Bochy Breaks Down the Season and the Kids

[klaiggeb]

Very interesting article.

Here's the link.

www.knbr.com/2018/10/01/bochy-explains-why-hes-returning-to-giants-breaks-down-what-went-wrong-in-2018/

[rog]

It sounds like Duggar is the only guy they're counting on for next season, but that Shaun Anderson isn't far away. Duggar is a bit of a difference-maker with his glove; the obvious question is his hitting.

Bruce was pleased with how much better Steven hit right before he got injured and missed the rest of the season. He went 6 for 18 in his last five games, including a triple and FOUR RBI's. Hidden though was just one walk and seven strikeouts. Regardless of what Bruce said, when Duggar strikes out over a third of the time, he's not hitting well.

Hopefully Steven will make great progress over the winter, but he doesn't appear to be a guy who would benefit from hitting the ball in the air more often. What he needs to do is hit it harder. He hit the ball hard only 30% of the time, which isn't horrible but is deficient for a guy who strikes out more than once every four times at the plate and walks only once out of 16 trips.

It may be true that as Bruce says, Steven began to hit better. It appears he was lucky he hit as high as he did, so if he were doing so legitimately in those last five games, that would represent improvement.

The positives for Steven are that he goes outside the zone only 30% of the time. For a guy who strikes out as often as he, that's not bad. And he swings and missed only once out of nine pitches. Not great, but again, not bad for a guy who strikes out as often as he.

While it doesn't seem he would benefit from more loft, it appears he might benefit from being more aggressive. He hit .538 on first pitches. He hit the four seam fastball well and perhaps surprisingly, the curve. He struggled mightily against sinkers and change ups.

When the first pitch was a strike and he didn't put it in play, he went on to hit only .205. It looks like once he gets behind, he misses too many change ups and sinkers. By being more aggressive, he wouldn't get behind to often. When the first pitch is a ball or he puts it in play, he hits easily over .300.

More aggressiveness might come from more confidence, so let's hope he gets more of each over the winter. It appears more aggressiveness has a good chance of allowing him to improve as a hitter, perhaps significantly. And despite a decent average, he needs significant improvement at the plate, lest he become a glove-only center fielder.

Steven was also very good on the bases, although that's how he got hurt. There's reason for optimism with Steven, but I think he's going to have to become more aggressive in order to reach his potential. And he needs to put enough fear in pitchers that they don't throw him so many strikes (over three out of every five first pitches were in the strike zone), so that he can improve his poor walk rate and have a chance to become a decent lead off hitter.

The Giants need Steven to continue to play a fine defensive center field and to hit well enough to be at least an average lead off man.

[rog]

When Steven swings at a pitch in the strike zone, he makes contact on six out of seven pitches, which isn't bad. When the pitch is outside the strike zone, he makes contact only four out of seven, which is indeed poor. Obviously he needs to improve his pitch recognition, and avoiding two strikes more often should help that.

If batters learn from Christian Yelich and become more aggressive, they will go into fewer deep counts and intially at least speed up the pace of play.

[klaiggeb]

Did you watch him play, Roger, or are you just going by his numbers?

I suspect you didn't see him that much, because if you had, you'd understand what Bochy was talking about.

Duggar made solid, if not huge strides as a hitter.

In his last 20+ ab's, he was more disciplined, and looked a lot more self assured.

He was looking and acting like he belonged.

As Krukow says, that's half the battle.

[rog]

I saw him play, and indeed he looked like he felt more and more that he belonged. Chris Shaw likely had the biggest jump in that department given how bad a start he got off to.

His hits went up considerably his last five games of the season (although the last one wasn't very good). But here's the thing. Let's say he ewas more disciplined and looked a lot more self-assured. Let's call that a given.

The fact still is that he struck out seven times in his final 18 at bats, walking only once. If a more disciplined and more self-assured Steven Duggar strikes out seven times in his last 18 at bats, why is he more self-assured?

In those last 18 at bats, Steven put the ball in play only 11 times, somehow getting six hits. Do we think that no matter hwo good his plate discipline is and how much more self-assured he is, he's going to get six hits over his career for every 11 balls he puts into play?

Three or four is more like it, and then he would have hit .167 or .222.

