Don't Swing 'Til You Gotta

[Edgy MD]

I was at my wife's piano recital today, so I didn't get to participate much in thread. I followed along by phone, though, and I laughed and laughed and cried and laughed again.

Yesterday, the Mets were rallying for a ninth-inning comeback. One out and the bases were loaded, J.D. Martinez swung, put the ball in play, and the game was quickly over on a ground-ball double-play.

Today, the Mets were rallying for a ninth-inning comeback. NONE out and the bases were loaded. There we go again, BUT ... on a 2-2 cutter down by the his shoe tops, Francisco Lindor swung and missed for strike three. At least he had the wisdom or what have you to take strike one, but strike three was a chase, but hey, he had two strikes and presumably did what he could. And he didn't hit into a double-play!

But there we were again. One out and the bases were loaded. Pete Alonso was up this time, fortunately with J.D. two batters away. Alonso DID swing at the first strike he saw, foolishly enough, but rather than grounding into an inning-ending double play, he fouled it off. He didn't chase anything out of the strike zone, though, and so was fortunate and skillful enough to STILL BE ALIVE when he got hit by a 2-2 cutter.

The Mets scored the go-ahead run, by NOT swinging.

Brandon Nimmo kept the damned bat on his shoulder for all three strikes. Useless, huh? NO! IT WASN'T! For you can't hit into a double play if you don't swing, so even though he struck out looking, he was still alive when José Alvarado and J.T. Realmuto conspired to let a pitch get away, allowing another run to score.

The Mets went up by two runs — and this second run was the ultimate margin of victory — again by NOT swinging.

J.D. Martinez then came up again. The need to stop swinging wasn't as urgent, because first base was open with two outs, so the double-play was totally not in order. So, I'm not going to give J.D. grief for swinging at the first pitch he saw, but he did and he grounded out.

But it was not swinging — at least until they had to — that won this game for the Mets. And that's what I'm saying. Aggressively taking is the skill they have been lacking. They had a guy who threw 99-100 up there with the bases loaded and no out in a tie game. Letting the pressure be on him and forcing him to throw strikes was the way to go.

And that's got to be the strategy. Don't swing until you gotta. Especially in the middle of a rally. This "Three and oh may be the only pitch to hit" garbage is killing them. Make the opponent throw strikes. Make the opponent throw every pitch possible. With everybody on a pitch count and teams insanely protective of the amount of usage each of their pitchers sees, every game is a war of attrition. Every inning is a battle in that war. Ever batter is an engagement.

The takeaway from baseball organizations in Moneyball was to try to be an early adopter with the next revolution. Shifts or launch angles or whatever. What they failed to realize is that they never maximized the advantages of the original Moneyball revolution. Take pitches, avoid outs, get on base, and runs will add up in given time.

When facing a monster throwing the ball through walls at 100 mph, but not hitting his targets, it's totally the way to be.

Somebody did manage to end the game and ruin his team's comeback by swinging at a pitch outside the strikezone and hitting into a double-play, but fortunately, it was Nick Castellanos, and not anybody on the Mets.

So please, Mets, try not to swing until you gotta. It's not swinging that spared you the embarrassment of leaving the E.U. without a win.

Sorry about the long post, if you read this far. I probably should have paid more attention to the piano recital.

[cal sharpie]

I was in southwestern Minnesota for the missus’ family reunion. I had a flight this morning from Sioux Falls, SD to Chicago O’Hare before transferring to another flight to LaGuardia. We took off from Sioux Falls with the Mets down 3-0. I can’t follow the game in-flight. The plane lands just as the top of the 9th ends. While standing in the aisle waiting to deplane I’m following the scary bottom of the 9th. I deplane and am standing just outside the gate when I learn of the dramatic ending. I’m pretty sure I let out some kind of whoop while surrounded by passengers running around O’Hare. Not a piano recital but still…

Also, yes, don’t swing unless you gotta.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Also, yes, don’t swing unless you gotta.

