Contact Rate -- is it important anymore?

[Samurai Bucky]

This has been something I have thought about quite a bit (maybe I need a life...). If somebody shortens up on two strikes and gets the ball in play, I frequently hear TV color or play-by-play people mention how awesome that is. Yet, I don't know how much if it is taught.

 

I teach hitting to youth players (boys and girls) and focus on squaring up the ball and keeping a level swing. I also teach to shorten up on two strikes and to still have a good swing, but not to swing out of your shoes. When I have helped some teams, they tell me that most all other coaches tell them to not shorten up, to swing very hard on two strikes. The rationale is that they would rather have a batter strike out more often if it means that they will hit more homers.

 

My focus typically is on Quality At Bats (QAB as defined by Game Changer) and also Contact Percentage. However that might not be where my focus should be. Here is an old article from the Hardball Times outlining the relationship between Contact Percentage and Batting Average (http://www.hardballtimes.com/plate-discipline-stats-in-action/)

 

What does everybody think about the two hitting approaches, and what do you see as the goal being taught?

[DoubleSwitch]

I'm not a 3TO purist or anything, but I will say that as you go up levels and defenses get better power becomes much more important relative to contact. I know watching a guy like Keon Broxton can be frustrating at times, but his home run power is his one carrying skill as an offensive player. If he's not hitting for power, he's not a major league player at all. As for two strike approaches go, I think fans probably overestimate how easy it is to completely change your focus at the plate situationally.

 

I can find the modern style of selling out for power on both sides of the ball a bit boring sometimes, especially when the Brewers were struggling the past month, but I think it's probably a mistake to see the whole league moving in that direction and think it isn't happening for a pretty good reason.

[3and2Fastball]

Well this is a big topic that covers many aspects of Baseball and is a good topic. Thanks for posting it!

 

In MLB, contact didn't seem as important in April/May/June of 2017. And I mean that literally, because MLB is constantly evolving/adjusting. I will be especially fascinated with the 2017 postseason, because I highly suspect that the teams built on 3TO offenses will struggle in the playoffs unless their pitching is just so elite they can win a ton of low scoring games. I think a team like the Pirates with their higher contact rate is poised to have a good postseason run, but they don't have enough pitching and that is a different story.

 

What most of the youth/high school academies/travel coaches don't have a grasp on is exactly that, how much & how quickly the game changes. While I think the emphasis on athletic players who can play multiple positions isn't going away, I could see teams going back to appreciating more the high contact hitters as part of their lineup. Not every player is best suited for the high launch angle swinging for the seats approach. Again I really don't think that is going to work in the postseason if a team has most of their lineup trying to hit HR's all the time.

 

Ultimately, line drives are timeless

[Fear The Chorizo]

I've thought alot about this, and while the league-wide offensive approach has changed to put limited priority on contact rate in favor of "not getting cheated", even with two strikes, I think there will be a shift back in the other direction at some point. With all the shifting due to spray charts and with the emphasis put on pitching to try and rack up strikeouts, eventually there will be organizations and players that see the benefit of changing their offensive approach to "hit 'em where they ain't", particularly the players who don't have enough pop to hit alot of HRs. Not that a team will suddenly field a lineup full of David Eckstein fleas, but having a couple of those guys in a lineup between mashers could make some sense. Specific to Eckstein, he had a knack of fouling off extremely hittable pitches, to the point where I'd want to throw something through the TV to make him hit a fair ball because you knew he couldn't do much more than a down the line double's worth of damage. Great type of hitter to rack up pitch counts and give a pitcher a different approach to have to deal with. Also, developing those type of players could help small-mid market teams keep big time offensive players around without destroying payroll.

 

At the youth level, I think there's tremendous benefit to teaching a contact approach with two strikes - it can only help their hand/eye coordination, which will lead to better full swing results from them as they develop as hitters. I think more often than not, the caliber pitcher a youth team faces can dictate what type of approach they should take - even with less than two strikes on them.

[DoubleSwitch]

Not that a team will suddenly field a lineup full of David Eckstein fleas, but having a couple of those guys in a lineup between mashers could make some sense. Specific to Eckstein, he had a knack of fouling off extremely hittable pitches, to the point where I'd want to throw something through the TV to make him hit a fair ball because you knew he couldn't do much more than a down the line double's worth of damage. Great type of hitter to rack up pitch counts and give a pitcher a different approach to have to deal with.

