Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

White Sox: Pitch to Contact

  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,240 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:46 PM

Just saying....we're not the only ones with this very sane approach to fixing Liriano. By whatever catch phrase you want to call it....

#2 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,317 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:37 PM

Gee. Imagine that. Maybe telling an erratic pitcher with good stuff to try and put the ball in the strike zone isn't so reprehensible after all.

#3 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,317 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:43 PM

FWIW, here's a post I wrote last summer pointing out the flaws in blaming the Twins for Liriano's issues: http://twinsfanatnic...n-of-blame.html.

I thought the third comment, from "Matt," was pretty good: "Nobody is successful consistently behind in the count. All they asked him was to throw it over, and he can't do it. The next team will ask him to throw it over, too."

#4 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 4,261 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:56 PM

As the name implies, the aim of pitch to contact isn't to reduce walk rate, its to induce contact.

The logic being, evidently, that Liriano's success in 2006 and 2010 was due to his career high GB rates.

However, in fact, Adam Peterson proves yet again, that ground ball rate scales with velocity and whiff rate.

http://www.twinkieto...t-on-a-fastball

#5 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,240 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 05:28 PM

Yeah had to post this after my defense of "pitch to contact" goes back two years. The fact is you cant strike batters out if batters doubt your ability to throw strikes.

#6 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,317 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 06:37 PM

As the name implies, the aim of pitch to contact isn't to reduce walk rate, its to induce contact.

? Really?

#7 Alex

Alex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 978 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 06:56 PM

As the name implies, the aim of pitch to contact isn't to reduce walk rate, its to induce contact.


The logic of course, being that forcing a hitter to put the ball in play means that most of them get themselves out 7/10 times; whereas a walk never gets them out. So, yes, the oft stated pitch to contact phrase is also about walks. Obviously, strikeouts are the ideal, but I remember an interview with Verlander last year where he said realized he can go deeper into games when he isn't trying to strike every batter out.

#8 twinsnorth49

twinsnorth49

    Moderately Moderate

  • Twins Mods
  • 5,266 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 07:18 PM

Yeah had to post this after my defense of "pitch to contact" goes back two years. The fact is you cant strike batters out if batters doubt your ability to throw strikes.


Pat on back.

#9 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,240 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 08:49 PM

Pat on back.


Damn right it is. People in this town, on every local web page, on every local radio station were blasting the Twins for this. And with a complete misrepresentation of what was happening. The Liriano defenders have always made the Twins out to be the villans in his incompetence but he's always been his own worst enemy. And now a pitching guru that many of these same voices adore is doing the same damn thing the Twins did. "Pitch to contact" just means "throw strikes early in the count" or "don't get behind". Just because the Twins have had a string of players unable to capitalize on that philosophy with strikeouts doesn't mean it isn't the right approach.

#10 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 4,261 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:05 AM

"Pitch to contact" just means "throw strikes early in the count" or "don't get behind".


Are there competing approaches?

Pitchers are given a goal from little league, to get strike one over. That is so obvious as to be ubiquitous.

Pitch to contact is more specific than "get ahead of the hitter." It is, more like, continue to throw hittable strikes after you are ahead, in order to induce contact, rather than throwing junk and a. getting a whiff for strike 3, b. inducing weak contact/foul ball, or c. throwing a ball, and ratcheting up the pitch count.

They are not the same thing.

#11 jimbo92107

jimbo92107

    Señor Member

  • Members
  • 985 posts
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:50 AM

You want Liriano to throw strikes? Simple: Make him practice with a mud puddle on both sides of the mound. If he does one of his wacky whirly follow throughs, he lands in the mud. If he finishes on balance, he stays clean and dry. Strike three!

#12 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,240 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 04:26 PM

Pitchers are given a goal from little league, to get strike one over. That is so obvious as to be ubiquitous.


And yet, so many that reach the major leagues can't do it. You're confusing the Twins inability to develop pitchers that can finish off hitters with their pitching philosophy. Nothing wrong with risking contact in the name of getting ahead of hitters. The issue this team has is not having the talent to take advantage.

Liriano had the talent to take advantage, but apparently his minor league instructors ubiquitous enough.

#13 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 4,261 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 05 September 2012 - 06:35 PM

Again there isn't a coach in the history of baseball who has taught his pitchers to fall behind hitters. I'm not sure if you think that is my counter point to the pitch to contact theory but its not.

Re: Liriano, Andy and now Don Cooper evidendly, have failed to get through to him. As jimbo said, Liriano's strike throwing problems are mechanical. It isn't that Liriano places some misguided value in falling behind hitters or doesn't understand the objective of pitching. For Andy and Cooper to imply as much sounds like excuse making to me.

Re: pitch to contact, if the Twins don't have the talent to "take advantage," then why do they continue to preach it? Here are some absurd statistics to show, a. how well the Twins have executed pitching to contact approach, and b. how flamboyantly it has failed them.

Posted Image

#14 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 4,091 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 06:44 PM

Again there isn't a coach in the history of baseball who has taught his pitchers to fall behind hitters. I'm not sure if you think that is my counter point to the pitch to contact theory but its not.

Re: Liriano, Andy and now Don Cooper evidendly, have failed to get through to him. As jimbo said, Liriano's strike throwing problems are mechanical. It isn't that Liriano places some misguided value in falling behind hitters or doesn't understand the objective of pitching. For Andy and Cooper to imply as much sounds like excuse making to me.

Re: pitch to contact, if the Twins don't have the talent to "take advantage," then why do they continue to preach it? Here are some absurd statistics to show, a. how well the Twins have executed pitching to contact approach, and b. how flamboyantly it has failed them.

