Because the pitcher can throw a strike at any time and if he throws three to start you can’t get deep into the count no matter HOW patient you are!

Only two ways to get deep into a count….

Face a bad pitcher who throws a lot of balls…
Be able to deal with strikes at least well enough to NOT make an out when they come early in the count and foul off strikes with 2K that you can’t hit so you can see more pitches

Patience isn’t involved at all!

It doesn’t even have a variable in your fancy equation!

“The fact that a patient approach does lead to a hitter getting better pitches to hit is no longer just a myth, it’s a fact.”

The myth was that working a count and getting on base didn’t matter. What Joe D. is saying is that isn’t true, hence calling it a myth.

It’s a nice basic truth table as well.

x: A hitter is patient
y: A hitter gets better pitches to hit

x -> y

If x is True and Y is true then X -> Y is also true.

And yes sadly Logic Tables are one of the precious few things I remember from college math.

What kind of ridiculous fallacy is that? Sandy does not represent that. Sandy has his background, everyone else has their own. Sandy represents only himself, regardless of who or how many people might agree with him on certain things.

That’s like someone saying that Omar represents those with no understanding of the business of baseball and can’t function as a GM with anything less than a top budget. How asinine is that?

How can one perpetrate a stereotype when Sandy himself said:

“When I got into the game, I didn’t have any real background in baseball, so I wasn’t burdened by any [laughs] traditional notions of how to evaluate players or construct teams. I was particularly open to people like Bill James and Eric Walker. Walker wrote a book called The Sinister First Baseman, a little paperback, which was actually quite instructive.”

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-yorkmets/post/_/id/11400/sandy-alderson-in-depth

How does that differ with “who haven’t had a career in baseball and believe certain things can be learned by the analysis of advanced stats which goes against conventional theory.”?

And the purpose for then asking such a question? To see whether or not there is a trend as I suggested – that those who place emphasis on learning like Sandy don’t have practical baseball experience like those who lean heavily toward those like Tony LaRussa or Bobby Ojeda. That is why I started off volunteering myself so there would be no doubt about that I am claiming to be anything more than I am:

“For myself, I do not deny I am only a fan. That is why when it comes to my position on discipline and pitch count while I have my own ideas, I instead vet into what is written by those who have played and/or instructed.”

I truly believe of those who are taking one side or the other – not the neutrals – the ones with with the practical experience will come from the Bobby O side. If I’m wrong, fine. In fact, that will open up a brand new credibility for those who profess that advanced statistical analysis has opened up new revelations about the game for who would be better to know they found out something new than one who has played and/or coached?

Oh, BTW, saying “David Cone disagrees with you, amongst many other major leaguers, aside from the countless people who played and/or coached but not on a professional level.” is taking his words out of context. He talks about stats as a source of more detailed information about a player’s tendencies – something all pitchers went over with their catchers prior to the game. The data he wanted to know was no different from what those from Christy Matthewson to Tom Seaver wanted to know as well and was then compiled from notebooks and pitching charts.

“We didn’t have nearly as much data when I pitched. I think it would have helped me. I would have loved to have seen the hitters’ tendencies, as well as data on my own pitches. I’d have liked data on which hitters were more selective, and which hitters chased out of the zone more. And if they did, which pitches did they chase?

“Earlier this year I looked up some data on Ben Zobrist. This was back when he was struggling, but was still getting his share of walks. His on-base percentage was still decent. I broke down the individual counts, like how many 2-0 and 3-1 counts he saw. He’d seen more than anybody else in the league at that point, but he also swung less than anybody else on those counts. Knowing that type of tendency would have been helpful to me when I pitched.”

That’s talking about getting more information about a player’s tendencies than what could have been taken down in notes and conversation due to the limitations of human memory. That is not learning the game from stats.

When he talks about advanced stats, he talks in terms of how non-players judge them, not those between the foul lines:

“The year I did win [the Cy Young award], I think I deserved it based on the numbers. Overall, it was one of my best years, even though I may have had other years that would rate higher in terms of WAR. I know that Jimmy Key had a good year. It was a strike-shortened season, so it was kind of a quirky year.

“Won-lost records, or even ERA, don’t tell the whole story, and I guess that’s the idea behind a lot of the metrics. There’s just so much more, but for a lot of years, that’s solely how we were judged. It was also how we were compensated. I’ve always thought there was a better way to judge — a better way to look at things — and I think a lot of pitchers have felt that way.”

He also says data might help some but could hurt others:

“Some players get overloaded with data. There’s a balance there, especially as a pitcher. If you become too oriented toward hitters’ weaknesses instead of your own strengths, you can get into a defensive mode and end up pitching defensively instead of aggressively. Data is good, but you need that balance.

“When I think back to some of my old teammates, Ron Darling would have been really good with a lot of data. Bobby Ojeda is another. Jack McDowell would likely have been interested in having it. Other guys wouldn’t have. An example might be Sid Fernandez, who had some remarkable numbers. He was one of the toughest pitchers to hit in the game.

