Chris Colabello

Over the course of my career, it became abundantly clear to me that I was really passionate about helping the next generation of athletes. Watch this video. 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 It will explain everything…

I was talking more holistically. What is Blaser's miss tendency historically. For example this game from May 20th of last year (credit @UmpScorecards) shows that his missed calls are top of zone balls and bottom of zone strikes. Would be curious to see if this is a trend for him because I imagine it would be...

@CC20rake Thanks for the clarification. You did ask what percentage he was calling down in the game, which was very low. Yes, the pitch to Soto was low, but it didn’t indicate a trend. Anyway, tough way to end the game.

Reading tons of stuff on Perdomo's take in the USA/DR semifinal. Literally people who are vehemently arguing that taking the pitch is... was... and will always be, what should have happened in that moment. Equally there are people on the other side of the argument who are saying there's no scenario in which he could take, because the pitch was entirely too close. Here is my two cents (for what it's worth): When we look back at moments in time, everything matters. It's incredibly easy to second guess the outcome, and talk about all the reasons why something should/could have happened versus what actually did. People reference data models all the time to defend their positions. In this case specifically... (apologies if my numbers are incorrect as my research was limited and ultimately will have nothing to do with the theme) - The pitch had a .5% chance of being called a strike - Swinging at the pitch results in a 63% whiff rate Those two points alone make an incredibly compelling argument for why taking the pitch was the right decision (that all goes without mentioning what incredible plate discipline and vision to not swing at a 3-2 strike/ball slider from a dude throwing 100). Those two data points - however - rely on big data sets and casually lack tons of context that could make the argument sway the other way. For example: - What percentage of pitches did Corey Blaser call strikes that were below the zone? If you recall he called a similar pitch a strike on Soto the inning prior. - What are Perdomo's individual percentage chances of fouling off 2-strike pitches below the zone? Getting a hit? I have no idea what those numbers look like, but I'm willing to bet that they would certainly lean more in favor of making a swing at the pitch. The only thing we know for certain is that the moment created a singular outcome. The pitch was called strike 3, and the game ended. A heartbreaking feeling for the player I'm sure. That being said, I would have had a really hard time not swinging at the pitch, personally. I say that with full understanding that I might have swung and missed 90 times out of 100. But that 1 time... that 1 time where something great happens is why we play. See the thing about sports is, we can talk about all the could of's, should of's and would have's until we're blue in the face, but what happened will forever be what actually happened. I guess the point of what I'm getting at is that big data can always tell compelling stories. Stories that are easy to explain, and also very easy to understand. But individual moments have different context that we tend to overlook when we're making arguments that validate our own opinions. In this case specifically, I've heard people discussing the fact that if hitters tried to protect against everything, that they would wind up "chasing" way more pitches. Is the point of hitting to minimize your chase rate or TO NOT MAKE OUTS? As a player, when everything is said and done, you get judged on your production, and not what percentage of pitches out of the zone you swung at. Go ask Vlad Guerrero if he's ever thought about his chase rate. I can think of dozens of examples off the top of my head where chasing a pitch led to moments that changed the outcomes of games, lives and careers. I don't hear arguments being made for why players shouldn't have swung at those pitches... In closing, the game is over. We'll never know what would have happened if he swung. I sure would like to know what would have happened if he had.

@RichardTakai I didn't make the argument that he was calling the ball down all game. I said he called a similar pitch on Soto one inning before

@CC20rake Regarding your question of how many pitches below the zone were called strikes, there was only one other in that game, and it was closer to the zone. So, the argument that Blaser was calling them low all game doesn’t stand. He actually called them pretty well.

@simmy_cohen was he trying to create player value or win the game?

@CC20rake If you start adding context of perdomo and miller you will def be more led down the road of taking, not swinging Perdomo is a soft qoc guy, with elite plate discipline (96th percentile chase rate, more BB than k) Drawing walks is a HUGE part of his game and how he delivers value

Gimenez just fouled off 3 balls, and a pitch on the edge… all with two strikes… seems like he didn’t want to strikeout…

@StevePalazzolo_ No doubt

@CC20rake I would have ripped it for a double. Maybe a triple

The US rallying to get 6 runs was huge. Also the fact that they have recorded 54 outs against Italy and Mexico bodes well for them because in the event Mexico wins tomorrow (as the home team), Italy and Mexico would likely have only recorded 51 as they were the visitor in one of the games. Basically the outcomes are... If Mexico wins while scoring less than 4 runs: Italy and Mexico advance If Mexico wins while scoring more than 4 runs: US and Mexico advance If Italy wins: Italy and US advance

🚨 Facility Owners - the season starting should NOT mean a drop in revenue. We are hosting a FREE webinar 2/24 - learn how to set up, market, and execute and ELITE in-season service 🚀 Sign up here: pelotero.com/inseasonwebina…

