FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Too early in the morning apparently…someone explain this to me.

    How does Keppinger have a higher swing %, lower wOBA, but the same wOBA/swing as D. Ortiz?

    Wouldn’t that mean he is swinging at more pitches per PA and producing less wOBA per PA?

    Like I said…just trying to wrap my head around this…just not clicking for me.

    Comment by odditie — September 12, 2012 @ 9:06 am

  2. Is this anything other than a novelty? I just don’t understand why we would use swings as a basis of evaluation. Notice that if we do wOBA per pitch taken, we should get a reverse order of the standings, but why is being at the top of either list better or worse? Maybe I’m totally missing something. Also, should you do wRC/swing, not a rate stat divided by a rate stat?

    Comment by philosofool — September 12, 2012 @ 9:16 am

  3. This is pretty dumb. There is no value here.

    Comment by Nick — September 12, 2012 @ 10:36 am

  4. Of course there is value. This pretty much shows the quality of a swing taken by player x. Think of best mechanics. If player x has very good value per swing but that does not reflect in his actual woba it could be an approach problem or bad patience. Maybe even player x should swing more often if his walk rate is low but his value per swing is good.

    There are tons of inte

    Comment by maskierter muchacho — September 12, 2012 @ 10:53 am

  5. *There is tons of interesting information one could draw from this.

    Comment by maskierter muchacho — September 12, 2012 @ 10:54 am

  6. So wOBA is supposed to be a single all-encompassing stat for production. Of course they would correlate, since wOBA is based mostly on balls in play. I feel like there are major bias issues here, maybe double discounting walks, but don’t have time to think very hard about it and I’m not a statistician.

    Comment by Paul — September 12, 2012 @ 11:36 am

  7. I’m perfectly happy to deny that this shows anything about the “quality of swing” taken by a player. The value of a swing is highly relative to the count and swing-% doesn’t account of this at all. Furthermore, since “quality of swing” is just the inverse of “quality of takes” by this metric, I don’t see why it’s measuring something interesting.

    On the whole, I have never found a single strong or interesting correlation between batter plate discipline and batter performance. I think it turns out that hitters are varied in their skills and no one set of skills is the one that works (think Dunn, Votto, Hamilton–all great hitters, completely different in their approach and skills). Plate discipline, IMO, is best seen as interesting desciption of what a batter does, not a measure of his quality.

    Comment by philosofool — September 12, 2012 @ 11:50 am

  8. I think you are misunderstanding how wOBA/swing was calculated. It isn’t wOBA divided by Swing%. Swing% was only included as a point of reference. It wasn’t used in the calculation at all. From the last line of the article: “*wOBA here was calculated using the following equation: [(1B*.880)+(2B*1.250)+(3B*1.583)+(HR*2.042)]/Swings”

    wOBA per pitch taken would not be a reverse order, because presumably you would only include outcomes possible when the batter doesn’t swing (i.e. walking, being hit by a pitch, and striking out looking).

    Comment by Adam — September 12, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

  9. Dogs reading Fangraphs article, complaining, “Who is the audience for this?”

    Comment by ChadT — September 12, 2012 @ 1:35 pm

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.234 Powered by WordPress