“Sid didn’t throw with great velocity, but he had great movement. He had a four-seam fastball that had a lot of life up in the strike zone. He got a lot of swings and misses with it, and he also had a big, slow curveball that he threw in the upper 60s. He had a really wide differential between his fastball velocity and his curveball velocity. He was a guy who didn’t want to shake off pitches. He wanted Gary Carter to call the game and he would focus entirely on execution. He was like a skeet shooter or a sniper, just focusing on the target and not wanting to be clouded with anything else. Trying to disseminate a lot of information would probably have just dragged him down.”

Again, he talks about it as a source of more data – not a new learning tool – and how it helps others judge ball players by confirming what the player already knows about himself and others. So, it is good to look in terms of the context in which Cohn speaks about stats to understand the degree in which he goes by them.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/qa-david-cone-stat-head-all-star/

No matter what one’s take is, provide us with you background let it be in playing and/or coaching beyond sandlot to that of organized amateur, semi-pro or even minor league ball. This way we can at least get an idea of where those from differing points are coming from – experience wise.

For myself, I do not deny I am only a fan. That is why when it comes to my position on discipline and pitch count while I have my own ideas, I instead vet into what is written by those who have played and/or instructed. I have not come across articles or discussions on plate discipline that talk about discipline in terms of first hunting for a pitch in a certain zone defined not on one’s individual talent but that of a team concept. From what I have found, the talk about discipline is not to swing at a strike early in the count which the batter does not think he could drive for a base hit.

That is different than not swinging at a strike if it is not in a zone defined by the batting coach based on stats that show the team hits .200 when it comes to strikes on the corner. To a fan like myself, that appears as an over simplification of fact – does it take into account when in the count the batter swung? Is it a .200 average consistent throughout the count, meaning it doesn’t matter whether it was the first pitch, a 1-0 count or further back when one has to be more defensive guarding the entire plate and has to swing at pitches that are “too close to take” with two strikes no matter if it’s 0-2 or 3-2.

Now, this opens up what I think this discussion is really all about. Both Sandy A. and Bobby O. at the end of the season agreed there was a big drop in hitting and run production in the second half. Mr. A said it was because the drop in OBP and PPPA indicated batters were taking less pitches which meant less plate discipline compared to the first half. Mr. O attributed that to pitchers getting that first quick strike on the batters for they knew the team was being less aggressive, a point he raised early in the season about the Mets telegraphing a message to the opposing pitchers which was going to catch up with the hitters.

Sandy represents those who haven’t had a career in baseball and believe certain things can be learned by the analysis of advanced stats which goes against conventional theory. Bobby represents those who go by what they learned by playing the game with stats used for reference and not theory. If there wasn’t much of a philosophical difference between the two camps then there would be a more peaceful co-existence.

So the original question – what practical experience do those with the opposite point of view regarding Dave Hudgens instruction have – I bet is going to show that those from one perspective are from the A group and those from the other are with the O Group.

After that, it will be interesting to see whom the consensus leans toward – the lawyer and business executive or the former MLB pitcher who is now a pre- and post-game color analyst.

So who

Does that mean that those who played the game decades ago thought a patient approach leading to better pitches to hit WAS a myth? If anything, it’s the opposite. Players from past generations knew very well that they had to be patient and disciplined at the plate. And why? Well, call it self-preservation or survival of the fittest.

At that time they had no financial security and certainly no job security. And even those of all-star quality had to work winter jobs and knew they had to hustle every day for when they stopped, there was always somebody else who would. They also played through injury with the knowledge their job could be lost in the interim. They had no choice – it would mean going back to the factories, mines and other hard labor blue collar jobs on a full time basis at much lower pay.

They were working stiffs – just like us.

Anyone who remembers those days also knows that today there is a malaise that never existed back then. There were no guaranteed contracts, minimum $450K salaries, union protections and 30 teams. Unlike today, those with athletic ability most always focused on baseball because there were little others choices in professional sports. And the competition was tremendous. Baseball was king and unlike college, professional football and basketball were nowhere as lucrative so the minor leagues – in which there were way more teams than there are today -was crammed with players who were just as good as those in the majors but had little opportunity. In fact, the Pacific Coast League was considered by many as the “third major league”.

So those who were in the majors had no choice but to learn plate discipline. The numbers we find in stats today doesn’t deal with the fact that today’s players don’t have the financial pressures of those back then and can be more independent.

And how often do we hear players telling us how easy and less complicated the game appears when watching it from the stands instead of being between the lines? That is the same with stats when used by those who come from the corporate world instead of the baseball one. The game appears much easier to understand than in actuality. And when it becomes a case of those with the numbers telling those who have played and managed in the game how to do it, besides the malaise that we have today, we are also seeing an inferiorly played product – as in the case of Dave Hudgens instructing players to lay off pitches on the outside corners of the plate due to what the numbers show whereas Tony LaRussa says one has to be ready to go after any strike that appears to be hittable since one might not get another pitch like that to hit afterwards.

Your a frikken Writer for this site and if you can’t set a good example how can anyone else who doesn’t have that distinction?

