The pitch for contact cheat?

[aadam]

The pitch for contact option was introduced in OOTP 2014 and I think it may need some fixing. In my single player game, I usually pitch for contact with 3 balls when there is no man in scoring position, except when an good power hitter is at plate. I do it a lot even with a man on 1st to induce double plays.

The problem is:
- pitchers throw a strike 90% of the time. I don't think it's as simple as that in real life.
- they hit the middle of the zone but I don't think that opponent BABIP or SLG is much higher in these plays.

This season, I have only allowed 251 BB in 104 games which is by far the best in the AL. 2nd best is 291, 3rd best is 302.
Team BABIP is .313, about .010 over league average. Home runs allowed is top3 in the AL. Opponent SLG is average.
Strikeout rate is bad which could partially be a result of the pitch for contact strategy.

My rotation:

Shields: control 8, 1.1 BB/9
Duffy: control 5, 2.6 BB/9
Santana: control 7, 2.6 BB/9
Jimenez: control 5, 2.8 BB/9
Guthrie: control 6, 2.4 BB/9

(I play with OOTP 14 but I guess it's still relevant).

[Grafton19]

I haven't seen a issue with this in 15

In fact I have been avoiding it unless I need a double play ball.

But, I am thankful guys like you put on this type of effort to find thing on the game.

[megamanmatt]

If I'm not mistaken the ball's location in the zone in irrelevant. The game determines if the ball was a strike or a ball and then just adds a pitching zone location to it. It's basically just window dressing unless something has changed in the last few versions and my mind is blanking on it.

[JohnHoward]

What is your team won/loss record? Unless you are undefeated through 104 games, this is not a cheat. You are using a very aggressive strategy that seems to be paying off. Most modern teams would not be willing to sacrifice strikeouts for outs on balls in play. Many historical teams would. This was the strategy of the late 60's Orioles, with ground ball pitchers and Belanger at SS and Brooks at 3B. They had some strikeout pitchers but they also pitched to contact deliberately. I don't see a flaw in the game because you are able to do this. But again, are you winning?

[JohnHoward]

pitchers throw a strike 90% of the time. I don't think it's as simple as that in real life.

Have you seen Ervin Santana pitch this year? There were a couple of starts where he was well over 90% strikes for the first five innings.

Cliff Lee consistently throws 70% strikes over a season. The ML average in recent seasons is a consistent 62%. I think there are more strikes being thrown than you realize.

2013 strike percentage for your pitchers:
Shields 62.6 %
Duffy only 24 innings/sample size too small
Santana 65 %
Jimenez 62 %
Guthrie 63.4 %

[RchW]

The thing to keep in mind is that there is no evidence that pitch to contact is a strategy used in baseball right now.

[JohnHoward]

Originally Posted by RchW

The thing to keep in mind is that there is no evidence that pitch to contact is a strategy used in baseball right now.

By the same logic, there is no evidence that managers ever tell pitchers to deliberately hit batters.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by JohnHoward

By the same logic, there is no evidence that managers ever tell pitchers to deliberately hit batters.

Smokescreen; I'm not claiming that managers are telling pitchers to hit batters. However I'm able to show evidence to support my contention.

If pitch to contact were in use and successful, pitch counts would go down and average innings/start would be up. Strikeouts would decrease and complete games would go up or at least not go down. We all know K's are up at 7.9/9 innings. Complete games continue to fall. The other two stats have not varied much in 20 years.

Would you agree that not many modern relief pitchers are of the pitch to contact type? If not can you give me some names?


2014 innings/start=5.9 pitches/start=96

1995 innings/start=5.9 pitches/start=94

In between each year was almost identical.

In 1967 the average innings per start was 6.4 no pitch counts were available. K/9 innings was 6 vs the 7.9 above. Now that doesn't seem like much different but in 1967 there were 782 CG vs 124 in 2013 in 1/3 less games.

So its clear that starting pitching back then derived more outs from contact than they do now. The typical relief pitcher was not a strikeout machine either. My evidence may not be conclusive but there is zero evidence that pitching to contact occurs outside of one or two instances in certain games.

[JohnHoward]

You misunderstand the nature of my disagreement. Yes, you are correct, pitch to contact is not a GENERAL strategy in use in baseball right now. I said as much in my response to OP. On the other hand, the blanket claim that there is NO evidence that pitch to contact is EVER used in baseball today (if that is what you meant, maybe not) is false, just as someone might claim that there is NO evidence that managers EVER tell pitchers to hit batters in baseball today (they do).

