# Pitcher's approach in 2 strike counts

Been in a couple discussions on another board about hitters’ mental approaches on 2 strike counts, and how coaches should/shouldn’t work with them. I was all involved in the perspective of hitters, when my son looked at what I’d come up with and asked me what his numbers looked like from the pitcher’s standpoint.

I hadn’t even considered that, but if it’s reasonable that hitters should have a 2 strike approach, its equally reasonable for pitchers to counter with a 2 strike approach of their own. So, I ran the same report, but for pitchers. you can see it at http://www.infosports.com/scorekeeper/images/temp4allp.pdf

Its been quite a task, but I’m pretty sure I managed to produce something that measures 2 strike approaches in terms of batting averages. Yeah, BA isn’t my favorite measure of baseball success, but for the moment its what I have.

If there’s some reason to get more precision, I could do OBP too, but for just showing the relative success of a 2 strike approach, IMO this gives a great idea about who’s approach works, and who’s needs help.

The data represents 6 years, 186 games, and 4,925 at bats of my HS team’s varsity pitchers during the normal spring HS season.

The only at bats that were considered, were ones ending with the umpire’s count being either 0-2, 1-2, 2-2, or 3-2. I broke the data down by whether the at bat ended in the minimum # of pitches or in some subsequent number of pitches. I also broke the tot BA down by whether it was computed in the typical fashion including Ks as ABs, or excluding them as ABs, giving a BABIP. Just to give some idea about how much the players got to play, I also included total Ks and total PAs.

Finally, I sorted the outcome by the normal BA of the players the pitchers faced. I did that because BA was the measure of success, so the 1st players seen will have been the most successful.

To tell the truth, I found the results interesting, but as usual, they only raise more questions in my mind.

Who is calling the pitches?
If the coach is, does the pitcher have confidence in the call? f/e throwing a #3 or lower pitch when he doesn’t feel it.
Does the coach have a specific 0-2 rule? (My youngests did)
Runners on? Bases empty?

[quote=“jdfromfla”]Who is calling the pitches?
If the coach is, does the pitcher have confidence in the call? f/e throwing a #3 or lower pitch when he doesn’t feel it.
Does the coach have a specific 0-2 rule? (My youngests did)
Runners on? Bases empty?[/quote]

jd, those are great questions!

I could easily break things down by runners on and bases empty too, but I’m afraid that’s the only one I can address with the numbers.

I guess I really shouldn’t have described what I was looking for as the PITCHER’S approach, but rather the approach being used by the team, which is always the approach used by whoever’s calling the pitches. But what I was doing was trying to point out that whatever is going on, it doesn’t work equally well or badly for ALL pitchers, and the reason for that was to try to show a couple things.

One was that the same approach doesn’t work equally well for all pitchers, and therefore to optimize their performance, they will very likely need to be treated differently. The other was to show that whatever the training approach is, the results can be evaluated and could easily show who needs more work on something, thus optimizing the coaching time.

So for the coach like your son’s, his approach could easily be tested, then evaluated as to its efficacy. If it showed to be as effective as he presumed it was, great! But if it showed not to be, it was something he could change to help himself and the team.

I’m a big believer in pitchers getting rid of batters in as few pitches as possible because it’s the most efficient use of their limited time. But, once a pitcher gets a batter in a 2 strike count, what I’d prefer him to do was to get the K so as not to even risk a hit or a miscue of some kind.

If you take a look, you’ll see I added something to the report. KAvg. All it is, is the number of Ks divided by the number of 2 strike count ABs. I’m thinkin’ the higher that #, the better, but as you pointed out with your questions, that isn’t really up to the pitcher.

‘Tis truly a tangled web, ‘tisn’t it?

Way more complex than black and white :lol:

Presuming of course that he is open to the truth vs. what he “knows”…open minded flexability is a trait that isn’t always associated with guys whose standard response to questions is “because I said so” or “because we’ve always done it this way”, which I would contend includes the majority of hs hc’s.

getting the hitter out on the next pitch is the pitcher’s goal with 2 strikes. waste pitches are exactly that, a waste. like maddux said, which is better, giving up a home run 0-2 or 3-2. your best friend is a routine ground ball

[quote=“jdfromfla”]Way more complex than black and white :lol:

Presuming of course that he is open to the truth vs. what he “knows”…open minded flexability is a trait that isn’t always associated with guys whose standard response to questions is “because I said so” or “because we’ve always done it this way”, which I would contend includes the majority of hs hc’s.[/quote]

I’m afraid you correct, but I honestly don’t know if they take that position because they are just hardheaded and set in their ways, or because they simply don’t know how to go about finding out things like this.