Tick Tock Tick Tock

1. the ability to control or moderate one’s impulses, passions, etc: to show restraint
2. the act of restraining or the state of being restrained
3. something that restrains; restriction

Pa·tience
Synonyms -. composure, stability, self-possession; submissiveness, sufferance. Patience endurance fortitude stoicism imply qualities of calmness, stability, and persistent courage in trying circumstances. Patience may denote calm, self-possessed, and unrepining bearing of pain, misfortune, annoyance, or delay; or painstaking and untiring industry or (less often) application in the doing of somehing:

1. tolerant and even-tempered perseverance
2. the capacity for calmly enduring pain (as in taking strikes!), trying situations, etc
3. chiefly ( Brit ) US equivalent: solitaire any of various card games for one player only, in which the cards may be laid out in various combinations as the player tries to use up the whole pack
4. obsolete permission; sufferance (as in taking some bad to get a greater good)

They problem isn’t what they think the philosophy is…the issue is they think it is about PATIENCE which it is not it is much more about RESTRAINT!

They should RESTRAIN from swinging at BALLS….Not be PATIENT because that strike could come on the very first pitch and PATIENCE might make you do something the Philosphy doesn’t want you to do!

If I tell you to be PATIENT and wait on the corner for a good cab, you might let 3 good cabs come and go…
But If I tell you to RESTRAIN yourself from getting into a BAD cab you will will not pass up any good ones just avoid the bad ones!

This is the problem with all this talk about being PATIENT!
It’s the wrong label and if that word is used to convey what it is they suggest it does the WRONG MESSAGE will be recieved!

This is the key issue you guys seem to want to ignore….

If YOUR PITCH comes on the first two pitches thrown then being PATIENT is the LAST thing you want a batter to be!

You want him to be ALERT, AGRESSIVE! Not WAITING trying to get deep into counts!

When that happens and he swings he isn’t PATIENT but AGGRESSIVE!

POOF goes the notion that Patience is needed….

Want to say swing at strikes not at balls thats fine but that has nothing to do with Patience at all.

What fact denotes that a hitter is being patient?
PPPA? Hardly…
Perhaps the guy who SEEM to be more patient are not patient at all and are merely good at protecting the plate and seeing more pitches!

Sure you could say that a guy who swings at strikes but does not swing at balls probably hits better and you could probably prove that….
But that doesn’t mean he was patient at all…If those strikes he went after were in the first three pitches of the PA then you can hardly say he was Patient or should have been…

The data being used says nothing about and does not even prove the EXISTENCE or RELEVANCE of PATIENCE….

Patience would be proved by showing most of the hits occurr later in the count!
And then only if the strikes did not exist until later in the count…

But if those strikes come on the first three pitches Patience is not ain play at all!
In fact it is UNWISE to be patient when that happens and AGGRESSION is what is called for.

As for their being a cultural divide….I tend to disagree….
It’s not cultural in the sense of they come from one place and we are all that different.

It’s more for a CLASS divide…
Your taking kids who come from places where two nickels to rub together might even put you into the middle class, and then we remove them from there, give them half a million dollars or more and put them in a class of Millionaires! and Expect them to act as if they have been millionaries or have any frame of reference as to what is expected of you once you get there.

Think of the Movie trading places…..
The comedic conflict was a poor guy trying to interact with Rich folks!
And Rich folks trying to get by as a poor person…

While there are some cultural differences involved in the language the real problem (and I suggested this may even be the case with Valdespin) is you take them from a place where certain expressions and behaviors are fine because they are done without a spotlight but then you throw them into that spotlight and those behaviors seem strange, Unprofessional, even downright crude!

Take a kid who hit the winning run at the playground and ask him about it you get a very STREET like answer…
Put him in front of a National TV Camera and what he said that was fine in the playground is all of a sudden unprofessional and immature.

But getting back to my original point this country has really dropped the ball on our neighbors to the south….
Instead of spending all that money on Drug Interdiction we would be much better off spending it on thier development and helping thier people be able to make money so they don’t have to run a cocca farm and still earn enough money….
If we do that then maybe we would find some new customers to buy OUR products and get ourselves out of debt…

Teaching English and Business schools would go a long way and whatever you spent you would make back 100 fold!

Great point – one I’ve often thought of. Actually, I’m not sure they don’t have a program like this now.

I think it goes beyond the language barrier though. It’s different cultures as well. These kids come over here sometimes not knowing the language as well as being at a distinct disadvantage b/c of the culture differences – often at an age when ‘finding your identity as an adult’ is hard enough within your own culture.

Saw an special years ago that dealt with a kid signed into the Yankees organization from a Latin American country. He comes over here speaking hardly any English and feeling completely isolated. Went to breakfast for a year with a teammate who could speak English and ordered the same breakfast of eggs that his teammate did – b/c he couldn’t speak or read the language. He hated eggs but it was a year before he knew enough of the language to order something he did like. To make a long story short, he had a difficult time acclimating to this country and eventually just walked away from camp. Not b/c he didn’t have talent which he did – but b/c the frustration of it all was just too overwhelming.

I applaud MLB for setting up these camps and giving opportunity to these kids in Latin America….
But you know if your going to invest and say your helping a country then get the MOST out of that money and don’t just develop them so they are useful to you but useful to themselves regardless of if they make your cut or not.