This requires a heckuva lot of qualifiying and explaining. But the post right above yours and reproduced below is total batshit crazy straitjacket worthy insanity talk with a dose of electroshock therapy perhaps needed to fix it.

Yesterday, the Mets were rallying for a ninth-inning comeback. One out and the bases were loaded, J.D. Martinez swung, put the ball in play, and the game was quickly over on a ground-ball double-play.

Today, the Mets were rallying for a ninth-inning comeback. NONE out and the bases were loaded. There we go again, BUT ... on a 2-2 cutter down by the his shoe tops, Francisco Lindor swung and missed for strike three. At least he had the wisdom or what have you to take strike one, but strike three was a chase, but hey, he had two strikes and presumably did what he could. And he didn't hit into a double-play!

But there we were again. One out and the bases were loaded. Pete Alonso was up this time, fortunately with J.D. two batters away. Alonso DID swing at the first strike he saw, foolishly enough, but rather than grounding into an inning-ending double play, he fouled it off. He didn't chase anything out of the strike zone, though, and so was fortunate and skillful enough to STILL BE ALIVE when he got hit by a 2-2 cutter.

The Mets scored the go-ahead run, by NOT swinging.

Brandon Nimmo kept the damned bat on his shoulder for all three strikes. Useless, huh? NO! IT WASN'T! For you can't hit into a double play if you don't swing, so even though he struck out looking, he was still alive when José Alvarado and J.T. Realmuto conspired to let a pitch get away, allowing another run to score.

The Mets went up by two runs — and this second run was the ultimate margin of victory — again by NOT swinging.

J.D. Martinez then came up again. The need to stop swinging wasn't as urgent, because first base was open with two outs, so the double-play was totally not in order. So, I'm not going to give J.D. grief for swinging at the first pitch he saw, but he did and he grounded out.

But it was not swinging — at least until they had to — that won this game for the Mets. And that's what I'm saying. Aggressively taking is the skill they have been lacking. They had a guy who threw 99-100 up there with the bases loaded and no out in a tie game. Letting the pressure be on him and forcing him to throw strikes was the way to go.

And that's got to be the strategy. Don't swing until you gotta. Especially in the middle of a rally. This "Three and oh may be the only pitch to hit" garbage is killing them. Make the opponent throw strikes. Make the opponent throw every pitch possible. With everybody on a pitch count and teams insanely protective of the amount of usage each of their pitchers sees, every game is a war of attrition. Every inning is a battle in that war. Ever batter is an engagement.

The takeaway from baseball organizations in Moneyball was to try to be an early adopter with the next revolution. Shifts or launch angles or whatever. What they failed to realize is that they never maximized the advantages of the original Moneyball revolution. Take pitches, avoid outs, get on base, and runs will add up in given time.

When facing a monster throwing the ball through walls at 100 mph, but not hitting his targets, it's totally the way to be.

Somebody did manage to end the game and ruin his team's comeback by swinging at a pitch outside the strikezone and hitting into a double-play, but fortunately, it was Nick Castellanos, and not anybody on the Mets.

So please, Mets, try not to swing until you gotta. It's not swinging that spared you the embarrassment of leaving the E.U. without a win.

[Fman99]

Aggressively taking is the skill they have been lacking. They had a guy who threw 99-100 up there with the bases loaded and no out in a tie game. Letting the pressure be on him and forcing him to throw strikes was the way to go.

And that's got to be the strategy. Don't swing until you gotta. Especially in the middle of a rally. This "Three and oh may be the only pitch to hit" garbage is killing them. Make the opponent throw strikes. Make the opponent throw every pitch possible. With everybody on a pitch count and teams insanely protective of the amount of usage each of their pitchers sees, every game is a war of attrition. Every inning is a battle in that war. Ever batter is an engagement.

I agree with every bit of this. I am watching less Mets baseball than I have in a long time and a big part of it is that I find their continued collective approach at the plate utterly baffling and maddening.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Aggressively taking is the skill they have been lacking. They had a guy who threw 99-100 up there with the bases loaded and no out in a tie game. Letting the pressure be on him and forcing him to throw strikes was the way to go.

