A Braves Bright Spot: Chipper Jones' Batting Eye

by Jacob Peterson on May 24, 2011 12:08 PM EDT

Chances are, this pitch was in the strike zone.

With the Braves going through a bit of a rough patch of late, I think now is a good time to take a step back and appreciate some of the little things that the Braves are doing right this year.

First up: Chipper Jones. We all have marveled at his ability to discriminate between balls in the strike zone and those outside of it. This is nothing new from Chipper, of course, and you can make the argument that his batting eye is not what it once was (compare his walk and strikeout rates to his career numbers). Still, while he may have lost a bit with age, Chipper retains one of the best batting eyes in the game.

How do we measure this? One way is to look at the percentage of pitches that a player swings at both within the strike zone and out of it. These numbers can be found in FanGraphs' plate discipline statistics; they are "Z-Swing%" and "O-Swing%," respectively. Generally, you want a player to swing very rarely at pitches outside the zone (i.e., balls) and very often at pitches in the zone (i.e., strikes). The hitters with the best "eyes" will have a huge gap between these numbers.

For instance, Chipper this year has swung at 70.5% of pitches in the zone. The league average is around 65%. On the other hand, Chipper has swung at only 22.0% of the pitches outside of the zone, with a league average of around 30%. That's quite a combination: swinging more than average at strikes and less than average at balls.

If you subtract each player's O-Zone% from his Z-Zone%, you can see how much more often that player swings at strikes than at balls. Chipper swings 70.5% of the time at strikes and 22.0% of the time at balls, so his differential is 48.5%. As it turns out, that is the third-highest differential in all of baseball. Here are the top 5 batting eyes by this measure:

Carlos Peña, 50.8% difference (swings 75.2% at strikes and 24.4% at balls)
Lance Berkman, 49.9% difference (73.3% at strikes, 23.4% at balls)
Chipper Jones, 48.5% difference
Mark Reynolds, 48.4% difference (71.6% at strikes, 23.2% at balls)
Matt Joyce, 47.1% difference (72.9% at strikes, 25.8% at balls)

The crazy thing is that Chipper's 48.5% difference is low by his career standards. Since 2002, when these stats began being tracked, his career low is 50.0% in 2008. He's actually been above 60% in several years, including a phenomenal 64.6% differential in 2004 (73.7% swings at strikes and only 9.1% swings at balls). I think we can say that Chipper's batting eye isn't quite as good as it was at its peak, but even then, it is still one of the best in baseball.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You never fail to impress.. Love optimism...

Now we have to keep him in the lineup… i’d be curious to see the rest of our beloved Braves and how they do with that stat… Obviously Chipper wins but the rack and stack would be interesting and may strengthen the argument for certain players not really struggling…

Anywho. Lovin’ bringin’ the brightness to the blogosphere. Thanks!

Don’t worry about older women until you turn 22. It’s called the Saltalamacchia.
by bwellnjonesco on May 19, 2011 4:13 PM PDT

by Klemson Krash on May 24, 2011 12:13 PM EDT reply actions

Well, since you asked, here are the other Braves' numbers:

Alex Gonzalez: 21.0% diff. (65.8% at strikes, 44.8% at balls)
Martin Prado: 23.5% diff. (51.8% at strikes, 28.3% at balls)
Brian McCann, 30.2% diff (62.7% at strikes, 32.5% at balls)
Freddie Freeman, 35.0% diff. (67.7% at strikes, 32.7% at balls)
Jason Heyward, 39.6% diff. (68.2% at strikes, 28.6% at balls)
Nate McLouth, 40.9% diff. (62.5% at strikes, 21.6% at balls)
Dan Uggla, 43.8% diff. (70.5% at strikes, 26.7% at balls)

Yes, Dan Uggla rates second best on the team. His problem has been hitting the ball with authority, not choosing when to swing.

By the way, Gonzalez ranks 2nd-worst in this category in all of MLB, and Prado 4th-worst. But I didn’t put that in the main post, because like I said, it’s good to focus on the positive.

