Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Nationals pitching coach Steve McCatty believes fewer K’s equals more W’s, and so far so good

Didn’t Bill James say that the only thing wrong with strikeouts is that they’re boring?

The man who oversees baseball’s best pitching staff does not care for the position’s most glamorous statistic. In fact the thought of it makes Steve McCatty recoil. He crosses his arms. His head shakes. A sour expression crosses his face.

“Strikeouts are bull[bleep],” he says.

Steve McCatty doesn’t want his pitchers trying to strike out every batter. He scoffs. Such a waste, he implies.

...“If you try to strike out every hitter you’re going to burn up pitches,” says McCatty, the Nationals pitching coach. “Look, just do the math. If you’re taking 15-20 pitches to get through every inning that will multiply fast.”

He would rather his pitchers let the hitters hit the ball. This is an organizational emphasis of the Nationals. Instead of two strikeouts in an inning, how about just one along with a pop-up to second base? It’s just easier, he says.

...“Outs are outs,” McCatty says, still standing in the Nationals clubhouse. “If you don’t need the strikeout, why use all the pitches to get one? I’d rather win 2-1 and have our pitcher strike out two and walk four than lose 2-1 and have our pitcher strike out 13 and walk one.”

Repoz Posted: July 11, 2012 at 09:18 PM | 51 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: July 11, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4180639)
I'd rather win 2-1 than lose 2-1. Full stop.
   2. Infinite Yost (Voxter) Posted: July 11, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4180645)
I submit that Steve McCatty likely has little to do with the Nats' pitching success.
   3. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: July 11, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4180646)
1) Strikeouts are no bull[bleep]. They're the best kind of out. Less can go wrong.
2) Pitchers don't get to choose how many strikeouts they get, or at least trade them for different kinds of outs. Sometimes you trade a strikeout for a double.

However, if you try to strike out a batter from the first pitch, yeah, you're probably going to waste pitches, because you're throwing pitches to try and get strikes, rather than try to get less-than-solid contact. If they put the ball in play every time, and you don't walk guys and don't give up homers, you're going to have good results.
   4. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: July 11, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4180647)
Also, the Nats are third in the NL in K/9. So...
   5. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: July 11, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4180649)
And first in the NL in HR/9.
   6. BDC Posted: July 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM (#4180654)
I interpreted W's as Walks, and was trying to figure out how McCatty could twist more walks into being a good thing.
   7. Bote Man Posted: July 11, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4180659)
1) Strikeouts are no bull[bleep]. They're the best kind of out. Less can go wrong.

Not if Angel Hernandez or Bob Davidson are calling balls and strikes!
   8. villageidiom Posted: July 11, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4180673)
However, if you try to strike out a batter from the first pitch, yeah, you're probably going to waste pitches, because you're throwing pitches to try and get strikes, rather than try to get less-than-solid contact.
Please, please don't let Daisuke Matsuzaka hear you say that.
   9. PreservedFish Posted: July 11, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4180675)
If they put the ball in play every time, and you don't walk guys and don't give up homers, you're going to have good results.

DIPS has really established a framework for how we statheads think about pitching. I think the "don't give up homers" bit would look weird to someone coming at it from a different angle.
   10. TerpNats Posted: July 11, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4180677)
It also has to do with showing confidence in your defense. The top priority is to get outs; sometimes they'll come by K's, more often through your infield or outfield.
   11. Xpgdxbq Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4180684)
So, does he hate Strasburg, or?

This is just so dumb in so many ways. Even using their own silly way to evaluate things:

Strasburg: 11.6 K/9 -> 9-4
Gonzalez: 10.4 K/9 -> 12-3
Jackson: 6.8 K/9 -> 5-4
Detwiler: 6.3 K/9 -> 4-3
Zimmerman: 6.0 K/9 -> 4-5

They literally couldn't have gotten "fewer Ks = more Ws" more wrong if they tried.

He actually somewhat acknowledges this, but his conclusion is that Strasburg could be striking out more batters if he tried. No, seriously:

The irony of all this is the Nationals do strike people out. They get lots of strikeouts. The team with the National League's best record is also fifth in the majors in strikeouts with 693. Strasburg alone has 128, Gonzalez 118.
But they could probably strike out more. A lot more. Which is where McCatty's words seem to have settled in and Washington's pitching has it unexpectedly in first place in the National League East.


