Does a high percentate of swings and misses mean poor hitting?

[CoogansBluff]

Well, I posted some stats on why I believe that Ruth would've swung and missed more than the average guy.

If all you've got to counter is ''maybe or maybe not,'' then I might as well try Monty's Argument Clinic.

And by ''average guy,'' I mean batting-lineup regulars in the American League in the 1920s. I assume that he could make better contact than Harold Lloyd.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Here is my case for my conjecture that those who swing and miss the most are also likely to strike out the most ...

CB,

I appreciate the work, but ya gotta be real careful to not to mix apples and oranges. I was talking about swings and misses, not striking out because the two things are very different. FI, a batter can strike out and never swing and miss, or he can get a hit but swing and miss 2 pitches in the at bat.

Here’s some numbers I have that kinda shows the two things together. Its pretty easy to see that the hitters who K the most aren’t necessarily the same ones who have the highest rate of swinging and missing.

View attachment pitchkinds1.pdf

 

[FP26]

Not sure this is a stat I would want to track. I think most hitters can be split into two groups. Those that try to work the count in order to get "their" pitch to hit, and those that are more aggressive and swing early in the count. When you are dealing with younger ages, there are other things you need to consider. Is the batter truly working the count to get "their" pitch or is he/she reluctant to swing. (I remember some girls at 12u that would stand there waiting for a walk and would only swing with two strikes.) Is the aggressive hitter chasing pitches out of the zone (ala Vlad Guerrero) or swinging at good pitches. Without analyzing other factors, I am not sure this information would do me much good.

Added: If someone takes two strikes and then swings at strike three, he/she is only swinging and missing once. If someone swings and misses at the first two pitches and then hits a home run on the 0-2 count, he is credited with 2 swings and misses. Which at bat was more productive?

 

[Eric F]

Un-scientific observation from my 10yo DD...

When her swings and misses go up, so does her batting average. Fewer swings mean she's looking at a lot more strikes, and passing up on good hitting opportunities.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Not sure this is a stat I would want to track. I think most hitters can be split into two groups. Those that try to work the count in order to get "their" pitch to hit, and those that are more aggressive and swing early in the count. When you are dealing with younger ages, there are other things you need to consider. Is the batter truly working the count to get "their" pitch or is he/she reluctant to swing. (I remember some girls at 12u that would stand there waiting for a walk and would only swing with two strikes.) Is the aggressive hitter chasing pitches out of the zone (ala Vlad Guerrero) or swinging at good pitches. Without analyzing other factors, I am not sure this information would do me much good.

Added: If someone takes two strikes and then swings at strike three, he/she is only swinging and missing once. If someone swings and misses at the first two pitches and then hits a home run on the 0-2 count, he is credited with 2 swings and misses. Which at bat was more productive?

There is absolutely no stat in the game that would do someone “much good” standing all alone.

I don’t know how we suddenly got into productive hitting.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Un-scientific observation from my 10yo DD...

When her swings and misses go up, so does her batting average. Fewer swings mean she's looking at a lot more strikes, and passing up on good hitting opportunities.

You might be 100% right, but wouldn’t it be fun to be able to prove it with real data?

Here’s a metric someone on a baseball board came up with when I asked him if he were to try to prove a statement he made with data, how would he do it. His statement was, Aggressive hitters tend to be better than passive hitters.

View attachment aggressive.pdf

How would you prove it?

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

You might be 100% right, but wouldn’t it be fun to be able to prove it with real data?

Here’s a metric someone on a baseball board came up with when I asked him if he were to try to prove a statement he made with data, how would he do it. His statement was, Aggressive hitters tend to be better than passive hitters.

How would you prove it?

First define "aggressive" and "passive," then define "better" as it applies to your stat of choice, say % of pitches swung at and OPS. Limit aggressive and passive to <> 1 or 2 SD (2 SD is probably more informative), then look for a significant difference in OPS. ANOVA probably? You'd have to control for ball to strike ratio (see more strikes, swing a higher % of the time), and I'm sure some other things I can't think of right now.

 

[Eric F]

You might be 100% right, but wouldn’t it be fun to be able to prove it with real data?

Here’s a metric someone on a baseball board came up with when I asked him if he were to try to prove a statement he made with data, how would he do it. His statement was, Aggressive hitters tend to be better than passive hitters.

View attachment 6801

How would you prove it?

I enjoy poking around with stats to some degree....but I ain't got time for that ^^^!

 

[Scorekeeper]

First define "aggressive" and "passive," then define "better" as it applies to your stat of choice, say % of pitches swung at and OPS. Limit aggressive and passive to <> 1 or 2 SD (2 SD is probably more informative), then look for a significant difference in OPS. ANOVA probably? You'd have to control for ball to strike ratio (see more strikes, swing a higher % of the time), and I'm sure some other things I can't think of right now.

You have to understand, no one person is coming up with this. It was part of a discussion, but I’ll do my best to convey what the feeling amongst those having the discussion was.

1st of all I’ll have to show you the latest report after some more discussion.

View attachment 6861

You’ll see a change. The feeling is, pitches per pa needs to be compared to the team average. In theory, that will show aggression/passiveness as players who are below the average in PPPA will be the more aggressive. How that relates to other metrics like OPS or RC depends on what the observer feels best shows performance. Personally, I favor RC since it’s been proven to me mathematically that of those statistics on the report, it is by far the best at estimating runs.

Since I know those players, it’s relatively simple for me to look at the numbers and say the best hitters tend to be more aggressive, i.e. see fewer pitches per pa.

But here’s what’s funny. You’re doing the same thing that happened in the other discussion. You have your own idea about what shows aggressive hitting and how it would be shown. In the end, there’s no one way to do it that everyone would agree on. I could check to see who got more strikes, and swing a higher % of the time, but that’s not the problem. The problem would be those other things you might think up.

There’s a maddening desire for the perfect stat that shows everything there is about something, in this case batter aggression, but it’s just not possible. There will always be something someone else feels needs to be factored in, so it will never be something that has an end.

As for me personally, I don’t really care how anything is defined. What I care about is that those who are being judged and measured know. FI, if you’re definition of aggressive batting is lower than the team average PPA, percent of pitches swung at, or something else entirely, that’s ok by me. But, what you need to do is make sure the next time you tell Mary she needs to be more aggressive, she has to understand it exactly the same way you do, and not just assume she understands what you mean.

Once that happens, you can measure it and show the players how they stack up as far as being aggressive.

 

[Fastpitch86]

Can't hit the ball if you don't swing the bat!