Steve DID make improvements, and he became something of a force on the bases. Remember how he was dead meat once he got two strikes on him, as we pretty much knew he was going to strike out on a change up? He struck out 17 times in his first 42 at bats.

He then stabilized with a decent 20 strikeouts in his next 81 at bats. That's basically one out of every four at bats. But then during the period I mentioned, he struck out seven times in his final 18 at bats.

Steve did a decent job of stabilizing his "middle" 81 at bats with 20 strikeouts, but in his first 42 of the season and his final 18 trips, he struck out 24 times in 60 at bats. That's unacceptable.

In those 60 at bats, it looks like Steve hit pretty well. He had a .283 average, which isn't bad. But what WAS bad was his hitting. He hit the ball only 36 times, and yet he got 17 hits, a batting average close to .500 when he made contact.

The bottom line is that Steven may have been confident and more disciplined in his last five game, but clearly he had other problems that allowed him to hit the ball only 11 times in 18 at bats. Over anything approaching a full season, that just isn't going to cut it.

A confident and disciplined Duggar still couldn't put the ball in play often enough.

Over the season, Steven did do a nice job of hitting line drives. But he didn't hit the ball hard enough. Based on how hard he hit the ball and the angles at which he hit it, Baseball Savant figured he should have hit .197 instead of .255. No doubt the truth lies somewhere in between. But if he had hit .225 instead of .255, I'll bet we would be singing a different tune.

Remember back early in Steven's Giants career when the announcers were calling him a double machine? Most of those doubles were bloops down the left field line.

Unless Steven changes his hitting pattern, teams will play him shallow in left and between the line and straight away left field. They'll play the center fielder shallow and just a tiny bit toward right. They'll play the right fielder straight away and shallow. With two outs and no runner in scoring position, they'll play a little deeper to cut of potential extra base hits.

Thank goodness Steven can bunt or at least has the threat (no hits on two bunts), or the third baseman would play shortstop against him. Still might do so with two strikes. Otherwise the shortstop cheats toward second base just a bit, the second baseman plays pretty much straight away but just a little toward first, and the first baseman plays off the line and fairly shallow.

This past season Steven hit .354 on balls in play, yet because of all the strikeouts, he hit just .255 overall. Unless Steven hits the ball harder, he's not going to continue to hit .354 on balls in play. Which means he's not going to hit even .255 again unless he cuts down his strikeouts and/or hits the ball harder.

Regarding where he hits the ball, you know how on the telecasts they break the field down into fifths? Steven hit the ball in the air only once that was definitely in that second fifth (more or less shortstop) of the field. Think the left fielder will begin cheating the line? Think he'll take away some of those bloops down the left field line?

Steven hit only five non-ground balls last season that were in the air less than a second and a half, meaning his line drives were mostly high liners. He hit the ball in the air for less than three seconds only 11 other times. When Steven is played properly, he's going to find a lot of his hits this season will get choked off -- both in the outfield and on the infield.

Steven was lucky with the bat this season. If he hits the ball the same and strikes out the same this season, he'll almost certainly see his average drop by 25 points or more. Teams will know how to position him better. Had they positioned themselves better just three times last season, Steven would have hit .234. If they had done so five times, he would have hit .222. Had they done so eight times, he wouldn't have hit .200.

Not only does Baseball Savant tell us that Steven was probably lucky, looking at his spray chart shows us that better positioning by the defense would have made his hitting unacceptable. As it was, his on base percentage was an unacceptable .303.

Defensively, Steven has the goods. As a base runner, he has looked sharp thus far (although he may want to change his slide). As a hitter, he was unacceptable last season, and he was likely lucky to have hit as well as he did.

Bruce Bochy felt he was more confident and had better plate discipline toward the end of Steven's injury-interrupted season. Yet that increased confidence and better plate discipline didn't keep Steven from striking out seven times in his final 18 at bats.

I already gave a way I feel he could improve himself as a hitter. Be more aggressive. With two strikes, Steven hit just .149. When he was behind the pitcher, he hit only .170.

When he hit the first pitch, he hit .538. When he was ahead 1-0, he hit .500. Ahead 2-0, he batted .333. He wasn't good on the 2-1 pitch or with a full count (There are those two strikes again.), but he hit .715 on 3-1.

