| SOFTBALL TIPS |
|
|
|
| SITE STUFF |
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES
|
| • |
June 26, 2005 |
| • |
July 03, 2005 |
| • |
July 10, 2005 |
| • |
July 17, 2005 |
| • |
July 24, 2005 |
| • |
July 31, 2005 |
| • |
August 07, 2005 |
| • |
August 14, 2005 |
| • |
August 21, 2005 |
| • |
August 28, 2005 |
| • |
September 11, 2005 |
| • |
October 02, 2005 |
| • |
October 09, 2005 |
| • |
October 23, 2005 |
| • |
October 30, 2005 |
| • |
November 06, 2005 |
| • |
November 13, 2005 |
| • |
December 04, 2005 |
| • |
December 18, 2005 |
| • |
December 25, 2005 |
| • |
January 08, 2006 |
| • |
January 15, 2006 |
| • |
January 29, 2006 |
| • |
February 05, 2006 |
| • |
February 12, 2006 |
| • |
February 19, 2006 |
| • |
February 26, 2006 |
| • |
March 05, 2006 |
| • |
March 12, 2006 |
| • |
March 19, 2006 |
| • |
March 26, 2006 |
| • |
April 02, 2006 |
| • |
April 09, 2006 |
| • |
April 16, 2006 |
| • |
April 23, 2006 |
| • |
April 30, 2006 |
| • |
May 07, 2006 |
| • |
May 14, 2006 |
| • |
May 21, 2006 |
| • |
May 28, 2006 |
| • |
June 04, 2006 |
| • |
June 11, 2006 |
| • |
June 18, 2006 |
| • |
June 25, 2006 |
| • |
July 09, 2006 |
| • |
July 16, 2006 |
| • |
July 23, 2006 |
| • |
July 30, 2006 |
| • |
August 13, 2006 |
| • |
August 20, 2006 |
| • |
September 03, 2006 |
| • |
September 10, 2006 |
| • |
September 17, 2006 |
| • |
September 24, 2006 |
| • |
October 01, 2006 |
| • |
October 08, 2006 |
| • |
October 15, 2006 |
| • |
October 22, 2006 |
| • |
November 12, 2006 |
| • |
November 26, 2006 |
| • |
December 31, 2006 |
| • |
January 14, 2007 |
| • |
January 21, 2007 |
| • |
January 28, 2007 |
| • |
February 04, 2007 |
| • |
February 11, 2007 |
| • |
February 18, 2007 |
| • |
February 25, 2007 |
| • |
March 04, 2007 |
| • |
March 11, 2007 |
| • |
March 18, 2007 |
| • |
April 01, 2007 |
| • |
April 08, 2007 |
| • |
April 15, 2007 |
| • |
April 22, 2007 |
| • |
April 29, 2007 |
| • |
May 06, 2007 |
| • |
May 13, 2007 |
| • |
May 20, 2007 |
| • |
May 27, 2007 |
| • |
June 03, 2007 |
| • |
June 10, 2007 |
| • |
June 17, 2007 |
| • |
June 24, 2007 |
| • |
July 01, 2007 |
| • |
July 22, 2007 |
| • |
July 29, 2007 |
| • |
August 12, 2007 |
| • |
August 19, 2007 |
| • |
September 02, 2007 |
| • |
September 16, 2007 |
| • |
September 30, 2007 |
| • |
October 07, 2007 |
| • |
October 14, 2007 |
| • |
October 21, 2007 |
| • |
November 04, 2007 |
| • |
November 18, 2007 |
| • |
November 25, 2007 |
| • |
December 02, 2007 |
| • |
December 09, 2007 |
| • |
December 16, 2007 |
| • |
January 13, 2008 |
| • |
February 17, 2008 |
| • |
February 24, 2008 |
| • |
March 02, 2008 |
| • |
March 09, 2008 |
| • |
March 30, 2008 |
| • |
April 06, 2008 |
| • |
April 13, 2008 |
| • |
April 20, 2008 |
| • |
April 27, 2008 |
| • |
May 04, 2008 |
| • |
May 11, 2008 |
| • |
May 18, 2008 |
| • |
May 25, 2008 |
| • |
June 01, 2008 |
| • |
June 15, 2008 |
| • |
June 22, 2008 |
| • |
June 29, 2008 |
| • |
July 06, 2008 |
| • |
July 13, 2008 |
| • |
July 20, 2008 |
| • |
August 03, 2008 |
| • |
August 10, 2008 |
| • |
August 17, 2008 |
| • |
August 24, 2008 |
| • |
August 31, 2008 |
| • |
September 07, 2008 |
| • |
September 14, 2008 |
| • |
September 21, 2008 |
| • |
September 28, 2008 |
| • |
October 05, 2008 |
| • |
October 12, 2008 |
| • |
October 19, 2008 |
| • |
October 26, 2008 |
| • |
November 02, 2008 |
| • |
November 09, 2008 |
| • |
November 16, 2008 |
| • |
November 30, 2008 |
| • |
December 07, 2008 |
| • |
December 21, 2008 |
| • |
December 28, 2008 |
| • |
February 15, 2009 |
| • |
February 22, 2009 |
| • |
April 12, 2009 |
| • |
April 19, 2009 |
| • |
April 26, 2009 |
| • |
May 03, 2009 |
| • |
May 10, 2009 |
| • |
May 17, 2009 |
| • |
May 24, 2009 |
| • |
May 31, 2009 |
| • |
June 07, 2009 |
| • |
June 14, 2009 |
| • |
June 21, 2009 |
| • |
July 05, 2009 |
| • |
July 12, 2009 |
| • |
July 19, 2009 |
| • |
August 02, 2009 |
| • |
August 30, 2009 |
| • |
September 06, 2009 |
| • |
September 20, 2009 |
| • |
October 04, 2009 |
| • |
October 11, 2009 |
| • |
October 18, 2009 |
| • |
November 08, 2009 |
| • |
November 15, 2009 |
| • |
November 22, 2009 |
| • |
November 29, 2009 |
| • |
December 27, 2009 |
| • |
January 03, 2010 |
| • |
January 10, 2010 |
| • |
January 17, 2010 |
| • |
January 24, 2010 |
| • |
January 31, 2010 |
| • |
March 14, 2010 |
| • |
March 21, 2010 |
| • |
March 28, 2010 |
| • |
April 04, 2010 |
| • |
April 18, 2010 |
| • |
April 25, 2010 |
|
|
| SOFTBALL LINKS |
|
|
|
To Swing Or Take On 3-0
by Dave
Friday, September 26, 2008
As usual, I wrote a post the other day in which I casually mentioned something which resulted in a more or less minor philosophical question from a reader. I don't generally write additional posts on such things unless the mood strikes me. Given the state of American politics and economics, anything that focuses my mind on other things is good. So I have chosen to write too much on an unimportant issue in order to keep my mind off this mess. You can read it in that spirit too, if you like.
