Deceptive? How odd. Regardless, his approach leads to fewer first strikes than the average hitter by a considerable margin. This should lead to favorable counts in which most hitters have a better chance of reaching base. If you believe the stats are deceptive, you're then assuming that these average hitters are swinging at balls, thus artificially inflating their strike counts. In truth, I'm sure they are to a small extent, but then, shouldn't they be taking those pitches? Even accounting for that notion, is that entire difference (~5%) that these hitters are swinging at bad pitches? Think of how that frames your point: The average hitter ends up with more first strikes because he swings at balls outside of the strike zone. By that logic, disciplined hitters should swing at more balls, so that pitchers throw them fewer strikes on the first pitch? My head is about to explode here. There is game theory involved in first pitch strikes (see my recommendation below) and an equilibrium involved, but I don't think Mauer's anywhere near it. (He should be getting 60% or higher before he starts swinging more). Even if, for some reason, you still don't buy into it, I think it quite resoundingly refutes the idea that Mauer is getting fed MORE first pitch strikes than most hitters, which is the perception and frequent argument. If you still don't buy that, I'd highly suggest p.358-361 of The Book by Tom Tango (paying special attention to 361, the discussion of Boggs and Youkilis, hitters with similar approaches to Mauer.)