Minor Graphs is one of the statistical tools presented by Prospects Live that we use in conjunction with our player evaluation process. It’s also a fantastic rabbit hole to fall down if you’ve got some time to burn or real life obligations to avoid! Often times, you will find Minor Graphs employed to look at a hitter’s average estimated flyball distance, to review at 30-day rolling averages of certain statistics to discern profile changes, and to study batted ball information and spray charts. Today, let’s look at another way you can utilize Minor Graphs to help you evaluate a player’s plate approach; batting splits by ball-strike count using the Minor Graphs ‘splits tool’.
Why look at plate approach?
Keith Law, former ‘Special Assistant to the GM’ for the Toronto Blue Jays and writer for The Athletic, recently discussed what he looks for in his live looks evaluations of baseball prospects. There’s lots of interesting information in that article, but one thing that stuck out was that Law separate’s a batter’s plate approach from his hit tool and grades them separately. Traditionally, plate approach is part of judging a hitter’s all important hit tool. But any evaluator will tell you that the hit tool might be the hardest thing to judge when evaluating a player. So separating it out into swing and plate approach components might be a helpful way to think about a player’s skill set. Also, if you play in a dynasty OBP league, having an idea of a player’s plate approach is vital.
how to look at plate approach with minor graphs
Here’s one way to look at a hitter’s plate approach using Minor Graphs. On the main page, enter the name of the prospect you’d like to look at in the main drop down bar and navigate to his ‘Splits’ tab. We will use Wander Franco for this example, because everyone loves Wander:
Once you’ve clicked on the ‘Splits’ tab, scroll down and you’ll see a number of categories of batting splits. The last category is ‘By Count’, and it is broken out by each level that a player played at in a given season. Here is Wander’s:
As you can see, there’s a massive amount of data to be combed through just from this one panel of split data. There are projects just waiting to be explored in here. For now, we’re going to evaluate how often a hitting prospect puts himself in “good counts” vs. “bad counts” to hit in. But before we get there, we need to establish a baseline.
finding the baseline
Let’s compare the plate approach of some prospects known for having solid hit tools with an MLB baseline. To find an MLB baseline, I looked at all MLB results in 2019 by ball-strike count from Baseball Reference and created this chart:
I found the average OPS by plate appearance ending in each count. Then, I weighed the OPS by the % of PA for each count to create a crude statistical measure called “Approach OPS”. The average Approach OPS in the MLB in 2019 was .769. Think of Approach OPS as what would happen if a batter achieved the average outcome in each PA based on the count it ended in. The higher the Approach OPS, the more frequently a hitter is batting in counts which are favorable to hitters.
Here is the list of “good hit tools” we quickly brainstormed in our Prospects Live group chat, with their Approach OPS listed relative to the MLB baseline:
Let’s look at some specific examples, starting with Wander Franco.
wander franco (ss, A+, Tampa bay rays)
Everyone is familiar with the best prospect in baseball, and you don’t have to look far to find glowing reports on Wander Franco’s hit tool. Last season, he reached the Florida State League not long after his 18th birthday. I’ve yet to find a statistical measure that doesn’t love Wander Franco, and Approach OPS is no different. Here’s his Approach OPS scorecard:
You can see that Wander was just exceptional at avoiding pitchers’ counts, with his PAs ending with him behind in the count only 29.1% of the time in A+ ball. He also jumped a lot of first pitches, which is a sound approach in a player with a plus hit tool like Wander. An 0-0 count is a solid count to hit in. In general, he was excellent at getting his plate appearances into counts where he could do the most damage. His .891 Approach OPS was by far the best that I looked at for this project.
adley rutcshman (c, A-, Baltimore orioles)
Rutschman, the No.1 overall pick in the 2019 MLB Draft, was tabbed as a game changing switch-hitter with an advanced plate approach by our own Jason Kamlowsky. In his professional debut in 2019, Rutschman was exceptional at getting ahead in the count. Here is his Approach OPS from A-Short Season Aberdeen:
You can see that Adley’s plate appearances ended with him ahead in the count or in full counts a whopping 54.3% of the time. Look at how frequently he got into 2-0 and 3-0 counts compared to what the average major league hitter does. It really speaks to his advanced, patient approach at the plate.
tucupita marcano (2B/SS, A-Full, San Diego padres)
Not precisely a household name, but Diego Solares noted that Marcano’s calling card is his ability to “consistently make contact with the baseball” with an “above average feel for the bat”. Looking at Approach OPS, Marcano also employed a productive approach at the dish in 2019:
Marcano’s “Ahead+Full” bucket was a little behind the MLB average, but that’s just driven by his propensity to avoid full counts. He still is hitting while ahead in the count a fair bit more than the average MLB player. Given his bat-to-ball skills, this could make him a dangerous and productive hitter in the event his frame fills out and he adds more power to his game. It is something to watch for in 2020.
geraldo perdomo (ss, A-Full, arizona diamondbacks)
There was some consternation in the group regarding Perdomo’s overall prospect ranking yesterday, mainly centered around his ability to hit for power and his lower average exit velocity numbers (87 mph average exit velocity according to FanGraphs’ “The Board”). But our own Matt Thompson saw a ton of Perdomo at Kane County last season, and he was quick to point out Perdomo’s penchant for working deep into counts and seeing lots of pitches:
Like Matt said, Perdomo avoids getting behind in the count, and draws a lot more 3-2, 3-1, 2-0, and 3-0 counts than your average hitter. Also, similar to Wander Franco, he’s jumping the first pitch of the at-bat quite frequently as well (14.3% of PAs ended in 0-0 counts). It all adds up to create a profitable approach for this young shortstop with a lot of promise.
drawbacks and next steps
First, be careful when looking at split data from DSL and rookie-level leagues. There’s a quirk in the recording of PA outcomes that leads to inaccurate splits by count. This goes hand-in-hand with the axiom that you should take any lower-level statistics with the same dose of salt you would use to brine your Thanksgiving turkey.
Next, I’m just giving hitters credit for league-average OPS outcomes in creating Approach OPS. Therefore, if a hitter excels at doing damage with two strikes on him or on jumping pitches early in counts, this is going to give him a little less opportunities than his skill set provides. Also, these splits just look at the count that the plate appearance ends in. It doesn’t factor in how the batter got to that count. This just shows that Approach OPS isn’t any kind of standalone metric. Approach OPS should be looked at as a supporting piece to existing scouting reports regarding a hitter’s hit tool and plate approach.
Finally, the next step will be to create MiLB league-wide Approach OPS numbers for all hitters. This will allow me to index a hitter’s approach relative to his league and create an “Approach+” stat which will tell us how far above or below average a hitter is at getting into valuable situations at the plate.
Go digging in the Minors Graphs on your own and share with me your thoughts on plate approach. I’m looking forward to keeping this discussion going.