The other day I wrote, "one of the early instructions we give them is to take a pitch when the count is 3-0." After the piece was posted, I received a question which was as follows: "Some of our coaches prefer that girls not swing on a 3-0 pitch, while others are adamant that the girls should swing away. At what level is it best to begin teaching softball players to take a pitch?"
My response was: "the correct age to teach girls not to swing on 3-0 counts is 1U. That is not a typo. Girls (and boys for that matter) should be taught to always take a 3-0 pitch from the moment they are out of the womb."
I understand that some folks will disagree with the point. There is nothing you can say in an either/or, yes/no setting with which everyone is going to agree. I could say, for example, "you should always bunt in ITB" and someone is going to reply "we never bunt because that's exactly what they expect us to do." But while I understand there is plenty of room for disagreement on even certain fundamental points of this great game of ours, I'm not willing to yield on the issue of taking on 3-0. Here's why no matter what anybody ever shows or tells me, I insist hitters always take on 3-0.
The first traunch of what I have to say is, how did the pitcher get to 3-0 to begin with? Obviously, she did so by throwing 3 balls. But why did she throw 3 straight balls. I see the answer to this as falling into one of a few possibilities.
Maybe the pitcher was being too fine - trying to get the batter to swing on balls out of the strike zone. I'd be surprised if she did precisely that all the way to a 3-0 count. I can see the first two but after that, she's got to get herself back into it.
Maybe the umpire has closed up the zone too much. That certainly can change on 3-0. I've seen umpires call things very close and then, on 3-0, call a strike on a pitch which was a ball just a moment ago. There's nothing anyone can do about that. If the 3-0 pitch was really a ball and the ump called it a strike, so be it. Hopefully he or she reinstates the same strike zone on the following pitches.
Maybe the pitcher has lost her release point. We've all seen a girl do that and then find it again later. It sort of depends on how far out of the zone she has gone. And when she finds the point again, there's no telling whether she'll be throwing it down the middle or not.
Maybe this hitter has a reputation and the pitcher is issuing one of those unintentional, intentional walks. Or maybe the pitcher doesn't know this hitter but she doesn;t like the looks of her. Depending on the game and inning situation, she may not want to pitch to this kid. The first three balls were really on purpose and so will the fourth one be.
Whatever the reason for the 3-0 count, I would suggest to you that ball 4 is a likely event. If the pitcher was being too fine deliberately, she may come back with a strike. Or, having deliberately thrown 3 balls outside the zone, she may have trouble finding it again. If the ump closed down the zone, he or she may not open it back up again. On the other hand, the ump may be more liberal on 3-0. There's no good way to know until the next call and there's nothing you can do about it. If the pitcher lost her release point, she may regain it on this pitch. Again, nothing you can do about it. If she was pitching around a hitter, there's a pretty good chance she will do so again, especially when you consider that she really doesn't want to groove one.
I suppose those who suggest one should always swing away on 3-0 expect that the pitcher most likely lost her release point or was deliberately pitching too fine. They expect now that she'll either throw one down the middle to get back into the count or as she tries to find herself. They expect something fat on 3-0. They may get it. And, they reason, if the hitter is not swinging away, she's going to miss the best pitch in the at-bat.
But I guess I wonder, what is so tremendously different about the now 3-1 count - after taking all the way on 3-0? From a pitcher's point of view, she is still behind. If she was being too fine, she still has the negative feedback from balls 1 to 3 which will cause her to throw another meatball, if she really wants to get back into the count, if she really doesn't want to walk her. If she lost her release point and then got it back by throwing a fat pitch down the middle, odds are better than not that the next one will look about the same.
I guess what I'm trying to point out to you is that you don't lose anything much by watching a fat pitch go right by you. The next one is probably going to be just as fat. If she is deliberately pitching around you, you may know this. If you do, you aren't going to swing on 3-0. Perhaps you won't even get prepared to swing. And if the cause of the 3-0 pitch is the umpire, as I said, there isn't much you can do anyway. But if the ump was calling things too fine for the first 3 pitches and is now about to broaden the zone, how would the pitcher know this in advance? She wouldn't. If she wants to get back into the count, she'll probably groove one to get into the ump's zone from the previous 3 pitches. And if she grooves on on 3-0, no matter how good she is, she may accidentally groove another on 3-1.
I view the 3-0 pitch as an opportunity, not so much an opportunity to drive the fat pitch, but rather an opportunity to freely watch the pitcher through her wind-up and to the release. We often take it for granted that when a batter sees more pitches from any given pitcher, she will be better prepared later. 3-0 is the free opportunity to watch one additional pitch by this particular pitcher. If the umpire permitted hitters to stand in the batter's box during warm-ups, who wouldn't take advantage of that? This is a similar opportunity.
The next traunch of my reasoning is the longer you can keep a pitcher in the circle, the more likely she is to make a mistake. We don't think of game pitch counts as being particularly important in softball. Some girls can throw 300 pitches in a day. But inning pitch counts are important. They are important because: 1) physically most girls' speed and ball rotation rates will fall towards the end of an inning - performance tends to start dropping around 15-20 pitches; and 2) mentally, pitchers tend to lose focus at about the same point. On a percentage basis, more pitchers will give up more and better hits later in any particular inning because they are temporarily tired, whether physically or mentally. If you are at 3-0 and take a strike, you have at least added one more pitch to her inning pitch count. If the pitch is a ball, there's a decent chance you have added several pitches. It may not add up to a hill of beans since perhaps two or three other hitters will ground out or pop up first pitches. But making a pitcher throw more in any at-bat makes it more likely that she will throw too many pitches in the inning and thereby set up the chain of events in which she starts giving up hits.
Another facet of taking the 3-0 pitch is, whether the pitcher is being fine, has lost her release point or maybe just was a little cautious with you and got behind because the ump closed things up, when she watches you apparently "looking for a walk," she may lose a bit of respect. She may decide that you can't hit her and you know that you can't. I can tell you that on more than one occassion when I was calling pitches, I have fallen into this trap. And when I pitched in baseball, I also sometimes fell for this. If the pitcher falls into the trap of losing any sort of respect for the hitter, chances go up dramatically that the 3-1 will be grooved, thereby giving you an even better opportunity.
The best way I can prove my reasoning is to ask anyone with time on their hands to go and perform a little data gathering exercise. Now, I'm really trying to kill time and avoid reading or listening to anything about politics. My test, experiment or data gathering exercise involves observing a representative sample of 3-0 pitches. I want you to record these on a pad of paper using a very simple set of criteria and then analyze your findings. So get a pad of paper (at least 4 or 5 sheets), a pencil, and a clipboard. This will make you look really important at the fields. If you want real fun, buy yourself a shirt and/or hat with some college (UCLA, Arizona, Tennessee, etc.) logo on it. If you can, find one that says X softball or X athletics. Do this especially if you happen to be looking at a 10U/12U game or a high school one. And if someone asks if you are from the University of Tennessee, just mumble "hmmm," step away from them, and go about your business. They will spend the rest of that game trying to figure out who you are scouting. And later, when they see you at another tournament, they'll tell their friends that you are a college coach from X.
