Reynolds wants another crack at 3B

[El Gordo]

I think most pitchers learn to pitch to contact to some degree. As their stuff erodes they don't miss bats as frequently, and in order to go deeper into games and reduce BB's.

[Skeletor]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Please give me an example of a pitcher, other then Palmer, who had success with the strategy of letting the opponent hit the ball.

Mind you I want proof, not hearsay.

There is a reason that the advanced pitching metrics use strikeouts as a determining factor.

Maybe you could point to Mazzone's strategy with Atlanta in the 90s of hammering the low and outside area of the zone?

[El Gordo]

Quote from Gardinhire in this context:

"Use that two-seamer, and use that slider down and in every once in a while, and that changeup, but pitch to contact early,? Gardenhire said. ?That?ll get him deep into games. Because his stuff is so good. There?s times when you need to go for the strikeout.

?That?s when you save your Mr. Nasty, as they say. You throw the nasty pitches then. But those other times you need to pitch to contact to get you deeper into games. When you want that big strikeout, maybe with a man on second, and you?ve got an open base, take your shot with your stuff.?

http://weareoffthemark.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/an-attempt-at-understanding-pitch-to-contact/

[Can_of_corn]

From that same piece

From all these correlations, it appears as though targeting pitch-to-contact pitchers is only a good idea if you’re focusing on those that limit their number of walks. However, there just isn’t a lot of evidence that suggests that sacrificing strikeouts for quicker outs is a good idea. For example, there’s a pitcher’s batting average on balls in play. It’s likely going to be around .300, so allowing hitters more chances to actually put the ball in play is going to mean more baserunners. This is partially supported as the correlation between K/9 and WHIP is -0.3846, so there is a weak-to-moderate negative correlation. If we go further, more baserunners means more hitters to pitch to, which leads to more pitches per inning.

Pitching to contact isn’t necessarily the wrong strategy, it’s just that from this data, I feel that its benefits are being overstated. Like I said in the last paragraph, if a pitcher wants to go deeper into a start, fewer walks are more important than fewer strikeouts. The Twins have definitely had it correct in preaching their pitchers to avoid the walks, but I don’t feel that avoiding the strikeout is as beneficial as the coaching staff believes.

[El Gordo]

From that same piece

I liked the the summary better:

"Pitching to contact isn’t necessarily the wrong strategy, it’s just that from this data, I feel that its benefits are being overstated".

You were saying Palmer is the only example of pitchers who pitch to contact. That article would sseem to incicate that most of the Twins pitchers did, and all were encouraged to. I don't think pitching to contact means the pitcher actively avoids K's, just that he is aggressive with stikes early in the count and if he has a good two seamer, he uses it often early in games.

[Can_of_corn]

I liked the the summary better:

"Pitching to contact isn’t necessarily the wrong strategy, it’s just that from this data, I feel that its benefits are being overstated".

You were saying Palmer is the only example of pitchers who pitch to contact. That article would sseem to incicate that most of the Twins pitchers did, and all were encouraged to. I don't think pitching to contact means the pitcher actively avoids K's, just that he is aggressive with stikes early in the count and if he has a good two seamer, he uses it often early in games.

I am citing Palmer specifically because I have read some data that makes me believe that it was to his advantage to pitch to contact and that, in certain circumstances he did so intentionally.

I have seen no such evidence for other pitchers. The piece you quoted makes a dubious case that the Twins are in fact benefiting from this strategy. My take on the piece is that in the grand scheme of things the Twins approach is a wash.

[mikegallo]

I am citing Palmer specifically because I have read some data that makes me believe that it was to his advantage to pitch to contact and that, in certain circumstances he did so intentionally.

I have seen no such evidence for other pitchers. The piece you quoted makes a dubious case that the Twins are in fact benefiting from this strategy. My take on the piece is that in the grand scheme of things the Twins approach is a wash.

Palmer was able to pitch to contact and have great sucess because he had and all time great D behind him and made a ball in play almost as good as a strike out...