The best example today is Cliff Lee, although he also is a huge strikeout pitcher. The problem today is you have to be extraordinarily effective with movement and location to pitch to contact. Greg Maddux did it. Tom Glavine did it. Cliff Lee can do it. In general, pitchers don't do it in today's game. Almost every pitcher tries to strike out almost every batter.

Sorry, my response seemed curt and flippant. We don't really disagree. But if OP wants to pursue a strategy from another time in the context of today's game, I don't consider that a "cheat", as he implied.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by JohnHoward

You misunderstand the nature of my disagreement. Yes, you are correct, pitch to contact is not a GENERAL strategy in use in baseball right now. I said as much in my response to OP. On the other hand, the blanket claim that there is NO evidence that pitch to contact is EVER used in baseball today (if that is what you meant, maybe not) is false, just as someone might claim that there is NO evidence that managers EVER tell pitchers to hit batters in baseball today (they do).

The best example today is Cliff Lee, although he also is a huge strikeout pitcher. The problem today is you have to be extraordinarily effective with movement and location to pitch to contact. Greg Maddux did it. Tom Glavine did it. Cliff Lee can do it. In general, pitchers don't do it in today's game. Almost every pitcher tries to strike out almost every batter.

Sorry, my response seemed curt and flippant. We don't really disagree. But if OP wants to pursue a strategy from another time in the context of today's game, I don't consider that a "cheat", as he implied.

No problem. The following is not intended to criticize the OP. I'm talking about the game design and the consequences of certain features as "cheats".

I guess that in my nitpicking way I don't consider Cliff Lee a strategy. He is what he is and he will pitch in his way. So at the risk of being a prick my point was that no one adopts a strategy such as the OP said. In that sense it is a cheat. Any batter outside of a full count has the advantage with 3 balls. They don't usually swing at pitches they don't like, because they don't have to. To induce additional contact artificially via the game engine contrary to common knowledge about how batters work and what the count stats show doesn't sit well. I can only say that I was not in favor of this feature when it was introduced for the same reasons.

Again this is a criticism of the game not the player.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by JohnHoward

What is your team won/loss record? Unless you are undefeated through 104 games, this is not a cheat. You are using a very aggressive strategy that seems to be paying off. Most modern teams would not be willing to sacrifice strikeouts for outs on balls in play. Many historical teams would. This was the strategy of the late 60's Orioles, with ground ball pitchers and Belanger at SS and Brooks at 3B. They had some strikeout pitchers but they also pitched to contact deliberately. I don't see a flaw in the game because you are able to do this. But again, are you winning?

In reference to the bolded part, they absolutely would give up Ks for outs on balls in play. There isn't a pitching coach in the world who would rather have a strikeout over a one-pitch out. Yes, there are times when a strikeout is needed, but in general, a first-pitch groundout/flyout/popout is much more valuable than a three-plus pitch strikeout.

EDIT TO ADD: I see in your subsequent posts that you explained your position more, and I completely agree with your stance. The thing with the guys you mention as pitch to contact guys (Lee, Glavine, Maddux) is that they all had/have extraordinary control. So they had the ability to consistently through a high percentage of strikes without giving the hitter anything to square up.

I would argue that this pitch to contact "thing" in OOTP should be changed to something like attack the strike zone. It should be used when you have a big lead late in games and you want to make sure your pitcher goes out and throws strikes. The phrase "pitch to contact" implies that the pitcher is letting the hitter hit the ball, which is never ever the case, yet that appears to be how it works in OOTP. But by attacking the strike zone, the pitcher is trying to throw quality strikes and get ahead of hitters rather than nibble or try to get the hitter to chase. If the hitter makes contact, so be it, but attacking the zone does not mean simply letting the hitter hit the ball.

[JohnHoward]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

In reference to the bolded part, they absolutely would give up Ks for outs on balls in play. There isn't a pitching coach in the world who would rather have a strikeout over a one-pitch out. Yes, there are times when a strikeout is needed, but in general, a first-pitch groundout/flyout/popout is much more valuable than a three-plus pitch strikeout.

You are absolutely correct. I expressed myself poorly. Please allow me to state my claim more carefully:

"Most modern PITCHERS would not be willing to sacrifice strikeouts for outs on balls in play."

Of course, their managers and pitching coaches would love it, but their agents and egos dictate otherwise.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by JohnHoward

You are absolutely correct. I expressed myself poorly. Please allow me to state my claim more carefully:

"Most modern PITCHERS would not be willing to sacrifice strikeouts for outs on balls in play."

Of course, their managers and pitching coaches would love it, but their agents and egos dictate otherwise.

I edited my post above after I read some of your other responses. We're on the same page. Strikeouts are a money stat, like home runs, but aren't always the best way to win games.