Understanding "Approach" in hitting

[Noe]

I love what Dave Magadan said in terms of the approach to hitting by the Boston Red Sox:

"For me, patience is not necessarily walking," said Magadan. "Patience at the plate is waiting for your pitch to hit. And the byproduct of that can be a walk. But a lot of times, you're going to hit in a lot of hitters' counts. These guys have a real good idea of what they're looking for, and they will be stubborn and wait till they get that pitch.

"They're going to make the pitcher throw three tough pitches to get them out. And when you've got to make three quality pitchers to get hitters out, it's tough to grind and get through the lineup. Every guy is seeing five, six, seven, eight pitches. And then boom ... one swing of the bat. It makes it tough."

Magadan was a very good hitter with the Houston Astros (and New York Mets, but who is counting that part of his career?  Not me, no.).  The Houston Astros are said to have begun to teach their hitters in the minors the value of "patience" or "looking at pitches".  The difference between what Morgan Ensberg did with that and what the Red Sox are doing is being ready to hit on every pitch, not necessarily working the count, but patiently letting pitches go that are not what they're looking for.

[Taras Bulba]

Most impressive to me last night (besides Beckett and the rain) was seeing Ramirez take a low and away pitch to right field.

[Limey]

"You're a wonderful human being Dave, but die like a dog!"
 -- Jim Bowers

[Houston]

"You're a wonderful human being Dave, but die like a dog!"
 -- Jim Bowers

Isn't that a line from "Little Big League"?

[Trey]

Man, I hate Dave Magadan.  I remember in '88 when his rookie card came out.  That thing was "worth", like, eight dollars.  EIGHT DOLLARS!  Do you know how much money that is to an eleven year old, or at least, an eleven year old in 1988?  Answer: a lot.  On top of that, the man went to Alabama.  (Yay, Alabama.  Crimson Tide..... sorry.)  Every pack I bought, I prayed and prayed that there would be a Dave Magadan in there.  But no.  Nada.  Never.  I can't even count how many packs I opened.  But my buddy, Dennis, he got one.   Bastard.  But, no worries, I had the trump card.  Bo Jackson.  Bo Jackson was evil.  He went to Auburn.  And he wasn't that good.  I mean, he couldn't be, right?  His rookie card was only worth a dollar-fifty.  The trade was born.

I proudly showed my dad the card.

So?
It's Dave Magadan.  It's worth eight dollars!
Who's going to pay you eight dollars for that?
They will.
They?
You know.  People that collect baseball cards.  And the baseball card stores.  They sell them.
How much do they sell them for?
Eight dollars.
If they pay you eight dollars and then sell it for eight dollars, how do they make money?
Because you came in their store.  And you buy other stuff.
Other stuff that they sell for the same price they buy it for?
Yeah.  Look, you don't understand baseball cards.
No, you don't understand economics and supply and demand.
Eco-what?
Whatever.  Good job.  Don't lose it.

I wonder where that card is?  I wonder if my dad still thinks I'm as dumb as I was then.  I wonder if I AM still as dumb as I was then.





edited for grammar

[Outlawscotty]

Man, I hate Dave Magadan.  I remember in '88 when his rookie card came out.  That thing was "worth", like, eight dollars.  EIGHT DOLLARS!  Do you know how much money that is to an eleven year old, or at least, an eleven year old in 1988?  Answer: a lot.  On top of that, the man went to Alabama.  (Yay, Alabama.  Crimson Tide..... sorry.)  Every pack I bought, I prayed and prayed that there would be a Dave Magadan in there.  But no.  Nada.  Never.  I can't even count how many packs I opened.  But my buddy, Dennis, he got one.   Bastard.  But, no worries, I had the trump card.  Bo Jackson.  Bo Jackson was evil.  He went to Auburn.  And he wasn't that good.  I mean, he couldn't be, right?  His rookie card was only worth a dollar-fifty.  The trade was born.

I proudly showed my dad the card.

So?
It's Dave Magadan.  It's worth eight dollars!
Who's going to pay you eight dollars for that?
They will.
They?
You know.  People that collect baseball cards.  And the baseball card stores.  They sell them.
How much do they sell them for?
Eight dollars.
If they pay you eight dollars and then sell it for eight dollars, how do they make money?
Because you came in their store.  And you buy other stuff.
Other stuff that they sell for the same price they buy it for?
Yeah.  Look, you don't understand baseball cards.
No, you don't understand economics and supply and demand?
Eco-what?
Whatever.  Good job.  Don't lose it.

I wonder where that card is?  I wonder if my dad still thinks I'm as dumb as I was then.  I wonder if I AM still as dumb as I was then.