Take your pad of paper and draw 2 columns in the middle of the page of three or four sheets. Draw a fat line down and make 2 additional columns to the right of the first two columns, then skip some space and make one final column. On the left side, number from 1-100 and make note of each pitcher - team name and number or whatever. Then I want you to take notes regarding each 3-0 pitch in the 2 columns in the middle of the pages.
The idea here is to take a respresentative sample of 3-0 pitches. In order to do that, your sample size needs to be reasonably large and I have chosen 100 pitches randomly. More important is to have a relatively large sample of pitchers. You can't do this and achieve any reasonable results with just a couple of pitchers. I suggest a minimum of twenty.
What I want you to take note of for each 3-0 pitch in those columns is the following:
Column 1 - Was the pitch, in absolute terms, a ball or a strike? If swung at, you need to make a judgment, otherwise use the umps call. Note "B" or "S."
Column 2 - Was the batter taking (TA) all the way or swinging (SW)?
If the 3-0 pitch was a called strike, I want you to continue on with the same analysis in the 2 columns further to the right for the 3-1 pitch.
In the final space, all the way to the right, I want you to note the outcome of the at-bat for all at-bats which reach 3-0. Use "A+" for a walk or a hit, "F" for an out.
Once you have gathered this information for 100 pitches, or more if you like, and at least 20 different pitchers, it is time to analyze it.
On another piece of paper, create two wide columns, one for "TAKE" and another for "SWING." On the "TAKE" side, place a sub-heading for "on-base percentage" or OBP. The first part of the analysis should count the number of 3-0 pitches which were balls regardless of whether the batter swung or not. Count up the B's in column one and divide by 100. This will yield an average like .350 for 35 balls, .230 for 23, etc. Underneath the OBP subheading write "walked 3-0" and the average you just calculated.
Next, I want you to calculate the OBA for all batters who took the 3-0 for a strike. You already counted up the number who actually walked plus those who should have walked but swung. Now you need to count up all the batters who took a strike on the 3-0 pitch and then note how their at-bats ended.
Count the total number of these and then count the number of A+'s for just these rows in the final column. Divide the second number by the first and that should give you the OBP for those who took the 3-0 pitch for a strike. Write this down calling it "OBP 3-1" and that to the "walked 3-0."
For example, let's say you counted 30 balls on the 3-0 pitch, that yields .300 who should have walked. Then you counted up the batters who took a strike, say another 30, and the number of those at-bats which ended successfully, say 6. That would have yielded .200. Adding the two together would give you an OBP of .500.
Now perform the same exercise for all batters who swung at 3-0. Write that down on the right side of your analysis sheet. My guess is you will probably end up with something like .300. Lastly compare the OBP of hitters who swung at 3-0 with the outcome of all batters who took it or should have taken it. In the example provided, that would figure to .500 vs. .300. In case it is not obvious, a .500 OBP is better than .300.
My guess is what you will find is caused by batters hitting at basically the same rate whether the count is 3-0 or 3-1. I can't find stats on this for softball but I'll use MLB as a surrogate. Batter's averages on various counts is available via Yahoo Sports-MLB.
I randomly chose a bunch of hitters in MLB and checked their batting averages on 3-0 and 3-1. Remember, we aren't interested in anything other than their BA on 3-0 and 3-1 because we want to see instances in which they swung on 3-0 and determine whether they have lost an opportunity to drive the best pitch of the at-bat. We assume that if they take on 3-0, they get a certain number of walks. Of they don't swing on 3-0, they either walk or get a 3-1 pitch. So then we look at their BA on 3-1 pitches to see what kind of opportunity that pitch presents. My findings were particularly interesting.
What I discovered was it is relatively difficult to locate hitters who swung on 3-0. If a batter faced 20 3-0 counts, had 20 walks, and, therefore, didn't have a batting average, this was caused by him taking all the way for a four pitch walk. Only the absolute best hitters had any at-bats on 3-0, meaning they swung and something happened which ended the at-bat like a ground out or homerun. What I found without exception was, when these few very good hitters swung away on 3-0, they had pretty low batting averages. A number of such batters hit .250 even though their overall BAs were around .300+. Additionally, all of these hitters who apparently took a strike on 3-0, went on to have very good batting averages on and after the 3-1 pitch. To a man, I found BAs well above their season averages. In other words, they had great success hitting on 3-1, probably better success than I guestimated in my fabricated example above.
The lesson in this is, even at the professional level, after years and years of training and competing at the highest levels, a very few hitters are permitted by their coaches to swing on 3-0. of those who are permitted, they'd be well advised to take the opportunity with some caution - to swing at very few pitches. They'd be better off to get themselves prepared to swing at 3-1 pitches after taking the 3-0 delivery for a strike.
So what's different about your daughter, if you are a parent, or your team's roster, if you are coaching? I'm not sure I can parse the circumstances of 10U, 12U, 14U or whatever level of softball to develop a reasoning which says these youth players are so different from major league baseball hitters that the same rules ought not to apply. I'm not sure I can parse the differences between baseball and softball to come up with reasoning which claims that they are so different that simple rules like this ought to be altered to fit softball.
A few people who have told me they like their hitters to swing away on 3-0 have based their reasoning on a few anecdotes. Sally hit her first homerun on a 3-0 pitch. Jennie hit a double the other day because I told her to swing away on 3-0. OK! I don't doubt that these things happened. That still does not change the basic equation. You cannot say with any certainty that Sally would not have hit that homerun on 3-1. You can't know that Jennie wouldn't have driven the 3-1 into the gap. You have to act and manage on the law of percetages. And if you're the hitter, you muist take advanatge of every advantage provided to you. 3-0 is an advantage. Taking all the way on 3-0 is an added advantage.
The bottom line here is, in this game, the proper measure is not anecdotal base hits but rather what every player can do to better her averages. A few kids can stand in there and drill some 3-0 pitches but most batters do better by just taking one even if it is right down the middle. There is just too much stress associated with batter looking to swing on 3-0. I have seen more hitters swing and miss at bad pitches on 3-0 than I have seen drive the ball. That's anecdotal, of course, but I'm adding my anecdotes together to develop a percentage.
If you still feel firmly that girls should swing away on 3-0, I want you to go back to the analysis and extend it. Use something beyond a mere A+ for the outcome of the at-bat. Perhaps ignore all walks. Re-perform the analysis and maybe come up with a batting average for 3-0 and another for 3-1. Perhaps you could use slugging percentage. If you are certain that hitters do better swinging at 3-0, go out and test your hypothesis. If you find you are right and I am wrong, I'm willing to live with that, but I'm still going to tell my hitters to take until I perform a test which tells me otherwise. That is counter to my experience.