This is NOT a shot at coaches!

I don’t think most of them understand the kind of information they could have, or if they do, don’t know how to put in place the things necessary to get it. It seems so simple to some of us because like in my case, its what I do. In the case of folks like yourself who have stayed very active in areas where you’d see such things, you may not quite know how to do the mechanics of it, but you know about the possibilities and are willing to investigate because of that. IOW, its not something totally foreign.

In so many cases, the standard old numbers are pretty much the extent of their “envelope”. Its not that I think those numbers have no value, but I think its pretty safe to say “enlightened” baseball people understand their value is very limited, and there’s a lot more to be offered if one is willing to look. And very often, just looking at the old data in different ways can provide a lot of knowledge.

FI, looking at all the WHIPs pitchers on a team doesn’t really tell anyone a whole lot. But, looking at them from the perspective of runners being on or not, whether the pitcher’s team was ahead or behind, the inning, whether the 1st pitch was a strike or a ball, who the batter was, and many other ways as well, could provide a lot of useful information.

I think what confuses the issue, is people get a MLB waste pitch confused with say a LLI or a HS waste pitch. Because the quality of the hitters is so much better in MLB, it isn’t likely a big curve in the opposite batter’s box, a 57’ CU, or an eye level FB is gonna fool many of them the way it would at the lower levels.

Then too, how the pitcher interprets what “waste” means can be an issue as well. FI, my son’s HS coach used to love seeing a high FB as a waste pitch on an aggressive batter in 02 situations. Trouble is, he didn’t take the time to make absolutely sure the pitchers should throw that pitch at the very top of the zone or just a little above it, so many of them, my son being like this, would throw the ball eye level or above, The result was, the batter could most often recognize it and lay off, not helping anyone.

I’m addressing these remarks to jdfromfla and Dusty Delso.
Both of you are on the right track. The idea is, indeed, to get the batter out. Here the problem being discussed is how to do this when the count is 0-and-2 on the hitter, and how best to do this depends on one thing: what is the batter looking for? This is something best left to the battery—the pitcher and the catcher, because they are on top of the situation, rather than to the coaches or managers who more often than not are stuck in a rut with regard to what pitch to throw. It’s rare that a manager can decide how to proceed in this situation, and usually it’s because the manager has had extensive playing experience—often he’s been a pitcher or a catcher himself, or perhaps a middle infielder.
With regard to what the batter might be looking for—let’s look at a particular situation. The batter is a guy whom the pitcher has retired twice in a row during the game, but now he’s up for the third time, say in the seventh inning, and he just might be looking for a particular pitch he has seen before. Now here’s where we get into strategic pitching. For example, the pitcher started the batter off with a fast ball and got him out with an offspeed pitch. Now would be a good time to go into reverse gear—feed that hitter a couple of offspeed pitches, like a changeup or a knuckle-curve or some such: then come in there with a fast ball, if you have one, or your #1 pitch, whatever it is. And remember, you have to move the ball around—high, low, inside, outside, stay away from the middle of the plate, and if you can get the batter to chase after the pitch you’ve got him. Whatever the pitch, it has to be something totally unexpected.
It’s important to watch the batter, to determine if he’s doing anything different at the plate. For example: that batter has usually been standing in the middle of the batter’s box. But if on this third time up he shifts his position so that he’s crowding the plate, that tells you he’s looking for something he can hit to the opposite field. You can get him with a pitch on the inside corner—jam him, so that if he gets any wood on the ball he’ll either pop it up or, if the pitch is down in the zone, hit a nice little ground ball to an infielder—or even back to the mound so you can grab it and fire to first for the putout by the first baseman. And if there’s none or one out, you can have your infield get set for a double play—boom boom, and you’re out of the inning. However you do it, you want that out, and the quicker the better.
Notes from a pitcher who’s been there and done that hundreds ot times.

