Dusty Wants Reds to Swing Away

[66-70-83-??]

Double plays and weak ground balls are a huge factor. Rob Deer used to ground into a good, consistent three double plays a year even though he was Geronimo Gil fast. Jack Cust has grounded into 9 DPs in 600+ PAs while someone like Cal, who made more contact, used to ground into 20+ a year. Jason Giambi hasn't grounded into 10 DPs in a year since '02. Russell Branyan, Mark Bellhorn, and Ryan Howard have career GIDP numbers that aren't far from a good season from Cal or Jim Rice (who started to make a lot more contact as he aged, and grounded into 30+ DPs a year).

The difference between 10 GIDPs and 30 in 600 PAs is effectively 30 points of OBP. And it's even more damaging than a single out because almost all of those killed an inning by themselves.

And we haven't even talked about he cost in walks from swinging at likely balls.

But it works both ways.

What about the cost in strikeouts from not swinging at a called third strike?

You can't assume that the result of not swinging at a close pitch is a walk.

You also can't assume that the hitter will always "tattoo" a pitch that they think they can "tattoo".

You can preach "aggressiveness" or "patience" at the plate.

It is about being smart.

Being too patient is just as bad, or worse, than being too aggressive.

[RShack]

With less than 2 strikes, I think it's fine to not swing pitches that aren't where you want them, even if they are a strike. Nothing wrong with that. Better to take a maybe-strike and hope the next pitch is one you can hit better.

But taking a borderline pitch with 2 strikes is different. If it's not exactly where you want it, so what? If it's a strike, you're done. There is no "next pitch" to hit. So, with 2 strikes the rules change. It comes down to how good your eye is and how good you think the ump's eye is. Taking a 3rd strike just because it's not where you want it is a great way to find yourself walking back to the dugout.

[DrungoHazewood]

With less than 2 strikes, I think it's fine to not swing pitches that aren't where you want them, even if they are a strike. Nothing wrong with that. Better to take a maybe-strike and hope the next pitch is one you can hit better.

But taking a borderline pitch with 2 strikes is different. If it's not exactly where you want it, so what? If it's a strike, you're done. There is no "next pitch" to hit. So, with 2 strikes the rules change. It comes down to how good your eye is and how good you think the ump's eye is. Taking a 3rd strike just because it's not where you want it is a great way to find yourself walking back to the dugout.

A strikeout is always one out. Well, except for botched hit-and-runs and other odd occurrences, but almost always one out.

Tapping the ball to the infield on a pitch four inches off the plate with runners on is often two outs.

Taking a close pitch with two strikes is sometimes a strikeout. But it's also sometimes a way to extend the at bat and get a better pitch to hit or work a walk.

Automatically swinging at anything close with two strikes is no guarantee of a better outcome than taking a close pitch, and sometimes it's worse.

[DrungoHazewood]

I read an article a week or two ago, don't remember where, about "action bias". The concept is that there's a natural human tendency to favor those who take action, and a bias against those who are seen as being passive. It applies to politics, it applies to business, it applies to a lot of fields. Certainly sports. And it's relatively free from the influence of actual results or any cost/benefit analysis of action versus inaction.

In baseball I think the swing away/walk debate is its most obvious manifestation.

[66-70-83-??]

I read an article a week or two ago, don't remember where, about "action bias". The concept is that there's a natural human tendency to favor those who take action, and a bias against those who are seen as being passive. It applies to politics, it applies to business, it applies to a lot of fields. Certainly sports. And it's relatively free from the influence of actual results or any cost/benefit analysis of action versus inaction.

In baseball I think the swing away/walk debate is its most obvious manifestation.

Than, to be really safe- perhaps the batter should leave the bat on the on-deck circle until he has two strikes. One- he won't accidentily ruin the chance for a walk until he may have too. Two- he will save some energy because he won't have to hold up his 33 oz bat so many times.

Swinging a bat is a violent action. You want to hit the ball as hard as you can. I find it hard to go to bat, and would never teach my kids, to go up there and be passive. I want them in the mindset that they are ready to violently mash the ball, not "umm, well, if I have to swing, I guess I will". I want them swinging at good pitches. The first pitch might be *the* pitch.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Than, to be really safe- perhaps the batter should leave the bat on the on-deck circle until he has two strikes. One- he won't accidentily ruin the chance for a walk until he may have too. Two- he will save some energy because he won't have to hold up his 33 oz bat so many times.

Swinging a bat is a violent action. You want to hit the ball as hard as you can. I find it hard to go to bat, and would never teach my kids, to go up there and be passive. I want them in the mindset that they are ready to violently mash the ball, not "umm, well, if I have to swing, I guess I will". I want them swinging at good pitches. The first pitch might be *the* pitch.

And who has said you shouldn't swing at GOOD pitches?

[66-70-83-??]

And who has said you shouldn't swing at GOOD pitches?

Are you serious?

That was worthy of cherry picking?

You could have just as easily cherry picked Drungo for saying-

Maybe in Little League this is fine, when umps are terrible and fielders worse. But in any kind of a quality league swinging at junk to avoid Ks is a terrible strategy

But, you didn't.

I wonder why.

Come back when you want to *add* something to the debate.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Are you serious?

That was worthy of cherry picking?