Finally, it is obvious to me that absolutely every decision in this game is situationally altered at one point or another. For instance, if I've got runners on second and third with no outs, early in a game, I suppose I would prefer my batter to swing on 3-0 in the hope that she might ground out to a middle infielder and give us a run. But that's a special circumstance. If my hitter is capable of giving me a ground ball in this situation, I'm going to call timeout and have a conference with her. I'll say, "remember how I told you not to ever swing on 3-0, well this time ios different. This time, a grounder up the middle is better than a walk and as good as a hit. So please swing away and don't worry about making an out."
Well, I believe I've spent enough time on what to me is a nothing point. I've avoided looking at or listening to anything about this political mess. Now I'm either going to take a look at some articles on politics or I'm going to completely analyze whether to swing or not on 0-0. But that will take considerably more time and space. So don't look for it anytime in the next couple of hours.Labels: batting
Permanent Link: To Swing Or Take On 3-0
 
Of Stats And Important Things
by Dave
Thursday, September 25, 2008
I am not kidding when I tell you that someone wrote to me today and said, "my daughter is a sophomore in high school and her batting average is .434. Is that good?" This is not the first time somebody sent me something like that. My response to the above was "good is a relative term. Personally, I would rather hit .200 for the Olympic team than .800 for the church team.
A few years back I had a girl tryout for my team. Her father made a point of telling me what her batting average had been the year before. I think he said something like .350. Her swing was terrible and I didn't ask her to join the team for this and other reasons. But I was curious to ask the father, "who did your book, anyway." He did!
At one game this year, I watched a girl on our team hit into 3 consecutive fielders choices. I know they were FCs because my daughter was put out on two of them. I was happy about that because in both cases there were no outs, it was very hot out that day and my daughter was pitching. The coach chose not to courtesy run for her and I can;t tell you why that is. But I was happy when she went back into the dugout. On the third FC, an errant throw was made and we scored a run. The girl's father, my friend, was not there to watch the game. He showed up at our second game. After talking to his daughter, he came over to chat with me. He said "Alex says she had a pretty good first game ... said she had three hits and an RBI ..." I said, "yes, she hit the ball pretty well." This guy frequently tells me what his daughter's batting average is. He keeps it. I do not. If my daughter gets two good extra-base hits and then looks really bad in one at-bat, I get depressed about her swing mechanics! I don't think about her hitting .667 that day. I focus on what we can do to improve her swing.
I was talking to a girl who plays division one ball. She starts most games because she is a very solid defensive player. She also bats in the middle of the order despite carrying a sub-.200 BA. Her .190 average causes her a lot of stress. It isn't what she had hoped for. In about 30 games, she had maybe 18 hits. But half of those were extra-base hits and her few hits generated 11 RBI, half of which were game winning RBI. There are other girls on the team hitting closer to .300 who have only batted in a handful of runs all year and never had a game winning hit. My advice to her was to forget about the BA and just focus on having fun while hitting the ball well regardless of outcome.
I was talking to a fellow whose son played HS baseball. He knew the kids BA every time we spoke. His kid's swing wasn't great but he had learned to place the ball were the fielders ain't and had a lot of genuine hits. The father was despondent because his son got zero interest from college coaches. In fact, a year later, he was pretty upset when the kid walked on at a D-III school and was cut in the first round. The kid had told him he got several hits in intra-squad games but the coaches didn't seem to notice. I think they saw everything they needed the first time they saw him swing.
Stats are nice. But they don't nearly begin to tell the story. If I'm trying out girls for a team, I am far more impressed with the kid's approach and swing than I am if she hits every ball hard using a bad swing or otherwise seems to be a machine pitch hitter. This approach has been born out over several years of tournament play. If a kid has a good swing, I believe I can coax her into actually hitting for the team. if the kid has a bad swing or approach, there isn't much any coach can do. The same holds true for fielding, pitching, etc.
A related topic has to do with team win loss records. Any number of coaches have told me theirs. In several years of coaching not only do I not know my teams' records, at no point during any of those seasons did I ever contemplate or calculate ours. I do know that when we played weak tournaments, sometimes we went 5-1 and at some very strong tournaments, sometimes we went 1-3 or 0-4. I know that at one PONY nationals we went 3-4 and that was perhaps the most positive tournament experience I have ever had. The 5-1 experiences were not remarkably great ones. They are not the tournaments about which I have my fondest memories. I don't know my teams' overall records and I could not care less.
Many of the fellows who have known their teams' records play mostly lower level tournaments. They are actually afraid of playing the more challenging ones. One father bragged to me that his daughter's team "pretty much always played 3 games on Sundays." I replied, "that's great ... too bad we didn't see you at all this year."
One team I remember bragged about its 50-4 record one year. But somebody on the team told me about how they had cancelled out of their last tournament because, once they saw the names of the other teams, they realized they would have done poorly. The team was actually a pretty good one. We played them at some point and they had solid pitching and hitting. They weren't the best we had seen but they beat us that one time we saw them. The next year I had a daughter on a really bad team, playing a weak tournament, and that 50-4 team from the year before was there. We beat them into the dirt. A few girls had left to play a better level - against the type of teams this one avoided - and the remainder, while talented, could not deal with another team playing into their faces. They folded like a cheap suit. I understand the team is now disbanded.
My point in all these anecdotes is I really don't care what your win-loss record, your Batting average, your ERA, etc. is. What I do care about is how you are playing, whether you routinely get challenged, whether you, your team and each girl is really developing. Everything else is garnish. I don't eat garnish unless I am really hungry.
One final anecdote. The best team I have seen in recent years is a 14 year old one. They were 14U eligible last year. Their plans were to go to a 14U nationals, preferably ASA if they qualified. They worked towards that goal but found that when they entered a 16U national qualifier in order to challenge themselves, they were the best team there. They won the 16U berth. I don't know what their thinking was but for some reason they decided to go to 16U ASA "A" nationals rather than go to any 14U nationals. No, they didn't win the thing. No, they were not one of the top teams there. But they unquestionably did well. They won games in pool play. They won a game or two in bracket play. All in all, it is difficult to envision a better experience for these girls. Congratulations to the girls for doing so well. Congratulations to the coaches for taking on such a challenge. You know who you are!
Rather than focusing on records, rather than focusing on the usual suspects of statistics, why not look for challenges and meet them as best you can. That's how people grow.Labels: attitude, coaching, youth tournament teams
Permanent Link: Of Stats And Important Things
KISS
by Dave
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
What is that coach signaling to the batter? Is it a bunt, slap, or slap bunt? Is it a fake bunt, fake slap, or fake slap bunt? Is it take, swing away, or swing away only if the pitch is in your power zone? Is it swing away or swing and miss so the girl on first can steal? Is it hit a grounder to the right side so the runner from third can score? Let's wait and see what happens and then we can deconstruct the sign to see what the coach told the batter to do.