Ya know SK,I don’t know every one of em either but I have to bet that it like this…
Every class, every year, there are parents and players…mostly parents, who have suggestions, they have experiences, they had witnessed success…they have their “precious cargo” who is obviously going to the bigs and if you don’t agree you are A) Personally oppressing their child because…the coach hates you or the kid or plays favorites B) He is just an idiot trying to earn an extra buck C) A Commie Liberal teacher who needs to die anyway ( ) or any other combination other than he just doesn’t see it that parents way.
Any lack of success by the team is a direct reflection and probably fatal to their future Babe Ruth so they ernestly wish to impose (They would prefer suggest) the sage wisdom that brought little Junior to such fame and glory…now year after year, the story is the same, the faces change…sure there are “enlightened” parents who stay the heck out of the way…but year after year the ones who aren’t are going to look for means and ways to get their perspective to the coaches ear…maybe by brow beating the kid til they interject where they know they aren’t welcome, or see a poor asst. coach in the grocery store or barber shop…or the HC when he’s out with his family…debating isn’t an option for the coach unless he simply wants to hand over the keys at that point…no I really understand how it gets there… :?
Not that many of them aren’t in some way similar to the negative thoughts mentioned above…which does perpetuate the cycle…

Dusty…you bet I’d never argue with Greg…
My idea of a perfect “waste pitch” is to hit an impossible spot to hit that is so border line the batter locks up deciding…if the ump gives it to you…you just expanded the zone 8)

Yeah, its definitely a grind, and between the regular run-of-the-mill daily things that need to be done to appease the principal, AD, State assn, league, and the run-of-the-mill things that take place every day like, field prep, standard BP, Bull pens, hitting IF and OF, making sure there’s Cokes in the Snack bar, gasoline for the mowers, dirt for the IF, chalk, making out lineups, and dealing with players, asst coaches, fans, and umpires, hopefully he’s got a family at home who’d like to see him for more than an hour or so every day during the baseball season.

Im new to the board…solid feedback and insite re: two strike counts. I guess I can chime in briefly by saying the following;

In my opinion each two strike count by itself without taking into consideration ALL the other variables of any given situation all dictate a different approach; and again without taking into consideration all the variables.

For instance: An 0-2 count in my opinion would dictate the pitchers “perfect pitch.” Meaning perhaps thier own best/#1 pitch but not neccisarily their #1 pitch. A “perfect pitch” in my opinion would absolutely include location not merely the pitch that was thrown and how much good stuff it had.

A 3-2 pitch in my opinion cannot be thrown into the category of say an
0-2 count or any other pitcher count because at a full count the pitcher has put himself into a hitter count and the whole schematics of a 3-2 pitch have now changed as compared to most other two strike counts. Except other hitter counts (2-2) (1-1).

Therefore in my humble opinion not all two strike counts can be created eqaul and again this would not take into consideration any of the many variable that would be present in any given different situation.

I could not disagree more with the concept of it being the goal of a pitcher to get the hitter out on the next pitch when they have two strikes.

If this was the case then the need for “set up” pitches would decrease greatly.

With that being typed I do agree that there is no such thing as a waste pitch but rather there is a purpose behind every correctly pitched (not thrown) pitch.

Simply stated if a pitcher is thinking one to two pitches ahead and they have an 0-2 count…then they make the “perfect pitch” but it goes for ball one. Now the count is 1-2 and the pitcher is still in command of the count. If lets say the “perfect pitch” that went for ball one was a breaking pitch low and away RHP to RHB now the pitcher has set himself up for a number of different options depending on what they have available to throw.

If they merely went into the 0-2 count with the approach that their goal was to get the hitter out then they have not thought ahead and in a sense will loose options.

Additionally speaking any good hitter will get defensive and look to go the other way most of the time on an 0-2 count plus they are protecting the plate. Therefore if a pitcher tried to get the hitter out on a breaking ball for a strike becuase they felt that was their goal (to get him out on the next pitch) they have just pitched right into the hitters strength.

How much better is it to teach young pitchers to set hitters up on 0-1,
0-2 and 1-2 counts to not get them out on the next pitch but rather the one after that?

Now obvisouly I am not talking about youth level players below say the age of established 16-18 year old pitchers or college student athletes because as we all know the game progresses. I am just saying that generally speaking it is not of my belief that it should be the stand down goal of any pitcher to get a hitter out with the next pitch when they have two strikes…3-2 count absolutely they need to get them out on the next pitch because we don’t want to walk them…

As with any pitching related discussion tons of variable to consider as well.

0-2 and 1-2 counts are exactly why it is important for pitchers to have command inside and outside the strike zone. The goal ought to be getting the hitter to hit a pitch he can’t hit hard. Putting one a few inches outside the zone to entice him to chase a bad pitch where he has to think about it or if he does hit it it is a ground ball somewhere. To be able to do that though you have to have command.

