Trying to mmeasure hitter aggressiveness

[Doug Romrell]

I have several hitters that seem to get the "deer in the headlights" syndrome when they're behind in the count. I'm not quite sure what is causing it.

I like the hit-ball-fair pct because I see it as a stat that indicated aggressiveness. It's a sort of makes-contact percentage relative to those who struggle with making contact.

 

[chinamigarden]

I'm wondering what one does with the knowledge of a kid being aggressive or not?

 

[Rocketech1]

I make sure to practice fouling off pitches well outside the zone regularly in the cages. A coach can't expect a kid to do something they don't practice. -W

With all due respect, I believe this is a fallacy that batters can intentionally and regularly foul off pitches with two strikes, waiting for a good pitch to hit. Do some batters have good, quality at bats where multiple times they will foul off pitches, yes, but I never think it is done on purpose. They are protecting the plate and with two strikes have to expand their hitting zone resulting in swinging at pitches outside the strike zone and foul balls will happen.

 

[canyonjoe]

I'm a little confused about the measurement? Is it a good thing to be the most aggressive hitter?

 

[RetiredCoach]

I really think that this statistic is not so useful. I suspect that Ted Williams, with all the walks he has taken in his career, would
not be listed as an aggressive hitter via this stat is spite of his very high lifetime career batting average and over 500 career
homeruns. All the great ones looked for a good pitch to hit first and foremost.

 

[CoogansBluff]

I like the hit-ball-fair pct because I see it as a stat that indicated aggressiveness. It's a sort of makes-contact percentage relative to those who struggle with making contact.

I like to monitor the stat, but I'm not always sure what to make of it. I don't think that every player should strive to minimize strikeouts because that could lead to fewer walks or extra-base hits, or fewer hits in general. I suspect it has to be put in the context of what else the hitter is capable of doing doing. I've got two friends who like to tell me that their DD's have the best in-play percentage on their teams, and they talk about other girls who strike out a ton. But both of their daughters went the whole season without an extra-base hit, and neither walked very much. So it might be worth it to be more patient, risk more strikeouts, but get better pitches to hit. I don't know. I know that my daughter's in-play PCT has declined as her overall hitting has increased. However, she swings at the first pitch way more than anybody else and almost never walks, which isn't so good. But would being patient drive her SO's even higher?

 

[RetiredCoach]

I believe that the best statistic to rank hitters on is On Base Average plus slugging percentage. This takes
both how often they get on base with, basically, how hard they hit the ball. These are the two most important
indicators of offensive capability. Of course, this does not take into account base running and a few other relatively
minor components.

 

[CoogansBluff]

I believe that the best statistic to rank hitters on is On Base Average plus slugging percentage.

I agree. That's my favorite single stat to measure production as a hitter.

Although I've found that the best statistic for most parents is the one that puts their daughter in the best light. Both parents that I referenced above, those that cite ball-in-play percentage, measure hitters based on batting average. I've seen the stats for those teams, and I see one girl who is not that highly respected because she only hits .280 and strikes out a lot. But she's in the top three in extra-base hits and walks. She's more effective than the .350 hitter who never strikes out but also never walks and never hits the ball in the gap.

 

[starsnuffer]

If it's well outside the zone, why would you want to foul that off? Why not take it for a ball?

I don't believe in trying to foul balls off. But I've never had a team practice it and attempt it, so don't know if I can judge that.

Good pitchers expand the zone quite a bit to the outside. I've noticed that girls, especially girls that can hit hard, love the outside pitches, and will continually try to hit the ball to right center to center, resulting in fly balls for outs. . . . over and over again. Sure, a ball way outside the zone shouldn't be swung at, but questionable pitches should be swung at and fouled off with 2 strikes. I've noticed a great deal of improvement in doing this after teaching the kids to foul pitches off on the outside corner of the plate. If the batter can get the pitcher to come inside just two more inches on the next pitch, the chances for the batter to hit the ball hard go up a great deal. This is just patience and gamesmanship. It's the battle between the pitcher and the batter. The batter will win every time IF they can be patient, because the coach of the pitcher has other things to worry about then just one at bat, and will start calling pitches to save pitch count or to try to get a playable hit instead of trying to beat the batter.

-W

 

[RetiredCoach]

That is soooo true! For me, since both my daughters lead their respective teams in this category, it is
On Base Percentage. My daughters are selective and, in some situations, too selective. They very often
take the first pitch which if it is a ball or a marginal strike it is best to let it go. However, if it is a pitch
that they can hit hard, I coach them that you should be swinging.

The other situation is when they have two strikes on them. If they strike out looking I'll ask them why they
didn't swing? They usually say because the ball was out of the strike zone. Quite often I agree with them.
However, when you have two strikes you've got to swing at anything close.