OK, now I get it. He gave her the sign for play 231 which is "look confused, swing badly at the first two pitches, strike out looking on a fastball down the middle, then return to the dugout and think to yourself, 'I hate this stupid game.'" That must have been what the coach signed the girl. That's what she did.
The signs themselves were a tug of the cap, slide the right hand down the left arm, touch belt with left then right hand, clap six times, wipe across the chest with right hand then left, clap five more times, put hands on knees, tug on cap again, clap four times. That's the sign for the previous play so girls when I get that sign, I'm going to yell out situation 35 and everyone will know to expect the batter to strike out looking.
I know of a team which uses a play sheet containing too many plays for team members to remember on their own - that's why they use the sheet. Girls put the sheet on an arm-band they are required to wear at all practices and games. They refer to them frequently because otherwise they will not know what to do on any play. Then, when these girls leave this team, they usually do something else which hopefully doesn't confuse them further. It is very difficult to be a former member of this team when you age out of the division and perhaps go to another organization. Most 12U coaches use nothing of the sort. How is an 11 year old supposed to know what to do without an arm-band?
We once faced a team with an elaborate set of plays. We had a runner on second and wanted to bunt her to third. The batter bunted the ball a little too much towards the pitcher who fielded it cleanly. The first and third basemen almost ran her over trying to get to the ball. She turned to first to get the out but nobody had covered. She then turned to second in time to see the SS and 2B collide at the bag. Then she turned to third where, of course, there was nobody covering. A picture of the view would fail to show a single defensive player because the LF was backing up second base! The team had dozens of plays but couldn't perform one simple task, the most important simple task they had before them.
We were engaged in a discussion regarding pitching signs for a 14U team. That team has 4 pitchers and 3 catchers on their roster. The coach is contemplating a series of possible signs for 9 possible pitches. Of course, this involves more than a single hand for the signs. So catchers will use 1-5 fingers for 5 of the pitches and then make various other movements with the hand should one of the pitches numbered 6-9 be called for. The idea is to standardize pitch calls to one set of signs so as to avoid confusion. That's a worthwhile approach except for a couple considerations.
First of all, not all the four pitchers throw the same stuff. A few have pitches they rely on which were not included in the nine signs. And while the catchers will have one standardized set of signs, they will still have to remember who throws which pitch. Othwerwise, they will be calling for pitches the pitchers don't throw. You know what I would do if I were one of those catchers? I would give the pitcher one sign. I might make the pitcher laugh with my sign but its meaning would be clear enough, throw the darn ball and I'll try to catch it.
Secondly, I have seen these pitchers throw. There is a sign for the riseball and not a one of these pitchers can throw one. Yes, several girls throw something they call a rise but none of these even rotates properly. Not once have I seen one of these alleged riseballs do anything even remotely similar to a genuine riseball. These are really badly thrown fastballs up in the zone. Some of these girls have what can be loosely described as dropballs or curves but none of these pitches moves more than perhaps 3 inches from the normal trajectory of their fastballs. There are numerous variants on the standard change-up and these are often thrown differently, depending on who is doing the pitching. But each of these pitches represents essentially the same thing - it is slower.
Now I understand fully that a girl ought to work on her riseball. The same is true of other pitches. And she ought to develop change-ups which are variants of other pitches, perhaps have multiple change-up varieties. I said as much just yesterday. But there does not need to be a complex series of signs between pitcher and catcher if the pitches don't actually move.
I also understand the need to communicate location between pitcher and catcher. But sometimes these things cause more confusion than they are worth. For instance, my daughter has told me a particular catcher frequently called for her screwball outside. My daughter cannot throw a screwball outside without stepping well outside the pitching lane and then only if she is willing to undergo therapy for whiplash afterwards. Any catcher who has caught her would know that the screw is always inside and the appropriate variations on it have to do with level, up or down. She can vary the screw by throwing it as a brushback or otherwise off the plate or she can throw it for a strike. But that's probably more accidental than planned, in practice.
There are other problems she has had between herself and various catchers but these are mostly rectified with some work and a little discussion between pitch and catch. A couple sessions and usually the girls end up on the same page. All they really need to signal each other is screwball, up or screwball, low. With regard to her other five pitches, those either can be moved around or not. She can put the drop curve outside or further outside but she cannot move it up and down. She can throw the drop and change in or out but she cannot hit absolutely spot in or out of the strike zone. As I said, a session with two girls working together can greatly simplify what each needs to know about the other. There is no need for a complex series of signs for nine or more pitches and four or more locations, at least not yet.
Trouble is, if a pitcher cannot hit her location at least 75%-90% of the time, it does the catcher little good to call a location. She'd be better off just using the goalie approach - block anything and everything that comes your way. Calling the location on ten pitches, 4 of which are going to end up in the wrong spot, is probably going to result in 2 or more PBs. What is the point of that if the catcher could, alternatively, just try to catch whatever the heck the pitcher throws? My guess is, if she tries that, she'll only suffer 1 PB!
Is it clear yet what I'm getting at? I believe there are times for signs to batters, a need for plays, and a need to communicate a pitch selection between pitcher and catcher. But I also think some of us have gone quite mad with this. I know of 10U teams which have more plays they need their players to know than do some 18U Gold teams. Yet some of these 10U teams can't field a bunt nor know who is supposed to cover which base on a limited number of plays.
Whenever madness prevails, the soundest advice I can give, the soundest advice I have ever received is K. I. S. S. K. I. S. S. stands for "keep it simple, stupid." I don't care what occupation or avocation you are pursuing, KISS is sound advice. That's true in our sport because, if you can;t field a grounder or make a decent throw, it doesn't matter how well designed of a play you are trying to execute. If you can't field or throw, you cannot get the lead runner on a grounder. If you can't bunt well, it doesn't matter what the third bas3e coach is calling for you to do. Signs must be limited to calls for plays which a coach can reasonably expect team players to execute a certain percentage of the time.
When we are just starting girls out in fastpitch softball, one of the early instructions we give them is to take a pitch when the count is 3-0. That's simple enough. We are also trying to get them to look at signs on every pitch. It seems like a waste of time to sign a girl to take the pitch when the count is 3-0 but I suggest that is precisely what you do. You are teaching, not invoking great plays. The take sign is probably the first one you want to work in a game with young girls (10U or 12U).
The second thing I think we want early players to do is bunt successfully. We spend, or should spend, a fair amount of batting practice time teaching the girls the plain vanilla sacrifice bunt. There are plenty of times to use this skill in 10U and 12U ball (of course there are plenty of times at all levels). So that's the second sign to teach and work.