Emph/m

Seriously, what the hell is his evidence for this? Why does he think this? Bah, #### it. Lazy sports writer ass kissing rationalizing bullshit.
   12. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4180686)
PITCH FAST
CHANGE SPEEDS
THROW STRIKES


Ray Miller, when he first became the Orioles' pitching coach, had T-shirts printed with those three lines on them, and passed them out to every pitcher on the roster. I've yet to see a better summary of intelligent pitching strategy, or a better strategy for avoiding 3 to 4 hour games.
   13. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4180690)
If they put the ball in play every time, and you don't walk guys and don't give up homers, you're going to have good results.

How do you pitch a ball such that the hitter won't miss it but still won't hit it over the fence? If the answer is throw sinkers, why not just say "try and get ground balls"?
   14. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4180691)
He would rather his pitchers let the hitters hit the ball. This is an organizational emphasis of the Nationals. Instead of two strikeouts in an inning, how about just one along with a pop-up to second base? It’s just easier, he says.


Who is striking out two batters an inning?

   15. Posada Posse Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:33 PM (#4180692)
Steve McCatty = Mel Stottlemyre ???
Stephen Strasburg = Dwight Gooden ???
   16. Sunday silence Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:38 PM (#4180695)
but his conclusion is that Strasburg could be striking out more batters if he tried. No, seriously:
...


I think what he means is that, (and I was scratching my head for a minute too) Strasburg et al. are following McCatty's theory and really are trying to pitch to contact or whatever. But yeah, this whole thing is dumb on so many levels.
   17. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:45 PM (#4180696)
How do you pitch a ball such that the hitter won't miss it but still won't hit it over the fence? If the answer is throw sinkers, why not just say "try and get ground balls"?

That is what he's saying.

Wow, tough crowd around here. I didn't think “If you try to strike out every hitter you’re going to burn up pitches. Look, just do the math. If you’re taking 15-20 pitches to get through every inning that will multiply fast.” would be considered that laughable of a statement.
   18. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:46 PM (#4180697)
PITCH FAST
CHANGE SPEEDS
THROW STRIKES


I assume, Andy, by the first line he meant "WORK FAST" rather than throw fastballs

because, e.g. Sudden Sam was the fastest pitcher and slowest worker I ever sawed
   19. PreservedFish Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4180698)
How do you pitch a ball such that the hitter won't miss it but still won't hit it over the fence? If the answer is throw sinkers, why not just say "try and get ground balls"?


Tom Glavine is the obvious guy that did this all the time without sinkers. He very clearly pitched to contact and was able to spectacularly limit homeruns. And it was easy to see what he was doing, just living within the six inches off the outside edge of the plate, and he didn't ever groove it down the middle just to get a strike in situations that others would (at the expense of his walk rates). Even if you know it's coming, it's tough to turn on a ball in that location, and it's tough to hit homeruns to the opposite field. It was like a video game where you find a simple advantage that you can exploit ceaselessly. Boring as hell, but effective.
   20. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4180699)
How do you pitch a ball such that the hitter won't miss it but still won't hit it over the fence? If the answer is throw sinkers, why not just say "try and get ground balls"?

That is what he's saying.

Then why does he say
Instead of two strikeouts in an inning, how about just one along with a pop-up to second base? It’s just easier, he says.?
   21. Ray (CTL) Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:48 PM (#4180700)
Does McCatty have some revolutionary data showing that pitchers with low strikeout rates succeed more than pitchers with high ones?
   22. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:53 PM (#4180703)
Instead of two strikeouts in an inning, how about just one along with a pop-up to second base?

I didn't realize you could order those, like a Happy Meal.

"one pop-up and a side of 4-3"
   23. PreservedFish Posted: July 11, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4180704)
It's worth noting that the "Fewer Ks equals more Ws" line appears only in the headline, not in the actual article and certainly not in any quotes by McCatty. I suppose it is implied to some extent, because he is arguing that less emphasis on Ks will make his pitchers more effective.

