Here’s a bold statement: mastering the art of hitting in baseball isn’t just about raw power—it’s about a delicate balance of decision-making, precision, and impact. But here’s where it gets controversial: Chaim Bloom’s blueprint for evaluating hitters breaks it down into three critical areas—approach, contact, and damage—and not everyone agrees on how to measure them effectively. Let’s dive in.
First, a quick introduction: I’ve been a Viva El Birdos reader for over a decade, and this community has shaped much of my understanding of baseball analytics. While I became a diehard Cardinals fan in 2001, my optimism about the team sometimes borders on the absurd—even after the last three challenging years. That said, I’m genuinely excited about the direction Chaim Bloom and his team are taking. Now, let’s talk hitting.
In a revealing interview, Bloom distilled hitting success into three buckets: 1) What pitches do hitters swing at? 2) How often do they make contact? 3) What happens when they connect? His claim? Master all three, and you’re elite. Excel in two, and you’ll have a long career. Nail just one, and you’d better bring something else to the table. This framework stuck with me as a clear, actionable way to analyze hitters—and it’s sparked plenty of debate.
And this is the part most people miss: Quantifying these areas isn’t as straightforward as it seems. Here’s how I approached it, though I’m eager to hear your thoughts on alternative methods.
Swing Decisions: I measured the percentage of correct decisions—swings at strikes and takes on balls. Corey Seager led MLB with a 74.1% success rate, which aligns with his SEAGER metric (SElective AGgression Engagement Rate). But is this the best way to gauge approach? Let’s discuss.
Contact: I focused solely on in-zone contact, avoiding the overlap with swing decisions. However, should we consider out-of-zone contact too? It’s a fine line, and I’m curious about your take.
Damage: This was the trickiest. I settled on xwOBACON, which measures expected damage on balls in play. Exit velocity metrics reward raw power but ignore launch angle, while the ‘barrels’ metric can be too inconsistent for single-season analysis. Is there a better way to capture a hitter’s impact?
Using these metrics, I graded players on a 20-80 scouting scale, with 50 as average. Aaron Judge, for example, scored a 91 in damage—4.1 standard deviations above average. Impressive, right? But let’s not forget the Cardinals.
Here’s what stood out:
- Victor Scott’s elite swing decisions hint at untapped potential. Could he become league-average with slight improvements in contact or damage?
- Nootbaar’s below-average swing decisions surprised me. His aggression on hittable pitches increased slightly, but his out-of-zone swings rose more. A cautionary tale about the difficulty of adjusting at the MLB level.
- Nolan Gorman’s contact issues are concerning, even with his elite damage potential. His exit velocities are just average, leaving me skeptical about his long-term impact.
- Willson Contreras is the only Cardinal with a full plus grade in damage, while Herrera and Burleson are among the rare players averaging above in all three areas.
- Jordan Walker’s struggles with swing decisions and contact are well-known, but his inability to capitalize on high exit velocities is alarming. What changes could push him closer to James Wood’s production?
This analysis raises more questions than answers. Can players like Walker or Scott realistically improve in these areas? Is there untapped potential in Masyn Winn’s average exit velocities? And most importantly, do you agree with these metrics and interpretations? Let’s debate—I’m all ears.