[quote=“CoachConley30”]I could not disagree more with the concept of it being the goal of a pitcher to get the hitter out on the next pitch when they have two strikes.

[/quote]

First of all, welcome. Its always a pleasure to have the knowledge pool rejuvenated.

Hmmmm. Lots to consider in that post, so let me start with a few questions. Are you saying pitchers need to be taught different things and have different approaches depending on their level?

Regardless of how you feel about 2 strike approaches by pitchers, how do you think a pitcher who’s coach calls pitches from the dugout can learn how to set the batters up?

Do you have numbers showing how your pitchers do in these situations? I only have my numbers, and they’re for HS players. I’m always very interested in seeing what other people have to see how they compare to what I have.

I’m not sure I see how a pitcher will lose options just because he tries to get the batter out and doesn’t.

the point maddux was making comparing giving up a homerun on an 0-1 or 0-2 and full count is that you save 3-4 pitches. when he was interviewed in the world series video when he carved up the yankees, he was very proud that he got “a lot of nice ground balls”. he used the last pitch to set up the next whether it was a strike or not. you do not have to go outside the zone to set up another pitch.

you are clearly right about the situation. if a guy cannot hit a breaking pitch like in the movie major league, why would you throw anything else. if the 8-9 hitters cannot catch up with the fastball, why do they get anything else.

i wonder if we try to get way too fine in youth and high school ball. set up middle down, if that works, you can fastball in/out but throw the breaking pitch to the middle of the plate unless the guy swings @ the curveball in the dirt. koufax started every game setting up middle and if he had command worked in or out. worked pretty good for him

First of all Dusty solid post!

I like the back and fourth as well scorekeeper and being new to the discussion board on this site, ball season heating up and my love as well as pursuit of knowledge in the game will undoubtedly dictate that I come on here more moving forward.

With that being said scorekeeper you bring up some valid points.

Let me start with “yes” pitchers do need to be taught different things and different approaches outside of fundamental ground work and other applicable mechanics depending on their level. For instance I would not advocate trying to get a 12 year old to understand nor accomplish what I would have a HS varsity pitcher do. Nor would I expect for a HS pitcher with no potential to play collegiately the same things I would teach and or expect of a college student athelte.

I firmly beleive any pitcher at any level can learn from and by their coach calling pitches when it comes to any thing related to this including how to set batters ups.

First of all for any coach who calls pitches it is also their duty to teach amateur pitchers why they were calling the pitches they did or they will turn their young hurlers into robots. I for one have called pitches just like many others however I do not call every single pitch. Simply stated if a coach is calling every pitch then catchers and pitchers alike will never learn how to call their own game…if a high school player goes to a college where the coach does not call pitches they will struggle tremendously whether they are a pitcher or catcher.

In terms of loosing options by trying to get a batter out on an 0-2 count and not getting it done…say because of a foul ball or simply a ball my point was directly related to the approach of using a set up pitch rather then simply thinking that it should be their main goal to get the hitter out on the 0-2 pitcher.

Obviously this would be a good goal however I should have perhaps stated that it should not be the main one. For instance if an opposing coach and team are well aware of another teams coach and or battery constantly going at guys to get them out on 0-2 counts the adjustment to make would be real easy…doing so would get very predictable even during the course of simply one game…there should varying ways of looking at things…

As a comparison I think the theory of throwing first pitch strikes would be the same as having it be the main goal or focused goal to get hitters out on 0-2 counts. Doing so creates predictability. How much better would it be to say throw a strike with one of the first two pitches instead of simply on the first. Or instead of preaching that it should be a pitchers goal to get someone out on an 0-2 pitch how about “if we go 0-2 then we most defnitely do not want to go to 2-2.”

Now obviously as it pertains to your question of teaching different approaches at different levels I am not going to preach any thing to 99.9% of all little kids other then throw strikes and stay ahead. Yet if I took that same approach with a college pitcher they would end up getting pounded especially after having been scouted in back to back double headers over the course of a weekend…they would be too predictabel and hopefully at the college level they would have good enough stuff that we don’t have to be throwing strikes all the time.

