Paul Daugherty has this article on the Reds philosophy of “pitching to contact.” It’s an interesting piece, and I wish there were some way of quantifying the success or failure of this philosophy.

I did enjoy this:

This is a prime emphasis with the Reds this spring. Their marquee offseason acquisition, lefty Eric Milton, pitches to contact. Milton is Tom Browning for the new millennium. When Browning pitched on the last day of a homestand, you could blink and miss an inning and a half.

Browning knew that pitching a baseball was not like painting a chapel ceiling in Vatican City. It was laying the ball in there and letting your defense earn its wings. We loved Browning for that.

I’m beginning to like Eric Milton more and more. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I was a big Tom Browning fan back in the day.

As for pitching to contact: I’d like to hear your opinions on the concept. I’d also like to see some analysis from the sabermetrically-inclined about whether this is a good philosophy. How does Voros McCracken‘s DIPS theory fit into this?

About The Author

Blame Chad for creating this mess. Chad launched Redleg Nation in February 2005, and has been writing about the Reds ever since. His first book, "The Big 50: The Men and Moments That Made the Cincinnati Reds" is now available in bookstores and online, at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and wherever fine books are sold. You can also find Chad's musings about the Cincinnati Reds in the pages of Cincinnati Magazine. You can email Chad at

Related Posts

One Response

  1. Bill

    “Pitching to contact” requires people that can catch the baseball and this is not a good defensive team.

    Plus, “pitching to contact” to me, means getting the hitter to hit your pitch, not throwing it right down mainstreet.