Stealing is maybe the next one but let me be clear that we want tyo teach girls more than mere stealing when we go over baserunning. I strongly suggest teaching girls to take a proper lead, watch for the WP/PB, always go when one occurs, and, if there is no play after your lead, always return directly to first. After your team understands this most basic approach, then you should bring up stealing and you should teach girls to pretty much go all out while looking towards the batter once after the second step in order to pick up any hit ball - whether that ball be hit directly at you, on the ground or in the air. The baserunner needs to pick up the ball so as to return to base if necessary or to prepare herself to move on to third or whatever she needs to do. Once girls understand this, then they can learn the steal sign and execute it properly. Once they get this, you can work the runners responsibility and approach on sacrifice bunts. if you're really advanced, you can start in with suicide squeezes and other more involved plays.
At this point, I suppose you can begin to vary what you teach and which signs you will use. My preference would be to work delayed stealing, then move on to other things like fake bunt-slap situations. But the bottom line is I want to build up signs from a fundamental base. I want complete understanding before we start getting involved. I want to see proper execution of standard plays like sac bunts and stealing, not to mention sound fundamental play, before I develop anything even remotely similar to a play book. Some of these girls struggle to get simple algebraic statement like (x/5 - 1 = 6), yields (x = 35) and we get them out on the fields and expect them to execute slap-bunt, safety sqeezes?
When we work defensive situations, I think a team ought to be able to execute certain plays like bunt defense or drawing the infield in with 100% correct fundamentals, if not 100% perfect results, before we get very involved with the complicated plays. if a team cannot possibly throw out a baserunner stealing more than 5% of the time, maybe we ought to hold off going over the first and third situation beyond telling the catcher to throw the ball straight back to the pitcher, then cover the plate and telling the pitcher to watch out for the runner at third but don't make a play on her unless she runs home
When we work pitchers, I think we ought to indeify just the pitches they can actually throw. That doesn't mean a girl who is learning a rise cannot throw it, but we don't need a sign for a pitch she has which doesn't do anything and which she is only going to throw once every five games. In those cases, it would probably better if the pitcher told the catcher if I get the first batter to two strikes, I'm going to try to throw a rise.
If a pitcher really has say three different change-ups, I think a coach ought to look at all three and determine if there really is a significant difference between them. If there is a substantial difference (something I seriously doubt unless we are talking about very sophisticated pitchers), then the next determination is whether the catcher can catch it without knowing which type of change is being thrown. If she can, no special sign is necessary, just sign change-up and leave the pitcher to decide which kind she is going to use. if a pitcher has a reasonably good dropball, then the catcher better know when that is coming. But if she has no control in and out, no location really needs to be called. It is sufficient that the pitch called is drop. Likewise every other pitch.
Further to the point, if a pitcher can spot the ball where she wants to on certain pitches, then and only then should location be part of the signs. When I say she can spot the pitch, I mean most of the time, at least 75%. If she is significantly off on 3 or more of ten pitches, what is the point of calling location? And location should only be called on those few pitches for which she has relative command. if she never really knows where her change-up is going, the catcher ought to take more of a goalie approach.
Now I realize some of you believe that the catcher needs to think about location primarily because she needs to set up her target. maybe that's true in your world. maybe a lot of the pitcher I work with need that sort of target set up. I just don't particularly care very much for it. I would prefer if my pitchers learned to throw to location regardless of where the catcher sets the target. That is, when I work with pitchers to throw say the outside fastball, I tell the catcher to set up down the middle. Then I tell the pitcher to pick out something that lines up with the outside corner (or just off it) and throw to that something. I don't want the catcher tipping the batter that the next pitch is coming outside.
Oh, and by the way, I watch enough college fastpitch and MLB ball to know that most catchers do set up their targets in and out. But I don't get why it is necessary. Years ago catchers would never dream of setting targets too obviously. Did that mean pitchers didn't work the corners or up and down? Of course not. Rather, they were schooled at pitching to their spot rather than the glove. I think that is a more rational approach.
Further, in addition to more than 50% of all pitchers failing to even come close to hitting their spots more than 50% of the time, more than half of all catchers squat on the balls of their feet, even with runners on base, turn their heads on balls in the dirt, or while keeping their closed fist behind their backs while the pitch is incoming, pull out their open hands right as the batter is swinging. I would much prefer my pitchers and catchers execute fundamentals before they start trying to call 9 pitches in 16 different zones!
I am a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. approach. I also believe in the corollary rule which says 80% of all actions result from 20% of all options. That is, if your pitcher has 8 pitches and she throws 100 pitches, 80 of them will be while using 2 of the 8 pitches. The other 6 will vie for the other 20 pitches but I'd be willing to bet 18 of the 20 will involve maybe 2 of those secoindary pitches. The other 4 signs are virtually useless. Similarly, your 20 offensive plays and 50 defensive ones are probably situationally determined. And if you actually execute 5 of those plays in any given tournament at 14U and below age groups (not once in a while but in every tournament), I will truly be shocked. Why not focus on execution rather than complexity? Why not have just a few signs which result in positive outcomes rather than 50 plays none of which can be successfully executed ever?
Keep it simple stupid! Do some fundamental things right before you get all involved.Labels: coaching
Permanent Link: KISS
PFX Tour
by Dave
Monday, September 22, 2008
We took a trek this past weekend to go watch the pros on the PFX tour. The tour was visiting Newtown, Pennsylvania and, having missed it last year, we figured we'd go check it out to see why our friends were so positive about the experience last year. The tour involves an amateur tournament, some clinics, and a couple games with the professional players. We went really just to see one of the professional games. It was well worth our time and "expense."
We had no real interest in the amateur tournament. Our teams were off that weekend due to a religious ceremony for one the girls which had been planned long before we learned the schedule of the tour. We did stay to watch a bit of the amateur play and it was more or less your typical fall tournament involving teams playing up in age group with groups of girls who were not particularly familiar with each other yet. We did not see a huge number of teams. My sense is it was not a well attended tournament. That's a shame but it didn't impact our enjoyment at all.
We had been advised of the time for the pro game and made sure to get there early enough to watch them warm-up. The Newtown facility is your typical softball complex with several fields spread out over several acres. It is nothing special. The fields are Ok with some decent ones and a few in need of repair, particularly after a hot summer of the clay baking in the sun. It's about 5-10 minutes off route 95 near the PA/NJ border. We've been there a few times and had no trouble finding the place.
As we pulled into the driveway, I spied a fellow with one of those money aprons standing beside a table with a sign on it informing anyone who entered that they'll need to reach into their pockets and pull out some money. The sign said 5 bucks. Whenever I see that sort of thing, my first reaction is to get my back up. We go to minor league baseball games fairly often because the cost of major league baseball is completely out of control. You can get into a minor league game for as little as $6 each for bad seats, $10-12 for the best ones, but they always hit you up for a parking charge that seems a little on the heavy side. We'll pay $24-48 for four tickets and sometimes as much as $10 to park the car! It's obviously a money maker for most minor league clubs.
As I said, my first reaction was to get my back up over the "parking fee" but when I pulled up next to the man, it occurred to me that I didn't need to pay $5 for parking but rather $5 per head for entry. The fee wasn't one of those hidden money makers but rather the entire cost of going to watch professional softball players, including several Olympians. You can't get bleecher seats to see two last place MLB teams on the final day of the season for that price. You can't get into the high school county championship softball game where I live for less than that.
