Trying to mmeasure hitter aggressiveness

[starsnuffer]

With all due respect, I believe this is a fallacy that batters can intentionally and regularly foul off pitches with two strikes, waiting for a good pitch to hit. Do some batters have good, quality at bats where multiple times they will foul off pitches, yes, but I never think it is done on purpose. They are protecting the plate and with two strikes have to expand their hitting zone resulting in swinging at pitches outside the strike zone and foul balls will happen.

We teach batters to hit the ball where it is pitched. Often takes happen based on where the ball is pitched compared to the coaches call for where he/she wants the ball hit. Inside pitches go left, outside pitches go right (RHB). Pitches on the edge of either zone go more left or more right, it's just a small mater of adjusting timing a tiny bit to hit the ball earlier or later to achieve the desired results.

Sure, many good natural batters will do this anyway, but why trust luck and talent when hard work and practice will achieve better, more repeatable results for the entire team?

-W

 

[Scorekeeper]

I'm wondering what one does with the knowledge of a kid being aggressive or not?

Now that’s one great question! To be honest, when I sent this metric to our HC, he said much the same thing. Here’s exactly what I told him.

In the end, all it is is more information about the players. Look at it this way. If the only info you had was that metric, and you wanted to evaluate the hitters as to whether they should be more aggressive on 1st pitch strikes, what would you tell each player?

What my point was, was that the stat wasn’t intended to be something that said this player was good and that player was bad. Its just a statement of how they’re doing, and is only relevant when looked at in the context of how each player is doing in conjunction with both the coach’s philosophy and the player’s overall performance.

If a player’s performance is acceptable, then no metric means anything. Its only when the coach feels something’s lacking or something can be improved that there’s a need to consult the numbers to see if something can be spotted that should be improved. Sadly, most people look at a stat as a way to show whether one player is “better” than another. Trouble is, player performance isn’t exactly the same for every possible metric one can look at. IOW, the player who has the best OPS may well not produce the most runs, or have the best SBPct.

Can you think of any time a coach might want an aggressive hitter as opposed to one who looks at a lot of pitches? If I have a kid who strikes out a lot and doesn’t draw an above average number of walks, I might want to see how aggressive s/he is on the 1st pitch because I know from other stats the a strike on the 1st pitch is much more likely to lead to a K than a ball, so it only makes sense to swing at that 1st pitch if its gonna be a strike anyway because you just might put it into play, which is almost always better than a K.

Great question chinamigarden!

 

[Scorekeeper]

I'm a little confused about the measurement? Is it a good thing to be the most aggressive hitter?

Might be good or bad depending on many other things the hitter does. In my experience at HSV baseball, the best hitters are more often than not the most “aggressive” hitters, and at the same time TEND to strike out less often than the “patient” ones.

IMHO, the problem in baseball comes from too many people comparing amateur player to ML players. Way different skill sets between the two, easily seen by how often people compare the approach of Ted Williams, arguably the greatest hitter in history, to Johnny Highschool’s approach. Then too there’s the ol’ taking more pitches gets rid of the starter sooner.

In SB, the latter doesn’t come into play very often for many reasons. But from what I can see, the former does, and to be honest, its silly for the same reason it is in baseball. The approach amateur hitters take in either BB or SB shouldn’t be based on the approach professional baseball players use. The skillsets are too different.

 

[CoogansBluff]

It's too hard for me to study and make sense of the stats. If I'm the head coach, then maybe I'd take the time. But when you say that your experience is that a more aggressive approach correlates highly with hitting well, can you demonstrate that correlation is a simpler way? I think you have to use more than batting average. Rank the players (preferably only the regulars) in some measure of their aggressiveness and compare that to their OPS. For stats to be most helpful, they have to be presented in an easier-to-understand way, imo.

 

[SCDad]

I'm a little confused about the measurement? Is it a good thing to be the most aggressive hitter?

Statistics are way over-rated in this regard. It depends on the hitter ... always.