 

This is a good point, when Sogard was on top of his game earlier this year I thought he did a great job taking pitches, fouling balls off and just generally being a pain in the side to pitch to. Things like momentum are impossible to quantify but having a few guys like that in your lineup can throw a pitcher off his rhythm and prevent him from getting into a grove. Especially with a high strikeout team like the Brewers you can get into those stretches where the other pitcher is just mowing through you effortlessly and I think Sogard added/adds an important dynamic.

[OnaBadger58]

I think a healthy mixture would be the ideal lineup. IMO having players like Brady Clark, Eckstein, Zobrist, Cain, Pedrioa, Walker, etc. are incredibly important to have in the top of the lineup. Having these types of players will reduce long offensive slumps like the Brewers were on a week ago.

[jerichoholicninja]

You can't have guys going up there just looking to make contact (ala Yuni B) but our last two series against the Pirates shows that putting the ball in play has its advantages. Especially now with shifts, there are large portions on the field open. More jams shots and dinkers and dunkers are going to fall.

[danzig6767]

I'm not a 3TO purist or anything, but I will say that as you go up levels and defenses get better power becomes much more important relative to contact. I know watching a guy like Keon Broxton can be frustrating at times, but his home run power is his one carrying skill as an offensive player. If he's not hitting for power, he's not a major league player at all. As for two strike approaches go, I think fans probably overestimate how easy it is to completely change your focus at the plate situationally.

Yea, i don't think Broxton K's so much just because he's swinging for the fences all of the time or he has terrible plate discipline given he walks at a decent rate.

 

His problem is simply making contact on pitches in the strike zone, regardless of the count. I watch him batting sometimes as he'll swing right through say a 2-0 fastball right down the heart of the plate and it's almost as if he has a hole in his bat. Not sure what can be done about that since he's always struck out a ton in the minors also.

 

People need to keep in mind also that guys who do work the count tend to K a lot because they lay off strikes on the edges of the plate, leading to many 2-2/3-2 type of counts. On the flip side there are bad plate discipline hitters like Perez who K less because they don't lay off pitchers strikes and thus end up in less two strike counts, but they also tend to walk at a poor rate and get themselves out by making contact on hard pitches to square up on.

[monty57]

You can't have guys going up there just looking to make contact (ala Yuni B) but our last two series against the Pirates shows that putting the ball in play has its advantages. Especially now with shifts, there are large portions on the field open. More jams shots and dinkers and dunkers are going to fall.

 

Yuni was interesting because he could make contact with anything the pitcher threw, and that was a disadvantage because he swung at everything. The pitcher knew he could throw a ball a foot outside and Yuni would hit a pop up to second. I think a high contact rate with a good eye is a nice combo.

 

I know "stat guys" think very little of RBIs, but making contact with a runner on third often gets you an RBI, while striking out does not. Over the course of a season, this may not show up as a "blip on the radar" in aggregate stats, but it can add some additional runs to a team every year, and that could be meaningful.

[NievesNoNO]

At the youth level, imo whenever you can put the ball in play it's a good thing. I guess it depends what level of youth but I'd stand by that in general. I also think it depends on the player. Some players just have better hand-eye coordination, a flatter swing plane, or might have lesser bat speed anyway so focusing on contact with 2 strikes doesn't really limit them as much as say a player with more of an upper cut or faster bat or just doesn't adjust as well after the pitch has been thrown.

 

At the MLB level, the defense is much better and I'd say for the most part, "shorting up" to put the ball in play is really a thing of the past. There is definitely a benefit to hitting the ball harder and risking a K, with two strikes. I'd focus more on number of pitches seen as opposed to contact rate.

 

As a side note, it absolutely drives me crazy when I see a shift and a hitter completely unwilling to try and hit the ball the other way every once in a while. As a professional hitter you should really be able to to that and I'd guess most of them can but are too stubborn.

[jerichoholicninja]

At the youth level, imo whenever you can put the ball in play it's a good thing. I guess it depends what level of youth but I'd stand by that in general. I also think it depends on the player. Some players just have better hand-eye coordination, a flatter swing plane, or might have lesser bat speed anyway so focusing on contact with 2 strikes doesn't really limit them as much as say a player with more of an upper cut or faster bat or just doesn't adjust as well after the pitch has been thrown.

 

At the MLB level, the defense is much better and I'd say for the most part, "shorting up" to put the ball in play is really a thing of the past. There is definitely a benefit to hitting the ball harder and risking a K, with two strikes. I'd focus more on number of pitches seen as opposed to contact rate.

 

As a side note, it absolutely drives me crazy when I see a shift and a hitter completely unwilling to try and hit the ball the other way every once in a while. As a professional hitter you should really be able to to that and I'd guess most of them can but are too stubborn.