So I would agree with there is almost no situation where it would be better for a pitcher to pitch to contact versus striking guys out.

But if you play for a team like the Rays with a great D it could be possible for a pitcher to pitch to contact instead of strike outs and have more value to his team because of the simple fact that if you can get a guy out in one or two pitchs you can go deeper in the game then the 4 or 5 pitches youll need to strike the guy out.

[REDMAN]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Please give me an example of a pitcher, other then Palmer, who had success with the strategy of letting the opponent hit the ball.

Mind you I want proof, not hearsay.

There is a reason that the advanced pitching metrics use strikeouts as a determining factor.

Do you watch baseball,no pitcher has his A stuff every game,the good pitcher is one who can keep his team in the game with C or D stuff,hence,he has to pitch to contact.

[Can_of_corn]

Do you watch baseball,no pitcher has his A stuff every game,the good pitcher is one who can keep his team in the game with C or D stuff,hence,he has to pitch to contact.

Do you know what "pitching to contact" means? I will give you a clue, it doesn't mean failing to strike people out. A pitcher that doesn't have good command or movement on one or more of his pitches (A stuff) will probably not fair very well pitching to contact as the contact he will induce will be more authoritative then it would otherwise.

[Bradysburns]

Please show me an example of a pitcher, other then Palmer, where a case can be made that they legitimately pitched to contact. A strikeout is almost strictly better then letting a hitter put the ball in play.

Scott Erickson is one obvious example. But almost any sinker-baller with a high ground ball ratio would qualify.

[Bradysburns]

Maybe you could point to Mazzone's strategy with Atlanta in the 90s of hammering the low and outside area of the zone?

Jimmy Key was another perfect example. He dared you to hit the low and outside strike on the corner (to righties).

[Bradysburns]

I liked the the summary better:

"Pitching to contact isn?t necessarily the wrong strategy, it?s just that from this data, I feel that its benefits are being overstated".

You were saying Palmer is the only example of pitchers who pitch to contact. That article would sseem to incicate that most of the Twins pitchers did, and all were encouraged to. I don't think pitching to contact means the pitcher actively avoids K's, just that he is aggressive with stikes early in the count and if he has a good two seamer, he uses it often early in games.

This is good and valuable information, because it does have a bearing on how important defense is - and what Reynolds' subpar defense could mean to this pitching staff. To me, "pitching to contact" doesn't mean NOT trying to strike people out. More to the point, it means going after the strike zone... pitching confidently. It means, in essence, not nibbling. It means NOT trying to avoid contact (possibly because you don't have 100% confidence in your infield defense).

You often see pitchers work at a brisk pace. I don't think they're trying to figure out how to miss bats. I think they're making their pitches - and if the hitter is dumb enough to swing at a pitcher's pitch in the zone, that hitter will likely top the ball to an infielder. What you are suggesting is that every single "pitcher's pitch" is intended as a strike - and I don't believe that's true. I think pitchers often TRY to induce double-play grounders by throwing sinkers, or staying low and away, etc. I'm thinking it must be harder to pitch that way confidently if you have a shaky defense behind you. And for a young pitcher, confidence is critically important.

[Can_of_corn]

Scott Erickson is one obvious example. But almost any sinker-baller with a high ground ball ratio would qualify.

I mean actual proof that it was by design. With Palmer I have seen the stats that show he would ramp up his performance when in high leverage situations. Erickson being successful despite a pedestrian K rate is not the same thing.

[Lucky Jim]

I mean actual proof that it was by design. With Palmer I have seen the stats that show he would ramp up his performance when in high leverage situations. Erickson being successful despite a pedestrian K rate is not the same thing.

Erickson is a great example of why getting swings and misses is important. Look at the huge variability in performance, and identify the peripherals that seem to correlate:

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=137&position=P

[REDMAN]

You take stats to far,all pitchers try to get hitters from centering their pitches,it as simple as that.In the orioles case they just do a p**s poor job of doing it.I played the game for twenty years,mostly as a catcher,and watched every oriole game for the last 40 years and every pitcher has to pitch to contact.