Should coaches or catchers call pitches?

[JayW]

This conversation will never go anywhere. It’s just a matter of semantics. Anyone can define skill any way they want. And people will keep calling pitches any way they please. What’s the point?

 

[GunnerShotgun]

I happen to disagree with his definition of a skill because under his definition most athletic endeavors, which we consider skills, wouldn't be. Some track and field events (controlled environment for the most part) might be the only sports that would qualify as having outcomes based purely upon (his definition) of skills (of course one could argue that athletic ability is not a skill either..)...and that is probably questionable as well.

Hitting is a skill. I can communicate to you on mechanics and perhaps a mental approach on how to hit but I can't assist with the physical portion of hitting. I have little influence on you hitting a homerun in any given at bat.

Pitch calling is not a skill. If you came to my next game and I equipped you with the same information (pitchers main pitches, batter spray charts, umpires tendencies) that I had you would be equally effective as I was at calling pitches. My random is not better than your random.

 

[_MIA_]

This conversation will never go anywhere. It’s just a matter of semantics. Anyone can define skill any way they want. And people will keep calling pitches any way they please. What’s the point?

a) The original question posed was a valid one though, regardless of how you qualify pitch calling.
b) If the requirement that in order for a conversation to be legitimate on here, it has to change anyone's mind,
then 90 % of the conversations wouldn't qualify.

 

[JayW]

Hitting is a skill. I can communicate to you on mechanics and perhaps a mental approach on how to hit but I can't assist with the physical portion of hitting. I have little influence on you hitting a homerun in any given at bat.

Pitch calling is not a skill. If you came to my next game and I equipped you with the same information (pitchers main pitches, batter spray charts, umpires tendencies) that I had you would be equally effective as I was at calling pitches. My random is not better than your random.

Ok .

 

[_MIA_]

Pitch calling is not a skill. If you came to my next game and I equipped you with the same information (pitchers main pitches, batter spray charts, umpires tendencies) that I had you would be equally effective as I was at calling pitches. My random is not better than your random.

So no in-game adjustments based upon what you are seeing from the pitchers and hitters, the particular game situation, etc? In that case you could map out the pitch sequence for every hitter (based upon the count) before the game, right? One could argue that the adjustments could be made in an algorithmic manner as well (if indeed you do make adjustments) I suppose but in lieu of that ability the person calling the pitches has to use their brain to process the information he/she is receiving and you would be better at that than my 3 YO due to repetition, training, etc. just like one becomes a better hitter through repetition (find out what works, what doesn't etc), training, etc.

For (a simplistic) example, bottom of 7th, tie game, girl on third with 1 out. Would my 3 YO know that we want to try execute pitches to induce a GB? Note I am not saying that pitch calling is a difficult skill to attain (eg in this example anybody with half a brain would know this so maybe 10% of the 14U coaches around here..)..

 

[Fury_Mike]

You are missing what I said. I said “most” 14 and unders have two pitches. That’s a fact. Then I immediately mentioned location. Given what I said and not what you said l said, I say stick with catcher deciding calling pitches and location. A good coach will be able to prepare their catcher for that.

Now given what you said, we are talking a different level of game and pitcher and opponent and I think your analysis nails it. I believe a coach is in a far more advantageous position behind the fence to call the pitches because of almost everything you mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough!

 

[Fury_Mike]

Of course in the real world no one calls pitches in a vacuum so you almost always have some data available. Using data to leverage an outcome is not a skill.

It’s not using data that’s the skill, it’s your ability to interpret the data that is the skill, and that’s a combination of knowledge, vantage point, and experience

 

[Fury_Mike]

I use on my team and it's the same approach that others have mentioned, which is a combination of coach, pitcher and catcher working together as one.

This conversation hasn't moved me to change that.

I figured you use a random system…

 

[Rick M]

In defense of “random”…

You see MLB hitters guessing at what’s coming all the time. They know the situation, they know the pitcher’s repertoire, they know their own tendencies. They’ve stood in the batter’s box a thousand times in the same spot, but they guess wrong all the time and often look foolish when they do.

Why? Because the pitcher threw something unexpected. Something random. If there is, in fact, a ‘correct’ pitch to throw in a given situation, calling that pitch against a good hitter (who knows what the correct pitch would be) is a bad idea.

Ever try to play chess with a total novice? It’s hard, because you have no idea what they’re going to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eric F]

As far as I can tell, his only argument is that it is not a skill (based upon his definition) which really only matters if you take pride in having this skill. I don't see him saying that it shouldn't be done (pitch calling..by anybody) based upon the conditions (eg having "data") that many/most operate under.

I happen to disagree with his definition of a skill because under his definition most athletic endeavors, which we consider skills, wouldn't be. Some track and field events (controlled environment for the most part) might be the only sports that would qualify as having outcomes based purely upon (his definition) of skills (of course one could argue that athletic ability is not a skill either..)...and that is probably questionable as well.

I guess it comes down to how you define what a "skill" is. To me, a skill is something that can be improved with practice/experience/training. This isn't limited to physical/athletic endeavors.