And that's got to be the strategy. Don't swing until you gotta. Especially in the middle of a rally. This "Three and oh may be the only pitch to hit" garbage is killing them. Make the opponent throw strikes. Make the opponent throw every pitch possible. With everybody on a pitch count and teams insanely protective of the amount of usage each of their pitchers sees, every game is a war of attrition. Every inning is a battle in that war. Ever batter is an engagement.

I agree with every bit of this. I am watching less Mets baseball than I have in a long time and a big part of it is that I find their continued collective approach at the plate utterly baffling and maddening.

If you're griping about a batter's pitch selection or swinging at bad pitches, well that's a gripe that makes a whole lotta sense. But that's not even remotely what the first post is getting at.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I wanted to address this persistent idea of yours that when his team is behind, a batter should take the first strike. Sight unseen. According to you, the batter, with no strikes, should decide to take a pitch before that pitch is even thrown.

It came up again here:

Francisco Lindor swung and missed for strike three. At least he had the wisdom or what have you to take strike one....

and again here:

Brandon Nimmo kept the damned bat on his shoulder for all three strikes. Useless, huh? NO! IT WASN'T! For you can't hit into a double play if you don't swing, so even though he struck out looking he was still alive when José Alvarado and J.T. Realmuto conspired to let a pitch get away, allowing another run to score....

where you also go so far as to credit Nimmo for the Phillies wild pitch, suggesting perhaps that a batter with his team behind should never swing at anything.


Anyway, this nutty idea that a batter should take the first pitch or first strike, sight unseen is an old wive's tale that comes from the neanderthal days of baseball when practically nobody, I mean nobody, had the slightest fucking clue as to how the game actually worked. Hardly anybody knew. Not the owners. Not their GMs. Not the scouts they hired. Not the players themselves. And not even the college educated pundits with their English majors and journalism degrees, some of them who were even privileged enough to get to vote on Hall of Fame inductees and MVP and Cy Young award winners. And these neanderthal times weren't even that long ago. They existed in our lifetimes. In our adulthoods, even.

Anyways, the idea that a player should be taking the first strike, sight unseen, is crazy talk. First of all, the first strike might be the best pitch he sees in the at-bat. It might be a terrible mistake or cripple pitch -- the kind of mistake pitch that a batter would be lucky to see more than once every week or two. Batters feast on those mistake pitches.

Also, if there's an advantage to taking the first strike (there isn't), then that same advantage should exist on the next pitch. And the pitch after that. And so logically, a batter should never swing.

But there's no advantage to taking the first strike. First of all, a pitcher is likelier to throw a strike instead of a ball on every given pitch. And the advantage from going from an 0-0 count to a 1-0 count is so small, that it's not worth chancing the strike. And with one strike, the batter is one pitch cloesr to two strikes. And with two strikes, the batter is already dead meat and the at-bat is practically over -- a fait accompli that favors the pitcher.

Batters should act like batters. They should determine whether or not the pitch is worth swinging at during the flight of the pitch, an admittedly difficult task. There's precious little time to gauge the pitch and decide whether to swing or not and the pitch comes in too damn quick. But if it were easy, you and me would be playing for the Mets.

[Benjamin Grimm]

And so logically, a batter should never swing.

I suspect that would be a winning strategy for the manager of a team of nine-year-olds.

It would be unsportsmanlike and no fun at all for the players, but it would probably lead to a lot of scoring on bases-loaded walks.

[Edgy MD]

I did not suggest nor am I suggesting that a batter with his team behind should never swing at anything.

Let us never think so. That would be indefensible of course. And the very title of the thread, even though it's certainly overstated for color, should at least serve to demonstrate that such a notion is untrue.

I do suggest, in the ninth inning, when behind, if the tying run comes up behind you, yes, by all means, take a strike. Every time.

I also suggest multiple other factors should increase your restraint. In many situations, restraint is your best weapon. And I think the Mets and any smart team is served well to deploy it as such.

