I'm sure my frustration with certain hitting approaches of A's players is well-documented on this site. But even so, I think it's unfair to compare them directly with those of the Red Sox.

I don't really think A's hitters on the whole let more first strike pitches go by (especially now that Kendall is off the team) than Boston hitters do on the whole or are any less aggressive when they "get their pitch to hit"...

I think it's just a matter of Boston having much, much more talented and all-around hitters than Oakland does. I mean, Jack Cust certainly takes a mother-lode of pitches and is as good as anybody in the league at waiting for "his pitch", but the difference between him ad David Ortiz, for that matter, is that Ortiz waits for that pitch and can drive it more often than not, while Cust will completely miss it more often than not.

Swisher is certainly very patient and can drive the ball at times, but he's certainly not on par with Manny Ramirez, who, unlike Swisher, very rarely flails at pitches he can't hit and who also very rarely gets badly fooled by pitches.

Ditto for Youkilis vs. DJ, and Lowell vs. Chavez and Pedroia vs. Ellis on down the line until you reach, probably, Buck and Barton.

Until the A's develop or acquire more guys like Barton and Buck (who are much more similar talent-wise to Boston hitters than Swisher or Cust) then this comparison is not really fair.

Overall, Boston has been able to develop and acquire great all-around hitters that can both WAIT for their pitch and DRIVE it when it comes...for whatever reason (cost, misguided stubbornness?) Oakland has stockpiled hitters that have a problem doing one or both of those things.

except about the corn flakes... do you know how environmentally damaging corn agriculture is?!  (CGV alert.)

Anyway, the fact that it's Francona saying it gives the contrast theory some credibility since he had an insider view.

But I wanted to throw in that another reason for hitters to take a lot of pitches is that it runs up the pitcher's pitch count, so in principle it either gets them out or softens them up earlier.  I personally wonder about this theory, especially now that it seems the best teams have outstanding bullpens. Maybe that's another reason why Billy's poo doesn't work in the playoffs.

I like Honey Bunches of Goats.

would you be assuming that corn flakes represent a fast ball, or would it be pitcher dependent?  Like, their "best" pitch would represent corn flakes while the more exotic the pitch is to the respective pitcher, the more exotic the cereal?  Or are we assuming a more universal approach--straight across the board all fastballs were corn flakes, all curveballs! were Oatmeal Squares (one of my and Barry Zito's favorites), etc...and what about the specialty pitchers, some that aren't regularly seen, like the knuckleball--could we assign them some uncommon, perhaps defunct cereal, like Booberry?

The philosophical implications of your analogy are extreme...and likely to get soggy if not immediately addressed and ingested.  

if I spent extra time checking out the rest of the cereals, I feel reasonably certain that the corn flakes won't disappear just because I didn't grab at them first thing. However, if the one brand I wanted was there, and only one or two were left, you can bet I'd grab it first!

That's a round about way of saying I agree. However, I do remember when Kotsay first came to the A's, and struggled because he was trying to wait and "see" more pitches, either the manager or one of the coaches (might even have been Beane) was quoted as saying they never said not to swing at the first pitch if it was "your" pitch...

A brief look at the usual websites didn't turn up one that had first pitch swing percentage, but ESPN and B-R both have results by count in their split, which tells you how often hitters put the ball in play on the first pitch, and what their results were. Here are some numbers for some of the hitters in question:

        Total PA  0-0 In Play  Pctg.  Overall OPS  0-0 OPS
Kendall    514          29        5.6      610         951
Swisher    659          39        5.9      836        1256
Cust       507          37        7.3      912        1364
Johnson    495          46        9.3      767         905
Chavez     379          41       10.8      752         750

Youkilis   625          33        5.3      843        1143
Lowell     653          60        9.2      879         927
Drew       552          60       10.9      796         961
Ortiz      667          76       11.4     1066        1263
Manny      569          71       12.5      881         925

What jumps out at me from these numbers is this:

1. The A's hitters in question really are less likely to put the first pitch in play than the Sox hitters.

2. The Sox hitters (even excluding Kendall from the A's side) are, as Taj said, simply a lot better overall. I included (somewhat coincidentally) the DH, 1B, 3B, and 1 or 2 corner outfielder from each team, and the Sox have the first, third, fourth, and fifth best of that bunch by OPS. And that was in an off year for Drew and Ramirez.

3. The hitters who were the most selective - Cust, Swisher, Youkilis, and yes even Kendall - were also by far the ones who benefited the most when they did put the ball in play.

So at this first glance, it looks to me like Cust and Swisher (and Youkilis) are doing exactly what they should be - rarely putting the ball in play on the first pitch, but absolutely crushing it when they do.

Of course, it's a lot more complicated. As I said, I don't know how much these players swung and missed (or fouled a pitch off) on the first pitch, plus there's the game theoretic aspect - if players are too selective pitchers may be able to throw them more first pitch strikes, which affects the rest of the at-bat. But, perhaps surprisingly, this doesn't really seem to be the case here - Swisher and Cust each had an equal number of 0-1 counts and 1-0 counts, whereas Manny was behind in the count a little more often.

If we're going to nitpick Cust's approach, I think it would be much more helpful to focus on when he has 2 strikes than on the first pitch. For example, Cust got to a full count 132 times, and ended up with 62 walks, 42 strikeouts, and only 6 (six!) hits, none of them home runs, for a line of .086/.515/.143. Blech. Overall with two strikes he was .129/.300/.289. Double blech.

On the one hand, I do see merit in the A's philosophy, and people like Scott Hatteberg were able to execute it perfectly.  I have seen times where the opposing starting pitcher has worn down faster than they normally do and it seemed the vast number of axtra pitches was taking it's toll, and I think that's won more than a few games for them.  I even seem to remember a Game 1 ALDS against the Red Sox and Pedro where he was worn down from an early high pitch count.  It can be effective.

Having said that, I also see where the A's seem to have become intoxicated with the approach and have lost sight of how it's only a piece to an effective overall offensive strategy, not a strategy unto itself.

A's hitters and Red Sox hitters follow the exact same strategy ... but the Boston hitters are just better at it.

That's all he's really saying.

to some of the comments...

• I DO think it's an organizational philosophy to "work the count" and "see a lot of pitches" and to emphasize walks - because not only does Francona refer to it but also there is lore about minor league hitters "needing to walk every 10 PAs to be promoted" (IIRC) in the A's system.
• Regardless, sometimes the best way to get more walks, or more favorable counts...is to swing at the first pitch more often. It forces pitchers to corner-pitch, rather than throw balls down the middle, early in the count.
• The stats on Cust ARE astonishing - and if I were hitting .129 with two strikes, and .086 on full counts, I'd be less interested in "working the count" and more interested in hacking away early and often!
• Ultimately, I agree with Dogfather about not falling into predictable patterns. In a game of adjustments, patterns are liabilities. Keep 'em on their toes.

Anyway, thanks for the data, andeux and mikeA - it's all interesting to muse over during a long off-season (is it over yet?).

is whether more first-pitches are strikes to A's hitters than they are to the rest of the league. My concern is that it's too easy to get ahead of A's hitters. The stats on hitting 1-0 vs. 0-1 are dramatic. Are the A's in an 0-1 hole a higher percentage of the time than most teams are?

I pysched myself up before the cereal aisle and in a snap-second, grabbed Wheata-Bix and rolled on. <congratulating myself by high fiving the unkown, and startled matron nearby>