If you were my CPA, I'd then be a millionaire.  But just in case, I still have mine.

[Duman]

On top of that, the man went to Alabama.  (Yay, Alabama.  Crimson Tide..... sorry.)  .  Bo Jackson.  Bo Jackson was evil.  He went to Auburn.  And he wasn't that good.  I mean, he couldn't be, right?  His rookie card was only worth a dollar-fifty.  The trade was born.

Beware the crimson colored glasses & Koolaid. 

Even though I am an Auburn fan, I pulled for Magadan because he was a handful of players with ties to the state of Alabama.  But to trade Bo for him!  Man, what were you thinking! 

[Duman]

  The Houston Astros are said to have begun to teach their hitters in the minors the value of "patience" or "looking at pitches".  The difference between what Morgan Ensberg did with that and what the Red Sox are doing is being ready to hit on every pitch, not necessarily working the count, but patiently letting pitches go that are not what they're looking for.

I saw this in practice in Greeneville this year.  As Devon Torrence began hitting from the left side, he didn't swing until he had two strikes and then he began protecting the plate and making contact.  His walks went way up and he had several 8-10 pitch at bats.  I am not sure if he had gotten the pitch he was looking for if he had the green light to swing earlier in the count though.

[MusicMan]

 On top of that, the man went to Alabama.  (Yay, Alabama.  Crimson Tide..... sorry.)  

"You are aware of the name of this boat, Mr. Cobb?"
"VERY AWARE, SIR!"

[Burzmali]

I love what Dave Magadan said in terms of the approach to hitting by the Boston Red Sox:

Magadan was a very good hitter with the Houston Astros (and New York Mets, but who is counting that part of his career?  Not me, no.).  The Houston Astros are said to have begun to teach their hitters in the minors the value of "patience" or "looking at pitches".  The difference between what Morgan Ensberg did with that and what the Red Sox are doing is being ready to hit on every pitch, not necessarily working the count, but patiently letting pitches go that are not what they're looking for.

It seems to me like what he's saying they do is "necessarily working the count". Did you get the part about being stubborn and waiting? Seems to me the opposite of the "Swing the damn bat" mentality that is favored among many here. Morgan had exactly the same approach as the one described here. It's just that when he did swing, he didn't do that much.

[Jacksonian]

It seems to me like what he's saying they do is "necessarily working the count". Did you get the part about being stubborn and waiting? Seems to me the opposite of the "Swing the damn bat" mentality that is favored among many here. Morgan had exactly the same approach as the one described here. It's just that when he did swing, he didn't do that much.

No.  As Noe implied, Morgan was not ready to hit on every pitch.  Morgan let a lot of pitches in the middle of the plate go by.  Pitches that guys like Berkman, Lee, and Bagwell would have been swinging at.  That's the big difference.

[Limey]

The Houston Astros are said to have begun to teach their hitters in the minors the value of "patience" or "looking at pitches".  The difference between what Morgan Ensberg did with that and what the Red Sox are doing is being ready to hit on every pitch, not necessarily working the count, but patiently letting pitches go that are not what they're looking for.

FWIW, this is also the approach with which I have found a modicum of success in StickBaseball.

[Burzmali]

No.  As Noe implied, Morgan was not ready to hit on every pitch.  Morgan let a lot of pitches in the middle of the plate go by.  Pitches that guys like Berkman, Lee, and Bagwell would have been swinging at.  That's the big difference.

Maybe. Or maybe those pitches didn't look good to him for whatever reason.

[JimR]

It seems to me like what he's saying they do is "necessarily working the count". Did you get the part about being stubborn and waiting? Seems to me the opposite of the "Swing the damn bat" mentality that is favored among many here. Morgan had exactly the same approach as the one described here.

no, he did not. you just do not understand this.

[Astroholic]

Maybe. Or maybe those pitches didn't look good to him for whatever reason.

Ohhhhhhh theeeeeey loooooked goooooood.  Heeeee juuuust cooooould nnnnooot puuuullllll theeee triggggger.

[Jacksonian]

Maybe. Or maybe those pitches didn't look good to him for whatever reason.

Because he wasn't ready to hit.

Too many time looking at fat pitches and too many bad swings at good pitches.  He wasn't ready to hit.