Lastly I mean no disrspect by any posts I make and I feel as though I can learn from anyone at any time. With that being said I have my opinions like many and my main point could have been communicated very simply as is follows;

Don’t get predictable in the way a game is called whether by the dugout, the catcher or pitcher. There are always different ways of looking at things…too many variable to pigeon hole one particular philosophy especially when it comes to how one should always appraoch 0-2 counts or any two strike counts.

Great discussion I love this stuff…you guys are awesome! Thanks!

I have been in many a discussion about those low order hitters, and maybe this will be another one. What I find happens most often, is that the dogma of low-order hitters from kiddyball, somehow infiltrates HS or above ball.

What you’ll see is 3 pages, the 1st being for my boy’s HSV team 2003-2004, the 2nd for the team I currently score for, 2007-present, and the 3rd, both teams combined. They were/are two very different types of hitting teams, but I think there’s one trend that comes through. At least for these two teams, the last 3 guys in the lineup can no longer be assumed to be so weak they can’t catch up to a decent FB.

While the #8 spot in the lineup on both teams produced the worst BA, it wasn’t the kind of lousy performance many associate with the lower 3 positions in the order. And a bad guess about the #7 or #9 spot in the order, could easily produce a bad case of whiplash.

What I’m saying is, while the old tale about those low-order guys not being able to handle FBs is pretty much in fact at low-level rec venues, the likelihood its commonplace in venues where there are tryouts is much less likely, and as the levels increase, the skill levels also increase to the point where its really a bad thing to assume a FB will overpower anyone.

Now there will always be some hitters with “slow” bats who are vulnerable to a FB, but they’ll have to be identified individually, and that’s much more difficult than looking at a BPOS # and forming a hypothesis about the hitter.

I don’t think it, I know the precision most people at those levels strive for is ridiculous. Precision as a goal isn’t bad in and of itself. Its when people actually believe that precision is commonplace that problems arise.

Now there will always be some hitters with “slow” bats who are vulnerable to a FB, but they’ll have to be identified individually, and that’s much more difficult than looking at a BPOS # and forming a hypothesis about the hitter.

Stats are awesome and I actually consider myself some what of a stat guy.

Identifying hitters individually is actually far easier in my opinion then formulating through stats especially at youth levels of the game; high school and below.

Someone with a sound approach and experience in terms of being able to see hitter’s weakness would actually be able to do that simply by watching their swing in the on deck circle. Formulating through a bunch of stats during a game in order to figure out hitter weaknesses will at times become too much. Rather making short notes such as but not limited to…flies open, drops head, lags, drags, loop, and along list of ect will often work just fine.

Not that stats cannot be used effectively and I do agree with your post however high school hitters and below have many very obvious flaws that can easily be seen through without knowing even one single thing about them from statistical stand points…

…just giving the non book/stat point of view on this and again I love stats it is just that sometimes as a coach there are more prevalent things to look at some times…such as but not limited to scouting charts that would not need to in most cases contain any stats.

“If something works don’t change it.” Meaning if a kid can’t hit a curve ball then keep throwing it to him regardless of what his stats may say.

By the way very informative posts…you are obvioulsy very passionate about the game of baseball!!!

That might sound like a simple common sense thing, but believe me, its neither simple nor commonly done.

[quote]I firmly beleive any pitcher at any level can learn from and by their coach calling pitches when it comes to any thing related to this including how to set batters ups.

First of all for any coach who calls pitches it is also their duty to teach amateur pitchers why they were calling the pitches they did or they will turn their young hurlers into robots. I for one have called pitches just like many others however I do not call every single pitch. Simply stated if a coach is calling every pitch then catchers and pitchers alike will never learn how to call their own game…if a high school player goes to a college where the coach does not call pitches they will struggle tremendously whether they are a pitcher or catcher. [/quote]

I too believe a lot can be learned, but to me it doesn’t have to be done through the calling of pitches in games. I will say this though. Your approach of not calling every single pitch is at least a step in the right direction.

[quote]In terms of loosing options by trying to get a batter out on an 0-2 count and not getting it done…say because of a foul ball or simply a ball my point was directly related to the approach of using a set up pitch rather then simply thinking that it should be their main goal to get the hitter out on the 0-2 pitcher.

Obviously this would be a good goal however I should have perhaps stated that it should not be the main one. For instance if an opposing coach and team are well aware of another teams coach and or battery constantly going at guys to get them out on 0-2 counts the adjustment to make would be real easy…doing so would get very predictable even during the course of simply one game…there should varying ways of looking at things… [/quote]

Really? How would you counter the strategy of pitchers not nibbling, or wasting pitches on 0-2 counts?