 

When the shift is on batters are almost certainly worked exclusively inside so going the other way (in theory) isn's as easy.

[monty57]

At the youth level, imo whenever you can put the ball in play it's a good thing. I guess it depends what level of youth but I'd stand by that in general. I also think it depends on the player. Some players just have better hand-eye coordination, a flatter swing plane, or might have lesser bat speed anyway so focusing on contact with 2 strikes doesn't really limit them as much as say a player with more of an upper cut or faster bat or just doesn't adjust as well after the pitch has been thrown.

 

At the MLB level, the defense is much better and I'd say for the most part, "shorting up" to put the ball in play is really a thing of the past. There is definitely a benefit to hitting the ball harder and risking a K, with two strikes. I'd focus more on number of pitches seen as opposed to contact rate.

 

As a side note, it absolutely drives me crazy when I see a shift and a hitter completely unwilling to try and hit the ball the other way every once in a while. As a professional hitter you should really be able to to that and I'd guess most of them can but are too stubborn.

 

When the shift is on batters are almost certainly worked exclusively inside so going the other way (in theory) isn's as easy.

 

All shifts are now different. The defenders are placed based on where a particular hitter hits the ball, regardless of how they are pitched, so the pitcher is supposed to pitch them as they normally would.

[3and2Fastball]

As a side note, it absolutely drives me crazy when I see a shift and a hitter completely unwilling to try and hit the ball the other way every once in a while. As a professional hitter you should really be able to to that and I'd guess most of them can but are too stubborn.

 

Or they are being told to lift the ball and hit Home Runs

[istanbultaye]

I've never been a coach myself, but my thoughts would be that it would be best to coach up a player with the skillset they have in mind. Not every player is going to be successful trying for full power, and not every player is going to be successfully just searching for contact. Where I think a lot of coaches screw up is that they have their one and only TRUE method that they insist is right for everyone, and try to pigeonhole their players into doing that one method. If it's not working for a player, work with them and try something else.

[danzig6767]

 

As a side note, it absolutely drives me crazy when I see a shift and a hitter completely unwilling to try and hit the ball the other way every once in a while. As a professional hitter you should really be able to to that and I'd guess most of them can but are too stubborn.

These hitters aren't blind. They can see infielders shifted to one side of the infield.

 

If it was easy for them to just hit the ball away from where fielders are shifted, they would do it nearly every time and bat .500 plus. It's far from easy.

 

Take Joey Votto for example. He's as professional of a hitter as anyone in the game, yet when he's at the plate there is a dramatic shift for him because he's a pull hitter. I'm sure it annoys Votto that hits on the right side get stolen away from him because it's flooded with defenders, but it is what it is. He's a pull hitter and not out of being stubborn.

[NievesNoNO]

 

As a side note, it absolutely drives me crazy when I see a shift and a hitter completely unwilling to try and hit the ball the other way every once in a while. As a professional hitter you should really be able to to that and I'd guess most of them can but are too stubborn.

These hitters aren't blind. They can see infielders shifted to one side of the infield.

 

If it was easy for them to just hit the ball away from where fielders are shifted, they would do it nearly every time and bat .500 plus. It's far from easy.

 

Take Joey Votto for example. He's as professional of a hitter as anyone in the game, yet when he's at the plate there is a dramatic shift for him because he's a pull hitter. I'm sure it annoys Votto that hits on the right side get stolen away from him because it's flooded with defenders, but it is what it is. He's a pull hitter and not out of being stubborn.

 

Votto, doesn't have much motivation to change his approach and obviously probably shouldn't as he's one of the best in the game. There are plenty of marginal guys who get shifted because they are pull hitters. I get it's not easy but I'm also making the assumption it's not necessarily something that guys really care about or practice. It used to be pretty routine part of the game that guys would and could hit the ball the other way when they wanted to. Some better than others obviously. I'm not even sure it would be beneficial for most players to do it but I have no doubt that Joey Votto could start hitting more balls the other way if he wanted. So maybe stubborn isn't the right word but it's certainly a choice.

[JohnBriggs12]

I believe it's simply a matter of time before hitters adjust and the extreme shifting disappears.

[Samurai Bucky]

Super answers!!!! Thanks, guys!!!

[danzig6767]

 

If it was easy for them to just hit the ball away from where fielders are shifted, they would do it nearly every time and bat .500 plus. It's far from easy.

 

Take Joey Votto for example. He's as professional of a hitter as anyone in the game, yet when he's at the plate there is a dramatic shift for him because he's a pull hitter. I'm sure it annoys Votto that hits on the right side get stolen away from him because it's flooded with defenders, but it is what it is. He's a pull hitter and not out of being stubborn.