"Yeah, and I have an enchanted jock strap." -- Karl Karlson
I now twitter as @junkstats and blog about made-up stats and general baseball stuff at JunkStats.

by Jacob Peterson on May 24, 2011 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions

aha...!

there it is…. the first thing that came into my mind as i was reading, was gonzo numbers… that guy would miss a piñata without a blindfold….

the exponent in the equation is a matter of preference and "fit" it can vary depending on what the user believes to yield the curve that best predicts a team’s ability to win games.

by Ivan the Great on May 20, 2011 12:31 PM VET

by Bizarros on May 24, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions

His whiff rate isn't particularly high, actually.

It’s right at the league average. Alex’s problem is that he swings so damn often, especially at balls. Once he swings, he does just fine, considering.

"Yeah, and I have an enchanted jock strap." -- Karl Karlson
I now twitter as @junkstats and blog about made-up stats and general baseball stuff at JunkStats.

by Jacob Peterson on May 24, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions

However (re: Prado)

He also makes contact at a high rate (top ten in majors, I think)… if his pitch selection were just a bit better, he’d be incredible. But I guess you made the same point about the SeaBass.

Fangraphs, on Craig Kimbrel: "His strikeout rates look like they’re coming from a video game"

by carpengui on May 24, 2011 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Prado's contact rate is awesome,

and his overall swing rate is really, really low (as opposed to Sea Bass, whose swing rate is really, really high). For Prado, this seems to work; it’s hard to say if it would get better if he changed things up. There might be some trade-offs involved.

As a side note, did you know that Prado only swings at 7% of 1st pitches? That’s 3rd-lowest in the majors. Julio Franco-esque.

"Yeah, and I have an enchanted jock strap." -- Karl Karlson
I now twitter as @junkstats and blog about made-up stats and general baseball stuff at JunkStats.

by Jacob Peterson on May 24, 2011 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions

The crazy name on that top 5 list is....

…Mark Reynolds. Now it does appear that his K Rate is way down so far this year… to an almost manageable 32.4% (down from 42.3% in 2010). But I still gotta think that his eyes need to be checked: if he’s only swinging at strikes, he’s also clearly missing a whole lot of them. And his pitch recognition stats really are not appreciably different this year from last… or any other year in his career.

Fangraphs, on Craig Kimbrel: "His strikeout rates look like they’re coming from a video game"

by carpengui on May 24, 2011 12:16 PM EDT reply actions

His strike zone judgment has always been excellent, actually.

The problem, as you suggest, is that he whiffs a ton. His contact rate is only 66.7%, which is second-lowest in baseball behind Miguel Olivo. If he just made more contact without losing any power, Reynolds could be a superstar. Not going to happen, though.

"Yeah, and I have an enchanted jock strap." -- Karl Karlson
I now twitter as @junkstats and blog about made-up stats and general baseball stuff at JunkStats.

by Jacob Peterson on May 24, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Wow

Checking the contact charts, there’s a LOT of room between him and Juan Pierre’s 94%+ contact rate. Yeah, if some enterprising hitting coach could even get Reynolds up to the ML average (around 81%), then he’d be a monster.

Fangraphs, on Craig Kimbrel: "His strikeout rates look like they’re coming from a video game"

by carpengui on May 24, 2011 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions

same thing

can be said about peña.. i was really surprised to see he is the leader given his career strikeout ratio…

the exponent in the equation is a matter of preference and "fit" it can vary depending on what the user believes to yield the curve that best predicts a team’s ability to win games.

by Ivan the Great on May 20, 2011 12:31 PM VET

by Bizarros on May 24, 2011 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah

There’s a difference between pitch recognition and contact ability, clearly. Some guys (Jeff Francoeur, Alex Gonzalez) have great, controlled swings, and they can contact anything they swing at-they just swing too damn much. There are guys like Mark Reynolds, Adam Dunn, and Carlos Pena who have great pitch recognition, but their swings are so violent and uncontrolled that they strike out a lot.