Out of the 10,281 HSV batters in 186 games I have records for, 687 have finished with the count 0-2 and in 3 pitches, and 149 on 0-2 in more than 3 pitches. That’s about 4.5 a game total, or a little more than 2 for each team. Of course there are some games where there’s more or less, but is it really something to develop a specific strategy about?

I suppose any goal is better than no goal, but I’m still at a bit of a loss as to why you believe throwing 1st pitch strikes, which translates into getting “ahead” of the hitter is not something that should be a goal. I honestly have never heard anyone other than yourself suggest that pitching “behind” in the count is anything other than tempting fate. I’d agree that not getting a FPS is certainly not the end of the world, but I know of absolutely no metric that suggests it’s the best alternative.

As for it being predictable, I don’t get why that’s necessarily a bad thing either. The only thing predictable is trying to get a strike, not the location or the type of pitch.

CC, I don’t mean to come off as saying what you’re proposing is wrong, but I honestly don’t believe a college pitcher throwing strikes is going to get “pounded” simply for that reason. I do believe there are folks who believe it, but I don’t know what proof there could possibly be, and if there is, I’d be more than anxious to see it so I could study it.

[quote]Lastly I mean no disrspect by any posts I make and I feel as though I can learn from anyone at any time. With that being said I have my opinions like many and my main point could have been communicated very simply as is follows;

Don’t get predictable in the way a game is called whether by the dugout, the catcher or pitcher. There are always different ways of looking at things…too many variable to pigeon hole one particular philosophy especially when it comes to how one should always appraoch 0-2 counts or any two strike counts.

Great discussion I love this stuff…you guys are awesome! Thanks![/quote]

I don’t think anyone could possibly take anything you’ve said as a sign of disrespect, and I hope the same can be said for what I say as well.

I too believe predictability in how a game, meaning pitches and locations, are called can definitely give the hitters help they otherwise wouldn’t have had. But how much they’d be able to take advantage of that help is debatable. FI, there are folks who believe that if the pitcher told the hitter exactly what he was going to try to do on the next pitch, the batter would automatically go from a .300 hitter with average power, to an .800 hitter with extraordinary power. While I believe there definitely would be some increase in the batter’s success, I see no reason to believe it would turn the average hitter into a hitter with more than twice the success of Babe. Willie, Hank, Barry, Pete, Ted, Joe, Ralph, Ty or anyone else.

It would be different if pitchers had the accuracy of the world’s best dart thrower, Annie Oakley, or Robin Hood, and hitters had the same ability, but that’s simply not the case.

[quote=“CoachConley30”] Stats are awesome and I actually consider myself some what of a stat guy.

Identifying hitters individually is actually far easier in my opinion then formulating through stats especially at youth levels of the game; high school and below.

Someone with a sound approach and experience in terms of being able to see hitter’s weakness would actually be able to do that simply by watching their swing in the on deck circle. Formulating through a bunch of stats during a game in order to figure out hitter weaknesses will at times become too much. Rather making short notes such as but not limited to…flies open, drops head, lags, drags, loop, and along list of ect will often work just fine. [/quote]

I don’t know that its even possible to tell a hitter’s weaknesses from, let’s call them , “scorebook stats”. The reason is, I know of nothing in a scorebook that measures much other than performance, and its really difficult to do much with those kinds of numbers other than compare players.

But, there are stats that develop things like the Ted Williams strike zone color chart that shows locations and tendencies of outcomes for hitters. Those kinds of metrics are the useful ones for real time, and the scorebook metrics are the ones used for game prep and things like making trades, negotiating contracts, awarding scholarships, or hading out awards.

[quote]Not that stats cannot be used effectively and I do agree with your post however high school hitters and below have many very obvious flaws that can easily be seen through without knowing even one single thing about them from statistical stand points…

…just giving the non book/stat point of view on this and again I love stats it is just that sometimes as a coach there are more prevalent things to look at some times…such as but not limited to scouting charts that would not need to in most cases contain any stats. [/quote]

Well, scouting charts are stats, even though they aren’t typically seen as such. Stats are simply numbers that quantify something. Seeing the note on a scouting chart that player “A” often flies open on an outside off speed pitch, is really quantifying what he does in a certain circumstance, thus making it a statistic.

I agree.

Naw. Just very passionate about the scoring rules and what can be gleaned from statistics if one just tries.