.580 then .188

[Strike2]

For most, hitting is a skill that takes constant work to maintain. I've always paid as much attention to the quality of contact as outcome. Hit the ball hard as often as possible, and the numbers will reflect that over the long haul. For every line drive caught there will be a mis-hit that finds a hole. A tournament that looked good on paper but wasn't that great from a "hit it hard" perspective got more analysis than the opposite.

Knowing the player is important. Some players, DD included, need game ABs to find their rhythm at the plate. DD still somehow manage to get on base more often than not, but it was a walk, getting hit, or a soft blooper. After a couple of tournaments, she'd start hitting the first or second strike hard more often. Average and slugging percentage always climbed with more ABs.

 

[radness]

Brought up using the measurable tool of game statistics.
Statistics come from games which have elements in it that we don't always have when we're practicing.

At what game stats #'s do people stop fiddling, fudging and changing and adjusting mechanics?

Question to all~
Do you have a batting average that says
>this is good stop fudging with it?!!!

 

[_MIA_]

I can probably hit 1.000 in my son’s coach pitch league….

 

[CoachJD]

Does batting average help dictate anything for you?

It doesn't for me, and not just because I don't put a ton of value in batting average in general.

The sample size for us is too small to learn a lot. The competition varies too much to learn a lot. The girl who is third all-time in batting average for us (keep in mind this is a very short history as our varsity program started in 2017) had an awful, choppy swing I could never fix. But she'd get hits. And she could bunt for hits, which helped her batting average and helped the team, but didn't tell me much about her as a hitter.

And, like I said in the other thread, I don't like the results-based evaluation of whether something is good. Hit = good; no hit = bad. A weak infield hit that caught the 3B back and the P off guard = good. A rocket line drive to the gap that the CF makes a diving play on = bad.

I'm all about data, but I'm not able to track exit velocity and launch angle and all that stuff during games. I can look at the numbers (and I do!), but a lot of it has to be eye test. A lot of it has to be me mentally discounting the game we faced a pitcher who was throwing 35 and my player racked up 5 hits in a blowout.

I might have a different perspective if we played at a very high level or even if all the teams we faced were at a similar level.

 

[Bullseye]

Oooops player made a bad big change.

To get discussion going heres a starting point.
These are #'s to consider toward conversation.

At what point are number stats enough to say this is working let's keep using it.
+.350

At what point make a small tweak is neccesary.
-.250

At what point big change needed.
-.200

Discussion around at some point what works should be continued to gain even better consistency, confidence, strength and speed within it.
Or
Is there a frame of mind that nothing is good enough and it should always be tweaked?

Statistics set goals for our daughters focus on hitting above .300
Slugging percentage is usually greater by atleast .100
Worst thing is when coaches look at one weekend performance and want to change and make adjustments at the next practice instead of focusing on longer-term results. A lot of coaches don't have a good competitive schedule. A weak schedule over inflates true averages.
Our family tends to stay away from weak coaches. For the purpose of having a challenging schedule
If our daughters were hitting .500 all the time we would know we need to be challenged more.

 

[radness]

It doesn't for me, and not just because I don't put a ton of value in batting average in general.

The sample size for us is too small to learn a lot. The competition varies too much to learn a lot. The girl who is third all-time in batting average for us (keep in mind this is a very short history as our varsity program started in 2017) had an awful, choppy swing I could never fix. But she'd get hits. And she could bunt for hits, which helped her batting average and helped the team, but didn't tell me much about her as a hitter.

And, like I said in the other thread, I don't like the results-based evaluation of whether something is good. Hit = good; no hit = bad. A weak infield hit that caught the 3B back and the P off guard = good. A rocket line drive to the gap that the CF makes a diving play on = bad.

I'm all about data, but I'm not able to track exit velocity and launch angle and all that stuff during games. I can look at the numbers (and I do!), but a lot of it has to be eye test. A lot of it has to be me mentally discounting the game we faced a pitcher who was throwing 35 and my player racked up 5 hits in a blowout.

I might have a different perspective if we played at a very high level or even if all the teams we faced were at a similar level.

Thats a good point about sample size.
Would have to accumulate numbers to really show some sort of consistency in stats.