Boly can work on Steven's mechanics, and if I could convince Steven to be more aggressive, he might be the kind of hitter we'd like him to be.

Boly, what WOULD you change about Steven's mechanics? And how would you convince him to become more aggressive?

[rog]

If we asked Bruce if Steven improved his strikeouts his final seven games, was about the same as he had been over the rest of the season, or if he had struck out more in those seven games, what do you think Bruce would say? I'd be willing to bet he'd either say he didn't know or he would say Steven had improved, which would likely have been the case IMO. But his last seven games Steven was WORSE on strikeouts. That's not to say he didn't hit the ball harder. That's not to say he didn't hit in better luck.

But he was WORSE on strikeouts, and Steven had a tough enough season striking out as it was. He didn't go out of the strike zone too horribly much, and he didn't swing and miss a really high percentage of pitches. Doesn't his high strikeout total tell us that he likely took too many strikes? Boly complained about almost ALL the Giants hitter in that regard.

If Steven becomes more aggressive, doesn't he have a chance to hit better than with the approach he took last season?

Steve swung at only three out of every five pitches in the strike zone. For him, I don't believe that is enough.

How did the rest of you see it?

[klaiggeb]

Again, all I see from you, Roger is numbers.

You watched him play, but how much?

I watched him virtually every game and every at bat.

I watched him grow as a hitter.

ACTUALLY SAW his eye get better.

Actually SAW his contact improve against both LHP and RHP.

With all due respect, if all you're going to do is throw numbers out, Roger, again, with all due respect, you're barking up a tree I'm not interested in climbing.

I say again, as I've said many times before; numbers have a huge place, but it is a mistake, a foolish mistake to put one's total faith in numbers alone.

[rog]

Steve DID improve as his season went along. He improved mostly by striking out less, which he did as you say because his eye got better and his contact improved. Aren't you the least bit worried though that his last week or so his strikeout rate increased to right back where it had been in his early days with the Giants? Did he lose some of that improvement?

I think we both agree that he needs to continue improving at the plate, particularly in getting on base. I have offered a plan for Steven to get better. It is the same plan Christian Yelich has used to likely win the NL MVP award -- being more aggressive at the plate.

Yet rather than discuss the important part of what I am saying, you're using the same old argument that all I'm using is numbers. Aren't you throwing the baby out with the bath water? Shouldn't we be discussing what Steven should do to improve rather than whether I am using only numbers? Who cares WHAT I am using if I come up with a good idea?

Do you not see the potential improvement Steven might make by being more aggressive?

Let's look at this logically.

First, you have complained most of the year that the Giants are taking too many strikes. If you're not including Steven in this, shouldn't you be?

And if Steven is taking too many good pitches to hit, wouldn't he likely improve by being more aggressive (as in swinging at more good pitches to hit)?

We both saw Steven get KILLED by the change up. Wouldn't it make sense for him to swing earlier in the count where he is more likely to get the four-seamers he hits well than the change ups he misses?

I think we agree on the primary point here, but you're hung up on the numbers I've used to show how likely it is that the method of change I am recommending is likely to improve his hitting. I think you see numbers, don't understand them, don't want to get caught up in them, and overreact.

Isn't the important thing here that we may have come up with a plan for Steven to hit better?

His hitting coaches likely ARE trying to get him to be more aggressive, to swing more at better pitches so he doesn't have to face so many bad ones and pitches he doesn't hit well. What I've shown is facts that strongly back up their idea.

Wouldn't you like to see Steven be more aggressive? If so, why are you quibbling over the numbers, which I've simply used to back up what I think is a very good idea.

If you don't agree with me that Steven should be more aggressive, let's talk about why you don't feel that way. But if you agree with me, why are you letting numbers get in the way?

I've built a strong case that Steven should be more aggressive, beginning with the fact that it worked EXCEPTIONALLY well for this year's likely MVP. If you agree, why not say that you agree and that when you looked at them more closely, the numbers DO build a stronger case for the idea.

If you disagree, then let's compare reasons as to why we see it differently. But let's not simply drop a potentially good idea because there are a lot of numbers that back it up.

My frustration is that when most here see numbers, rather than try to understand them and see where they fit into the discussion, they take the easy way out and say that I don't understand anything but numbers.

