The short answer? Yes, it's about throwing the ball in the zone as frequent as possible, not about trying to actually initiate contact.
The long answer? It's a little more complicated on a case by case basis, so let's just focus on the often cited case of Clayton Kershaw for now.
From my own personal observation, it seems that Dodgers fans frequently get frustrated with Kershaw's inability to work deep into games. This, of course, is a byproduct of striking out a lot of batters and having control issues. Naturally, this leads both the mainstream press and general fans to suggest that Kershaw "pitch to contact" so that he can increase his efficiency.
My problem with this suggestion is that purposely trying to initiate contact from the batter is not what you want to do on the mound, especially as a flyball pitcher. Besides, even when Kershaw does throw strikes, he's just impossibly difficult to hit. Therefore, in order for him to "pitch to contact" as many would suggest, he would have to become more hittable and essentially groove pitches to major league batters, which is a horrid idea.
Consider that Kershaw's overall split OPS (sOPS+) in 2009 was 59 (.588), so he's significantly better than league average to begin with. Now given that information, if Kershaw truly has overwhelming raw stuff, we should see him post a better split OPS when he's behind in the count than his overall split OPS of 59^. After all, in those situations, the batter is at a considerable advantage, as he is able to sit on a pitch type or location. Regardless, it doesn't seem to be helping them much.
^This is because pitchers with average stuff or worse can't rely on their raw stuff to get them out of scenarios in which they fall behind in the count. If we presume that Kershaw has plus raw stuff, then we would expect him to improve in these situations when compared to the rest of the league. A 101 mph fastball is harder to hit than a 83 mph fastball, especially if the batter is sitting on the pitch.
When working from behind, Kershaw improved on his overall split OPS numbers in every situation, and that's exactly what you would expect from a guy with plus stuff. So even when batters are in the advantage, Kershaw is still extremely difficult to deal with. Furthermore, among pitchers with 150 innings, Kershaw had the 13th lowest overall contact percentage (76.7%), and when measuring just those pitches thrown in the strike zone, we find that Kershaw had the 6th lowest zone contact percentage (83.3%).So the problem isn't that he needs to generate contact to end innings faster, the "problem" is that even when he does throw strikes, he's just not an easy man to make contact off of. Therefore, the only real way for him to purposely induce contact would be to tone down his repertoire, as that would make him inherently more hittable. Though I can't imagine why in the world anybody would want him to do such a thing.
The bottom line is that Kershaw doesn't need to strike out less batters or "pitch to contact", what he really needs to do is throw more strikes. I know that is a simplistic conclusion, but it's also the truth. The combination of efficiency and effectiveness will not come from an effort to induce contact, but rather from simply putting the ball in the zone consistently with the same kind of raw stuff he's currently showing. Now whether Kershaw takes the next step in his development hinges on his ability to control his outstanding pitches, and it remains to be seen whether or not he can do it. However, the one thing that won't benefit him is the absurd notion that he should dial down his talent in order to induce contact.
***I realize that the argument many people will use to refute this idea are guys like Roy Halladay and Chris Carpenter. These are individuals who are elite pitchers, who are efficient, and who have low strikeout rates. I fully understand all of that, but it still doesn't mean they can actively pitch to contact or that it would work for Kershaw.
To start, both of them are groundball pitchers, something that Kershaw is not. Hence, even when inducing contact, they are far less likely to give up a home run, since the chances of giving up a ground ball gopher ball are...zero. Furthermore, both of them have plus plus control, and while they both have good stuff, neither of them have ever been particularly hard to make contact against. Hence, their efficiency and low strikeout rates are a factor of always being in the zone and not generating many swings and misses.
Point being, both of them are efficient and effective because they throw a lot of strikes, not necessarily because they "pitch to contact". As it is, if you combined their control with Kershaw's strikeout rate, you have the second coming of Sandy Koufax, and I don't think anybody would be complaining about that.***
Edit 1: I didn't mean to suggest that Halladay and Carpenter are low strikeout guys. What I meant was that they didn't have huge strikeout totals.
Edit 2: Reader ThinkBlech has done some additional research that I believe only adds to my point.
I did a little looking around, and Kershaw's a bit of an interesting guy. I know it *felt* like he had a lot of pitches fouled off, but I was curious, so here's a look at how he compares to some other top strike strikeout pitchers in percent of strikes that were swing and misses (first column), the percent that were foul balls (second column), and overall strike percentage (third column):
Kershaw - 18%, 31%, 61%
Lincecum - 18%, 25%, 64%
Greinke - 17%, 26%, 63%
Halladay - 15%, 27%, 69%
Verlander - 18%, 31%, 67%
J. Vazquez - 20%, 25%, 67%
Lester - 19%, 29%, 63%
Haren - 17%, 24%, 66%
F. Hernandez - 18%, 26%, 64%
Wainwright - 15%, 24%, 64%
What can be gleaned from all that? Well, Kershaw throws strikes at the lowest rate, misses bats at what ties him for the third-highest rates, and has is tied for the highest rate at which pitches are fouled off.
What I couldn't find was the location of all those foul balls. If I had to hypothesize, I'd venture that he's missing spots in the zone, leaving pitches up where they are fouled off, but I cannot say for certain. That all *seems* familiar from watching him pitch all season, but I don't feel like poring over a season's worth of pitch charts to confirm that, so I'm going with my hunch. lol.
So, going forward, I think it's safe to say that Kershaw needs to throw more strikes. Based on objective observation, the types of strikes will also matter - if he can avoid missing spots while leaving pitches up in the zone, I think that will go a long towards making him a more efficient pitcher.
People who are calling for a guy who misses bats at 21 at a rate right up there with the best in baseball are off their rocker. Merely recall what Halladay, Lincecum, and a cast of thousands were doing at 21, and just let the guy figure it out.
Er - calling for a guy who's 21 to change completely are off their rocker. Yeah, I missed that part.Great work.
