zone, inconsistent-zone, or in-it-to-make-a-buck-only umpire data, but I provided the best data I could find to explain my thoughts rather than blindly promoting an old wives tale or misrepresenting something as fact when its an unsubstantiated opinion. When the later is done, you end up believing in squishing the bug.

FWIW - This did get me thinking and prompt me to start a new thread re 3-2 counts.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Fine, use your baseball data. It's not MLB baseball. I have seen tons of big hits on 3-2 in person and on TV in softball. For one thing, the top batting averages in college softball are higher than MLB or college baseball. Second, I did not say hit, but big hit, and I did try and locate data, but thats not available. (I am inquiring with a nearby coach to see if he keeps it, but that would be travel.)

I just watched a college game last night, and the biggest hit, a grand slam, came on 3-2, although I don't know whether the zone was tight. This does not mean no big hits are ever given up other times (first pitch), but the 3-2 count (esp. with a small zone) confounds coaches and pitchers because the hitter has new life, so to speak, if she battled back or is fouling off pitches.

Good grief. Look it's a concept for mental approach, not some sort of thing that says if you have 3-2, you will walk them. PLus I am not obsessed with the evil of walks like some posters or hecklers in the stands (or even like Michele Smith). I go easy on my pitchers and would rather them not give up on going after batters rather than grooving a weak pitch down the middle.

I come from a day where the slingshot produced more walks than the windmill. So I know what it's like to be on the mound at 40 feet away trying to win the battle, not just watching from the stands.

FP data would definitely be more relevant and helpful. I'll keep looking too. As far as 3-2 goes, I firmly believe its still a pitcher's count and think we just remember more of the big hits that happen then than in other counts. With today's offense and the ability to score runs, a walk is a far better outcome than grooving it against a middle of the order hitter.

 

[sluggers]

Green...my DD (the D1 pitcher) said that pitching with a 3-2 count against a good hitter is the ultimate battle. The hitter has to foul off good pitches and wait for a mistake by the pitcher. The pitcher has to make one great pitch after another, at the very edge of the zone, and waiting for the hitter to make a mistake. She said its great fun.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Green...my DD (the D1 pitcher) said that pitching with a 3-2 count against a good hitter is the ultimate battle. The hitter has to foul off good pitches and wait for a mistake by the pitcher. The pitcher has to make one great pitch after another, at the very edge of the zone, and waiting for the hitter to make a mistake. She said its great fun.

Absolutely. Does she think she has the advantage in this situation? Actually, its a 2 on 1 advantage for the pitcher because she and her catcher are tag teaming the batter (and if her coach calls the pitch its still a slight 1.01 v. 1 advantage!)

 

[Sweet Lou]

I'm with greenmonsters. All of the MLB studies I've read show that 3-2 is still a pitchers count.

Hitters do best on 0-0, 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 1-1, 2-1, 3-1 - MLB avergaes tend to vary with in the ranges from .315 - .395 from year to year.

Pitchers do best on 0-2, 1-2, 2-2 - MLB averages tend to vary with in the ranges from .150 - .195.

On 3-2 counts it still favors pitcher but not as much as other 2 strike counts with averages ranging from .225 - .240

As for big hits could we use slugging? Sure and that too is higher on 3-2 than other 2 strike count but also lower than any non-2 strike count as well.

I do agree that FP data would be more relevent than MLB data but I suspect the corelation between the two would be quite high.

None of this really surprising. AVE is always going to be lower with 2 strikes becuause the next pitch could be strike 3. This is not the case then the batter does not have 2 strikes. A real good piece I found here

Screwball, I think what you are probably seeing is selection bais and just recalling big hits on 3-2 counts beacuse it is a big pitch that will usually end the AB one way or the other.

And Sluggers you to make a great point about "small strike zone" being the point of the thread. I'm sure averages for batters go up in all counts when the ump has a small strike zone.