In the article he also acknowledges that his pitchers sometimes might give up extra hits or homeruns due to this strategy. I imagine that without the filter of this dumbass writer he would sound less insane on the issue.
   24. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: July 12, 2012 at 12:09 AM (#4180707)
Steve McCatty = Mel Stottlemyre ???
Stephen Strasburg = Dwight Gooden ???

That was the first thing I thought of as well, because it sounds remarkably similar. Now a sample size of one is never a good one, but it's hard to say it worked out in that case.
   25. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: July 12, 2012 at 12:22 AM (#4180711)
Of course, innings-wise, the Nats seem to be taking the exact opposite approach. Which may have been the real issue with Doc.
   26. Walt Davis Posted: July 12, 2012 at 12:34 AM (#4180714)
Instead of two strikeouts in an inning, how about just one along with a pop-up to second base? It’s just easier, he says.

So a K-rate of 18/9 is probably going too far. He's fine however with a team K-rate of 9/9 and a pop-up rate of 9/9. Sounds perfectly doable.

Strasburg is K'ing 11.6 per 9. Among pitchers with at least 180 IP in a season, that would rank 9th all-time behind 6 Randy Johnson seasons and 2 Pedro seasons and just ahead of seasons from Johnson, Ryan, Gooden, Pedro and Wood. So, no, I really don't think Strasburg could strike out more guys or at least not by much. Now he is averaging 3.95 p/PA (4 for this year) so I can see that there might be something to gain by having him pitch a bit more to contact.

But ... Halladay is pretty much at the efficient extreme and he's at 3.57 p/PA. Let's say it's "reasonable" to get Strasburg down to 3.7 or so, a savings of .25 p/PA over his career rate. Let's say this comes at the "expense" of 3 Ks becoming BIP. That results in roughly 1 extra hit and so 1 extra PA.* That would move him from 24 PA per 6 IP to 25. So currently he's at about 94.8 pitches per 6 IP; the lower pitch rate would put him at 92.5 pitches. You save him 60-70 pitches a year.

* Yeah, that's a little high but his career BABIP is actually 310 and 320 this year. Small sample but I don't want to worry about .9 extra PA per game because it makes my head hurt ... but maybe you save him 3 pitches per start. I suppose over the course of a season, that's 1 extra start.
   27. Walt Davis Posted: July 12, 2012 at 12:37 AM (#4180715)
PITCH FAST
CHANGE SPEEDS
THROW STRIKES


I think those are in reverse order.

Which brings us to Mr. S. He's got a K/BB over 5 for his career. He's throwing strikes. He's Schilling with a higher K-rate. That's wonderfully and beautifully efficient.
   28. Xpgdxbq Posted: July 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM (#4180719)
[17],[23]: My post was ripping the lazy writer of this article, not really McCatty himself, who I think is only somewhat off-base.
   29. DA Baracus Posted: July 12, 2012 at 01:09 AM (#4180724)
Instead of two strikeouts in an inning, how about just one along with a pop-up to second base?


Yeah but what about the third out?
   30. Zipperholes Posted: July 12, 2012 at 01:24 AM (#4180728)
Wow, tough crowd around here. I didn't think “If you try to strike out every hitter you’re going to burn up pitches. Look, just do the math. If you’re taking 15-20 pitches to get through every inning that will multiply fast.” would be considered that laughable of a statement.
No, you're right, the approach makes complete sense. What's idiotic is the idea that striking people out or inducing in-play outs is some conscious choice. It's better to use fewer pitches and get outs on balls in play than use more pitches and strike people out. Well, no ####### ####. Let me know when you unlock the secret to getting every hitter to make weak contact.

I think a lot of people in baseball are not very smart. Not in terms of knowing the game and stuff--they're obviously very good at that. Just generally speaking, in terms of logic, and understanding the causes and effects of things.
   31. cardsfanboy Posted: July 12, 2012 at 01:56 AM (#4180731)
Isn't one of the knock against young Nolan Ryan is that he tried to strike everyone out and tried to avoid allowing balls in play, even if it meant a walk, and that mature Nolan Ryan was a much better pitcher because he came to rely more on his defense? Isn't that really all this guy is saying, don't concentrate on the strikeouts, they will come, concentrate on pitches that if they do make contact with, have a good chance of turning into outs? keep the defense ready etc?