[klaiggeb]

I'll give, and have given all Rookies a pass in their first 100 at bats.

They don't know the pitchers, they don't know the speed of the game at the MLB level, and they're still trying to fit in.


You misunderstand my position on numbers, Rog.

You seem to base your entire opinion on them.

I don't.

I want to SEE them play, AND see the numbers.

I put the emphasis on the SEE in the early going; what adjustments they are or are not making, how they look at the plate, are they over whelmed by just being in the show and so forth.

You don't seem to do that. You judge everything by their numbers, and for rookies, that is misleading.

That's why I give them a bye for their first 100 abs

[rog]

I don't judge players entirely by their numbers. I hate to keep bringing this up, but and example is that you still either haven't looked up the video or simply don't see that Andrelton Simmons makes plays Brandon Crawford doesn't make. Is Brandon more fundamentally sound? Probably. Is he smoother? I think Brandon may be both the most fundamentally sound and the smoothest of shortstops.

But there are plays Simmons makes that Brandon can't make. Watch the video. I've watched the many Simmons videos several times, and I've watched Brandon's fewer number of videos a lot as well. I don't watch Brandon's as much because there aren't many plays he makes that Simmons can't. It's simply more FUN to watch Andrelton's videos, which is likely one of the reasons there are so many more of them.

So, yeah, I watch plenty and know what I'm seeing a lot better than people here think. I post so many numbers because theuy are FACTS. What I see is my OPINION.

I'll use Simmons and Crawford as an example of how what I read is more valuable than what I see. You said one of the reasons you think Crawford is better is that he makes the routine play more often than Simmons. Frankly, I haven't seen enough of Simmons on routine plays to know. And I don't think you have either. Simmons has made thousands of plays, and if you've seen 10% of them, you've done well.

I look at how people whose professional job is to evaluate EVERY play made by each see the two. And while Brandon ranks quite high on routine plays (90-100% likelihood of being made), Simmons ranks clearly better. You know a ton about baseball, but are you more accurate in evaluating how well Simmons handles the routine play than the people who watch every single play he makes and evaluate those plays for a living?

If you think so, you're a lot more egotistical than I.

The errors of the two back it up too. We know that fielding percentage isn't a great way to evaluate a player's fielding. It doesn't measure enough to be so. But where it IS helpful is on the routine play.

If a player has greater range, he may make more throwing errors because of the tough plays he makes. There, Simmons has made only seven fewer errors than Brandon, and Brandon has played about a season more than Simmons.

But if a player botches a routine play with his glove, he'll almost always get an error. Simmons has just under half as many fielding errors as Brandon. That seems to back up the experts who say that he handles the routine play better than Brandon.

So if Andrelton handles the routine play better and makes difficult plays Brandon can't make, does it matter than Brandon is more fundamentally sound and smoother? I always thought it was about making plays, regardless of what the Russian judge says.

So bottom line, how is it that by watching perhaps one out of every 20 routine plays Simmons is faced with that you can more accurately say Crawford is better on the routine play, when both the experts and the errors say the opposite?

And if you want to watch a Simmons fielding video, I'll show you the plays Simmons has made that Brandon very likely wouldn't have. If Simmons is better on the easy plays, and he's better on the really tough ones, isn't it likely that he's a better fielder?

I don't know how it can be any way. I base that on the opinion of experts, but I also base it on what I've seen. And I'll bet I've seen more of Simmons' greatest plays than you have.

Regardless of what you say, I DON'T use just numbers. The season is over now, but when the games are going on, why not bring up a play or strategy and check out how much I see simply by watching it. I see what happens, and I try to validate my opinion with facts, the majority of which in baseball are numbers.

Can you honestly tell a .300 hitter from a .325 hitter simply by watching him? Especially if you see only a small percentage of his at bats? I use numbers not so much to FORM opinions, but to validate them. Not every opinion is validated, but a high percentage of them are.

You don't hear me making the egotistical statement, I know what I saw. I can feel pretty confident of what I saw if I can validate it. I can feel reasonably confident because when I check out what I think I saw, I can usually find validation. But I make mistakes in what I see too.