[Frayed Knot]

Define "Til ya Gotta"

[Frayed Knot]

Define "Til ya Gotta"

Well however we define it, doing so literally needs to be taken off the table:

MLB composite stats thru games of 6/14 [9,000+ PAs]
0-0 count: BA = .332; OPS = 900
1-0 count: .328 / 888
2-0 count: .336 / 942
3-0 count (occasionally known as the ‘automatic take’ count): .351 / 1633

Even the ‘take one strike’ philosophy doesn’t hold water here, much less one where you take until forced to do otherwise approach.

Hitters still do well, though slightly less well, on 0-1 and 1-1 counts: .315 / 807; .318 / 839
And then stats go up again on 2-1 & 3-1 counts: .324 / 879; .321 / 1292

But if you’re waiting for any count with a 2 as the second number then that’s when things start to plummet.
All two strike counts: .167 / 503
Or, broken down: 0-2 count: .148 / 380; 1-2 count: .163 / 411; 2-2 count: .170 / 434
And even full counts aren’t exactly the best friends of batters [.190 / 777] though certainly the possibility of a free pass has
the ability to perk up the OPS even as it does little for the BA

Ted Williams, who rarely swung at the first pitch (at least in his first AB, although he would do so occasionally just so pitchers couldn’t
take his taking for granted) used to talk about ‘getting a predictable pitch to hit’. But plate discipline doesn’t just mean seeing as many
pitches as possible. Oft times it means sitting on a 2-0 offering and smacking the snot out of it.


So while there are situations [inning, score, batter, pitcher, outs, runners, on-deck hitter(s) etc.] that could make one want to take a strike
(or even two), and you certainly don’t want to employ a strategy where hitters are pre-deciding to swing at the very next offering, someone
is going to have to more narrowly define “til ya gotta” for me before I do anything other than strenuously disagree.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ted Williams, who rarely swung at the first pitch (at least in his first AB, although he would do so occasionally just so pitchers couldn’t
take his taking for granted)

Well, yeah. But hardly anyone else is Ted Williams. Williams supposedly had about as good a batting eye as anyone in baseball history. And he was impossible to strike out. A batter with command of the strike zone and excellent contact skills can do whatever the hell wants to do. If he wanted to take the first two strikes, that would've been fine by me. Who the hell am I to second guess Ted Williams?

But batters who draw a lot of walks do so because they have tremendous command of the strike zone and can tell the difference between a ball and a strike better than most other players. And they also usually gave great contact skills so that they can occasionally foul off tough strikes intentionally in order to wear a pitcher down into throwing a hittable pitch or ball four. But they don't draw a lot of walks by deciding, sight unseen, to take the first pitch before that first pitch is even thrown, for reasons already stated all over the place this past week, and many other times. That's nuts.

There's a great anecdote I came across in recent years where Fernando Valenzuela walked past Keith Hernandez during batting practice and told him (paraphrasing): "Man, you don't swing at anything that isn't over the plate, even if it's just a tiny bit off the plate". What I don't know is if that happened during Keith's Cards or Mets days.

[Frayed Knot]

Ted Williams, who rarely swung at the first pitch (at least in his first AB, although he would do so occasionally just so pitchers couldn’t
take his taking for granted)

Well, yeah. But hardly anyone else is Ted Williams. Williams supposedly had about as good a batting eye as anyone in baseball history. And he was impossible to strike out. A batter with command of the strike zone and excellent contact skills can do whatever the hell wants to do. If he wanted to take the first two strikes, that would've been fine by me. Who the hell am I to second guess Ted Williams?