We paid, pulled in and were able to park quickly. We jumped out and headed quickly towards the fields, looking around to see where the pros might be. We spied some "bigger kids" off in the distance, apparently warming up in and around the batting cages and walked in that direction to see if they might be the pros. They were. When we got to the batting cages, we saw maybe about 20-30 other people not associated with the tour standing nearby, watching. I guess about 3 or 4 other fields adjacent to the batting cages had youth games going on and the folks who were milling about seemed to be involved with the tournament but not playing at the moment. I can't be sure but I do not believe anyone was there who was not affiliated with a team entered into the tournament.
While we were walking towards the pro players, I had no idea who might be there. I had been on the PFX site many times and knew pretty much which players were affiliated with the tour but I wasn't sure whether any of the Olmpians would be in attendance. The Olympics are obviously over but I wasn't really sure who might have retired from playing or be busy doing other things. I thought I saw one of my favorites, Nuveman, taking some swings outside the cages but as I approached, I realized I was mistaken. She was not there.
I could have been a little disappointed by Nuveman's absence but I certainly understand that she is at the end of her playing career and now has a little one at home who needs her attention. I looked around to see if another favorite, Jessica Mendoza, might be around but couldn't find her. Then I searched for Jen Ritter but she wasn't around either. I could have been disappointed that several of my favorites were absent but I decided to make the most of it. As we got out of the car, my daughter had asked whether Jennie Finch, Monica Abbott or Cat Osterman might be here today. I told her I didn't believe they were on the tour, they're not. I sensed a little disappointment from her on that score and worried that this would cheapen the experience. My concerns were not well founded. It made little difference to my daughter or me that our softball idols weren't there.
We stood perhaps 15 feet away from the first batter taking swings in the cage. That was Ashley Monceaux whose 6 foot 2 frame is rather intimidating. Ashley is a hard hitting, lefty batting, firstbaseman who played for Baylor during her collegiate career. She was a 2007 finalist for college player of the year. She hit over .400 that year with 20 homeruns and 71 RBI, more than one run driven in per game. She was ripping the ball. It was a little scary. The batting practice pitcher was ducking, flinching, and diving to get out of the way of some of those drives despite being behind a net.
As I watched the pitcher throw, flinch, duck and dive, it occurred to me that I wasn't sure who exactly that was doing the pitching. It wasn't any pitcher I was familiar with but it was definitely a player, not a coach. And her face was so familiar to me. I just couldn't place her. Then I realized it was Olympian, Taria Flowers. I didn't know she pitched at all - she's Team USA's first baseman.
There were just a few players around the cages. Other's were off in the distance doing long toss and various other warm-up drills. We couldn't really see who was who. But just having one Olympian in the cages, even a first baseman pitching batting practice, was a thrill. I fgured it didn't really matter who was going to be here since I just wanted my daughter to have a chance to see these very good softball players and how they go about their business.
After pitching to one or two batters and expending a lot of energy trying to preserve her life, Flowers got out of the cage and a new BP pitcher was searched for. In walked Olympic SS Natasha Watley! She said something about letting her get a few warm-ups first and after she threw her first pitch, she told the other girls, "I'm not very fast." She was very cute about it but after a few throws, I guess everyone decided they needed somebody else in there. Natasha's form told us that once, perhaps very long ago, she had been a pitcher. Still, you'd be taking your life into your hands by pitching to these hitters without a certain fairly high degree of skill.
Batting practice went like that for a few minutes and then everyone realized that they had better get over to the fields soon because the game was going to go off in just a few minutes. So everyone hustled, broke down the equipment, and headed for the field. We ran ahead of them to make sure we could get decent seats although I do not think there were enough people there at the whole facility to make that an issue.
As we walked over to the fields, I thought a bit about what we had just witnessed. Here were some ladies who had played this game at its highest level. Some were Olympians but even those who weren't had played very high level NCAA ball. These were perhaps among the top 50 or 100 girls in the game today. But watching them warm-up, they could have been a 10U or 12U team. They were just girls playing a game they love. They enjoyed being just girls. They obviously enjoy playing softball. They enjoy just being girls with other girls who enjoy playing softball. They go about their business with a serious demeanor but they are just a bunch of softball playing girls. It was a very enlightening experience.
We were able to set our chairs next to the fence by first base. Although there were a few angry wasps who wanted us to move, we were able to stay there for the duration. As more of the players came walking over to the field, I started to get excited. There were far more of the Olympians, past and present than I had realized at first.
I turned to my wife and asked, "isn't that Lisa Fernandez." She agreed it was. Then I saw Andrea Duran and that's when I started to count Olympians. I already mentioned Tairia Flowers and Natasha Watley. Laura Berg soon came into view, as did Lauren Lappin. So we had 5 current Olympic team members and 1 past one. That was plenty for me.
The girls stopwed their bags and equipment and then took the field for some more warm-up drills. I enjoy watching really good players warm-up because I like to see the way these players prepare. My daughter apparently feels the same way. She was transfixed by the action.
Natasha Watley took several ground balls about 40 feet away from the coach hitting them. She missed more than half of them! The coach had hit a couple easy ones at her and she made a face or somehow communicated to the coach that she wanted something more challenging. The coach said, "Oh, you want me to hit hard ones?" She nodded and the coach proceeded to rocket a few shots to her left and right. She dove and reached, bounced up, dive and reached. The thing which struck me while watching Watley go through warm-ups was she wanted hard shots that would make her dive. She wanted to hit the dirt, bounce up and make throws. That's a good preparation for playing. I think sometimes coaches, particularly right before games, want to hit balls that are too easily retrieved. I know I'm guilty of that. But when you're hitting grounders to possibly the best SS in the game, you have to do better than that.
Andrea Duran took a few balls too. She showed some of the cat-like instincts she possesses just in those drills. It was fun watching these ladies go about their business and then something else struck me. These best infielders in the game have decent arms but they're nothing to write home about. Their arms are good but I've seen better ones in medium level college games, a few even at the high school and 18U showcase level. What stuck out watching these ladies field grounders up close and personal was how quickly they got rid of the ball. It was like lightning.
I have been a believer in the Howard Kobata infield approach, fast release at the expense of throwing power, for quite some time. Kobata often chides girls, "I don't care how strong your arm is. What I care about is how fast the ball gets where its going." His work is mostly about footwork and body position in order to get rid of the ball. He is more than willing to have a girl throw the ball less strong in order for her to gain on speed of release. He will often run drills in which girls play balls side by side and make similar throws in order to demonstrate to them that making the strongest throw is often slow. I remember quite often one girl with a weaker arm getting the ball to the base a half second faster than the girl with the rocket arm who sets up her feet for leverage too much before throwing.