[JimR]

I love what Dave Magadan said in terms of the approach to hitting by the Boston Red Sox:

Magadan was a very good hitter with the Houston Astros (and New York Mets, but who is counting that part of his career?  Not me, no.).  The Houston Astros are said to have begun to teach their hitters in the minors the value of "patience" or "looking at pitches".  The difference between what Morgan Ensberg did with that and what the Red Sox are doing is being ready to hit on every pitch, not necessarily working the count, but patiently letting pitches go that are not what they're looking for.

and the principle is hardly revolutionary. there are certain counts--first pitch, 2-0, 3-1--where the good hitter will look for a certain pitch in a certain spot and take everything else.  the guru of knowing your personal hitting zone and swinging at only those pitches was Ted Williams.

[Astroholic]

and the principle is hardly revolutionary. there are certain counts--first pitch, 2-0, 3-1--where the good hitter will look for a certain pitch in a certain spot and take everything else.  the guru of knowing your personal hitting zone and swinging at only those pitches was Ted Williams.

Bonds was pretty good at it as well as Gwynn.

[Noe]

Maybe. Or maybe those pitches didn't look good to him for whatever reason.

The day a pitch down the middle of the plate does *NOT* look good to you, then get out of baseball.  FAST!

[pravata]

Because he wasn't ready to hit.

Too many time looking at fat pitches and too many bad swings at good pitches.  He wasn't ready to hit.

Ensberg wasn't selective, he was tentative. 

Orv Franchuk is the Astros minor league hitting coordinator, he used to be with Boston, here's what he's trying to teach,

"If they get the pitch they're looking for, they are going to put a good swing on it and if they do not get the pitch, they will remain selective and try to wait for it."

 "…When players first start with us, it's almost like they think the philosophy means you need to take pitches and you need to walk …that is just a byproduct of our system. … "

"....the whole thing boils down to the batter being aggressive and the batter getting on base....Expand the strike zone some but do not concede the at-bat. …"
Link

The other thing is that Magadan is talking about Youkilis, Ortiz, and especially Ramirez.  Those guys (maybe not so much Youkilis) don't let hittable balls go by.  But on top of that they have Mike Lowell hitting behind them.  He doesn't walk a lot, he hits .320.  Who did Ensberg have hitting behind him? Nobody, except when he hit 2nd.  And the Astros couldn't afford that.  They also couldn't afford to have one of their better (potential) hitters looking at belt high fastballs just because they were an inch off the plate.   

[toddthebod]

I have at least 250 Phil Bradley rookie cards.  When he was first playing Bill James said that he was like the greatest hitter of all time.  So I decided to "speculate" on Phil Bradley cards.  Anytime someone I knew got a Phil Bradley card, I would trade for it.  When I was home last month I found my box of Phil Bradley cards.  Ughhh.

[Burzmali]

Ensberg wasn't selective, he was tentative. 

Orv Franchuk is the Astros minor league hitting coordinator, he used to be with Boston, here's what he's trying to teach,

"If they get the pitch they're looking for, they are going to put a good swing on it and if they do not get the pitch, they will remain selective and try to wait for it."

 "…When players first start with us, it's almost like they think the philosophy means you need to take pitches and you need to walk …that is just a byproduct of our system. … "

"....the whole thing boils down to the batter being aggressive and the batter getting on base....Expand the strike zone some but do not concede the at-bat. …"
Link

The other thing is that Magadan is talking about Youkilis, Ortiz, and especially Ramirez.  Those guys (maybe not so much Youkilis) don't let hittable balls go by.  But on top of that they have Mike Lowell hitting behind them.  He doesn't walk a lot, he hits .320.  Who did Ensberg have hitting behind him? Nobody, except when he hit 2nd.  And the Astros couldn't afford that.  They also couldn't afford to have one of their better (potential) hitters looking at belt high fastballs just because they were an inch off the plate.   

I think that those guys have better strike zone judgement. I still think the approach was the same, just Ensberg wasn't as good as David Ortiz or Youkilis at picking out a pitch to hit, and then actually doing something with the ones he swung with.

I guess you could make the argument that based on his skill set, he was better off with his pre-2006 approach?

[JimR]

I think that those guys have better strike zone judgement. I still think the approach was the same, just Ensberg wasn't as good as David Ortiz or Youkilis at picking out a pitch to hit, and then actually doing something with the ones he swung with.

and you are wrong. each time you post on Noe's point, you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of it.

[pravata]

I think that those guys have better strike zone judgement. I still think the approach was the same, just Ensberg wasn't as good as David Ortiz or Youkilis at picking out a pitch to hit, and then actually doing something with the ones he swung with.

I guess you could make the argument that based on his skill set, he was better off with his pre-2006 approach?

Youkilis struck out 105 times this season.  I don't think he's above average in "actually doing something" with strikes.  Also, I don't know how productive it is to compare Ensberg to Ortiz.  After accounting for the obvious differences, the other thing is that Ensberg was injured most of the time he was with the Astros.  But even beyond a direct comparison between any 2 players, there has to be a consideration of their roles in their respective teams.  Astros didn't get anything from Morgan Ensberg walking. 

