During broadcasts on the YES Network, Ken Singleton will sometimes wax poetic whenever a batter takes a big swing and miss at the first pitch of his at bat. “One to get loose, two to produce,” the former Orioles’ All Star will rhyme, offering consolation to the slugger who came up empty.
A hitter having not one, but three strikes at his disposal is deeply engrained in both the factual and fictional components of baseball lore. From Ernest Thayer’s “Casey at the Bat”, to Babe Ruth’s called shot in the 1932 World Series, to Roy Hobb’s dramatic home run in The Natural, even when the count is in the pitcher’s favor, the hero is always bolstered by the knowledge that one strike can’t beat him.
Even though it’s three strikes and you’re out, statistics tell us that falling behind in the count diminishes a hitter’s chance at being successful. In 2012, for example, the average major leaguer currently has an OPS of .725, but when the count is 0-1, the subsequent rate drops over 100 points to .613. No wonder pitching coaches preach getting ahead in the count.
Hitter OPS After Specific Counts, 2012
Note: Includes all plate appearances after a particular count is reached. So, for example, events coming on 2-1, but after 0-1 and 1-1 would be counted in each split. Red bars indicate OPS rates that are above the overall league average.
Source: Baseball-reference.com
It’s pretty clear that even just one strike can place a hitter at a disadvantage. However, does it matter how the strike results? Does taking the first strike mitigate some of the handicap, or harking back to Singleton’s poem, does a healthy cut, whether it yields a whiff or foul ball, pay a residual benefit?
To date, there have been 174,334 plate appearances in the majors, of which 49%, or 85,186, have involved a count of 0-1. Thanks to the pitchF/X database at www.joelefkowitz.com, we can isolate most (75,000, or 88%) of those instances. However, before proceeding, we need to determine whether or not the sample is missing a specific segment that would skew the data (e.g., all at bats ending with a home run). Remarkably, despite having 10,000 fewer elements, the average BA/OBP/SLG rates of .227/.268/.346 that resulted were nearly identical to the .226/.266/.347 slash line reported by baseball-reference.com for the entire population. So, with some level of confidence in the limited data established, we can now compare the subsequent at bat results based upon three variables: whether the first pitch was a called strike, swing and miss, or foul ball.
Production Rates After 0-1 Count, Based on Strike Type
Source: www.joelefkowitz.com
As it turns out, it really doesn’t matter how a hitter comes upon a first pitch strike. When it results from a take, the batter hits for a slightly higher average, while an initial swing eventually leads to a minor rise in slugging. However, there is a more pronounced difference when isolating foul balls from swings and misses. Looked at separately, the at bats that began with a foul were meaningfully more productive than those starting out with a whiff. Plate appearances beginning with a foul also yielded a notably higher slugging percentage than those commencing with a called strike, so, on the surface, if a hitter must go down 0-1, it appears as if a foul ball is the best way to do it.
The idea of “one to get loose” seems to be handily refuted by the data because there is no discernible advantage gained by having a first strike result from a swing. But, what are we to make of the hierarchy that suggests a first strike foul is better than a take, which, in turn, is better than a whiff? Intuitively, it seems as if a foul indicates a hitter’s ability to recognize a pitcher’s offering (i.e., the classic “just missed”), while a whiff suggests the opposite. With the take being a neutral part of that equation, it stands to reason it would fall in the middle of both extremes. More plainly, a foul might mean the batter is seeing the ball well, a swing and miss might indicate he is not, and a called strike gives him one fewer pitch to figure it out.
By no means is 90% of one year’s data a definitive study. Maybe a larger sampling would produce contradictory (or corroborating) results, but the conclusions drawn from this year’s sample is, at the very least, intriguing. Beyond expanding the study, refinements such a isolating a hitter’s first at bat in a game or against a pitcher, or even considering all first strikes, regardless of the count in which they occur, might lead to other thought provoking conclusions. In the meantime, the results from legend and lore are probably more interesting. So, for the record, Ruth homered after taking a first pitch strike, while the Mighty Casey went down swinging after doing the same. Roy Hobbs, on the other hand, just missed his pitch and fouled the ball back. We all know what happened next, so, maybe, there is something to this foul ball theory after all?
Leave a Reply