But my point in telling that story wasn't just to say, 'Hey, just do it like Ted did', but to get to the point where Ted said the goal was to get to where
you could anticipate (he hated the word 'guess') a predictable pitch and, if you were to get it when and where you were expecting, to tee off on it.
I appreciate the act of taking pitches that aren't to one's liking, but that's a means to an end rather than the goal itself.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ted Williams, who rarely swung at the first pitch (at least in his first AB, although he would do so occasionally just so pitchers couldn’t
take his taking for granted)

Well, yeah. But hardly anyone else is Ted Williams. Williams supposedly had about as good a batting eye as anyone in baseball history. And he was impossible to strike out. A batter with command of the strike zone and excellent contact skills can do whatever the hell wants to do. If he wanted to take the first two strikes, that would've been fine by me. Who the hell am I to second guess Ted Williams?

But my point in telling that story wasn't just to say, 'Hey, just do it like Ted did', but to get to the point where Ted said the goal was to get to where
you could anticipate (he hated the word 'guess') a predictable pitch and, if you were to get it when and where you were expecting, to tee off on it.
I appreciate the act of taking pitches that aren't to one's liking, but that's a means to an end rather than the goal itself.

I knew. I was going along with you. Ted was setting up the pitcher. That also supports the idea that a batter ideally would swing at the most hittable pitch in the sequence. I say "ideally" because the batter won't always know when that it is until it's too late -- that is until after that pitch was already thrown. The most hittable pitch could be the first pitch, another reason not to automatically take it.

Anyways, if automatically taking the first pitch was a logical move, it would have been figured out by now and everybody would be doing it all the time.

[Edgy MD]

Automatically taking the first pitch isn't a logical move. It's a logical move in certain situations.

I disagree that something isn't logical because it hasn't been thought of yet. Lots of logical things have been thought of, but they aren't universally adopted because the logic behind them is resisted or elusive.

And this, of course, has certainly been thought of. it just goes in and out of vogue.

Also, here's Robert Plant sitting among a strewn pile of his records.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Automatically taking the first pitch isn't a logical move. It's a logical move in certain situations.

Yes. It's acceptable to automatically take the first pitch on a case-by-case basis -- depending on who's pitching, how he's been pitching and who's batting. Francisco Alvarez, for example, is a high ceiling youngster who's demonstrated that when he gets a good hold of a pitch, he can hit the pitch to Jupiter. But he hasn't shown a good command of the strike zone yet or reliable contact skills. He wouldn't be a good candidate to automatically take the first pitch. The case-by-case context approach is a far cry from having every player automatically take the first pitch because it's late in the game and the team is trailing.

I disagree that something isn't logical because it hasn't been thought of yet. Lots of logical things have been thought of, but they aren't universally adopted because the logic behind them is resisted or elusive.

But there's nothing elusive here. The information needed to understand this issue has been available since the dawn of baseball, the math is basic and the logic is straightforward. If there's an advantage to taking the first pitch when the team is trailing, then that advantage should also exist when the team is ahead. And on the second pitch. And the pitch after that and so on. By that logic, a batter should never swing at anything. This isn't like studying dark matter or black holes.

Also, here's Robert Plant sitting among a strewn pile of his records.







Muddy Waters at Newport - bottom right. Plant's copy, though, is obviously smaller in size than an LP -- it's an EP, with just some of the songs from the album release.

[Edgy MD]

If there's an advantage to taking the first pitch when the team is trailing, then that advantage should also exist when the team is ahead.

This is untrue. Advantages of such a strategy, like most strategies, vary wildly relative to the situation.

The number of outs, the score, the defensive deployment, which bases are occupied, and the power-hitting ability of the batter, other skills of the batter, among other things, all feed into the approach a batter takes.

I certainly don't advocate a batter never swinging on anything.

When one of these factors becomes more extreme, the approach may frequently become more extreme.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I certainly don't advocate a batter never swinging on anything.

Agreed and not explicity. But that would be the result of your idea, stretched out to its extreme. There's no advantage to deciding to take the first pitch sight unseen before it's even thrown, late in the game when the batter's team is trailing. But if there was an advantage, which there isn't, that advantage would exist just the same when the team is ahead, and in the early innings.

Jimmy Page and his vinyl record collection:

[Edgy MD]

I disagree that there's no advantage. And there most certainly is a difference in different situations.