I don't think I've made too many mistakes in evaluating plays Simmons has made that Brandon couldn't make. And just today before I got interrupted by honey do's, I was going to once again watch the highlights of Brandon to see if I can come up with many plays he has made that I don't think Simmons could have made. Thus far I've seen almost none I felt that way about.

To you and everyone here, go through the Simmons tapes with me and see if you don't honestly see plays he makes that we've never seen Brandon make, and that Brandon would likely have a small chance of making if he had the opportunity.

Is it fair for you to say I look only at the numbers when in the Simmons/Crawford case I have asked anyone here to look at the video and compare evaluations with me, and not a single soul has done so? Yeah, I've seen the respective numbers and used properly, they can be quite helpful. But I believe Simmons makes plays Brandon hasn't because I've seen them with my own eyes. Not live, but on video, just the same as most of us see most plays.

I asked about Steven Duggar how you would coach him as his hitting coach to help him improve. I have yet to get a response. I have said that I believe Steven can help himself by being more aggressive, a technique that has worked extremely well for this year's likely NL MVP. You haven't offered any comment on it one way or the other.

Seems to me as if it's an important point. You and I both think Steven improved as he played more, although I am worried that he struck out so much at the very end. But isn't the important thing how Steven might be able to improve. I know you've coached a lot of hitting, and done so successfully. You ought to be able to offer a lot more than I.

But thus far you haven't offered anything. You're criticizing my point because "all I see is the numbers," yet you have offered nothing better even if I HAD seen only the numbers.

Wnen I watch Steven hit, it's pretty clear he can't hit the change up. But I looked up the numbers to validate what I felt I saw. Sure enough, he hit his worst against the change up and split finger. He was poor against the cutter as well. He hit hte four seamer and the curve ball well.

It seems to me that Steven needs to avoid getting in counts where he is likely to face more change ups and splitters. I feel he can do so by being more aggressive.

I almost think most hitters should pretend they get only two strikes. Once they get two strikes, most hitters aren't very good anyway. So why not come up with a strategy that will avoid more two-strike counts? Especially when like Steven, the batter hits quite well on first pitches?

Over three out of every five first pitches to Steven were strikes. Does that sound as if he's aggressive enough? I don't think so.

Most batters hit well on the first pitch and poorly with two strikes. Shouldn't they be swinging at the first pitch more often? Duggar seems to be a fine candidate for a more aggressive approach.

What did it look like to you, guys?

[klaiggeb]

I asked about Steven Duggar how you would coach him as his hitting coach to help him improve. I have yet to get a response.

***boly says***

Sorry, Rog, I missed the question somehow.

Here's what I would do:

1-Teach him better strike zone discernment by putting him in the cage with a real pitcher (throwing all of their pitches) and NOT letting him swing. He'd take a stride as if he was GOING to swing, but not let him.

I'd ask questions like these after each pitch:

a-What was the pitch? FB, CB, and so forth.

b-Where, exactly, WAS the pitch?

c-When were you able to pick up the spin?

2-When I finally let him swing, on every pitch, I'd make him drive the ball THE OTHER WAY.

3-I would NEVER, EVER allow him to hit off of a Jugs machine or ANY pitching machine. This would be THE RULE for my entire team.



The problem with your question, Rog, is this; He's a rookie who doesn't yet feel he belongs.

As such, WHEN he's successful, he's not sure why, and until he learns his own swing, what pitches he can drive and so forth, ALL rookies are going to struggle.

[rog]

I like those ideas.

I remember you talked about why you didn't like the Jugs gun, but I can't remember why. Something to do with the spin IIRC? That it was better to actually pick it up out of the pitcher's hand rather than have it pre-determined by the machine?

I like the idea of asking the player when he picked up the spin.

With regard to which pitches he can drive, wouldn't they be pretty much the same as the ones he drove in the minors? I would think there would be pitches that were harder to drive than in the minors, since they would be harder to pick up, but would guess that the pitches he WAS able to drive would be ones that he drove in the minors. Am I on target here?

As for hitting everything the opposite way, would it be a good idea to have him hit the ball where it was pitched? Of course you would want him to stay back on the pitches generally, but on inside pitches, isn't it better for the hitter to get out in front, both so that he doesn't get jammed and so that he hits with more authority? I guess I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to at least fitting in some segments of hitting the ball where it was pitched with the segments of going the other way with everything?