My faith in quick release has sometimes been tested in interaction with other coaches. Many of my cohorts want to teach girls how to throw in order to have the strongest arm possible. That is, I suppose, what each of us brings over from baseball, a game in which the distances are much bigger and the time one has to get a batter out at first is probably 25-33% longer. We all teach good posture when fielding balls, proper technique and footwork, but those moving over from baseball tend to place a good deal of emphasis on getting a strong throw. They want girls to take extra steps in order to set up their feet so as to make the strongest throw. I have been persuaded to give on or alter my fast release approach drills in order to work strength of throwing by a number of folks I have coached with. But after watching Watley and Duran play, I now feel even more strongly that we should give on strength and focus more on release. Watley and Duran quite obviously are much more concerned with getting rid of the ball quickly than they are with making powerful throws.
There is something about watching top level players up close and personal which cannot be gained by seeing them on TV. You get a better feeling for body posture and overall mechanics in the live version. My observations about getting rid of the ball just cannot be made via a televised game. Also, you really don't get a feel for the camaraderie these girls share from the tube. Other elemtns of their play is also more obvious when they are just a few feet in front of you.
For whatever reason, Lisa Fernandez comes off as arrogant to me when I see her on TV. I recognize that her resume should permit a fairly high level of arrogance but a little humility always seems like a positive thing to my sensibilities. And I cannot say that I have ever noticed particularly much of that from Fernandez when I've watched her play games with Team USA on ESPN. But in person, she does not come off as an arrogant person. She's much more likeable. And it was a huge thrill to see her pitch ... in person ... from 50 feet away.
Fernandez threw the ball, I suppose, as well as anyone else. But her best attribute was in the way in which she threw change-ups. My personal belief is the change is the most underrated pitch in softball. They don't call it "fastpitch" for nothing. Fernandez made a lot of top hitters look pretty foolish against slow pitches. I don't have details but it seems to me that she used several different kinds of changes when she pitched in in the game. And each of those change-ups seemed to be driven off a different pitch and came in at different speeds. The windmill pitching instructors I have seen in action usually focus on one or another particular kind of change-up. Their aim always seems to be to have each pitcher develop one kind of change with the idea being to make it as slow as possible while using an arm speed and angle exclusively off the fastball. Fernandez appeared to have one change-up driven off the drop ball, another off the rise, and yet another off another pitch. I don't know that what I saw was true but that is the way I saw it. And the batters were badly fooled on most of her changes.
Watching the girls take batting practice from 15 feet away was rather remarkable. These ladies have some of the best swings you have ever seen. It didn't so much matter if they were very strong or not. It didn't matter if they were 6 foot 2 or 5 foot 5. They all swung the bat very well with apprently perfect mechanics. And not a single one triggered their swing with their hips a la Ted Williams. Not a one of them had their hips wide open to the pitcher at ball contact. None of these players turned inwards with their front foot before striding. None of them held the bat head below their hands. Every single one of the non-slapper girls I saw hit took a linear approach.
When we decided to go to watch the PFX tour, I suppose we were just looking for soemthing to do on a day on which we had no softball scheduled. I had relatively low expectations. I hoped to see a bunch of the Olympic team in action but I expected those gals were mostly busy doing something else. Many have retired from their playing careers. Some surely would be back home licking their wounds. Some like Mendoza would be off in Europe promoting the sport. I wasn;t sure we'd see a single Olympian. Still, I hoped to see several of the players I admire. I was certainly not disappointed.
I realized that the game would not have the usual tension you would expect from a meaningful game associated with it. This was purely exhibition. A group of players would basically side up and then go against each other with none of the usual adrenaline flowing. That's certainly the way it played out. There was no stress about the outcome of the thing. But these are thoroughbreds. You pout a bat in one of their hands and a pitcher with a ball in front of them and they are disenclined to do anything other than what they have always done. You stick Fernandez out on the rubber, put up a batter, hand her a ball and she is going to throw, period. The game lacked tension but none of these girls was going to take any particular play lightly. Watching athletes of this caliber play, even in just an exhibition, is always entertaining. It is also rather instructive.
I can only imagine what seeing stars of the sport she loves meant for my young daughter. She hasn't stopped talking about it since. All that for the price of gasoline and fifteen bucks. In this day and age, it is hard to imagine having spent so little to receive so much.
Oh, I almost forgot. We did spend a little more than the 15 bucks. Somewhere along the way, we got introduced to the Mattingly Bat company. I'm a Yankee fan and have always admired Don Mattingly. But I'm not about to buy his bat just because he was a great hitter or a member of the Yanks.
The tour had a stand for Mattingly bats where they had numerous models for sale. I heard soemthing about the "V-grip" and decided to go check it out. A few of the amateurs at the tournament were using them. Some of the pros were using them too. One hit a homer using the "Beast." The handle is a pretty interesting concept. It requires the hitter to line up her knuckles properly and keep them that way through the swing. It keeps the bat out of your palms. I believe it accomplished the mission - I swung one and found it kept my hands where they are supposed to be.
I was pretty impressed with it and decided to go home, do some research and then perhaps try to buy one on the cheap. But my daughter was due for a new bat and she followed me over to the stand. She picked one up and instantly fell in love with it. She found someplace to take a few swings with the appropriate sized bat and had just three words for me, "I want one." I thought, OK, I'll get you one but let's go home first and search online for a good price. Then I overheard the girl manning the booth tell another prospect that these were available for $199 today only instead of the usualy price of $279. Something in me said, "you can do better on the internet."
Then my daughter reiterated her position just in case I had missed it. "I want one." I suppose I was caught between wanting to support the PFX thing or anything to do with professional softball, wanting to make my daughter happy, wanting to get her off the latest model of Rocketech with which we have not been very happy, and wanting to try something different. So we bought one. After we got home, we tried to find a better price than $199 but were unable to do so. So I don't feel like too big of a sap. I do like the bat and more importantly my daughter does. She broke it out for live hitting practice yesterday and hit pretty well with it.
I do suggest you go out and see the PFX tour even if you are not playing in the amateur part of the tournament. If you go, I recommend going there early enough to see some of these players warm-up, preferably from close range. I urge you to patronize anything associated with the tour though I'll leave you to your devices as to whether you want to but an expensive bat or not. Just go, if you can fit it into your busy schedule. Go and enjoy the best value possible for your entertainment dollar.
The PFX tour has the following scheduled stops coming up:
October 3 - 5 - Fresno Fresno Regional Park - Fresno, CA
October 24 - 26 - Moline Green Valley Sports Complex - Moline, IL
November 7 - 9 - Chattanooga Frost Stadium/Warner Park - Chattanooga, TN
November 14 - 16 - Los Angeles Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter - Los Angeles, CA
November 21 - 23 - Clermont Legends Way Ballfields - Clermont, FL
I highly recommend you leave the comfort of your home, the TV and college or pro football games, and go see the pro softball players, if you can. You won't be disappointed.Labels: professional softball
Permanent Link: PFX Tour
|
|
|