Posted Image


What are those results for the entire Gardy/Andy years?

#15 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 9,636 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 06:45 PM

Again there isn't a coach in the history of baseball who has taught his pitchers to fall behind hitters. I'm not sure if you think that is my counter point to the pitch to contact theory but its not.

Re: Liriano, Andy and now Don Cooper evidendly, have failed to get through to him. As jimbo said, Liriano's strike throwing problems are mechanical. It isn't that Liriano places some misguided value in falling behind hitters or doesn't understand the objective of pitching. For Andy and Cooper to imply as much sounds like excuse making to me.

Re: pitch to contact, if the Twins don't have the talent to "take advantage," then why do they continue to preach it? Here are some absurd statistics to show, a. how well the Twins have executed pitching to contact approach, and b. how flamboyantly it has failed them.

Posted Image


Gardy, Andy and TR: somehow "flamboyant" doesn't come to mind when trying to characterize them adjectivally. At least the braintrust have proudly accomplished No. 1 rankings in Contact Rate and Double Plays, Woohoo!:jump:

#16 jokin

jokin

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 9,636 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 06:46 PM

[quote name='gunnarthor'][quote name='Willihammer']Again there isn't a coach in the history of baseball who has taught his pitchers to fall behind hitters. I'm not sure if you think that is my counter point to the pitch to contact theory but its not.

Re: Liriano, Andy and now Don Cooper evidendly, have failed to get through to him. As jimbo said, Liriano's strike throwing problems are mechanical. It isn't that Liriano places some misguided value in falling behind hitters or doesn't understand the objective of pitching. For Andy and Cooper to imply as much sounds like excuse making to me.

Re: pitch to contact, if the Twins don't have the talent to "take advantage," then why do they continue to preach it? Here are some absurd statistics to show, a. how well the Twins have executed pitching to contact approach, and b. how flamboyantly it has failed them.

Posted Image[/QUOTE]

What are those results for the entire Gardy/Andy years?[/QUOTE]

AKA, the Era of Flamboyancy...

#17 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 4,261 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:48 PM

No, but never has the team executed so perfectly the pitch to contact theory except 2011 and 2012. As you go back through the years, you will find that there is a pretty close inverse relationship between contact % and ERA, for example. In years where they were pitching more to miss bats, the results were better. 2006 was the last year the Twins were among the elite teams in pitching (3rd in ERA), and not surprisingly, they also had the 3rd best contact rate at just 79.5 %.

Pick a year, any year you like from the Gardy/Andy era and you'll find this relationship holds up: http://www.fangraphs...lter=&players=0

#18 Nick Nelson

Nick Nelson

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 2,317 posts

Posted 05 September 2012 - 11:53 PM

No, but never has the team executed so perfectly the pitch to contact theory except 2011 and 2012. As you go back through the years, you will find that there is a pretty close inverse relationship between contact % and ERA, for example. In years where they were pitching more to miss bats, the results were better. 2006 was the last year the Twins were among the elite teams in pitching (3rd in ERA), and not surprisingly, they also had the 3rd best contact rate at just 79.5 %.

Pick a year, any year you like from the Gardy/Andy era and you'll find this relationship holds up: http://www.fangraphs...lter=&players=0

It's based on personnel, not philosophy. The Twins were not "pitching more to miss bats" in 2006, they had more strikeout pitchers. Currently they do not have many guys on their staff capable of high strikeout rates.

If your argument is that the Twins should seek out more hurlers with the ability to miss bats, it's a very valid one. But there is simply no evidence that their coaching approach has had any meaningful impact on a specific pitcher's strikeout numbers. Last year, they asked Liriano to be more efficient (well warranted after an 80-pitch, three-inning ST outing) and stop trying to nibble around the edges so much. In other words: throw the ball over the plate.

I'm not sure what exactly you think pitch-to-contact means. Telegraph the location of the ball so that the batter can hit it?

#19 Willihammer

Willihammer

    ice cream correspondent

  • Members
  • 4,261 posts
  • LocationSaint Paul

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:11 AM

But Liriano is a strikeout pitcher.

The implication here seems to be that Liriano placed a misguided value in falling behind hitters, and only needed to be told, that his objective was the reverse.

That is preposterous.

#20 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 11,575 posts

Posted 06 September 2012 - 07:32 AM

But Liriano is a strikeout pitcher.

The implication here seems to be that Liriano placed a misguided value in falling behind hitters, and only needed to be told, that his objective was the reverse.

That is preposterous.


His objective wasn't to walk guys but there are plenty of pitchers who try to get "cute" with their pitching and nibble at the corners, like they're suddenly a reincarnation of Greg Maddux.

I'm not saying that's what Liriano did (I think his problems are far more complex than that) but it's not as if that tendency is unheard of in the pitching community. In their minds, they're trying to get guys out but their actions are counter-productive to that goal.

"Pitch to contact" is a fine philosophy. The Twins rode it for years, taking marginal guys and getting decent production from them by avoiding walks and letting the defense make outs. On the other hand, when it was working, the Twins also had several pitchers with real talent (Radke, Santana, Baker) who missed a few bats as well. Remove that pitching talent and no matter how much you either tell a guy to "miss bats" or "let the defense play", it doesn't matter. Your pitching staff is going to be bad because your pitchers are bad.

The Twins spent a decade near the top of the list in walks issued and coincidentally, they had some pretty decent pitching staffs during that time. I don't think that's entirely a coincidence but it's not the entire story, either.