[Noe]

and you are wrong. each time you post on Noe's point, you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of it.

I'm thinking the same thing.  It's hard to explain "approach" to someone who is primarily interest is in "performance results".  NTAWWT, but performance results oriented views tend to work backwards from that to an approach.   Approach views work from that to the performance results.  It's subtle, but it is what it is.

And again, there is no approach to hitting that I personally know of that says be selective on pitches down the middle of the plate.  Except maybe in Bad News Bears and Mr. Buttermaker is asking you to don't swing and instead step into one.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Youkilis struck out 105 times this season.  I don't think he's above average in "actually doing something" with strikes.  Also, I don't know how productive it is to compare Ensberg to Ortiz.  After accounting for the obvious differences, the other thing is that Ensberg was injured most of the time he was with the Astros.  But even beyond a direct comparison between any 2 players, there has to be a consideration of their roles in their respective teams.  Astros didn't get anything from Morgan Ensberg walking. 

Pravata, you've made this comment a couple of times now and other than the obvious instances when the injury occured (getting hit on the hand -'05 - and then the awkward dive for a ball in foul territory -'06) and the periods after during which he "re-hab'd", I'm a bit confused by the conclusion that Ensberg was "injured most of the time he was with the Astros".  Maybe it's me, but I take that as a bit revisionary to evaluate his performance in this way. 

Ensberg was injured in Aug-Oct of 2005 and late May thru the end of 2006.  In comparison, 2003 was a good year.  2004 was not an awful year but was a significant drop from 2003.  He had an outstanding 2005, until the hand injury.  In 2006, he was scuffling before the shoulder injury, preceding the play in question by 2-3 weeks.  He then proceeded to have up and down periods once he returned the DL.  At most, that's a year and a half, unless there are some other unknown injuries. 

I'm not saying injuries were not a factor in some periods where he struggled.  However, I think the league simply caught up with him and he couldn't make the necessary adjustments to succeed.  I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer a full assessment.  However, simply highlighting the points made by others:  He refused to deviate from his own "strategy" (which ignored the game situation and left him behind in the count regularly) compounded by his failure to adjust appropriately w/ 2 strikes (varying between wild or tentative swings).  I can comprehend how the shoulder and hand injuries could impact swing mechanics, bat speed, and ability to make contact.  I cannot comprehend how those lead to a flawed approach.  What does make sense is that the injuries exposed a flawed approach that was successful before due to sheer ability.  Which, in view of his trend of streaky performance, makes the most sense. 

And in re-reading everything I've typed, I realize I'm picking a nit.  But I can't agree that Ensberg's career was impacted by injury and nothing else. 

[Burzmali]

I'm thinking the same thing.  It's hard to explain "approach" to someone who is primarily interest is in "performance results".  NTAWWT, but performance results oriented views tend to work backwards from that to an approach.   Approach views work from that to the performance results.  It's subtle, but it is what it is.

And again, there is no approach to hitting that I personally know of that says be selective on pitches down the middle of the plate.  Except maybe in Bad News Bears and Mr. Buttermaker is asking you to don't swing and instead step into one.

Mind talking it through with me?

I'm saying that Ensberg's approach is similar to Youkilis', and the one described in the original post. Be selective, stubborn, patient. I think you're saying that it's not the same, because he wasn't ready to hit good pitches that he got. That's what I'm not really sure about.. I think it's more that he was just not as skilled in determining what was a good pitch, and then once swinging doing something with the ball.

So basically I'm saying his approach was good, it's just his skill that was lacking. And yeah, he let hittable pitches go by alot. But if you are blaming that on approach, aren't you saying that he let those go by intentionally? Isn't it more likely that he just didn't think they were good pitches? Which would be indicative of him having a shitty eye.

[pravata]

Pravata, you've made this comment a couple of times now and other than the obvious instances when the injury occured (getting hit on the hand -'05 - and then the awkward dive for a ball in foul territory -'06) and the periods after during which he "re-hab'd", I'm a bit confused by the conclusion that Ensberg was "injured most of the time he was with the Astros".  Maybe it's me, but I take that as a bit revisionary to evaluate his performance in this way. 

Ensberg was injured in Aug-Oct of 2005 and late May thru the end of 2006.  In comparison, 2003 was a good year.  2004 was not an awful year but was a significant drop from 2003.  He had an outstanding 2005, until the hand injury.  In 2006, he was scuffling before the shoulder injury, preceding the play in question by 2-3 weeks.  He then proceeded to have up and down periods once he returned the DL.  At most, that's a year and a half, unless there are some other unknown injuries. 