My buddy and I just decided that the braves would be set if we could get Matt Kemp, Jose Reyes, and Albert Pujols.

by willlinn on May 17, 2011 2:13 PM EDT

by Bronn on May 24, 2011 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions

If we could just reign in Gonzalez a slight bit he’d probably get significantly better contact on the pitches that he does hit. Or get a walk more often – either way its a win win.

Thanks for the info – you totally rock guy.

"Give him the heater Ricky."

by Pavy848 on May 24, 2011 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Lovely post.
Thank you.

"In the happy moments, praise God. In the difficult moments, seek God. In the quiet moments, trust God. In every moment, thank God." - Robert A. Wood

by NCChopper on May 24, 2011 12:19 PM EDT reply actions

What a cool post.

Something I never knew existed. Good work.

Official MCM Hater!

A picture of Jake Locker in a Titan jersey?
"My iPod background now. Replaced the girlfriend. She won't be mad."

by gramsey712 on May 24, 2011 12:53 PM EDT reply actions

Well written FanPost.

Moderator on Talking Chop=Best Birth Control Ever~HeyJude

by HEYJUDE on May 24, 2011 12:54 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

pelican.

Don’t worry about older women until you turn 22. It’s called the Saltalamacchia.
by bwellnjonesco on May 19, 2011 4:13 PM PDT

by Klemson Krash on May 24, 2011 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Awesome info

And this makes me realize what a gifted, pure hitter Chipper is.

I think that we, as Braves fans, have a tendancy to take Chipper for granted. For a lot of the younger fans he’s been on the team since they can remember. We should take as many opportunities as we can to thank Chipper for being a first ballot hall of famer and one of the best hitters of his generation.

by Fatvirus on May 24, 2011 1:02 PM EDT reply actions

On the flipside...

Those great batting eyes don’t help everyone on that list. Pena and Reynolds are still hitting .216 and .196 respectively while striking out in almost a third of their at bats.

by Timothy Shu on May 24, 2011 1:05 PM EDT reply actions

That is very wrong.

The batting eyes absolutely help Peña and Reynolds. Without their batting eyes, neither would be a major league player. They strike out a lot because they whiff very frequently when they do swing, but that does not cancel out the value of a good eye at the plate. Contact rate and swing rate are two completely different skills. Those guys are good at one, and bad at the other.

Chipper’s good at both, though, which is why he’s so awesome.

"Yeah, and I have an enchanted jock strap." -- Karl Karlson
I now twitter as @junkstats and blog about made-up stats and general baseball stuff at JunkStats.

by Jacob Peterson on May 24, 2011 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I would have assumed

That this stat normally correlates with high average. After seeing the list, though, clearly not always the case. This shows me that Chipper not only has a good eye, but hey, he’s talented enough to make contact with those pitches too! Here’s hoping that the Oblique Monster stays away from him this season

by SupermanWears#6 on May 24, 2011 1:07 PM EDT reply actions

Average is much more dependent

on contact rate than on batting eye. This stat correlates very well with walk rate, though.

"Yeah, and I have an enchanted jock strap." -- Karl Karlson
I now twitter as @junkstats and blog about made-up stats and general baseball stuff at JunkStats.

by Jacob Peterson on May 24, 2011 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions

I just hope he keeps doing his thing

Even though he has lost power, speed, agility, etc. over the years, I’d still rather have him up there, in a key situation, especially when we need something like contact, or a sac fly to get the runner home from 3rd. It just amazes me how some hitters don’t seem to change their approach, regardless of the situation. Its either 3 run HR or bust.

by SupermanWears#6 on May 24, 2011 1:34 PM EDT reply actions

". . . only 9.1% swings at balls . . . "

That is just silly. Love me some Chipper.

Our crappy lucky team *WAS* better than your good unlucky team.

by Richard R on May 24, 2011 2:15 PM EDT reply actions

Ok, round two of questions... However, OT cause not a Braves question....

Barry Bon… I mean Jose Batista… Do you know his pre-Hulk vs post-Hulk numbers?

This the top 5 up there, I’m not seeing this as a stat that accurately predicts greatness… but I think you’re getting at something when you mention whiff and contact rate… Do these three items, when combined… equal a great hitter? In other words, who would rate highest in all three categories? I’d love to see a new junk stat w/ that concocted mix….

