Is Strike 1 the Most Important Pitch?

Runners on second and third, nobody out, #3 hitter in the lineup is up, 0-0 score, 1st inning. How do you attack the batter and what is your aim for the at-bat?

The aim, first of all, is to get out of the inning without too much damage being done. In a situation like this, if you can hold your opponent to 1 run, you’ve done a very good job. In terms of the batter, the ideal situation is a strike-out, and if you can’t get that, a pop-up in the infield. Depending on the hitter and scouting report, I’d say the plan of attack should be the oldest that exists in baseball: hard stuff in, soft stuff away.


I’m willing to bet at some point, everyone who has listened to a baseball game on the radio or watched a game on TV has heard the announcers talk about the importance of throwing strike 1 on the first pitch of the at-bat. Before we delve too deeply into this, I should remind you that statistics can say nearly anything that a person wants them to say. Having gotten the disclaimer out of the way, let us resume our discussion.

First Pitch Strikes; the Argument in Favor

Throwing a strike on the first pitch has the potential to severely affect the entire confrontation. If a batter is trying to be patient and get a good pitch to hit, a first pitch strike signals to him that the pitcher is going to be around the plate and that his command might be good, thus not allowing him the level of patience he may have wanted. It also gives a boost of confidence to the pitcher at a position that is sometimes more about confidence than about ability.
In 2008 in Major League Baseball, when a pitcher started with strike 1, batters went on to hit .234 with an OPS of .635. When a pitcher started with ball 1, those numbers jumped to .277 and .843 respectively. There is definitely a large gap between the two. The numbers are skewed across the board in favor of the notion that starting with strike 1 is better than starting with ball 1. Batters walked 10% less and struck out 12% more after strike 1 than ball 1.
The question is, does a 0-1 count really give the pitcher that much more of an advantage than a 1-0 count?

The answer to that question is a very difficult one and cannot completely be measured by statistics and metrics. One of the reasons that these numbers are quite as skewed as they are is because of the era we live in. Even as little as 25 years ago, the approach to hitting was very different than it is today. In ages past, when a batter got two strikes, he shortened up and attempted to make contact at all costs. This should lead to lower power numbers but higher batting averages than if the approach isn’t change. Nowadays, batters don’t care what the count is; many of them are swinging just as hard with a 0-2 count as they are with a 2-0 count. Theoretically, this would lead to better power numbers but a ton more strike-outs.
So, is this the best approach to dissecting middle-of-at-bat results?

First Pitch Strikes; the Argument Against

The problem with making a goal of throwing first pitch strikes is this; what happens when you throw strike 1? You’ve met your goal for the at-bat. Now there is a let-down and you let a pitch get away from you and the next thing you know, you’re watching the ball sail into the outfield bleachers. There is definitely a difference between 1-0 and 0-1 but statistically speaking, it’s just not that big of an advantage. When the count was 0-1 last year, batters hit .315 with an OPS of .799, both well above the league average. If the pitcher just got ahead with the first pitch, why do batters all of a sudden hit above average? One reason is the aforementioned let-down following the attainment of a goal. Another possible reason is pitchers get a little greedy after getting ahead 0-1 and they want to get ahead 0-2 at the expense of a more effective pitch that may be called a ball.

Another problem with judging at-bats by their first pitch are the number of at-bats that actually only go one or two pitches. Last year in Major League Baseball, 28.1% of at-bats lasted 1 or 2 pitches. The argument can easily be made that once an at-bat goes three or four pitches deep, neither the batter nor the pitcher is still hung up on that first one.

In short, judging a pitcher’s performance by how he does on the first pitch is a decent barometer but is also far from perfect. The problem is everyone knows that pitchers are trying to get ahead in the count and batters are sitting on good pitches early in the count and if you don’t believe it, just consider this. Last year, there were just two players in the league who hit better than .337 (Chipper Jones hit .364 and Albert Pujols hit .357). However, the league batting average on the first pitch was .337. Basically, the point is that a questionable pitch on the corner that might be called a ball or a strike can be better than a meatball for the sake of not getting behind 1-0.

A New Approach

Tracking how often a pitcher starts a batter with strike one isn’t a bad gauge, but there are better ways to do it. At this point, I have to acknowledge one of the great pitching influences in my life who introduced me to this approach, Todd Naskedov, a pitching coach and then head coach of high school baseball in the state of Washington.

Basically, it groups plate appearances into three categories; those in which the pitcher was ahead, those in which he was behind, and those in which the batter swung the bat early in the count. For the ahead and behind categories, the magic cut-off point was two out of three. If the count started 2-0 or 2-1, those go in the “behind” column. 0-2 and 1-2 go in the “ahead” column and 0-0, 0-1, 1-0, and 1-1 go in the “early” column.

So what makes this one so much better than just looking at the first pitch? It’s a better tool for judging where a pitcher is struggling and where they are doing well. For instance, if the league batting average in the “early” column is .330, as it was in 2008, and a pitcher is allowing a batting average of .400 in those counts, then there is a problem. He’s trying to get ahead in the count at the expense of good pitches and he’s getting hit hard for them. To give another example, let’s say that the league average in the “ahead” column is .186 but a pitcher is allowing a .280 batting average in those at-bats. This points to the fact that the pitcher is getting ahead in the count just fine but he isn’t finishing off batters the way he needs to.

In a nutshell, you shouldn’t concern yourself with just the first pitch as a pitcher. When the average plate appearance lasts 3.8 pitches, you can’t focus on the first at the expense of the next three.


This time around, the situation will be that of a middle reliever. There is one out in the top of the 7th, runners at 1st and 3rd, and you are protecting a 6-4 lead with the leadoff hitter batting. Again, how would you approach the at-bat as that reliever?