I'm not saying injuries were not a factor in some periods where he struggled.  However, I think the league simply caught up with him and he couldn't make the necessary adjustments to succeed.  I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer a full assessment.  However, simply highlighting the points made by others:  He refused to deviate from his own "strategy" (which ignored the game situation and left him behind in the count regularly) compounded by his failure to adjust appropriately w/ 2 strikes (varying between wild or tentative swings).  I can comprehend how the shoulder and hand injuries could impact swing mechanics, bat speed, and ability to make contact.  I cannot comprehend how those lead to a flawed approach.  What does make sense is that the injuries exposed a flawed approach that was successful before due to sheer ability.  Which, in view of his trend of streaky performance, makes the most sense. 

And in re-reading everything I've typed, I realize I'm picking a nit.  But I can't agree that Ensberg's career was impacted by injury and nothing else. 

I don't think I said that his injuries, and nothing else, defined his career with the Astros.  I didn't mean to. Ensberg was notoriously hard headed.  They sent him back in 02 simply because he wouldn't listen.  In 05 he hit his stride, mainly because he was forced to.  Look at the 03 and 04 lineups compared to 05.  After 05 there was expectations that he would be a major contributor to the Astros offense.  That's when the injuries started.  The point about 06 is valid, but he was tearing the cover off the ball for a good month before the slump.  Then the injury.  That pretty much squashed any chance of a come back. I think a year and a half is about right for the amount of time he was injured.   There was the wrist, the elbow and the back.  The back was the worst.   After he came off the dl in 06 he was tentative, and when he did swing he mostly tried to catch the ball on his bat and not drive it.   

I think that in 05, he had figured it out.  He was walking a lot, but when he saw a pitch he'd let the bat fly.  After the injuries, he tried to compensate, with stances, with different bat techniques, and became very tentative at the plate.   The team didn't help either.  Garner would sometimes suggest that the walks were helping and Ensberg would hit 2nd for awhile, then Garner would turn around and complain that he wasn't being aggressive. 

.   

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I don't think I said that his injuries, and nothing else, defined his career with the Astros.  I didn't mean to. Ensberg was notoriously hard headed.  They sent him back in 02 simply because he wouldn't listen.  In 05 he hit his stride, mainly because he was forced to.  Look at the 03 and 04 lineups compared to 05.  After 05 there was expectations that he would be a major contributor to the Astros offense.  That's when the injuries started.  The point about 06 is valid, but he was tearing the cover off the ball for a good month before the slump.  Then the injury.  That pretty much squashed any chance of a come back. I think a year and a half is about right for the amount of time he was injured.   There was the wrist, the elbow and the back.  The back was the worst.   After he came off the dl in 06 he was tentative, and when he did swing he mostly tried to catch the ball on his bat and not drive it.   

I think that in 05, he had figured it out.  He was walking a lot, but when he saw a pitch he'd let the bat fly.  After the injuries, he tried to compensate, with stances, with different bat techniques, and became very tentative at the plate.   The team didn't help either.  Garner would sometimes suggest that the walks were helping and Ensberg would hit 2nd for awhile, then Garner would turn around and complain that he wasn't being aggressive. 

.   

I don't mean to parse words.  Seems like we view this similarly anyway and it's been re-hashed beyond a reasonable burial. 

[pravata]

I don't mean to parse words.  Seems like we view this similarly anyway and it's been re-hashed beyond a reasonable burial. 

It's the Void. 

[Jacksonian]

Mind talking it through with me?

I'm saying that Ensberg's approach is similar to Youkilis', and the one described in the original post. Be selective, stubborn, patient. I think you're saying that it's not the same, because he wasn't ready to hit good pitches that he got. That's what I'm not really sure about.. I think it's more that he was just not as skilled in determining what was a good pitch, and then once swinging doing something with the ball.

So basically I'm saying his approach was good, it's just his skill that was lacking. And yeah, he let hittable pitches go by alot. But if you are blaming that on approach, aren't you saying that he let those go by intentionally? Isn't it more likely that he just didn't think they were good pitches? Which would be indicative of him having a shitty eye.

The approach he took in 07 was different than at just about any time in his career.  He didn't approach his at-bats in 05 like that, nor in 06 pre-injury.  Those who saw him in the minors will tell you the same.

If he suddenly lost the ability to discern a good pitch then his approach was "please don't throw me a strike."  That's not what Magadan described.

[Noe]

Mind talking it through with me?

Been there, done that, no go.