RESPONSES TO SABRQUIXOTICS
I got a huge email response to yesterday's post titled "SABRquixotics (Old School vs. SABRmetrics). My post actually inspired the Pirates blog Honest Wagner to ponder the issue of taking pitches (click here).

This is what Rowdy at Honest Wagner said...
"Say your team is facing a club with strong starting pitching but a wretched bullpen. Say that bullpen was often used (maybe in extra inning games) in that team's previous series. So, they are bad and tired.

Would it make sense to open the series taking pitches for the sake of taking pitches with the goal of knocking the starter out in the fifth or sixth inning? Then you get to three or four innings to be aggressive against the bullpen. Maybe it's not a wise strategy for a single game, but could it be one for a series? "Let's take a ton of pitches tonight, get the starter out of the game and get to their overworked bullpen. Tomorrow and Sunday they'll have nothing in the pen that can protect a lead." It could make even more sense if you did this against a hated division rival that was scheduled to face a non-threatening out-of-division doormat in their next series. Not only could you take a ton of pitches to face a battered bullpen tonight, tomorrow, and Sunday, you could also take a ton of pitches with the goal of softening the hated division rival for the non-threatening doormat to increase the chances the rival would lose that series.

... In a pregame interview, Brady Clark just talked about how the whole Brewer lineup goes to the plate with the goal of "working the count," "seeing pitches," and "getting the opposing pitcher to throw as many pitches as he can.""

First off let me say that this is an excellent topic. I'm sure that there are many different view points that can each have a sound argument in its favor.

The idea of "taking pitches for the sake of taking pitches" (I need to come up with a shorter term, lets call it "automatic takes") is almost always a bad strategy. While it does force the pitcher to throw a few pitches extra, in the long run it can make a pitch-count lower because when every batter starts out 0-1, that begins to put the hitter on the defensive. Now if he can get a strike with the next pitch and the count falls to 0-2 the hitter has basically turned into a sub .200 hitter.

With certain pitchers it might be wise to try the automatic take strategy against (Kaz Ishii, Ryan Dempster, other pitchers who tend to be wild). But even then it's not always the best idea, because when you take the 'selective aggressive' approach at the plate you only swing at whatever you feel is your pitch. In an at-bat if you are only going to see three or four pitches, what is the sense of letting a fastball right down the middle go by? There is none.

The idea of "getting to the bullpen" is a good strategy. I don't think that automatic taking is the best one, however. The way you make a pitcher throw more pitches is by getting hits. This will make the pitcher weary of throwing a strike on the first pitch, because he knows that if its a hanging breaking ball or a get-me-over fastball it's going to be hit well.

Brady Clark said that the Brewers approach at the plate is for "working the count," "seeing pitches," and "getting the opposing pitcher to throw as many pitches as he can."

I think I should define some of the baseball-terms used here...

"working the count" doesn't mean "automatic take". What it means is to wait for your pitch. If that is the first-pitch, or the fourth-pitch in your at-bat you see it and attack.

"seeing pitches" again doesn't necessarily mean "automatic take". "Seeing pitches" is another way of saying to "be patient". Being patient is the first part in the title "selective aggressive". Don't hack at a first pitch low slider when you're looking for a fastball middle-in.

"making the pitcher throw as many pitches as he can". There are many ways to do this. Again, I'm not sure that automatic taking is the best strategy. If you're getting the pitches early in the count the hitters should attack them. If a starting pitcher has given up 9 hits and 7 runs through 3 innings, I don't think the manager is going to be looking at his pitch-count when deciding whether or not to take him out.

People will interpret Clark's comments differently. The selective aggressive approach promotes "working the count", "seeing pitches" and "getting the opposing pitcher to throw as many pitches as he can". Again, being aggressive at the plate doesn't mean swinging at a decent pitch early in the count, it means swinging at the fattest pitch you see in an at-bat. The most consistent approach at the plate is one that sets the hitter up for success. I'll put it to you another way...

Charlie Lau, Jr in his book "The Art of Hitting .300" poses this questions to those who feel you should always take a strike (and I'm paraphrasing). "What if they changed the rules in baseball and said that every hitter had to start off with an 0-1 count? Would any hitter agree to that?"

A hitter doesn't go up to the plate looking to walk. At least a good one doesn't. A hitter with a solid offensive approach would rather walk than make an out. It is impossible to get the best results when going up to the plate being passive. Selective aggressiveness (as I've stated the previous 900,000 times) is the key.

I feel the SABRquixotics over emphasize the importance of high pitch counts. Obviously you would rather have a hitter make an out seeing 9 pitches than seeing 1. That isn't the trade-off. The object is to get on-base. Automatic taking doesn't increase your chances of reaching base (if anything it decreases them). The most successful and consistent plate approach is the selective aggressive approach. I've said all I can on this subject now for a while. Thanks for reading.