I watched a great video this morning by @StuartMcMillan1 about the different stages you go through as a coach. It was all in the context of... "Who gets to decide what makes someone an expert?" I'm going to give my synopsis to the video here because I've felt so much of what he was describing. Phase 1 In your early years, you're nervous and just kind of watch what everyone else is doing and try to learn as you go. You're passionate about the sport and everything around it but you recognize you have no idea what you're doing. Phase 2 The second phase happens when you start learning. You start digging in. Reading, watching, observing. You start to build the foundations for yourself. You deep dive into every single think you can get your hands on. You know how to be part of the conversation, but when it comes down to it all, you're still guessing and you know it. Phase 3 Phase three is when you start developing strong convictions about the things that you know. You start to think you're pretty good (maybe even really good). You're watching other people coach and think that you know better than they do. You start to think you have it figured out and that you can help everyone, and that nobody is as equipped as you are. Phase 4 You start looking back for the first time have a better understanding of what actually matters. Your information didn't get better, you just develop better judgement. You start stripping away what doesn't matter. Phase 5 You are the best version of yourself as a coach. Not because your information is better - and as a matter of fact - you've probably forgotten more stuff than you know. But what's abundantly clear at this point is that you know "what matters, when it matters, and how to get out of the way" What I took from the video was this - NEVER STOP LEARNING AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND. I think a lot of the world (or at least the internet) is stuck in Phase 3 and trying to prove to the world that they "know better than everyone else." There was one great line I heard that stands out and summarizes everything perfectly... "I confused activity with impact" I don't think there's a more telling description of what I see in the hitting world today.

🚨Free Webinar Next Tuesday ⚾️🥎 Learn how to set up an elite in-season service: - Incredible player development when they need it most - More revenue opportunities for your business Reserve a Spot Here: pelotero.com/inseasonwebina…

You can’t make blanket statements like “older players have a lot of horrendous takes,” and more specifically, to defend a very specific example that was being brought up by… 1. A player who retired this year and is acutely aware of “new school” thinking 2. A guy who is literally being paid as an analyst and speaks to players and staff regularly Beyond that - saying older players have horrendous takes is (much like the players who have the opinion) an opinion. Just because a former player doesn’t like the way things are being done certainly doesn’t make it horrendous. It might make it contrarian, and you might not like it, but until the game becomes unrecognizably better than it was 30 years ago, then I don’t think there is any way to call it “horrendous”

@CC20rake @DMEASrecruiting @KPILLAR4 In all fairness, older players have a lot of absolutely horrendous takes. Because it’s not how they did it in the old days. There’s a ton of former players that keep up with the game, training, how it’s played, etc. But an equal amount of former players that are just old men

You know more ball than me?

@DMEASrecruiting @KPILLAR4 We don’t know anything guys… “caveman see ball hit ball” That dude stayed at a Holiday Inn Express… he wins

@KPILLAR4 This is classic and unfortunately it’s everywhere. In a day and age where pro sports hire anyone, comments like these get thrown around all the time!! Like we just wandered around with zero knowledge of what’s going on around us!

@KPILLAR4 Of course he does KP. How dare you have an opinion…

@CoachGilly6 And a Wednesday… Thursday… Friday…

14 minutes in the clubhouse with Bad Bunny blaring?! We call that a Tuesday in minor league baseball.

Excited to be working with @thealliancefp. Nothing better for young hitters to have trusted mentors/anchors to navigate them through the ups and downs of hitting!

All those things are fine and I think they happen pretty organically as player just hit more. I think the bigger problem in the generation we’re in has much more to do with actually learning how to hit (and I know that’s a pretty blanket statement), but I’ll start with this. 1. Timing - arguably the most misunderstood concept in the game. To that regard… people talk a whole bunch about “playing out front” with a very limited understanding of how any individual applies their own timing principles. 2. When and what to swing at - and it’s deeper than just understanding the strike zone. There are principles of intuition that have to apply to individual circumstances. Hitters have to interpret things based on how they feel, the pitcher they’re facing, game situations etc. I am unaccepting of these principles being “too hard” to coach or understand. My general belief is that we don’t expose players to this stuff enough globally. On the other hand I do see lots of posts talking about bat speed and hitting the ball out front…

@CC20rake @BrandonDim24 @TewksHitting And that is just my perspective. My guys are different than most. Majority of my team has 6 years or less of baseball experience and are competing in a high level area. Simplified many things for them to be consistent. Doesn’t mean it’s always right

Damage is done out front. Want to hit more pitches out front? Swing Faster.

@CoachGilly6 A billion is a lot

This, times a billion.

@BrandonDim24 @TewksHitting @brayvol2007 If there are always different situations, then why is the solution for every hitter to add more bat speed?

There are always different situations, and not every hitter is the same. If you look back at the other quoted posts, league average fastball PoC is about even with the front of home plate. There are situations where the hitter should be looking to do damage, and we should be out front.

I'm with ya. Bigger issue I have is anyone forcing any type of behavior on an individual, or even more so, taking a stand on something that can be proven false through a simple google search. I see more stuff online and hear more stories of... "you have to do this to be good," and I can name you ten examples of the opposite being true. If you said "you have to be able to hit a 90 MPH fastball to be good" that statement is true. No one has ever been good without being able to hit a 90 MPH fastball. But to make an argument that there is only a singular way to do so is blatantly lying. False advertising if you will. The biggest difference is now we're asking players to be able to assess those things on their own.

@CC20rake Context probably matters right? Nothing is inherently good or bad Less or more productive for a goal? Maintenance? Growth? CNS stimulus? Stability? Anxiety tolerance? I think it’s like trying to figure out aux cables when the colors don’t align. Eventually random choices work

I think it's crazy that in 2026, I still hear so many stories of players saying "so and so told me, I have to do it like this" Whether it's about mechanics, or even just the way players are practicing. I hear people screaming that tee and flips are bad... ➡️ Some of the greatest hitters I know will tell you that if they could only do one or two things for the rest of their career, that tee and flips would be it for them. How is it possible that such an informed generation can be so adamant about something, even though there are so many examples of the opposing school of thought being true? youtu.be/FchVRKXWoEY?si…