My DD has a tendency to look at at too many pitches. gets more walks, and occasionally struck out looking !!

Now the coach has her swinging more ... probably figuring with her swinging it is better than a walk.

Leave it up to the coach. Do not live in the stat book. Count W's and L's, RBI's, Runs Scored and On Base Percentage. The rest is gravy.

 

[Scorekeeper]

It's too hard for me to study and make sense of the stats. If I'm the head coach, then maybe I'd take the time. But when you say that your experience is that a more aggressive approach correlates highly with hitting well, can you demonstrate that correlation is a simpler way? I think you have to use more than batting average. Rank the players (preferably only the regulars) in some measure of their aggressiveness and compare that to their OPS. For stats to be most helpful, they have to be presented in an easier-to-understand way, imo.

I seldom use batting average for anything other than eyewash for people who have a poor understanding of the game.

I agree that stats need to be presented in a way easy to understand, but here’s the problem. A format that’s easy to understand for one person, is very often difficult for another. So the statistician is faced with a dilemma. Try to present them for each individual, or present them in a generic way and allow those interested to inquire further in order to answer their specific questions.

Personally, I have no problem with answering questions because very often I can clear things up so no changes in the metric have to be made. It takes enormously more time to try to change formats for every time someone doesn’t get exactly what they want. Remember, I produce something like 300 different metrics. To try to change the format for everyone individually would be a nightmare.

But, since you expressed an honest opinion and gave your idea about what you wanted to see, I’ve done what I can to give it to you. In fact I even added overall pitches per AB and threw in a little color for ya.

View attachment aggressive1b.pdf

Does that make it more understandable for you now?

 

[Greenmonsters]

Recognizing that all strikes are not equal (and not equally hittable), IMO, the best FP hitters are selectively aggressive - they take pitchers' pitches until they can get a hitter's pitch they can handle, regardless if its the 1st, 3rd, 7th etc. pitch. This means that they can't be afraid to battle a pitcher and hit with 2 strikes.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Recognizing that all strikes are not equal (and not equally hittable), IMO, the best FP hitters are selectively aggressive - they take pitchers' pitches until they can get a hitter's pitch they can handle, regardless if its the 1st, 3rd, 7th etc. pitch. This means that they can't be afraid to battle a pitcher and hit with 2 strikes.

Technically, a hitter could be “trained” to hit any pitch in the strike zone solidly, and that’s easily proved by looking at the hot/cold zones for any hitter because they’re all different to some degree. Some hitters like the ball up, some down, some in, some out, some fast, some breaking, and some off speed. So its not a matter of a “pitcher’s” but rather identifying that particular “hitter’s” pitch.

From your answer, I’m guessing you’d measure selective aggressiveness by either batting average or reached base average with 2 strikes. I.e., dividing the number of either hits or times reached base by the number of pitches seen with 2 strikes. Is that correct?

 

[starsnuffer]

It would probably be a better exercise to look at what each hitter did based on pitch count, and determine if they are more useful when they have an expanded zone (success with 2 strikes) or if they are more useful when they are "aggressive" (success with 0 strikes). For the former, take foul balls into consideration to determine if it is the expanded hitting zone that makes that batter more successful or if it is their patience waiting for the right pitch.

Every hitter is different, you can't pigeonhole them.

-W

 

[Scorekeeper]

It would probably be a better exercise to look at what each hitter did based on pitch count, and determine if they are more useful when they have an expanded zone (success with 2 strikes) or if they are more useful when they are "aggressive" (success with 0 strikes). For the former, take foul balls into consideration to determine if it is the expanded hitting zone that makes that batter more successful or if it is their patience waiting for the right pitch.

Every hitter is different, you can't pigeonhole them.

Well, I never try to pigeonhole anyone. I just run the numbers and present them for those who want to try to draw conclusion, to do that.

Because it was an interesting idea, I threw this together for you. Its made up of data from our HSV baseball team from 2007 thru 2013.

View attachment twostrikes1.pdf