This was mentioned a few times on the game thread yesterday and I have seen it referenced several times on here throughout the season. I am not for certain I have the answer to the question, but I thought it might make for an interesting discussion while we wait for regional selections.

Does the Texas A&M Baseball team need to swing more on the 1st pitch of at bats?

Positives:
-Increased chance of getting a “get-ahead” type pitch that can be driven
-Increased opportunity of seeing a fastball/decreased chance of seeing a breaking pitch
-Decreases the opportunity for a pitcher to work from plus counts

Negatives:
-Doesn’t allow hitter to see and get comfortable with the pitcher’s arm slot, speed, delivery, etc.
-Decreases the opportunity for runners to move over on non-hit events (passed ball, wild pitch, steals, etc.)
-Decreases innings pitched per inning. Potentially allowing opponent starters to go deeper into games

I’m sure there are many other positive/negatives, but maybe this will get the conversation started.

I'd love to see some stats on this, but doubt they are available for college.

It seems like we started swinging more at first pitches about the time we started hitting better this year. But I have no stats to back that up.

in the old days swinging at the first pitch was a better way to guarantee seeing a fast ball instead of a breaking ball, but not sure about that anymore.

in the LSU & Ole Miss series; Nottebrok, Banks, Birk, Gideon, et al got plenty of first pitch off-speed stuff.

the frustrating thing about yesterday was that the same pitcher who shut down the Ags 10 days ago...shut them down again. The team was unable to adjust. Killian had a 2.4 something ERA, so some teams have been scoring runs against him

I agree.

College specific stats would be interesting because I don't think MLB stats are very applicable given the pitcher familiarity difference between college and professional hitters.

Killian threw a lot of first pitch fast balls yesterday to every hitter...we were constantly behind in the count...every pitching coach preaches to get ahead of the hitter with strikes,
and then get them out with balls. Seems like we could be sitting on a first pitch fastball and rip it a few times rather than take the pitch.

I suppose that begs a different question. Should hitters be more aggressive early in counts the 2nd and 3rd times through the order?

Theoretically, in situations where you are seeing a pitcher multiple at-bats in a game, he is having success (since he is still in the game) so the conventional wisdom would be to be more patient and try and increase his pitch count and get to the bullpen.

However, if a pitcher has been predictably aggressive in the strike zone early in counts, it might make sense to try and attack those early strikes.

1 game sample from the win over Ole Miss.

1st pitch ball: 15 times; 4 for 11.
1st pitch K-take: 11 times; 3 for 10.
1st pitch swing: 16 times; 4 for 14 with a SacFly.
1st pitch bunt: 2 times; 0-1 with a sac.

Interesting numbers Dave.

That small sampling seems to suggest that in that particular game, not only did the Ags swing at the 1st pitch a large percentage of the time (almost 40%), they did so with the poorest results of all of the approaches.

Johnny Bench once said that the key to successful hitting was knowing what "your" pitch was and to never let it go by (unless the take was on). First pitch, second pitch, whatever. When you got your pitch, hammer it. He maintained that you would get it once every at bat, and that you'd better not let the opportunity get away.

I submit the positives outweigh the negs.

As for running up the pitch count, swinging at first pitch strikes has little to no bearing on that.

Failure to do that, along with striking out looking are my pet peeves of the Childress era.

Why do you feel that Boerne? The statistics don't seem to back that up to me, but I will be the first to say statistics don't tell the whole story.

And to pitch count comment, if a team is consistently putting the 1st pitch in play, how could that NOT affect the number of pitches thrown?

I don't pretend to know half what Childress or any college coach knows but have been coaching tournament baseball for a long time and coach my kids to look for the ball in their zone where they can drive it. If they can, do it. If they can't, take it. Of course, it can be situational but it's usually that simple I think.

I remember when Juan Gonzalez hit three homers when he was really young and they interviewed him and with his limited English his answer to every question was "see ball, hit ball". I remember thinking "yep".

A&M had the second fewest strikeouts of any team in the SEC this year.

