Umps calling strikes above batter's head

[_MIA_]

What's harder to do for the pitcher? Make 3 good pitches in a row or 1...

 

[CoachJD]

IMO, most players would be better off being more aggressive in the box. Vlad had more first pitch HRs than Barry Bonds. Rickey Henderson rarely took pitches even as a leadoff hitter. I see too many players allowing the pitcher to get ahead. I rarely see a softball player that is too aggressive. Most hitters are "shopping" for a good pitch and they rarely get one.

Rickey Henderson is second all-time in walks. He took plenty of pitches. We only have two years of Rickey's swing percentages on pitches inside the zone, and it was at the end of his career, but he was at 58.7%. That would put him in the bottom 50 or so if he did that today.

In other words, not only did Rickey take a lot of pitches. Rickey took more pitches IN THE ZONE than almost everybody else.

 

[_MIA_]

Some players simply cant or wont buy in to the yes, yes, yes approach. They will say they understand it, but get called strike one looking way too often.

You can have a Yes-Yes-Yes/No approach with no strikes without expanding your zone..those are two totally separate things. All that means is that you are doing everything the same for every pitch until it is time to pull the trigger...Come on RH, you know that.

 

[CoachJD]

Coach JD, thanks for discussing definitely recognize This conversation comes down to what type of strategy people would like their batters to do in the box.
Agree, There is more than one way to get on base. That said, would never want batters to strike out looking just because they are in disagreement with the Umpires strike zone.
It's okay CoachJD if you don't mind player striking out looking. But I won't support that approach being in the Box.


This question~ once you *know how the Umpire is calling the game, do you want your batters to make adjustment to the Umpire's Strike Zone
yes???? or no????


At the level the op was commenting basically beginner rec ball type stuff, after two or three batters it will be evident what the Umpire strike zone is. Especially if it is enlarged strike zone.

You are making assumptions thinking that learning to hit pitches out of the Zone creates bad hits. What it can do is teach batters that they can hit more then only meat pitches. And it does happen that hits come off of pitches that aren't strikes.


Sure you can teach batters to try and take a walk with an Umpire that has an enlarged Strike Zone area.
** And you can also teach batters to hit pitches that might not otherwise be strikes as they are lobbing in. So they are not striking out looking. Especially when pitches are lobbing in. Would much rather start putting the ball in play then have a walk Festival.
( much different than a pitcher who has control)



Agree learning to have a good eye is important.

However it is not the batters eyes that are calling the game, it is the umpires!

Good chat coachJD...
Have a good season!

I can't figure out how to divide everything up like you did, but to answer your questions.

I don't want batters to strike out because they're in disagreement with the zone, and some players do take too many good pitches. I will get on my hitters if they're watching good pitches go by all day long. But I do not think they should expand their zone to hit awful pitches because a bad umpire might call them strikes.

We have had umpires who call strikes on balls that bounce in front of home plate. I will absolutely not tell my players they should swing at those pitches "because they're strikes today" or whatever. I won't get mad at them if they try it, but that's an unreasonable ask.

I disgree with the premise on knowing how an umpire is calling the game in MOST instances. The sample size is usually just too small to know if those pitches were part of an umpire's zone or if he just missed a couple. I wouldn't even consider asking hitters to change who they are as hitters unless I was certain.

We're also talking about extremes here. Is expanding to a pitch a couple inches off the plate necessarily bad? No. It's not. And some of those pitches are hittable. Not just hittable, but you can hit them well. We have one regular umpire who will consistently call a low strike. It's hittable, but it is below the zone. And I do remind my players of his zone when we have him. But we're talking about pitches coming in over the batter's head. I do think that swinging at those pitches is bad for a hitter. If one of them does it and gets a hit, great. But I'm not gonna expect them to try to hit those.

My big point is that I don't consider the occasional strike out looking, especially on a bad call, to be some mortal sin. The reason why is because 1) an out is an out is an out and 2) I want hitters who have good strike zone judgment, not good current-umpire-mind-reading skills. I know strike outs offend the sensibilities of a lot of people. I also acknowledge that at lower levels especially just putting the ball in play probably means something good will happen. But I'm trying to develop the best possible players I can. I believe a few extra ROE because they "put the ball in play" on some bad pitches because they've been conditioned to be terrified to strike out is worse for their development than the occasional K when they got screwed on a bad call because they really know the strike zone.

