Pregame With a Purpose

A scouting report can tell us what a pitcher throws, how they use their arsenal, and where hitters might find opportunities. From there, we build an approach, but we also need to give hitters a chance to prepare for what we’re asking them to do.

If the plan is to attack a fastball at the top of the zone, I want hitters to experience that location and velocity before their first at-bat. If the pitcher uses secondary pitches outside the zone to challenge that commitment, those decisions should be part of preparation, too.

I expect every hitter to get some exposure to mixed pitches before competing. Personally, I prefer introducing them as early as possible, at speeds relevant to the game.

How we get there takes some discretion. Players have their routines, coaches have different resources, and time usually limits how much we can accomplish. Within those constraints, we’re trying to help the hitter calibrate for what they’ll face that day.

Decide what deserves the time

There’s usually more in a scouting report than we can cover in pregame BP. We have to choose what deserves the most attention.

I start with usage. The pitch a hitter is most likely to see generally deserves the greatest share of preparation. Then I look at where the pitcher throws it and how the rest of the arsenal challenges the approach.

Against someone who relies heavily on elevated fastballs, we might prepare to attack that window while taking secondary pitches that tend to finish outside the zone. Mixing those pitches gives hitters a chance to rehearse the commitment: get to the fastball and recognize when to let something else go.

That’s a simplified version of the matchup. Do we also include secondary pitches for strikes? What about fastballs outside the window we want to attack?

Those additions ask the hitter to distinguish more than pitch type. If every fastball is a strike and every secondary pitch is a ball, pitch recognition alone can solve the task. Adding other locations makes the decision more demanding, and we have a short preparation period to work with.

I don’t have a universal rule for how much to include. The choice depends on the report, the player, and what we can realistically present. What matters is understanding what each setup asks of the hitter.

Know what the hitter is working towards

Before we start interpreting misses, we need some idea of what productive contact looks like for that hitter.

Generally, I want hitters driving balls hard in the air towards the pull side. Contact farther out front can create opportunities for airborne pull contact. Farther forward isn’t always better, though. The useful point of contact still has to fit the pitch and the hitter.

Bat speed increases the exit velocity available, while the quality of contact determines how much of that potential reaches the ball.

The height and direction that produce damage will vary from player to player. Bat speed helps shape those possibilities, and the hitter’s own batted-ball results help us narrow them down.

“Hit the ball hard in the air to the pull side” gives us a task. We still need to understand what that looks like for the player in front of us, especially once we start making adjustments.

Calibrate through observable feedback

During pregame BP, I want hitters thinking about what they’re trying to do with the baseball. A ball-flight target gives them something external to focus on, while the resulting contact gives the coach information about how the barrel is meeting the ball.

Direction, height, spin, and exit velo all give us clues about impact. They don’t tell us exactly how the hitter moved to produce it.

Suppose a hitter keeps getting jammed, making contact deep, and producing weak balls towards the opposite field. Together, those observations may suggest they’re late against the pitches we’re presenting. We still have to consider location and intent. Getting jammed on its own doesn’t establish a timing problem.

My rule of thumb is to explore an adjustment in the opposite direction of the recurring miss. Often, that takes more exaggeration than the hitter initially thinks they need.

For a right-handed hitter producing weak fly balls towards the opposite field, I might ask them to hit a ball at the third baseman’s shins. That gives them a specific target. I can consider what needs to change at contact while the hitter concentrates on sending the baseball somewhere.

Research on attentional focus gives us a reason to consider where we direct the hitter’s attention. In a small simulated batting study, skilled college hitters performed better when focusing on the ball leaving the bat than when focusing on their hands or the bat. Less-skilled hitters responded differently, which is a reason to consider experience when choosing instructions.

My preference during pregame is to give the hitter a clear ball-flight target and watch the response. I’m not necessarily asking them to take that exact ball flight into the game. We’re exploring whether an exaggerated adjustment moves them towards firmer contact in a productive window, then refining it based on what happens.