I think after the Auburn series we had a similar discussion about first pitch strikes. Someone went to the Dugout Club and asked Sawyers about it, and Lankford took the question. He said they were told to look for a first pitch that they can drive or lay off. He said even if some of those pitches look fat on TV or in the stands, it isn't exactly the same sitting at the plate.

When we looked at the Auburn series, A&M was 3-32 in ABs where they took the first pitch for a strike.

I'm sure Lankford knows what he's talking about, because look at his stats. And I"m sure the argument about laying off is that you're hoping to work counts and get an even better pitch to hit later on, maybe a fastball.

But the combo of SEC pitching and umps is a terrible thing. I missed a few games, but I cannot remember a single starter in SEC play that had control problems. Even Auburn had guys pumping in strikes when they knew we were taking. Conference pitching is just plain good. And when a good pitcher is throwing strikes, I DO remember plenty of umps getting liberal with their strike zones.

So I guess it can go both ways. It's very possible that the first pitch strikes we were seeing were pitches that weren't great for hitting. But it's just my opinion that if you get behind consistently against a lot of SEC starters, especially their Friday and Saturday guys, the following pitches are just going to be that much better. The previous game, which we lost 4-2, against Ole Miss we were 1-10 after taking a first pitch strike.

Hunt the fastball. Be aggressive within the strike zone. Forget the count. It makes no difference, IMO.

Love reading that Jacob. Thanks!

Strike three taking is the thing is the one that kills me. That's how the Arkansas game ended. How do you take anything that's even close with two strikes?!?

quote:

---

Jacob_House 274:36p


Hunt the fastball. Be aggressive within the strike zone. Forget the count. It makes no difference, IMO.

---

Love this attitude! Was this "coached", Jacob, or did you adopt it prior to your days at A&M?

quote:

---

Why do you feel that Boerne? The statistics don't seem to back that up to me, ...

---

Shoulda said, "a missed first strike (that woulda been a called strike) doesn't add to the pitch count."
Make more sense?

But, Jacob's philosophy sums it up best!

I'd certainly agree with the "selectively aggressive" approach early in counts. Obviously there will always be specific situations that dictate to take a first pitch (when chasing runs late in a game, following a walk, etc.)

The key, as mentioned before, is to force pitchers to challenge all of your hitters in the strike zone and don't give away free strikes and outs by chasing anything out of the zone.

I don't have data so this is just my theory. I love to jump on 1st pitch fastballs, especially first time thru. Make the pitcher adjust as the game goes on. If he gets uncomfortable pumping first pitch fastballs, he will have to get an off speed over the plate or get behind. I like Jacobs approach. Get aggressive and tip the guessing game and the pressure to the pitcher.

No stats to back it up but for most of the season it appeared most of the batters were taking the first pitch. Again, no stats to back it up, but it also appeared opposing pitchers grooved a fast ball strike on the first pitch, perhaps coached up that we would be taking. The typical pattern seemed like take strike one and then deal with more difficult pitches on second and third... which good hitters like Langford could do. Agree there seemed to be more first pitch swinging later in the year.

Great topic and well written OP.

If hitters treat the first pitch like they treat a 2-0 count (with an intent to do real damage), you'll see better swings at 0-0 pitches at a minimum (odds of violent contact increase).

The best pitch in baseball is strike one, so if hitters don't take advantage of the pitchers plan they are wasting great opportunities.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Jacob_House 274:36p


Hunt the fastball. Be aggressive within the strike zone. Forget the count. It makes no difference, IMO.

---

Love this attitude! Was this "coached", Jacob, or did you adopt it prior to your days at A&M?

---

Some prior, but emphasized more than ever at A&M.

My approach was: hunt the elevated heater off the batters eye, and if you're looking for something straight and up, the "get me over" breaking ball would be driven into the pull side gap. My rhythm was to be on time to the guys best fastball.

Thanks for the response and good to learn. I'd hafta say not all your peers adopted/utilized that same philosophy. I always enjoyed your efforts and performance.

Looks like the Ags are planning on attacking Thornhill early and often today!