 

[CoachJD]

You can have a Yes-Yes-Yes/No approach with no strikes without expanding your zone..those are two totally separate things. All that means is that you are doing everything the same for every pitch until it is time to pull the trigger...Come on RH, you know that.

"Yes Yes Yes/No" also includes looking for certain pitches/locations in different situations. It doesn't literally mean Yes to anything.

If it's the first pitch of the AB, that "No" should include a much bigger area than the "Yes" area. RH definitely understands that.

 

[RADcatcher]

I can't figure out how to divide everything up like you did, but to answer your questions.

I don't want batters to strike out because they're in disagreement with the zone, and some players do take too many good pitches. I will get on my hitters if they're watching good pitches go by all day long. But I do not think they should expand their zone to hit awful pitches because a bad umpire might call them strikes.

We have had umpires who call strikes on balls that bounce in front of home plate. I will absolutely not tell my players they should swing at those pitches "because they're strikes today" or whatever. I won't get mad at them if they try it, but that's an unreasonable ask.

I disgree with the premise on knowing how an umpire is calling the game in MOST instances. The sample size is usually just too small to know if those pitches were part of an umpire's zone or if he just missed a couple. I wouldn't even consider asking hitters to change who they are as hitters unless I was certain.

We're also talking about extremes here. Is expanding to a pitch a couple inches off the plate necessarily bad? No. It's not. And some of those pitches are hittable. Not just hittable, but you can hit them well. We have one regular umpire who will consistently call a low strike. It's hittable, but it is below the zone. And I do remind my players of his zone when we have him. But we're talking about pitches coming in over the batter's head. I do think that swinging at those pitches is bad for a hitter. If one of them does it and gets a hit, great. But I'm not gonna expect them to try to hit those.

My big point is that I don't consider the occasional strike out looking, especially on a bad call, to be some mortal sin. The reason why is because 1) an out is an out is an out and 2) I want hitters who have good strike zone judgment, not good current-umpire-mind-reading skills. I know strike outs offend the sensibilities of a lot of people. I also acknowledge that at lower levels especially just putting the ball in play probably means something good will happen. But I'm trying to develop the best possible players I can. I believe a few extra ROE because they "put the ball in play" on some bad pitches because they've been conditioned to be terrified to strike out is worse for their development than the occasional K when they got screwed on a bad call because they really know the strike zone.

Good read, thanks for responding your perspectives.

 

[Rolling Hard]

"Yes Yes Yes/No" also includes looking for certain pitches/locations in different situations. It doesn't literally mean Yes to anything.

If it's the first pitch of the AB, that "No" should include a much bigger area than the "Yes" area. RH definitely understands that.

If the pitcher has started the first 3 batters with a FB in the river for a called strike one, I want my 4th batter to make an adjustment and hit that first pitch. I do not want to have every batter start 0-1. You cant give good pitchers that advantage. I want to disrupt their game plan.

 

[_MIA_]

If the pitcher has started the first 3 batters with a FB in the river for a called strike one, I want my 4th batter to make an adjustment and hit that first pitch. I do not want to have every batter start 0-1. You cant give good pitchers that advantage. I want to disrupt their game plan.

Why do BA go down with increasing number of strikes, in particular two strikes?

 

[RADcatcher]

If the pitcher has started the first 3 batters with a FB in the river for a called strike one, I want my 4th batter to make an adjustment and hit that first pitch. I do not want to have every batter start 0-1. You cant give good pitchers that advantage. I want to disrupt their game plan.

https://www.parksperformance.net/2020/01/20/hitting-with-two-strikes/#:~:text=Hitting%20with%20two%20strikes%20is,181%2C%203%2D2%3A%20.

Good perspective in this article

 

[_MIA_]

https://www.parksperformance.net/2020/01/20/hitting-with-two-strikes/#:~:text=Hitting%20with%20two%20strikes%20is,181%2C%203%2D2%3A%20.

Good perspective in this article