I don't really see anything wrong with what he is teaching. He's not saying (regardless of what the headline implies) to just throw the ball and let them hit it. But instead he's saying the odds say if they do put the ball in play, the odds are in your favor that they will make an out and the quicker(fewer pitches) you get outs, the deeper you are going to go into the game? In certain circumstances it's important to try to get the strikeout, but those situations are rarer than you might think.

   32. McCoy Posted: July 12, 2012 at 02:17 AM (#4180733)
Not really. Nolan, until the day his arm blew out, was trying to throw the perfect pitch. The difference between young Nolan and old Nolan is that old Nolan was more likely to throw the perfect pitch as compared to young Nolan.
   33. G.W.O. Posted: July 12, 2012 at 02:24 AM (#4180735)
Strikeouts are boring. Beside that, they're fascist.
   34. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: July 12, 2012 at 02:34 AM (#4180738)
Who is striking out two batters an inning?

I think Sean Doolittle had that going for a little while, but he's since fallen off the pace a bit.
   35. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: July 12, 2012 at 02:53 AM (#4180739)
Every now and then, I look at Nolan Ryan's season-to-season walk totals just to remind myself that they actually happened. I hated watching him pitch.
   36. Sunday silence Posted: July 12, 2012 at 03:31 AM (#4180741)
He's not saying (regardless of what the headline implies) to just throw the ball and let them hit it. But instead he's saying the odds say if they do put the ball in play, the odds are in your favor that they will make an out and the quicker(fewer pitches) you get outs, the deeper you are going to go into the game?


But then how do you square this with our current understanding of BABIP? From what I gather BABIP at least for pitchers remains constant at about .290.


You say "the odds are in your favor," but are they?

So if you were to eschew strike outs entirely, you'd be left with what about 2% HR and maybe 8% walks? So you'd be left with a line like .310 batting average .390 OBP etc. That probably wont cut it in MLB. Despite the fact that most balls are hit for outs, does not mean the odds favor you.

The only thing a pitcher can do to effect this in a positive way is get strikeouts. Well that and to reduce walks.

You say he's not saying to just let them hit it, but as has been stated by others: You cant really make a conscious choice to turn 3 strikes and 2 balls into one pop up. Or even a 90% catchable flyball. It's more like a 70% catchable fly/groudball/line drive.

There just doesnt seem to be any statistical evidence of such thing, unless I am woefully out of date in these BABIP discussions. Which is also possible.
   37. Walt Davis Posted: July 12, 2012 at 05:05 AM (#4180745)
From what I gather BABIP at least for pitchers remains constant at about .290.

No, not constant. It doesn't vary a lot but it does vary by pitcher in a consistent manner -- i.e. there is some skill here. For projection purposes, it doesn't necessarily matter a lot if you regress everybody back to the mean but I think all the serious projection systems allow for some talent there.

Also it varies some across eras.

But that said, yes, there's a disconnect in what McCatty seems to be saying, at least in the excerpt. A popup and a strikeout are equal of course but not all BIP result in popups. But I gather from comments above that he makes note of that (I mean, it's pretty obvious)

Also, although I made this mistake, we don't want BABIP, we want BA on-contact as some of those extra batted balls will go over the fence. That will reduce the pitch savings even more.

Anyway, what I want my pitchers to do is throw strikes. OK, I'll run into the occasionaly Glendon Rusch but throw strikes and you'll do OK. Strasburg throws strikes. The whole team seems to do a pretty good job, but Strasburg is outstanding.

Through age 23, at least 100 IP, the only guy with a higher K rate than Strasburg was K-Rod. The 3 closest starters are -- cover your eyes children -- Liriano, Wood and Prior. Followed by Park, Ankiel, Witt, Ollie, Morrow, McDowell, Kazmir, Gio, Herb Score, Sale and finally Josh Beckett. OK, Strasburg is doomed, trade him now.

I hear Alfonso Soriano is available. :-)

On the hopefully brighter side, he's second in K/BB (among those with at least 9 K/9) to Oswalt. He's followed by Liriano and Prior but then Hamels. But then there's Pineda -- the fun just never stops with this group.
   38. Tricky Dick Posted: July 12, 2012 at 09:07 AM (#4180798)
Wow, tough crowd around here. I didn't think “If you try to strike out every hitter you’re going to burn up pitches. Look, just do the math. If you’re taking 15-20 pitches to get through every inning that will multiply fast.” would be considered that laughable of a statement.

