I’m not expecting apples to be oranges here (as in, I’m not expecting them to tell Sandoval to go up trying to walk), but it would be nice to see that the front office actually knows how above average offenses function.

>> My first rule of hitting was to get a good ball to hit. <<

Whether hitters are too aggressive or not aggressive enough is probably less important than knowledge of the strike zone. Even free swingers like Pablo Sandoval ought to be able to “work the count” by knowing what pitches to lay off of (which would depend a great deal on the game situation, of course). This is supposedly why we have coaches and etc.

I worry that we don’t really have instructors–just guys with big chaws who say “way to smack that ball, kid.”

>>I think there probably is an organizational philosophy — on some level, majors, minors, etc. — that preaches ‘aggressiveness’.<<

Maybe. The point I’m trying to make is, we can’t tell from any of this data whether or not that’s true.

Swing %, just like BB% can just as easily be a function of bad hitters (i.e – more strikes thrown to them), as it as a function of untoward aggressiveness.

—

Question: Is there a point at which a team (not a player) can be OVERpatient – where BB% gets so high and swing% so low that those values start to negatively correlate to run production?

I’m thinking specifically of the A’s last year, who walked a boatload but could not score runs.

In 2008, the Giants were 3rd in the majors for Swing% (The Royals and Astros were 1-2..ugh)

http://www.fangraphs.com/teams.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&type=5&season=2008&month=0

In 2005 without Bonds, they were 7th in the majors.

Swing% is a FanGraphs statistics and it’s defined as:

Swing%: The overall percentage of pitches a batter swings at.

I think it’s one part philosophy and another part player personal. Which, the acquisition of is probably influenced in some way by the organizational philosophy. The Noonan comment is still puzzling.

Good hitters (with or without power) are usually more selective which causes them walk more. The Giants wouldn’t turn into a powerhouse just by taking more walks, but they would have scored more runs.

My problem is that the Giants organization does seem to undervalue walks. I don’t believe this just because data shows they don’t walk. I believe this because they say things like “we don’t want to teach how to walk” and “Noonan has the best plate discipline in the orginization.”

>> Sabermetrics, when used carelessly, is one of my pet peeves. I don’t think you use them carelessly.

Thanks, I try not to. I’d hope you call me out if you felt I was, this leads to (usually) good dialogue and it makes me better in the end.

I’m glad you post here, the more the merrier in my opinion. We don’t always see eye-to-eye but your arguments are usually well thought out and intelligible. That’s good enough for me.

>> It should go on to say that I think the people here are generally open-minded about reasonable debate, so it’s a good place to argue the merit of when and how it’s appropriate to use Sabermetrics. Etc.

Thanks again, I think so too. I think we’ve got some great commenters on this site and I hope to continue to grow that base.

I honestly don’t care what people post, the guidelines aren’t strict here. Just as long as you aren’t a flaming ass about it, it’s going to be fine 99% of the time.

Post on Mr. Lomez, post on.

It should go on to say that I think the people here are generally open-minded about reasonable debate, so it’s a good place to argue the merit of when and how it’s appropriate to use Sabermetrics. Etc.

But that got left off too.

And now I’ve just posted 4 comments in a row.

And additionally feel like something of an ass.

/going to hide under rock for a minute

Somehow the end tag got left off of that last post.

Not entirely true.

Sabermetrics, when used carelessly, is one of my pet peeves. I don’t think you use them carelessly.

My point is, that is completely the wrong way to interpret this data.

BTW, I happen to agree with you 100% about the value of walks.