If the ball flight improves, that’s useful feedback. We can recognize a better struck ball without knowing exactly what changed mechanically or asking the hitter to consciously manage every part of the swing.

Ideally, the result also feels good to the hitter. That won’t happen on every swing, so we need to pay attention to both what they feel and what the ball does.

Give uncertainty a place

Predictable pitches can help a hitter find the barrel or get familiar with a particular speed and location. Mixing pitches adds another demand: the hitter has to recognize what’s coming and decide whether to swing while working to make that contact.

In a study of high school hitters facing machine pitches, Kidokoro and colleagues found greater timing errors when hitters didn’t know which pitch was coming. Finding your timing against a known pitch doesn’t fully address the challenge of doing it when the pitch is uncertain.

To me, that gives us a good reason to include mixed pitches in pregame BP. I prefer introducing them early so hitters can begin calibrating while dealing with some of the uncertainty they’ll face in competition.

The study doesn’t tell us how much exposure is best. That’s a coaching decision we make based on the player, the time available, and how they respond.

Work with the player

Some hitters want challenging pitches right away. Others want to loosen up, find the barrel, and leave BP feeling good about their swing.

Those preferences deserve a conversation. “I need to feel good” can mean several things. Knowing the player helps us understand what they’re asking for and how to work with it.

I still expect every hitter to get some mixed-pitch exposure, but there’s room for familiar routines and predictable work. One player may need a brief stretch of consistent pitches before we start mixing. Another may be comfortable finding their timing within the mix from the beginning.

These conversations are easier when we’ve already established what the work is meant to accomplish. Coaches need to explain why they’re including certain conditions, and players need room to describe how they’re responding.

Experience and relationships help us make sense of that feedback. If I know the hitter, I have more context for deciding whether their frustration is part of a useful adjustment, whether I need to simplify the task, or whether the remaining time would be better spent elsewhere.

Preserve the purpose with the resources available

Machines give us options for presenting velocity, movement, and locations that are difficult to reproduce in ordinary BP. They also come with their own visual and timing conditions.

Research in cricket has documented changes in batting coordination across delivery methods. That gives us a reason to think carefully about what each presentation asks of the hitter, while recognizing that the findings come from a different sport. It doesn’t establish that machines are ineffective or that one delivery method is always better.

Without a machine, reproducing game speed is difficult. The scouting report should still guide which pitches, locations, and decisions we prioritize in coach-thrown BP.

For the elevated-fastball example, that could mean mixing fastballs at the top of the zone to attack with off-speed pitches off the plate to take. A different matchup would call for a different mix. The goal is to give hitters a chance to practice that day’s approach within the limits of the setup.

Other options come with tradeoffs. Moving closer may add a timing constraint, but it changes the visual presentation. Separate stations can give hitters exposure to different pitches, though they remove the need to distinguish between those pitches from the same delivery.

More equipment gives us more choices. We still have to decide which ones help us prepare for that day’s matchup.

Use the time that remains

Pregame BP usually ends because we run out of time.

While we have it, I’m watching how the hitter responds and whether an adjustment produces a useful change. That feedback helps me decide where to spend the remaining swings.

Some misses may still be there when we finish. The conversation matters, too: What did the hitter recognize? What helped? What are they taking into the game?

The report gives us a starting point. The hitter’s response helps us decide what to do next. By the end, I want them to have experienced the relevant challenge and leave with a clear approach they can act on.

Research references

• Castaneda, B., & Gray, R. (2007). Effects of focus of attention on baseball batting performance in players of differing skill levels. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.29.1.60
• Kidokoro, S., Matsuzaki, Y., & Akagi, R. (2020). Does the combination of different pitches and the absence of pitch type information influence timing control during batting in baseball? PLOS ONE, 15(3), e0230385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230385
• Pinder, R. A., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2011). Manipulating informational constraints shapes movement reorganization in interceptive actions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 1242–1254. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0102-1