- Jan 1, 2023
- 137
- 28
I feel like there is an intangible aspect that makes pitchers successful not related to speed, accuracy, or the type of pitches they throw. 
‍♂
‍♂
One of the hardest parts of coaching pitchers
- Thread starter Hillhouse
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
- Aug 21, 2008
- 2,383
- 113
very well said. There's a few things that even the very best pitching coach cannot teach. One of them is size. Obviously nobody can teach a girl to be 6'1 with big hands and long fingers (Cat Osterman). Another thing is the killer instinct. All great pitchers have one thing in common, it's that killer instinct or internal drive. Personally, I'm not smart enough to know how to teach that. But, when I have a kid whom I see has all the tools physically, and shows me that she has that instinct and intensity, I refer them to a Sports psychologist that I work with here who leads the way with the mental stuff. They need to learn that inner balance of saying: OK, this girl is a good riseball hitter? Lets see her hit MY riseball!!!! balanced with not being baited into pitching to a hitter's strength just out of ego. The line between is very slim but it's there.I feel like there is an intangible aspect that makes pitchers successful not related to speed, accuracy, or the type of pitches they throw.
Gotta keep that back shoulder hidden!!
It amazes me how many members HERE will claim their 12U (or even 14U) has/had four pitches and some variations of each. I really think there are a ton of people who don't know the massive difference in landing a pitch 40% of the time vs 60-80% of the time...and also the difference between landing those pitches in a lesson vs a game...nd the simple fact that a pitch that is called and results in a strike didn't necessarily show up to the plate with the desired location or movement. Almost no one can confirm what the pitch actually did. I would go so far as to say the majority of catchers of average skill can't even identify half the pitches thrown their way.
And my god, I can't tell you how many high fastballs I've seen called rise balls, and when a 50mph pitcher throws a 32mph rainbow changeup and a weak hitter falls for it, and spectators are like "that change-up is NASTY." Any decent hitter sends that rainbow 250ft.
So your standard is unless a player can land a pitch 60-80% of the time with the correct spin and location they can't really claim they throw that pitch? Do we require that it also has a certain amount of break? And a minimum velocity?
Should we make these DFP official rules?
So your standard is unless a player can land a pitch 60-80% of the time with the correct spin and location they can't really claim they throw that pitch? Do we require that it also has a certain amount of break? And a minimum velocity?
Should we make these DFP official rules?
Throwing 60% strikes will usually get a pitcher through a game without a ton of walks. 50% usually will not.
Why would anyone claim they "have" a pitch if they can only land it 4 or 5 times out of 10?
There's "knows how to throw it" and there's "has command of it."
But that 60% logic assumes a strike is the target. Many pitches a strike isn't the target, but doesn't mean hitter won't swing at it.
If pitcher throws a drop that moves downward how does the hitter know if the target was below the zone, at bottom of zone, or breaking from the top down to the middle? They don't and all three can get the hitter out even though 2/3 didn't hit the intended spot.
My point is this idea pitchers need to be able to throw a pitch to break a certain amount to a certain spot the majority of time is a real fallacy. The reality is the pitcher needs to be able to get hitters out.
If 20% of my curves to outside corner don't break and end up right down the middle that is an issue. If 50% of them also drop or rise to the corner instead of breaking to the exact spot I intended then more than likely it isn't big problem.
- Jan 1, 2023
- 137
- 28
I don’t know why the idea of a pitch variant for a 14-u player is crazy. It might not be initially on purpose, but whatever is done in a game can be trained and later be replicated with intent.
Here’s a video of my DD’s change-up and her variant curve change. Note this video includes her pitching against the team that finished 3rd at PGF Nationals and the team that finished 3rd at Alliance Nationals, so hopefully they have girls that can hit. Both were 2-1 games.
And then her working on the two change-up variations at a lesson.
Players got to start hitting a pitch at some percentage and it isn’t going start at 80%. If that’s the definition, my DD has 0 pitches and none of the girls on her team do either, yet somehow the staff pitched their way to 2 PGF Super Select Final games this fall.
No disrespect intended, but you've made this way more complex than what I'm saying. I don't care about angles or arcs or spin rates or any other minutae. We're still talking basics here.
These pitches have names because of what they do. Drop, curve, change, etc. Even a screwball, whuch is just a fancy inside fastball, still has to be thrown from and outside landing position with an inside arm angle.
A pitcher needs to be able to make their pitches live up to the name on at least a basic level 60% or more of the time. 60% strikes can be had in any capacity. Bad hitting or great pitching. The number still shakes out to 60% or better. Just a basic fastball over the plate. Other than when up in the count with a sizable lead, why would we use any other pitch if it can't be commanded on a basic level?
60% is what I like. If shes trying stuff when up in the count with a lead that's fine. If she's trying it at less safe times and it works, that's luck, and luck is a great thing to have.
If she comes up with an accidental frankenpitch, that's great. Can she repeat it and throw it 60% in a lesson or bullpen? Sweet. She "has" it. Put it on the wristband.