Thanks for being a genius and allowing me to ask stupid random questions.

Don’t worry about older women until you turn 22. It’s called the Saltalamacchia.
by bwellnjonesco on May 19, 2011 4:13 PM PDT

by Klemson Krash on May 24, 2011 2:28 PM EDT reply actions

Re: Bautista,

I wouldn’t call him “Hulk”. For one reason, he doesn’t look any bulkier to me. For another, you might make him angry. And you don’t want to see him when he’s angry. But seriously, his swing rates are basically the same pre-2010 and since. The only difference is that he’s swinging at a few more pitches outside the zone (24-25% now vs. 18-19% before). He makes up for that by increasing his contact rates on those out-of-the-zone pitches. He kind of has to swing at some of them, because he hardly sees any strikes any more (lowest Zone% of any player in MLB).

This stat is not intended to predict overall hitter quality. Like batting average, isolated power, walk rate, or any other component stat, it is only one piece in the puzzle. Contact rate is important, too, obviously, but I wouldn’t say that a good eye + good contact = a great hitter. If that hitter doesn’t walk or hit for power, their upside is still just Juan Pierre. Good, not great.

"Yeah, and I have an enchanted jock strap." -- Karl Karlson
I now twitter as @junkstats and blog about made-up stats and general baseball stuff at JunkStats.

by Jacob Peterson on May 24, 2011 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions

You are the inventor of Junkstats...

I figured there was some geeky algorithm you could build that would show through past statistics what a great hitter is made of. We all know what we want to see a hitter do but what statistics can be meshed to create a reasonable predictor of hitters greatness? There should be a hitter’s greatness meter (HGM) where you can plug in stats and what pops out are results like… Hank Aaron, Chipper Jones, Albert Pujols, Barry Bonds… well maybe not Barry as an injection of his stats might skew the data…

I know every hitter has their differences and every great hitter is built to do something else but I’d like an arbitrary statistic that when I plug the career stats of a player, I can predict, within reason, where they rack and stack on the scale of greatness…

Or, is this simply too difficult since we have to incorporate so many different things?

Don’t worry about older women until you turn 22. It’s called the Saltalamacchia.
by bwellnjonesco on May 19, 2011 4:13 PM PDT

by Klemson Krash on May 25, 2011 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Great post

Just one reason why Chipper Jones is one of the greatest switch hitters of all time

by Braves24 on May 24, 2011 2:42 PM EDT reply actions

What would be an "ideal" differential here?

Throwing it out there. I wouldn’t think 100% would be ideal since you don’t necessarily want to swing at every strike (i.e., a 3-0 pitch on the outside black at the knees) nor would you want to take every ball (i.e., a hanging breaking ball). Now, MLB Ps are more apt to have “good” strikes vs “bad” balls – if he hung too many curves, then he wouldn’t have made the bigs in the 1st place. So, at least in the bigs you’d want the differential to be pretty high… but is there a point where it’s too high?

by theatlfan on May 24, 2011 3:37 PM EDT reply actions

Sure there is.

I don’t see too many hitters who swing at more than 3/4 of the strikes they see, and those guys usually aren’t any good (hackers). And there are of course a few balls that you want to swing at because you can hit them hard.

I’d say the ideal ratio would be about 75% swings on strikes and 8% swings on balls—or pretty close to Chipper’s 2004 numbers.

"Yeah, and I have an enchanted jock strap." -- Karl Karlson
I now twitter as @junkstats and blog about made-up stats and general baseball stuff at JunkStats.

by Jacob Peterson on May 24, 2011 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions

what would be the point of swinging at any balls?

by Resentment on May 24, 2011 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Some umpires zones aren't exactly well calibrated

also, some players like the high heat because they can cork it to the moon… Not all balls are created equal. I think Jacob answered the question well though.

Don’t worry about older women until you turn 22. It’s called the Saltalamacchia.
by bwellnjonesco on May 19, 2011 4:13 PM PDT

by Klemson Krash on May 25, 2011 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions