Strategy questions

[Chad ochoseis]

I've always meant to start a thread for general questions about strategies that seem to be received wisdom but don't always make sense.

Here's a basic one. Why is 3-0 considered to be a "take all the way" count while 3-1 is considered to be a "hitter's count"? The situation is similar in both cases. The hitter has the upper hand, and the pitcher is generally stuck with little choice but to throw a fastball down the middle rather than take a chance with throwing breaking stuff or attempting to hit a corner.

It could be that if a pitcher gets to 3-0, the thought is that he can't throw a strike no matter what, particularly since if he were capable of throwing a strike, he would have done so on 2-0. But most major league pitchers can throw a strike in situations where they absolutely have to.

So with a good hitter up, why not swing on 3-0?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think good hitters should be ready to swing when it's 3-0.

The main difference between 3-0 and 3-1 is that, at 3-0, if you take a strike you still have a nice advantage in the count, but if you take a strike at 3-1, then your advantage is gone. But your question wasn't "why not take 3-1?", it was "why not swing 3-0?"

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Would guess it's more likely to draw a walk than get a hit on 3-0.

[Guest d'Kong76]

How many outs? What inning? Winning or losing, and by what margin? Hacker or
contact hitter? Has the pitcher been throwing a lot of balls or is this his first hitter
he quickly fell behind on? Any runners on base?

[Chad ochoseis]

I was thinking good contact hitter, close game, late inning, pitcher generally demonstrating ability to throw strikes. I think it's clear that if the pitcher has no command, you take on 3-0 and let him beat himself.

But I think "take on 3-0" is considered almost a blanket strategy - maybe once in a while a slugger will swing 3-0 in a situation where a home run is needed. So what I'm really asking is whether 3-0 should really be a take in almost all situations, as I think it is now.

[Guest d'Kong76]

7/8's of the time take a pitch is probably the way to go regardless of situation.

[Ceetar]

It's all part of the cat an mouse game really. If you're a good hitter and the pitcher is wild and not 'just missing' you probably _should_ sit on a pitch to drive. Wright did this earlier in the year for his walk-off.

It probably makes sense to do it in bunches. (If I had to guess, I think Granderson does this) Never swing so your scouting report lulls the pitcher into an easy strike because they're not worried, and then after you've started swinging more regularly go back to not swinging now that the pitchers are slightly more wary and slightly more likely to walk you.

Keith usually says that you get the same pitch on 3-1 that you get on 3-0, so take a free look at it. I suspect this is "I used to play" bullshit though.

The leader for 2016 hits ON a 3-0 count is 3 in order of PA: Josh Donaldson, Freddie Freemon, Chris DAvis, Danny Valencia

Albert Pujols, with 7AB (of 20 PA) is the most. Presumably that means most outs/hits. Stanton, Werth, Valencia, and Donaldson are second with 5AB of (14,8,10,26) PA.

There are 23 3-0 home runs, though no one has 2.

Frank Thomas and Greg Vaughn have the single season record of 4 HR on a 3-0 count.

Jim Thome's 17 is the career record.
Sosa 15
McGriff and Vaughn 13
Delgado 12
Bagwell, Thomas 11
Bonds, Juan Gonzalez 10



BIP on 3-0 leaders 2016
Ortiz 20
Donaldson 17
Jean Segura 16
Altuve 14
Zobrist 13

[Frayed Knot]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: So what I'm really asking is whether 3-0 should really be a take in almost all situations, as I think it is now.

I don't think it is all that automatic. Keith, usually prompted by Gary or Ron, will opine as to whether he thinks a particular situation should or should not be a 'take' and lots of factors go into it.
And remember that just because the batter doesn't swing doesn't necessarily mean he was taking. The disciplined hitter on 3-0 wants a particular pitch and narrows his zone down to a tiny box, if the pitcher doesn't hit that spot then you 'spit on it' and know he has to pick his spot again. So even batters with the 'green light' probably wind up taking most of the time.

[Edgy MD]

Ralph Kiner advocated at length for taking 3-0 almost as a rule, always reasoning that you're going to get the same pitch 3-1. He, of course, was Ralph Kiner.

But I'm stunned by the counts and situations Mets are swinging in. The Old Mole shared a great story once, that Wes Westrum didn't have a take sign. He sent his players up there taking by default, until they got a swing sign. Rehire Westrum!

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: [Westrum] sent his players up there taking by default, until they got a swing sign. Rehire Westrum!

Ugh, not for me.

[ashie62]

Edgy MD wrote: Ralph Kiner advocated at length for taking 3-0 almost as a rule, always reasoning that you're going to get the same pitch 3-1. He, of course, was Ralph Kiner. But I'm stunned by the counts and situations Mets are swinging in. The Old Mole shared a great story once, that Wes Westrum didn't have a take sign. He sent his players up there taking by default, until they got a swing sign. Rehire Westrum!

Will you dig Wes up?

[MFS62]

What about another old time strategy - "take two and hit to right"?

Later