I'm thinking too that you would have him work on his bunting, to take advantage of his speed, and if nothing else so he could bunt well enough that even with two strikes he could keep the third baseman honest. Until he showed me he could bunt with two strikes, I would overshift him heavily in that count, particularly with two outs and unless there was a man on third. Steven hit only two ground balls to the third base position. He hit almost no fly balls to left-center, and only the two balls to the left of the shortstop position. He had a weird hitting pattern, especially on the fly balls.

And on the ground balls, it's surprising that an on-base guy would be such a candidate for the over shift.

How would you work with Steven to go to left more with his ground balls, yet pull the ball more when he hits it in the air?

I'm thinking Steven would look to get his hands up more quickly, since it seems that when he's behind the ball, his bat is usually too low at the moment of impact, and when he's out front, his swing is higher than he would want it to be. As opposed to the guys who benefit from the lift swing, Steven appears as if he would benefit from a more level swing.

In this regard, I like your idea of having him hit the ball the other way to help level his swing. If he could then take that level swing with him when he did pull the ball, he should be able to avoid getting on top so much of the pitch he's out in front of.

I'm not sure that Steven's swing isn't as level as most, but he's certainly under the ball when he's behind it and over the ball when he's out front --- which I guess isn't really that different from most hitters. I'm not quite sure how a batter grooves his swing to avoid that, but maybe you have some ideas, Boly. I liked your other ideas here.

[klaiggeb]

---With regard to which pitches he can drive, wouldn't they be pretty much the same as the ones he drove in the minors?

***That 'assumes' he knows which pitch location he can drive.

As Kruk has pointed out so many times, players at the ML level often have early success, but don't know why. So they can't repeat it.


Here's the problem with ALL pitching machines that DON'T have an "arm."

You watch a place from which the ball 'shoots' out.

There is NO timing mechanism.

The ball doesn't 'SHOOT' out of a human's arm.

There is a windup process, and during that process, (and I speak from personal experience here), the hitter 'zones' in and that's where the timing mechanism begins.


When things are going good for a hitter, and again, I'm speaking from personal experience, you can almost 'see' the ball leave the pitcher's finger tips.

I remember right in the middle of pitches thinking; "top to bottom spin; breaking ball."

And it must have happened in a micro-second.

But when hitters can zoned in, that's what they see.

Or at least the good ones do.


The "Jugs" hitters don't see spin.

The machine "poots" the ball, here it comes, lift the leg and hope to GOD you guessed right; fastball or off speed.


It is MY opinion that the leg kick CAME from guys using Jugs machines. It's the only way they had to get the body in motion to time a pitch because EVERY baseball action has a start up action.

[rog]

That makes sense. The only question I would have -- and I may be misunderstanding what you said -- is that even the Jugs machine imparts different spins. If it didn't, each pitch would react essentially the same.

Maybe this is what you're saying, but I think what the Jugs machine doesn't help with is picking the ball up off the pitcher's motion more so than its not helping pick up spin. One thing I don't think either type of machine helps with is in developing an eye for recognizing different release points, which may also aid in picking up the type of pitch, since many pitchers throw different pitches from different release points.

I'm pretty sure that from helping least to most, we would have Jugs machine, arm machine, batting practice pitcher, and actual pitcher.

One thing to point to as well is that players often work on their swing off a tee or with tosses from the side. And even at the plate batters will sometimes practice throwing their back hand at the ball while distributing their weight correctly.

And then of course there was Barry Bonds, who "caught" the ball with the bat. There is a short video where Barry discusses "catching" the ball with the bat, but I thought this analysis about how Barry stayed short and was able to develop a swing that allowed him to hit the ball in the air consistently hard was more intriguing:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0QAju6U44g

[klaiggeb]

There has to be spin, but the hitter DOESN'T get to SEE the entire wind up so that his timing mechanism gets in sync with the delivery.

With Jugs it's just POOF! HERE'S THE BALL, all of a sudden.

[rog]

I'm strictly trying to learn something here, since I don't have much experience with it. I know now that you wouldn't use the Jugs machine at all, and I believe I fully understand the reasons why and agree with them. My question concerns, hitting off the tee, hitting soft lobs from the side, using a mechanical arm pitching machine and hitting live batting practice. I realize every hitter is different and that availability has something to do with it, but what mix would you think was good between these four hitting aids. How about your ideas of simply watching a pitch and calling out the things you see?

