re: For the critics, define “approach at the plate”

quote:

---

When Theriot broke it down, many issues were with the stance and weight distribution on the back foot.

It's not so much that they didn't recognize the pitch, but the stance & weight distribution hindered their ability to adjust and make the proper swing to connect with the ball.

---

All of that is important, but I’d call that mechanics. But I could see why you’d say it’s approach.

quote:

---

Lester Earl

---

quote:

---

Number 9 Fan

---

Pretty simple basic fundamentals to me. You stay disciplined on your pitches. You don't swing for the fences at every first pitch you see. Working the pitch count. Waiting for your pitch. Also, not always sitting on a single fastball pitch. This has been LSU's scouting report since PM has been here. Went through multiple coaches the only consistency is PM. It's well known LSU can't hit junk ball pitchers as well as lefties. I think under PM LSU only had 1 team that could hit junk ball/lefties consistently. Probably wrong there but it sure as hell feels like it.

LSU never makes adjustments at the plate based on what's being thrown at them. I think that has a lot to do with "approach to the plate" too. I've seen junk ball pitchers just toss constantly curves/change ups on first pitch and they'd eat LSU a new a-hole because they're always sitting on a fastball pitch.

Much of our most memorable loses under PM come from mediocre junk ball pitchers. Any kind of decent off speed and LSU struggles against it since PM has been here. Obviously, LSU has eaten up these type of pitchers when they're not very good and pitches just hang over the plate. I'm talking about the guys who have decent off speed but absolutely no fastball to throw you off with these pitches. The type of guys where once you been through the lineup once or twice you should've made adjustments on them and feasting. It's an all too common theme.

Actually kinda funny because this year LSU has just looked at strikes rather than doing their typical swing for the fences and whiffing. Both approaches are terrible. Protect the plate especially on a full count. No eye for the ball.

It’s understanding your pitchers tendencies as well. against ou we went up in the count 3-0 3 times in 8th and 9th....all 3 of these batters struck out well ahead in the count.

The pitcher had defined his strike pitch as inside on all r hand batters. He juiced them and we watched on all swing scenarios.

The approach at the plate looks like guys are unprepared for tendencies and that is a direct reflection of the hitting coach and his analyst who should be tracking this through the game.

All our guys appeared unprepared for late at bats.

Sounds like a lot of the possible answers have been covered with not much to add.

I always felt hitting it where it's pitched was best. Inside pull, middle-middle, outside away.

This analytically driven paradigm shift in MLB has come full circle from the father of the modern game, Ted Williams. Anyone familiar with his approach can easily see this is where the game has shifted.

After reading Keith Law's Smart Baseball, you can see where approaches within MLB and college baseball are at odds. Ted played an entire HOF career without a check swing. He said he never did, and no one ever recalls seeing it. He treated every strike the same, and his goal was to hit the ball as hard as he could with a slightly upward angle.

His approach actually led to the very first shift in MLB, implemented by Lou Boudreau of the Indians.

Kids with the level of talent to play for LSU all have the same MLB aspirations. LSU is a place where they can exhibit their MLB potential, but this doesn't always result in the best outcome for the team.

Kids like Watson hitting a couple warning track flyballs or Duplantis all of a sudden seeing a drop in average with more HRs will be commonplace.

I'm pretty sure there is no right answer to the correct approach at the plate for the college game.

quote:

---

Launch angle is not just about home runs

---

Launch angle is a measurement, but the emphasis on a steeper swing plane and a higher launch angle is all about home runs.

quote:

---

It’s about hitting the ball hard in the air.

---

Sure, in order to hit it over the wall.

quote:

---

This has always been how good teams have won games. It’s just quantified now, so there is actually something to “chase” per se

---

Good teams have won games various ways. In the mlb with a live ball and the need to sell tickets launch angled and home runs are really being promoted, but along with the home run increase we’ve seen a major K increase.
College doesn’t have the live ball or the talent level to follow the pro philosophy.

Hitting 400 in high school doesn’t qualify you to play SEC baseball.
And not every kid drafted makes it to high A baseball much less the majors.
Kids drafted show potential, that’s it. There are no guarantees.
Look at Hampton and his superior athleticism, and it’s obvious why he was drafted so high. He has a high ceiling if he just learns to hit top pitching. But he has to learn to hit college pitching first.

That's what I'm asking, what are the qualities you would look for if those aren't the ones. How would you know if a .700 hitter in high school could hit college pitching until he plays in college?

Obviously knowing the pitchers tendencies and favorite pitches; being smart in choosing what to swing at. But beyond that make the pitcher work hard, throw as many pitches as possible

quote:

---

Yes and no. If your swing fundamentals are correct, the launch angle will follow.

---

Not according to what they are saying in the majors. Good hitters, guys that hit for average, work on changing their launch angles to hit more homers.

quote:

---

Exit velo for the most part means diddly squat in the grand scheme of things if you can't consistently barrel the ball.

---

True, exit velo is the result not a method to success. Something to brag about.