 

Votto, doesn't have much motivation to change his approach and obviously probably shouldn't as he's one of the best in the game. There are plenty of marginal guys who get shifted because they are pull hitters. I get it's not easy but I'm also making the assumption it's not necessarily something that guys really care about or practice. It used to be pretty routine part of the game that guys would and could hit the ball the other way when they wanted to. Some better than others obviously. I'm not even sure it would be beneficial for most players to do it but I have no doubt that Joey Votto could start hitting more balls the other way if he wanted. So maybe stubborn isn't the right word but it's certainly a choice.

If you are a marginal player in the majors, that means your career length is far from guaranteed to be long, as so will be your earning power.

 

To think those type of players don't care about the fact that pulled hard hit grounders turn from hits to outs because of shifting and that they wouldn't instead rather hit a ball to a place with no infielders strikes me as not realistic at all. This lessens their stats and in turn lessens their value in a highly competitive pro sport where teams are constantly looking to replace non-productive or mediocre players with someone better.

 

As for in the past, shifting rarely existed, especially the extreme shifting we see today, not because there weren't plenty of dead pull hitters, but instead because data like today didn't exist for teams to analyze. Had that same data been available, we'd have seen lots of the same shifting as we do today and pull hitters regularly hitting into those shifts. Hell, even guys today who are only a little pull heavy get shifted. The immense amount of data available for every facet of the game is incredible and only increases.

[OnTheBlack]

This has been something I have thought about quite a bit (maybe I need a life...). If somebody shortens up on two strikes and gets the ball in play, I frequently hear TV color or play-by-play people mention how awesome that is. Yet, I don't know how much if it is taught.

 

I teach hitting to youth players (boys and girls) and focus on squaring up the ball and keeping a level swing. I also teach to shorten up on two strikes and to still have a good swing, but not to swing out of your shoes. When I have helped some teams, they tell me that most all other coaches tell them to not shorten up, to swing very hard on two strikes. The rationale is that they would rather have a batter strike out more often if it means that they will hit more homers.

 

My focus typically is on Quality At Bats (QAB as defined by Game Changer) and also Contact Percentage. However that might not be where my focus should be. Here is an old article from the Hardball Times outlining the relationship between Contact Percentage and Batting Average (http://www.hardballtimes.com/plate-discipline-stats-in-action/)

 

What does everybody think about the two hitting approaches, and what do you see as the goal being taught?

 

I think it's important with 2K's to just try to fight the ball off and look to take it the other way. What ends up happening if you teach that is if the pitcher makes a mistake, you're going to instinctively jump on it anyway.

 

You can't really think about it before the at bat, so when I see a guy like Broxton swinging out of his shoes with 2 strikes, it looks to me like he's guessing and hoping he gets that.

 

 

That's just how I approached it at a much lower level and how I think the hitters approach should be. As for how important or detrimental I think strikeouts are, for the most part an out is an out.

[OnTheBlack]

 

As a side note, it absolutely drives me crazy when I see a shift and a hitter completely unwilling to try and hit the ball the other way every once in a while. As a professional hitter you should really be able to to that and I'd guess most of them can but are too stubborn.

These hitters aren't blind. They can see infielders shifted to one side of the infield.

 

If it was easy for them to just hit the ball away from where fielders are shifted, they would do it nearly every time and bat .500 plus. It's far from easy.

 

Take Joey Votto for example. He's as professional of a hitter as anyone in the game, yet when he's at the plate there is a dramatic shift for him because he's a pull hitter. I'm sure it annoys Votto that hits on the right side get stolen away from him because it's flooded with defenders, but it is what it is. He's a pull hitter and not out of being stubborn.

 

 

I actually don't agree. I do think it's because Votto is stubborn. He's one of the most stubborn hitters in the game. He absolutely refuses to expand the zone which is obviously one of the thing that makes him so good, but he also isn't trying to become some slap hitter dumping the ball into left field. But if he does that, he's also going to have to sacrifice a lot of his power.

 

I don't think the shift is going anywhere because...well people are just smarter. There is more information. You put your players where the hitter is most likely to hit the ball. And I don't think the type of hitters who are capable of beating the shift are willing to go from putting up Votto like stats to putting up Tony Gwynn like stats.

[Ennder]

Votto is one of the least stubborn hitters in the game. He chokes up based on which pitchers he faces and the count and is happy to just get a single rather than strike out. He doesn't swing at pitches out of the zone because doing that is stupid, a walk is more valuable than contact on pitches that are balls.