What do you think is a reasonable mix for those learning techniques overall? What would cause you to want to put special emphasis on a particular factor?

This is a somewhat unrelated question, but years ago my son took hitting lessons from a respected and successful coach (a description that fits you too. The coach taught him to attempt to determine if the pitch was coming to the inside of the plate or the outside and then try to pull the inside pitch and take the outside pitch the other way. What are the pros and cons of this approach, and how would you modify or add to it?

One final question: Clearly the Giants need to hit better. Injuries may have had something to do with their struggles, but what would you recommend they do over the winter to improve. General thoughts would help, and where appropriate, could you discuss particular players please?

Remember, I'm really just trying to learn from all of this. These are the types of things I would like to be able to understand better.

As an aside, Sunday was the 8th anniversary of Tim Lincecum's 14-strikeout effort against the Braves to get the Giants' 2010 World Championship postseason off to its start. After Tim was the 2010 postseason MVP (Edgar Renteria was the World Series MVP after his game-winnning homer), it was ironic that Tim didn't really figure much in the other two World Championships.

As another aside, has anyone looked closely at how consistent Ryan Vogelsong was from about August, 2011 to July, 2012? I truly believe he was the most consistent starter in the majors over that period, and I don't think he ever got enough credit for it. Most consistent for a period of about a year? We all appreciate Vogey, but do we think of his as arguably the best major league starter over a one-year period?

As another aside, man, there are just so many asides when it comes to the Giants!

[klaiggeb]

Rodger Hitting off a tee is totally different. With the T you're not working on picking up the spin You're simply working on swing mechanics body mechanics and stride mechanics.

[rog]

With the T you're not working on picking up the spin You're simply working on swing mechanics body mechanics and stride mechanics.


Rog -- I understand that part. There is no spin on the ball whatsoever Similarly the soft toss from the side has no spin of true importance. That's why I listed them first.

Each of the four techniques has value, as well as the one you mentioned that doesn't involve swing the bat at all (as is the case when a batter "swings" with is back hand only and the bat held in his other hand. Clearly only the former of those two involves picking up the spin, which in fact seems to be the primary objective in the first case (and hence, no swing).

My question though was what kind of mix between these exercises you saw as appropriate for the average hitter. I suspect too that when a hitter goes into a slump, he reaches back toward the bottom of the rung in order to essentially rebuild his swing from the base mechanics up and refine his picking up spin.

What I'm curious about is the average mix you see, what might occur for a hitter to prompt you to change that mix, and what type of hitter might change the optimal mix as well.

Also, when the coach was teaching my son to recognize whether the pitch was going inside or outside and adjust his swing accordingly, was he being too simplistic. My son was fairly young and wasn't yet seeing a lot of breaking balls, although he was seeing a few. The coach's approach didn't address pitch speed either, although particularly in waiting and adjusting the swing on outside pitches should help with the toughest off-speed pitches to hit, the ones away.

One last question: The spin rates a major league hitter faces against some pitchers today are among the highest in history. How would that change your approach to teaching the hitter, if at all? How would you teach spin recognition to a hitter who is likely to see spin significantly higher than you yourself have faced? The same question with regard to speed.

I'm pretty sure the same principles apply, but what differences in approach would be advantageous -- if any? Would there be refinements you would make to your basic approach?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4845/bochy-breaks-season-kids#ixzz5TUJCMxWU

[klaiggeb]

My question though was what kind of mix between these exercises you saw as appropriate for the average hitter. I suspect too that when a hitter goes into a slump, he reaches back toward the bottom of the rung in order to essentially rebuild his swing from the base mechanics up and refine his picking up spin.

***boly says***

There is no "one" thing that is better than the others. Each case is different.

For me, it comes down to a couple of things when a hitter is in a slump.

And in no particular order;

1-Video. Is the hitter doing something different? MOST people don't even think about the angle of the head. Is it upright? Tilted? I noticed YEARS AGO that many hitters as they get tired, or just simply out of habit, begin to 'tilt' their head towards the plate while waiting for the pitch.