I can understand a pitching coach trying to change the habits of young hard throwers who can't last longer than 5 innings because they expend so many pitches trying to strike out batters. (Sometimes young pitchers really haven't perfected the put away pitch that works on big league hitters, and just continue throwing pitches that are fouled off.) If preaching "pitch to contact" leads to throwing more strikes and fewer walks, it might be a good thing.

But I don't think the linkage between strike outs and pitch counts is as clear as "just do the math" implies. Pitch to contact can lead to more base runners, which increases the pitch count required to get through an inning. This may well offset the extra pitches required to strike out a batter. I recall reading studies that conclude that very point. For example, this 2007 article centered around Kazmir.
   39. Bote Man Posted: July 12, 2012 at 09:31 AM (#4180813)
Through age 23, at least 100 IP, the only guy with a higher K rate than Strasburg was K-Rod. The 3 closest starters are -- cover your eyes children -- Liriano, Wood and Prior. Followed by Park, Ankiel, Witt, Ollie, Morrow, McDowell, Kazmir, Gio, Herb Score, Sale and finally Josh Beckett. OK, Strasburg is doomed, trade him now.

That argues pretty strongly for "damn the innings limit, pitch him until his arm falls off!!!" Ahoy Captain! Playoffs in sight!!
   40. Bob Tufts Posted: July 12, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4180991)
GWO - thanks for the Bull Durham reference!
   41. Sunday silence Posted: July 12, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4181028)
another issue that is not touched upon, perhaps because it is not easy to break down statistically, is that of the batter's approach to all this. WOuldn't they change their strategy if they knew that the pitcher is just nibbling or pitching to contact?

I dont think we have any good data on this, because this hitter v pitcher dynamic is changing all the time and it's hard to set a baseline. But it seems that the batter is not just a passive player in all this, he has the ability to change his approach and try to take advantage of what the pitcher is doing.
   42. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: July 12, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4181055)
For projection purposes, it doesn't necessarily matter a lot if you regress everybody back to the mean but I think all the serious projection systems allow for some talent there.

Back when I was doing projections, a guy like Wakefield or Rivera might be seven or eight points lower but that was all I could justify mathematically. Regressing to the mean and regressing almost to the mean don't present huge differences in outcomes for projections. Obviously the latter is more accurate, but I don't think it changes our calculus very much on how we think about the stat from day to day.

And of course, one of the factors that led to a lower BABIP in the system was a _high_ strikeout total which also exacerbates the problem of trying to induce weak contact _instead_ of getting strikeouts (seems like you tend to get both or neither). The problem with what McCatty saying is not theoretical, it's practical. The art of pitching just doesn't seem to work that way. Even the concern about high pitch counts with lots of strikeouts seems to not be as clear as you might think.
   43. Walt Davis Posted: July 12, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4181325)
Right ... what can lead to high pitch counts is high Ks with high BBs. Well, high p/PA counts or p/IP counts ... total pitch counts are mainly up to the team of course.

Anyway, so far this year, p/PA at the team level varies from 3.68 to 3.96 with a ML average of 3.82 -- nice and symmetric. The "best" are the Twins and I don't think anybody's lining up to emulate them. The Nats are at 3.83.

There's very little variation in strike% -- 62% to 65% with the Nats at 64. (Note, having a decimal there might be useful but you'd still be talking about less than 1 extra strike per game).

At the player level, you essentially get a range of about 3.4 to about 4.2 p/PA with a number of good and bad pitchers at both ends so it's not an immediately obvious connection. Strike % varies from about 55% (Kyle Drabek, stop what you're doing) to 70%. This seems a bit better as guys at the top are almost all considered good pitchers (Hughes excepted) but you still see very good names around 60% (CJ Wilson at 60; Gio at 61). Given his K/BB rate, Strasburg is lower on this than I expected at 64%.
   44. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: July 12, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4181347)
And as far as team dynamics go, p/IP is the key one. And so a guy who throws relatively few pitches per/PA but gives up a lot of baserunners cedes that advantage quickly and vice versa.
   45. Walt Davis Posted: July 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4181474)
And as far as team dynamics go, p/IP is the key one.