You could have just as easily cherry picked Drungo for saying-

But, you didn't.

I wonder why.

Come back when you want to *add* something to the debate.

Well, I could have picked the part about leaving the bat in the on-deck circle, but something like that shouldn't be repeated.

What is a good pitch? Is a pitch two inches outside the strike zone a good pitch? You sound like people are talking about a "Casey At The Bat", "That ain't my style," situation of just watching pitches go by.

[66-70-83-??]

Well, I could have picked the part about leaving the bat in the on-deck circle, but something like that shouldn't be repeated.

What is a good pitch? Is a pitch two inches outside the strike zone a good pitch? You sound like people are talking about a "Casey At The Bat", "That ain't my style," situation of just watching pitches go by.

"Something like that shouldn't be repeated". Give me a break.

So the " " and the ":o " didn't give it away that it wasn't meant to be serious?

[AlBumbry]

A strikeout is always one out. Well, except for botched hit-and-runs and other odd occurrences, but almost always one out.

Tapping the ball to the infield on a pitch four inches off the plate with runners on is often two outs.

Taking a close pitch with two strikes is sometimes a strikeout. But it's also sometimes a way to extend the at bat and get a better pitch to hit or work a walk.

Automatically swinging at anything close with two strikes is no guarantee of a better outcome than taking a close pitch, and sometimes it's worse.

You seem to have placed an overwhelming assumption that the majority of time, swinging at a borderline pitch will lead to a weak groundball which will in turn lead to a double play?

Of course that weak ground ball could also:

- lead to a weak ground ball that serves as a well placed bunt

- be a weak ground ball that is hit slowly enough that it advances the presumed runner you have placed on first

- be a weak ground ball that leads to a fielders choice

- be a weak ground ball that leads to an error

- actually be hit fairly solidly and be a hit

Or taken

- could be a called strike 3 (always an out)

- be ball 4 and be a walk

- be ball 3, 2, 1 and lead to another pitch

You have assumed (or I have inferred that you assumed) that said pitch is always a ball, but I think it would be better to assume that at least 50% of the "close" pitches would be strikes, or at least called strikes.

Seems to me out of all of the options above, there's a lot more that have potentially greater or equal potential of good things when you swing than when you don't.

[TyCobb]

A strikeout is always one out. Well, except for botched hit-and-runs and other odd occurrences, but almost always one out.

Tapping the ball to the infield on a pitch four inches off the plate with runners on is often two outs.

Taking a close pitch with two strikes is sometimes a strikeout. But it's also sometimes a way to extend the at bat and get a better pitch to hit or work a walk.

Automatically swinging at anything close with two strikes is no guarantee of a better outcome than taking a close pitch, and sometimes it's worse.

That really isn't true. The ball has to be hit pretty hard or right at a fielder for a DP to occur. A ball that is "tapped" will generally just be one out.

A hitter goes into the batters box with a hit-zone smaller than the umps strike-zone (for good hitters anyway). That hit-zone stays the same size until 2 strikes are called. Once a batter has 2 strikes he has to expand his hit-zone to the size of the strike zone.

[Why Not?]

The correlation between seeing a high number of pitches and scoring runs is well-established, as is the opposite.....hacking at the plate equals outs, which equals fewer runs.

[byrdz]

I read an article a week or two ago, don't remember where, about "action bias". The concept is that there's a natural human tendency to favor those who take action, and a bias against those who are seen as being passive. It applies to politics, it applies to business, it applies to a lot of fields. Certainly sports. And it's relatively free from the influence of actual results or any cost/benefit analysis of action versus inaction.

In baseball I think the swing away/walk debate is its most obvious manifestation.

Sorry to digress even more but I read something similar that is kind of a funny subject matter and that's neat people over messy people. As in, keeping your desk clean at work versus someone who has papers laying around everywhere. For the record, I'm a neat freak, it's been in my blood from day one. Who do you think they found were the most productive of the two?

By the way, this debate is making me have flashbacks of Markakis' AB last season when he was down 0-2 in the count and battled back to take walk on almost all borderline pitches, it was pretty amazing to watch. Maybe he does this a lot I don't know but I think this all has to do with the quality of hitter you have at the plate as to which approach you take, that's just an opinion. Vlad is awesome at hacking at pitches out of the zone and makes it happen, not everyone can do that, that's just one extreme example can think of.

[Mad Mark]

I did read the article, and I don't disagree with not taking called third strikes as a strategy. Nor do I disagree with swinging at your pitch when you get it. In fact, I don't really disagree with anything Baker says in there at all. I just like to make fun of Dusty Baker.

In all seriousness, while I can't disagree with what he's saying, there's sort of an implication (supported by his past history) in what he's saying that I do have to disagree with, which is swing the dang bat and put the ball in play all the time, because walks are selfish and stupid.

Well, if strikeouts are fascist, walks being selfish and stupid seems about right, doesn't it?

[orayole]

Sorry to digress even more but I read something similar that is kind of a funny subject matter and that's neat people over messy people. As in, keeping your desk clean at work versus someone who has papers laying around everywhere. For the record, I'm a neat freak, it's been in my blood from day one. Who do you think they found were the most productive of the two?

The messy person. If you are taking time to organize your stuff you are wasting time.