It has a HUGE effect on hitting.

Look at this page, now start tilting your head slowly to the right, if you are right handed. Notice how some distortion shows up immediately?

2-Stop swing the bat when working with a coach in practice. Stand at the plate, HOLD the bat as if you were hitting and simply identify spin and location.

3-Us the Tee for mechanics.

[klaiggeb]

lso, when the coach was teaching my son to recognize whether the pitch was going inside or outside and adjust his swing accordingly, was he being too simplistic

***boly says***

Absolutely not!

Well done, coach!

Kids need to LEARN, visually, where a pitch is, and there-by they can learn which pitch they can better connect with.

[klaiggeb]

One last question: The spin rates a major league hitter faces against some pitchers today are among the highest in history. How would that change your approach to teaching the hitter, if at all? How would you teach spin recognition to a hitter who is likely to see spin significantly higher than you yourself have faced? The same question with regard to speed.

***boly says***

Here's the thing about spin rate and velocity.

The more you see it, the quicker you adjust.

That's why I get so upset with Major league hitters.

In Little League, we thought kids that could throw 50 mph threw hard.

But we adjusted.

Same thing in Pony League.

Same thing in Legion Ball.

Same thing in High School.

Same thing in college.

You see it enough and two things happen;

1-A player reaches his level limit where his own skills will not allow him to go any higher.

2-A player adjusts to the speed and continues forward BECAUSE he has the hand to eye coordination to handle it.

Back in the 80's few guys hit the mid 90s consistently.

Now, it seems tons of them do.

Hitters adjust.

Major Leaguers are the best of the best, so it's simply a matter of adjustment, just like it was from Little League, to Pony, to High School, and so forth..


But everything comes down to these points:

The hitter must see the release from the hand and NOT just look to where the release point will be. That's what the Jugs machine caused; looking at a location and NOT following the ball completely as the pitcher goes into his windup.

Hand to eye coordination. Some are clearly superior to others.

Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Will Clark and so forth.

3-Smarts. Smarts to study and adjust as your career goes forward.

There are others, of course, but those were near the top of my list.


But with all that said, Rog, the board is not the place to answer your questions.

Too many things to add.

If you have more questions, call me.

I'll be glad to talk hitting and pitching any time.

[rog]

I should make the time to take advantage of your generous offer, Boly. I would like to go over a few quick things here as well, since at least the basics we're discussing should be of interest to others here. I'm almost always trying to learn, and since you're the resident expert on this subject, I'm thinking the others would enjoy learning or recalling as well.

First, almost all hitters hit power pitchers least well. Clearly velocity and spin rate have an effect. How fast do you think a pitch (mixed in with a good supporting arsenal) can be and a guy like Buster Posey hit .300 against it. Most batters hit for the highest average against fastballs, in part because they are used more early in the count where a strikeout can't happen, and secondary pitches are often used more later in the count where they can induce a strikeout.

Buster is a very good hitter for average, and he doesn't strike out a lot. If he faced fastballs, mixed with other good pitches, at 97 mph would he hit .300? At 100 mph? At 102 mph? I'm talking right now or in his prime.

Second, what do you think of this video, which is primarily about head position as you mentioned (although vertical location, not tilt). Others here as well might want to watch the video, which is only about three or four minutes long. Boly will like at least the part where it talks about Barry Bonds' keeping his swing short and in fact how that helps him develop power.

Thinking back on Barry's hitting, he's the only left-handed hitter I can think of who could hit the ball through and over AT&T Park.



www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0QAju6U44g

[rog]

One more comment: If a hitter doesn't see the ball out of the pitcher's hand, I don't know how he would ever catch up at today's speed and spin rates.

[klaiggeb]

The video...ehhh. For high school kids, yes, I like it.

But for kids Alex's age?

Way too much to process and think about.

He's too young to worry about 'lift.'

The guy talking was "okay" with that high back elbow, but I am not.

Especially for kids.

They are NOT strong enough to consistently muscle the bat into hitting position.

Watch the video again and WATCH his back elbow come down as he starts his swing.

If it HAS to come down to be in hitting position, WHY start with it UP, in the first place?

That's nuts, but that's what coaches teach.

Why? Because that's the way it's always been taught, and Charlie Lau disagrees.