Agreed ... but I couldn't find the team page with p/IP on it at b-r.
   46. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: July 12, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4181484)
I think the general idea is to try to strike out the really dangerous guys, but look for some 1- or 2-pitch at-bats against the bottom third of the order. It's not dumb at all in that context. You shouldn't pile up pitches against weaker hitters if you can help it.
   47. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: July 12, 2012 at 11:43 PM (#4181502)
And as far as team dynamics go, p/IP is the key one.

Agreed ... but I couldn't find the team page with p/IP on it at b-r.


I exported Fangraphs team numbers to a spreadsheet and divided Total Pitches by IP. The most economical 5:

Pirates 15.4 P/IP
Nationals 15.8
Twins 15.8
Diamondbacks 15.8
Cardinals 15.9

The 5 least economical:

Brewers 17.2
Rockies 17.0
Rays 16.9
Blue Jays 16.7
Tigers 16.6

So it looks like whatever McCatty is saying is working like he wants.
   48. McCoy Posted: July 12, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4181511)
Washington is tied for second in the NL in K/9 at 8.3 while the leader has 8.5. League average on walks, first in least amount of homers per 9, and allow the second least amount of balls in play in the league as well.
   49. Russ Posted: July 13, 2012 at 06:37 AM (#4181572)

I exported Fangraphs team numbers to a spreadsheet and divided Total Pitches by IP.


Isn't this going to be confounded by the number of non-outs that occur in an inning? This is a classic backwards causation problem... the low TP/IP is not causing the performance to be good, the good performance is likely causing the TP/IP to be low. A better measure would be to look at the number of Total Pitches when the batter makes an out / IP, as then every team gets the same 3 shots per inning. Even though teams will obviously throw more pitches on non-outs than outs (if only because of walks), the pitchers don't really know that the outs aren't coming.

Total Pitches / PA that Walt suggested is better, but suffers from the problem that teams that walk more hitters will just have more TP / PA.

I don't love my measure either, but it probably gets closer to what we're looking for -- how much are pitchers working to get the outs that they get.
   50. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 13, 2012 at 07:28 AM (#4181580)
I think the general idea is to try to strike out the really dangerous guys, but look for some 1- or 2-pitch at-bats against the bottom third of the order.


The 70s called.
   51. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: July 13, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4182008)
And it was 1973 Tom Seaver on the line so you should probably listen. :-)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe Hall of Fame may have a Harold Baines problem
(37 - 3:10pm, Dec 06)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread, Start of the 2019-2020 Season
(1315 - 3:02pm, Dec 06)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogCaptain Obvious
(15 - 2:45pm, Dec 06)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogPadres-Rays Trade: Tommy Pham, Hunter Renfroe Headline Intriguing Deal (Report)
(26 - 2:43pm, Dec 06)
Last: Skloot Insurance

NewsblogWhat we know about the Angels' deal with Anaheim - Los Angeles Times
(2 - 2:38pm, Dec 06)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-6-2019
(3 - 2:36pm, Dec 06)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogNationals Owner Says Team Cant Afford Stephen Strasburg and Anthony Rendon
(2 - 2:08pm, Dec 06)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogOT- Soccer Thread- October 2019
(753 - 1:57pm, Dec 06)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogThe Hall of Fame Case for Don Mattingly
(59 - 1:55pm, Dec 06)
Last: Zonk Has Two Faces, Both Laughing

NewsblogScar Tissue - By Bobby Jenks
(2 - 12:39pm, Dec 06)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogTesting, no suspensions for opioids considered likely in MLB
(5 - 12:26pm, Dec 06)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogBobby Jenks: Scar Tissue
(72 - 12:21pm, Dec 06)
Last: gef, talking mongoose & vexatious litigant

NewsblogMets acquiring center fielder Jake Marisnick from Astros
(43 - 12:16pm, Dec 06)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

NewsblogThe Best Post-Season Games Ever Pitched
(6 - 11:34am, Dec 06)
Last: bobm

NewsblogRays in listening phase entering winter meetings
(3 - 10:17am, Dec 06)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Page rendered in 0.4630 seconds
46 querie(s) executed